page 2

12/11/2005 12:29:23 AM

Well yeah he uses profanity, but that isn't really a big deal. It's not a deal at all. Honestly, I'm inherently distrusting of someone who doesn't swear from time to time.

12/11/2005 12:54:58 AM

Based on what we've seen so far, Nixon would still wtfpwn him in a cussin' contest.

LBJ too, more than likely.

12/11/2005 1:12:32 AM

Nixon would outswear, but I'd cut all his style points. "Goddamn" just doesn't sound as good to me when it's followed by "Jews."

12/11/2005 1:25:27 AM

I'm not so sure I'd want a president who wasn't capable of slingin out a few curse words....

12/11/2005 8:10:15 AM

yeah, that would be total bullcrap

12/12/2005 2:31:56 PM

http://infowars.net/articles/december2005/121205neocons.htm

Quote :

"It’s About A Lot More Than A "Goddamned Piece of Paper" Bush Remark Reiterates Arrogant Globalist/Neocon "Crazies" Insane Lust For New World Order Prevalence And Power Steve Watson | December 12 2005 [...] This is just the latest remark in a long history of arrogant Neocon speak to highlight the fact that they have no respect for America or its population. The fact that Bush's remarks were so off the cuff yet viciously delivered reminds us of how and why the Neoconservative clan, who were just getting a foothold during the first year of the Regan administration, through their actions and incessant saber-rattling garnered the nickname 'the crazies' by more moderate policy makers under the first Bush presidency. Colin Powell, an establishment underling through and through, would go one further, calling them "fucking crazies" during the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. For the President of the United States to verbally wipe the floor with the Constitution and curse it in the way Bush has and it go virtually unreported serves as an indication of the threat America is facing today from an Elite power structure that cares nothing for the country it has usurped and is hell bent on centralizing power globally and undermining the principles America was founded on. The US is a Constitutional Republic, yet to Bush's handlers, the globalist Neocons, that is not part of the agenda. In an entirely Orwellian fashion they have attempted to change the meaning of "Democracy" and adopt it as a form of governance to fit their agenda. The word democracy originates from three Greek words meaning "the people", "to rule," and the suffix ía; the term therefore means "rule by the people" by which is meant rule by the majority. The framers of the U.S. Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom of the individual or "Tyranny of the majority". For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10 advocates a republic over a democracy precisely to protect the individual from the majority. However, at the same time, the framers carefully created democratic institutions and major open society reforms within the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of democracy, but mitigated by a balance of power and a layered federal structure. So the word "democracy" refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy where representatives of the people govern in accordance with a constitution is a Republic."

12/13/2005 8:28:11 AM

^ There you go. Proof that the conversation never took place. Thanks Salisburybot.

12/13/2005 9:33:26 AM

*cringe*

12/13/2005 9:46:19 AM

ahaha... you know your argument is dead in the water when salisburyboy jumps in to help you

12/13/2005 9:47:57 AM

ahhhh, fake news. Very entertaining though....

3/10

12/13/2005 10:37:46 AM

^^^^

hahaha




^
and how exactly do YOU know that?

[Edited on December 13, 2005 at 11:28 AM. Reason : asfasfdsad]

12/13/2005 11:28:11 AM

I don't quite get all the commotion about whether or not this quote is true or isn't true. Actions speak louder than words, and Mr. Bush has shouted from the roof tops his own personal value (or lack thereof) of the Constitution though his time and time again.

What with the utterly unconstitutional, undeclared war of democratic revolution is he is waging in Iraq, his unwillingness to enforce the immigration laws of the United States, his support for expanding federal power over education, his Administration's patent disrespect for the sovereignty of the people of California and Oregon on medical marijuana and assisted suicide, I could go on...

12/13/2005 3:29:46 PM

Capital Hill Blue defends its story:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7787.shtml

Quote :

"Consider the source By DOUG THOMPSON Dec 11, 2005, 06:44 Every time we publish a major story that puts some elected official in a bad light we get a chorus of boos from detractors who claim everything we publish is garbage and/or just a figment of an overactive imagination. [...] In a political system where retaliation rules, you can’t expose corruption or misdeeds by depending entirely on those willing to allow use of their names. Without anonymous sources, the truth about Watergate would never have emerged. The Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting most often goes to a newspaper story or series of stories that depends heavily on use of anonymous sources. We put our reputation on the line every time we publish a story that depends on information from anonymous sources. Sometimes we get burned and when we do we admit it publicly, take our well-deserved lumps, and move on. In 2003, we published reports that intelligence professionals had raised doubts about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and questioned claims of a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Our detractors claimed we made the whole thing up. Two years later, we were proven right. Last year, when we published reports on the President’s increasing temper tantrums, the doubters again claimed the reports were fantasy. Yet mainstream media outlets reported the same thing this year. We were right…and we got it first. We were the first news outlet to identify the names of women who claimed sexual abuse by Bill Clinton when he was attorney general and later governor of Arkansas. We were the first news outlet to report on the ethical problems of many members of Congress in our series: America’s Criminal Class: The Congress of the United States. And we were the first to report on the abuse of underage girls on teen model web sites. Links to all of these award-winning stories can be found on our home page. That doesn’t mean you should take everything we print as gospel. Never do that with us or any other news source. Do your own research and reach your own conclusions. And consider the record of the sources you use for news and information. We’ve published more than 25,000 stories since going online on October 1, 1994, and we’ve had to retract two of them. That’s a record I’m willing to stand on."

http://www.infowars.com/articles/Bush/bush_chb_const_paper_profane.htm

Quote :

"COMMENT: After Capital Hill Blue released the story about Bush's outburst referring to the U.S. Constiturion as a "G-dd-amned piece of paper," there has been an outpouring of demands for the journal to reveal its sources so that they can ostensibly be grilled by the neo-con worshippers for letting slip how much Bush is losing it. The truth is though that this demand for sources is complete smokescreen and spin to try to discredit an alternative news site which on every occaision is proven right about its initial reports. Each story CHB has published about Bush's cursing, tantrums and violent outburts which came from annonymouse sources have been later cooberated by mainstream news outlets such as the New York Daily News."

12/14/2005 8:37:12 AM