Doug Thomas got lots of traffic last year for sourcing three aides who said they heard Bush claim the Constitution was only a "g--damned piece of paper!"

Doug Thomas has now made up entirely two sources for other stories over the years. Talk about lack of credibility. So since he had this story with lots of anonymous sources, I decided to investigate it a little...

The original page for his story no longer has the article (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml) which is the one all the lefty sites heralded at extreme value. It is still in google's cache (http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:Wl5BKjqwvIcJ:www.capitolhillblue.co m/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml+just+a+piece+of+paper&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1)though.

I risk getting my feet muddy, but if someone can find a better source for Bush's supposed remarks I would appreciate it. Since I remember these comments were repeated numerous times by people on this board, I thought you'd appreciate knowing http://www.ayonae.ro/images/smilies/smile.gif

I always assumed that quote was imaginary.

Im not sure who offered it up as fact, but it certainly wasnt I.

Doug Thomas got lots of traffic last year for sourcing three aides who said they heard Bush claim the Constitution was only a "g--damned piece of paper!"

Doug Thomas has now made up entirely two sources for other stories over the years. Talk about lack of credibility. So since he had this story with lots of anonymous sources, I decided to investigate it a little...

The original page for his story no longer has the article (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml) which is the one all the lefty sites heralded at extreme value. It is still in google's cache (http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:Wl5BKjqwvIcJ:www.capitolhillblue.co m/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml+just+a+piece+of+paper&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1)though.

I risk getting my feet muddy, but if someone can find a better source for Bush's supposed remarks I would appreciate it. Since I remember these comments were repeated numerous times by people on this board, I thought you'd appreciate knowing http://www.ayonae.ro/images/smilies/smile.gif

Doug Thomas is a republican, who worked for two republican congressmen I don't know much more but I'll find something about the quted remark.

I found this interesting from the article:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."

Thats about as scary as what Bush supposedly said.

Wish I could find good links where infamous lefties claming the Constitution was outdated and surely not in the spirit of what the founding fathers meant it.

Sooo to them it's a living document, read this a few years back and thought to myself...wtf, if you don't like what it means change it?

Fandros

Wish I could find good links where infamous lefties claming the Constitution was outdated and surely not in the spirit of what the founding fathers meant it.

Sooo to them it's a living document, read this a few years back and thought to myself...wtf, if you don't like what it means change it?

Fandros

I'm not sure you'll find many, but you can lookup anti big government and anti governmental powers remarks by some noted leftists. Just go to Yahoo, Google or MSN and type in terms like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams etc.. There are pages full of their leftist anti big brother comments that they made.

Wish I could find good links where infamous lefties claming the Constitution was outdated and surely not in the spirit of what the founding fathers meant it.

Sooo to them it's a living document, read this a few years back and thought to myself...wtf, if you don't like what it means change it?

Fandros

Like this famous Lefty?

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence ... too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment."

-- Thomas Jefferson

Additionally.... Many conservatives are fond of saying "The Constitution is not a suicide pact". Thats fine and all, but doesnt is say the same thing as "living breathing document". How could this Perfect document not allow a nation to survive in a crisis? Surely when God wrote the document and gave it our founding fathers he must have realized this...

Or... maybe... Some less than scrupulous people think they have found a loop hole. Dont go through the actual democratic process of changing the parameters of the document, just declare a crisis and ignore them.

I'm not sure quoting someone like Thomas Jefferson who believed in and executed a libertarian's utopia to defend or "liberal" or leftist as it is commonly used today.

Dont confuse Jeffersons fear of the tyranny of the majority with the amendabilty of the constitution.

I don't know of any lefty sites that consider Capitol Blue's writing to be of "extreme value." The only comments I've ever seen regarding CB suggested taking whatever they wrote with a grain of salt -- I never read the site so can't say much about it. I'm not sure who repeated this comment "numerous times" here -- I don't recall ever seeing this quote at all.

A few minutes googling finds the quote mentioned in quite a few places, from a couple blogs I've heard of (one of which took it seriously, the other as hypothetical) to a Newsmax column (which treated it seriously) to the Conservative Voice (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/10789.html) (which gives Thompson more benefit of the doubt than I'd have expected).

