What is Digg?177 Comments
- inactive, on 10/13/2007, -11/+129The Absolutists in England were as certain of themselves as George Dubya. Behind Cromwell they destroyed Great Britain and committed genocide against Irish Catholics. Cromwell never doubtd that he was doing God's work as he murdered and burned.
We need a President who can doubt himself, who is not "at peace with himself". We need a President who does not casually use military force, and if he or she has to commit us to battle, we want our President to suffer doubt. We want a President who can't sleep as he or she considers the deaths, the families displaced, the children without parents.
The idea that this monster considers that he is a follower of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, is crazy. He states that he is at peace with himself after having lied and manipulated to start a war that has killed over a half million people.
We want a President that is NOT so sure of himself, who is NOT an absolutist.
I think of this ignorant and arrogant little man, smug in his stupidity and my blood boils. I am a Christian, and to think that I am complicit in so much needless death keeps me awake. - dukeeeey, on 10/11/2007, -6/+96Bush "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
doesn't leave a lot of choice does it ?
Bush "The constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper."
no comment needed. - chugger1992, on 10/11/2007, -3/+45"Our enemies never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we"
One sentence sums up hs presidency. - reeder, on 10/10/2007, -13/+50Great, not only are we being run by a sociopath, he's a delusionally insane genocidal monster too.
Hooray USA!! - atdigg, on 10/10/2007, -4/+36People who think in binary are very dangerous when put into a power position.
- Vazelos, on 10/10/2007, -7/+28I am not a US citizen so I need to understand: Why was this man re-elected?
- TheGort, on 10/10/2007, -3/+23Because despite the fact that he lost the popular vote he won the electoral vote.
Because the media is good at portraying things in different lights.
Because he changed how he did things from the first term and people were still on the 9/11 high and looking for WMDs.
Because his opposition was Kerry who allows people to get tasered as his speeches.
It wasn't so much that I liked Bush more as a presidential candidate as I disliked Kerry.
Bush no longer has to fear not getting re-elected though he could get impeached if things are as the media portrays it yet no one does anything. Would we really want Cheney in power instead? - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -11/+30What a sick *****.
- Hanzotori, on 10/10/2007, -4/+21Not hardly....Hitler could speak intelligently.
- Renton, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18In case it goes down:
"BUSH: I'm an optimist because I believe that I'm right. I'm a person at peace with myself. It was our turn to face a serious threat to peace." - Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18Mostly, he was re-elected because: 1) Kerry was a ***** opponent, and 2) gay marriage had become a huge issue and fundamentalist whackos came out of the woodwork to vote in droves.
- savetheusa1, on 10/10/2007, -8/+23Douche bag. I hate that ***** and what he has done to our country
- DteK, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11My all time favorite.
The words do not do this Bushism justice.
Must be heard to get the full effect - incredibilistic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Well said. Very well said. I sincerely mean that. I loved everything you said in your comment.
The fact that politicians can sign a piece of paper that sends thousands (if not millions) of men and women to die is why I could never enlist in the military. Don't get me wrong, I love my country and would die to defend it but not because some hypocrite sitting behind a desk and will probably go jogging or fishing after sending me to kill and possibly die for him outrages me.
I sincerely respect ANYONE that joins the military and is okay with this simple fact.
I also believe that when we're at war that the President does not go on with business as usual. He needs to be in the thick of it everyday. This needs to be on his plate daily. "What can we do today to get our boys and girls back home to their families?" What can we do to make peace?" While easier said than done I feel that this President has set us up in a war that can't be won and continues to allow our people to die because he wants to "stay the course". I say get your bony hide out here and lead the way. I think we have enough politicians in Washington to get another talking head to take over in the White House if he doesn't make it back.
2009 can't come soon enough. I don't want to say that I don't care who gets in but at this point almost anyone is better than the idiot we have now. I'm also a Christian and I can't see how someone who can't even discern what a "sovereign entity" is sitting in the highest office in the world. - horatiolust, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15www.frankhagan.com/blog/2006/07/22/bush-quote-bogus-constitution-is-just-a-damned-piece-of-paper/
Bush quote bogus (”Constitution is just a ***-damned piece of paper”)
July 22nd, 2006 · 3 Comments
One of the most famous quotes allegedly showing President Bush’s real frame of mind has proven to be false, a lie from (we are told) a source that proved not to be credible. Because the source doesn’t exist.
Capitol Hill Blue’s Apology for the mistake doesn’t actually mention the quote itself. But with a hat tip to Classical Values, we now see that Capitol Hill Blue (CHB) has quite a bit to explain.
CHB simply removed the story, which used to be Article 7779 according to Google’s cache of the site. Now, as of this writing, the page has no article on it, and just the current date with the site’s motto. It will be interesting to see, if in the weeks ahead, the numerous web pages citing the bogus quote will issue their own retraction. CHB is busy excising the quote, which they used repeatedly in many of their stories, and appending a disclaimer that the article had been edited since publication. But they don’t mention in those various edits that it is the very famous “piece of paper” quote that was excised.
Now there are qeustions about whether the CHB editor, William D. McTavish, really exists. But I’ll leave that to the good folks like those at Classical Values.
I hereby certify that I do exist, and will clearly and prominently post any corrections within the context of the original post. Bloggers would be well advised to do so, as the Internet is a place with a very long memory, what with competing bloggers, Google’s cache, and the Internet Wayback Machine at Archive.org.
