Friday, November 18, 2011

Did G.W. Bush really refer to the U.S. Constitution as "just a (bleep)ing piece of paper"?

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

My link is below. They reported it first. Consider the source, though...

Did G.W. Bush really refer to the U.S. Constitution as "just a (bleep)ing piece of paper"?
that is what he is said to have said.

by the way Alex, the Constitution was written on parchment, not paper.
Reply:No that is total nonsense.
Reply:I'd have to see proof.
Reply:I seriously doubt that President Bush would refer to our foundation document in that manner.

You are listening to media nonsense.
Reply:No sir he didnt
Reply:Got a link..? I'd love to utube that piece of wisdom...
Reply:I'm not surprised, are you?
Reply:no. don't believe everything you hear.
Reply:No He did not say "(bleep)ing"

Go big Red Go
Reply:if you have any proof you wouldnt ask this question
Reply:I have never heard that before. I don't know if it is true.

I do know as absolute fact that he as wiped his a** with it.
Reply:I heard he has copies made so he can wipe his azz with them too.
Reply:He sure did.
Reply:Nope, media myths
Reply:Actually, it was a goddamn piece of paper. But it has never been proven.
Reply:There were rumors that this happened. He supposedly said "goddamn piece of paper".

Look at the link and decide for your self. If you type the main phrase into google and search, other sites will probably come up as well. Who knows?
Reply:I cannot verify the validity of that quote, but for our sakes, I pray (and I don't do that very often, kids) to God that he did NOT.

He did, however, say a lot of other things that just make me shake my head.

Here. View this video and then try to sleep well tonight:

ALEX....ask the Lord if you should drop the PhD.
Reply:No, your referring to Murtha's comments to the Red Queen overheard when they were discussing Ethics reform.
Reply:Lies from the bowels of the leftist media


If you see a newspaper article on George Bush lying again, would you be tempted to use it as toilet paper?

that's the first thing I'd think of

If you see a newspaper article on George Bush lying again, would you be tempted to use it as toilet paper?

Good question.

Actually I prefer something a little softer.

When I do see him I think of it in the context of his days as President Jackass are numbered.
Reply:Any newspaper article about GWB is not worthy of toilet paper it would just clog the toilet anyway as there'd be so much of it.
Reply:Well, many people say he's DELUSIONAL.
Reply:yes i would because i dont want to hear about him hes horible he didnt do anything yet to help us look at supermarket costs gasoline price is high
Reply:Yes i would....
Reply:His face is ugly and he makes me vomit..I dont want even a photo or newspaper of him that close to my behind or va jay jay
Reply:No. I don't fancy all that printing ink getting into certain parts of my bum if you know what I mean. But I wouldn't mind using it to pick up after my dog.
Reply:I would make a voodoo doll of it and stick pins in, right in his vertical smile.
Reply:already used it to clean up dog doo doo
Reply:that man is going no where near my behind. he'd be tempted to bomb it.
Reply:No,after all he is a human being.
Reply:L O L

Reply:I'd spit out my gum, use the article wrap it up, and throw it at at a kid during sex'ed.
Reply:I would use it as doggy poo paper but not toilet paper cause it would HURT
Reply:toilet paper,no.shotgun ammo,yes
Reply:NO! i would not be tempted to use it as toilet paper, because it was probably just the media being dumb, and it is disrespectful to the president of our country. I think George Bush is a very fitting president, and i would never do anything like that!

What did Bush mean when he said of the constitution"its just a god damn piece of paper"?

A specific reference to your quote please so we can look at where you get your info.


Both links are the same articles quoting un-named people that "claim" to have heard the president say it. You would think with all the Bush hatred that is going on, someone would want to take credit for reporting this statement, and would go to a larger news outlet (CBS, ABC, NBC).

What did Bush mean when he said of the constitution"its just a god damn piece of paper"?
He meant that it was interfering with the policies that he wanted to enact.
Reply:It doesn't stand in his way.
Reply:I believe that this is a Lie! So there is no meaning to respond to. If not, then show proof of your statement!
Reply:Even the conservative papers can't deny the fact that he did say it:

Thanks for asking this question. As I'm reading the answers, I realized that even his supporters find this statement to be unconscionable!

I guess many people miss the news and Bush supporters support him without following what he does and says. Sad.

Here is another source, in case anyone thinks the asker pulled this out of his hat. Here's a Constitutional Law expert speaking of this and other instances that make our founding fathers turn in their graves:
Reply:It meant that he was unable to read what was on it.
Reply:Did you get this out of a rag like the National Enquirer?

Please name a source other than capitalhillblue. I read it and it seems like along the lines of the National Enquirer. Is there not a mainstream (liberal) media source? If there is not, I have to say that this is not true.
Reply:It requires him to maintain a pretense of acting within the law. That can be very frustrating for a " decider " .
Reply:And because this article on this site said this it's true????? I don't believe a word of it!!!
Reply:Did he REALLY say that????? He's really gone crazy now, hasn't he? If he did, he meant that he is not all that concerned about following it and protecting it, which is in violation of his oath that he took when being sworn into office.

But I don't believe he said that. He's dumb, but not that dumb.

O.K. I went to the articles, which are basically identical. But they make me believe that the asshole really DID say that! It's amazing that he was able to survive his Presidency with a statement like that! I guess that hush hushed it quite well enough so that it really wouldn't get out into the mainstream press. Lucky bastard.
Reply:Well, I have never heard him say that; give source please.
Reply:Um, you would need to show us your proof of him saying that. I'm sure you've got a link, right?