I don't know what sources Thompson is accused of inventing, and while this story got some traction in the blogosphere it didn't go much further. It wouldn't surprise me if Bush said those things, but I wouldn't take it as a given.

Funny thing about the Internet, you never have to actually back anything up with facts. All you have to do is post something often enough and it becomes fact...

It's like political campaigns that way.

That particular phenomena predates the internet by several thousand years.


And regarding that "just a piece of paper," it has always boggled me the angst over simply changing a law that includes, within itself, a transparent mechanism for doing just that, rather than playing silly-buggers trying to skirt around it. Though it does create a simple acid test for political/legal maneuvering -- if they're trying to work around the Constitution, chances are what they're doing is wrong.

Yanno, I look back at my previous stances on this subject then realize I myself wonder at the meaning of said paper and it's amendments.

For example...Freedom of speech...

Yes, you have the right to say anything you like. However , as I've noted before, you do not have the right to say something that will damage another.

Meaning you are responsible for what you say and can be held accountable. Folks get upset when they are held and judged by what they say and often hold up the Freedom of Speech sign when called to task...

Dixie Chicks being an example. Said what she said, but when sales fell bitched about their Freedom of Speech being infringed upon.

Another are various papers or publications that bitch when called on what they report or say....

Hmmmm so maybe what I'm bitching about isn't so much the document and it's intrinsic meaning/value but the fact that so many Americans flat out haven't read it and don't understand it?

Fandros Finglaflin

The Dixie chicks didn't say their freedom of speech was infringed upon because people didn't buy their CD's after the Bush comment was made. They did say that the government going after them and investigating them for the comment was an infringement on their right to freedom of speech. If you speak out against the government and it gets you investigated or harrased then your freedom of speech is being violated.

As an example in the case of the Dixie chicks if Bush or a member of Congress or the Senate had made public statements that the Dixie Chicks were unpatriotic or that their CD's should be removed from circulation then their freedom of speech was most definately violated. If Fandros said "the dixie chicks are unpatriotic" then that is merely an opinion formed by an individual and does not violate their freedom of speech.

Political campaigns are a great example of the lines of libel and freedom of speech as both sides spread at the minimum half truths and make what would be considered slanderous statements if made against the average person.

With great power, comes great responsibility.
Freedom of speech is a great power. The responsibility part, comes in dealing with the fact that others may not agree with your point of view.
I think with the Dixie Chicks, they were playing to a crowd, and hoping the word wouldn't get back stateside.
Regardless, you have the right to say whatever you want. Just don't be suprised when others exercise the right to tell you to shut up.
;)

Actually the Dixie Chicks DID say their Freedom of Speech was infringed upon. I was a big fan of the Chicks and saw their interview. Natalie has since changed her tune in regards to that interview but not her stance( which is okay , she can sing her way into the toilet for all I care).

Strike 2...

Fandros

Actually the Dixie Chicks DID say their Freedom of Speech was infringed upon. I was a big fan of the Chicks and saw their interview. Natalie has since changed her tune in regards to that interview but not her stance( which is okay , she can sing her way into the toilet for all I care).

Strike 2...

Fandros

Read my post, I said they said that, but they said the government violated their right to free speech they never said that people not buying their CD's violated their free speech.

Yes, you have the right to say anything you like. However , as I've noted before, you do not have the right to say something that will damage another.
Depends on what you mean by "damaged." For example, the courts have (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,42708,00.html) ruled (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=458&invol=886#Scene_1) that the First Amendment bars the imposition of liability based on the consequences of protected speech. As I understand it, I could list the addresses of the Dixie Chicks, publish the names and addrsesses of those who bought or positively reviewd Dixie Chick albums, and write about how terrible they are and how they deserve "the worst." If someone read my website and went on a killing spree, I would not be held liable for it.

I would, however, still be an asshole.

Umm Fandros...this is a violation of Freedom of Speech:


South Carolina House members say the Dixie Chicks should apologize for lead singer Natalie Maines' criticism of President Bush by performing a free concert for troops.Republican state Rep. Catherine Ceips introduced a resolution Wednesday calling for the country music trio to perform for South Carolina troops and their families.




I don't beleive this is:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/3006345.stm

Radio stations have the right to decide their playlists....and the public has the right to not buy their albums if they disagree with the what memebers of the band say. The only complaining I can find coming from the group is about what that stupid state rep. was doing.