The interesting thing about this story is that, for all their focus on mistakes being “lies”, GHB doesn’t simply come out and say they lied. They say they were ill informed, that the source seemed credible, and they ran with the story. Oh, make that STORIES. Not once, but over years of publishing, they quoted a man who never taught at the university he claimed to be at, never served in the administrations he claimed to serve in and never, evidently, showed up in any of the directories readily available. They trusted a source they never met with, never talked “voice” with, but merely exchanged emails with, and on issues as important as a purported quote of GWB saying the Constitution is just a “***-damned piece of paper”.
The hysterical left is repeatedly citing the lack of the predicted WMD in Iraq as a “lie” the President told. A lie is an intentional mistruth, something you say even though you know its not true. A mistake is something you’ve said that you believed was true.
CHB and GWB have the same problem, in that they trusted sources who turned out to be wrong. But in the case of the President, his sources weren’t simply lying to him, and he knew they were real people. They truly believed there were WMD, as evidenced by the universal nature of the assessment by our intelligence agencies, past Administrations, statements by Democrat leaders (including former President Bill Clinton), and foreign intelligence agencies.
In the case of CHB, they trusted not only a liar, but a cyber buddy who really doesn’t exist. - DustPuppySnr, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15I think it is far scarier that someone that says "fool me once, shame on ..... shame on you. Fool me .... you can't get fooled again" can become president of the USA.
- fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12You've just described most Republicans.
- DiggsOnlyNeoCon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12"Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group."
Just saying. - IllBeBack, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12Strategery.
- Fracture98, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Ah, but look what he's done for the Canadian Dollar.
- Thorox, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
- HalfBurntToast, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10"Is our children learning?"
Now that is ***** scary. - finbec, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Personally, I think in Boolean.
- negativefx, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11what he said!
- ragingradish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Actions speak louder than words, and his actions indicate quite the opposite, given that it was a war of choice.
- UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Me too.
- awtripp, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9If you believe you are always right, you are never able to consider that you may be wrong.
- robbiemuffin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7he was reelected because people were honestly intimidated into empathy for the war, and the opposing party had a showing that was the equivalent of a pair of deuces.
- atdigg, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11Saddam is dead, where is the peace?
- drizzlelicious, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Hitler = Evil
Bush = Stupid
But in that regard, Bush is as stupid as Hitler is evil. - EricSchC1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Did you even read the transcript or when you woke up this morning, did it say "Opposite Day: Go ahead and say the opposite of what's true" on your calendar?
- Bdog2g2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4too many big words for you? We understand.
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Big_Words - Bdog2g2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I'm sorry did you go to a mirror link, just in case you did.
http://www.slate.com/id/2174857/nav/ais/
There you go. Now read it and if you have any questions, please feel free to ask us and we'll do our best to get you through the big words. - JackTreehorn, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Are you talking about a raw transcript or the rest of the article? From reading the rest of the article, it is clear to me that Bush was set to invade in two weeks from the conversation regardless of additional international support.
- topherbook, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7I'm fairly certain that the "just a piece of paper" comment has been debunked as a rumor -- As much as I would like to believe that it is true.
- Ebacherville, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Becuase there are alot of sheeple out there that dont educate them selfs on the issues when election time comes around.
- oldhick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Can you link to him saying that? I've read that it was debunked, but i've also read a lot of other crap.
- scbalazs, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7The reason why this is so important as opposed to just re-hashing why we entered the war: "It may be a bit late in the day for another round in the debate over how the war in Iraq began. But the time is ripe for a discussion of what qualities the next president should possess—and the transcript reveals that, in many aspects, they should be the opposite of President Bush's qualities"
- Tyr7BE, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3>"bare" in mind that this is coming from a computer engineer.
And not a linguist, apparently. - DreKor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It has been a long day, I'm sorry that I offended your delicate sensibilities. However, my argument still stands. Engineers would make good public servants. We're good at recognizing bad data, acting on good data, and live by solving problems.
- natedouglas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Abraham Lincoln was definitely a man at war with himself. Fascinating to read about or watch a documentary on; terrible to actually watch take place. Look at how Lincoln aged throughout the Civil War. And look at how Shrub has remained remarkably consistent. I notice it too with Osama Bin-Laden, who doesn't (at least to me) look his age.
I wonder if anyone will ever do a study attempting to correlate aging with responsibility. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8actually I really thought is was a great article.
- MattB123, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I'm also a computer engineer, and I think it's dangerous. I think I know what you are getting at, but his algorithms are too simple and buggy. No error trapping either, he just goes "boom".
- evilregis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5It's believing you are right in the face of everything else telling you that you are wrong.
If I believe the world is flat and I believe it so fervently that it prevents me from seeing that I'm wrong, then yes... that is a bad thing. When hundreds of thousands of lives are on the line because of that belief, it's even worse. - empraptor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I suppose he can't be deliberately doing anything if he's incapable of forming coherent thought.
- Bdog2g2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Hell, even Truman thought LONG and HARD about dropping the A-Bomb, and he didn't have a clue how powerful and effect it would be. He was just told it was the most powerful weapon every conceived.
Bush had his mind made up from the fact that, and I paraphrase.
"I'm not think past mid-March, we have to do this now" - kelpdip, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Belt
- Hungryhaney, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Just like the Al Gore "I invented the internet" comment, but Republicans can't let that one die as well.
- tehmarko, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4The scariest was when he said 'God speaks through me' or something like that. Yikes.
- ChuyMatt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3HEX FTW!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 178 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is