Back to the subject though, even though I hate Bush a much as I do, I don't beleive he woudl say that except maybe in jest.

So if Bushco (for example) investigates your website to make sure you didn't instigate this killing spree intentionally, by the Dixie Chicks example Rover put forth, your First Amendment rights are then railroaded... whether or not they actually indict you for it or not.

Actually Rover, she did say the stations not playing their music was a violation of her Freedom of Speech. Was the same interview where she went off on her previous very loyal fans. Sign me up for SheDaisy, forget those hasbeen Chicks....that very day mind you.

C'mon , loosen up the hat. It's not as though I'm blaming you for her being a fucktard.

Fandro

I don't think an investigation alone would "railroad" my First Amendment rights (though such an investigation might interfere with other rights depending on how it was carried out). If Bushco used the FCC somehow to disrupt my website, it would violate the FA. Legislation attempting to shut my site down would also violate the FA.

I don't know how the above interfaces with whatever rules are in place that prohibit talking about killing Presidents or SCOTUS members or whatnot, but if it's the Dixie Chicks I'd be constitutionally protected.

EDIT: Regarding the Rover/Fanny/Dixie Chick question, digging up a link would be helpful if possible. The burden of proof is on Fanny to show that whatsername said what she is supposed to have said. I don't know or care either way, but talking back and forth is useless without evidence to examine. :)

Only transcript of the interview I could find...and Fandros...it's looking like you are wrong to me.

http://www.drudgereport.com/dixie.htm

Loved this quote from them originally said by Teddy Roosevelt:

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonableto the American public.”

Of course I'm biased, I think what she said is entirely appropriate...if Bush was from my state I'd be embarrassed too, I'm embarrassed that he's an American already. :)

Going to have to remember to buy a few Dixie Chicks albums....umm, on second thought, nah. :p

Oh, I'm not saying one way or another what she said was right/wrong. That's merely her opinion in my mind and one that affects me not at all.

What did affect me was her tirade, I'll try and find a clip of the interview from GAC ( Great American Country).

Why would the burden of proof be on me more than Rover? Merely opinions either way atm.

That clip isn't what I'm referring to Ail.

Fandros

Why would the burden of proof be on me more than Rover? Merely opinions either way atm.
You are alleging that Natalie (Maines?) said something to the effect that radio stations not playing her songs violates her/their free speech rights. That is a positive proposition requiring a demonstration of evidence to support. To prove the negative (that she never said that) would require reproducing every statement she's ever made. The burden of proof falls on he who alleges (a positive proposition). In this instance, that burden is upon you.

I think we are in agreement about the point though Fan....it isn't a violation of her free speech for people to not buy their albums or for radio stations to decide they are not going to play their music. Just as it would be my right to boycott clear channel for boycotting the Dixie Chicks whom I don't listen to anyways...wait a sec, I'm confused now. ;)

found this Fandros, is this what your talking about?

The Dixie Chicks also expressed disappointment in President Bush's remarks about Maines' overseas comments. The president said of the group, "They can say what they want to say. ... they shouldn't have their feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy their records when they speak out. I mean ... you know, freedom is a two-way street."

Emily Robison said Mr. Bush "wasn't standing up for the principles that our country are founded on."

Martie Maguire said he basically was saying, "You got what you deserved" and "This is what's going to happen if you keep speaking out."

Or This

Posted on their official website, the Dixie Chicks explains: "We’ve been overseas for several weeks and have been reading and following the news accounts of our governments position. The anti-American sentiment that has unfolded here is astounding. While we support our troops, there is nothing more frightening than the notion of going to war with Iraq and the prospect of all the innocent lives that will be lost."

Maines went on to explain her remarks. "My comments were made in frustration and one of the privileges of being an American is you are free to voice your own point of view."

No, it was an actual interview clip I caught while watching GAC close to the time of the incident at hand.

Were alot of outraged country bumpkins like myself. Former fans with a few CD's purchased for folks as gifts over the years. Hell I think most of their videos were very good imho but soon lost because most quit playing them.

I remember being outraged that they thought the radio and TV stations HAD to play them or be accused of restricting their Freedom of Speech.

You're right Thor, I'll do what I can tomorrow to find a clip. The burden is on me.

Fandros