EDIT- Okay, first off, capitolhillblue is the biggest left wing, propaganda rag on the net. It targets the weak minded that need no proof, that are so full of hate they'll hang on to anything negative thrown out there about President Bush. There are absolutely no sources named just he said he said and so on and so forth. Where is a LEGITIMATE, reliable news source???

EDIT- What part of LEGITIMATE and RELIABLE do you not understand in regard to news sources???
Reply:This was way back in 2005. But it is good to be reminded occasionally just what a dictator is living in the White House and how glad we should all be to eventually get rid of him. Pity it won't be through an impeachment.
Reply:I didn't know he said this - do you have a source you can email me? thx.

I appreciate the link - I'm not familiar with this publication tho - will research further on my own ---- again, thanks !
Reply:Find me *one* CREDIBLE source, and I'll pay you. The ONLY mention of this I've found in the MSM is a clip on Olbermann where he's bleating about it - but he does not offer one shred of evidence.

Capital Blue is the rantings of ONE man - and an excellent example of the power of the Internet. AND it's all hearsay - which isn't even admissible in a court of law.

I can start BS, too - should I do a blog about Pelosi using the Koran for toilet paper? Same principal, Skippy. Surely if you're in college, your professors have talked to you about CREDIBLE sources.
Reply:He meant it was getting in the way of the programs he wanted to initiate to guard against terrorist attacks. He should have had more regard for using the correct channels for his programs and a whole lot of people would have had more faith in his judgment and would have probably enjoyed more support from the American people. He usurped way too much power for the executive branch that seemed to literally obliterate the power of Congress for several years. He didn't appear to regard the rights of Americans in his fervor to prevent further attacks. In my opinion, both are very important.
Reply:Give me a break!!! You are being a left extremist to come on here and say this stuff!
Reply:The same thing the democrats mean without saying anything, but through their actions.

Yes HE DID SAY IT!!!! if you ppl had memory retention longer than two seconds, you would have remembered. Or at least start paying a tad bit more attention.

Ron Paul 2008
Reply:funny how people of accuse him of this. Then in the same breathe accuse him of appointing strict constructionists as judges. Strict construction in the interpretation of the Constitution.

The Left believes if they scream loud enough long enough maybe some of their lies will be believed; even if the contradict each other
Reply:Well that just proves that he doesn't and never has cared about this country and the principles in which it was founded upon.
Reply:you have to up better proof than that. I've talked to people that have seen big foot and I certainly will not take anyone's word for proof.
Reply:I doubt he said that, let's see a link.
Reply:Surely even your wit and knowledge can provide proof od this?
Reply:When did he say that? Please provide evidence.

Those are both the same article (an unsupported opinion piece). In reading them I have a hard time believing that anything in them is accurate. Please provide evidence from an actual news source someone might have heard of. Not just something written by an unknown author on a backwater extremist website.
Reply:He agrees with it.
Reply:i think he said that of the government bonds issued so he could borrow from the social securtiy trust funds. I think of the constitution he said "its not a suicide pact".
Reply:yes he said that because it gets in his way of some of the stuff that he would like to do but cannot because it would be unconstitutional or illegal to do under the constitution.
Reply:Basically that the content and guidelines within the Constitution have no meaning to him... that he can do whatever he wants with no accountability.... as he has done for the past ~7 years.

His statement also reflects him saying, "I'm a liar and have no intentions of honoring my oath to office where UNDER GOD I swore to protect the Constitution."

NOTE: I'm amazed at how many ppl don't already know about this. He made this statement a few years ago.
Reply:He is thinking that the Philadelphia Convention didn't know that 220 years later people would be taking advantage of too many rights.
Reply:Bush was angry after 9/11. Many have said his Patriot Act violates the Constitution. That was Bush's response.
Reply:BUSH SAID THAT?!!?!?!

WOW, talk about unpatriotic.

Why do Bush lovers always bring up the constitution? It's just a god damn piece of paper!!?

It's hilarious that most conservative responders don't know where the quote you gave came from.

Come on righties..... take a guess who called the constitution "just a god damn piece of paper."

OK, I'll even give you a hint.

His bestest buddies live in a palace in Saudi Arabia, and he's gotten very wealthy from his "poppy's" friends.

Why do Bush lovers always bring up the constitution? It's just a god damn piece of paper!!?
I believe this is a violation of yahoo policy with cursing.
Reply:Hey stupid, That's right stupid if you think that the constitution is "Just a piece of paper" That "piece of paper" is what protects your freedom to spout your commie socialist ideas. Why don't you go live in a country where you have no freedom of speech and then tell me it's just a piece of paper. What a fool
Reply:Where on Earth do you get the silly idea that the constitution is just a piece of paper???? What an idiotic idea. Are you daft????
Reply:Is it possible that you are a complete moron?
Reply:Spoken like a true democrat.

Just kidding, my best friends cousin is a democrat.

Just kidding again
Reply:May God save us from the bastards like you who have fought the American experiment since it's inception. You are an enemy to the very heart of American liberty. If we had lost the Revolution to people like you, the world would never have witnessed the industrial revolution, modern technology, or freedom of speech, etc. May you never vote or voice another opinion. Move to France. You make me ill.
Reply:it is the original laws on which we were founded, its tells the basic rights and lack of rights since the beginning of this country, unfortunately now people are interpreting it differently from eachother to get what they want. many o the problmes we have now are not issues the founding fathers would have thought of back then. thats why theres so much controversy over the constitution.
Reply:You clearly are a moron. With the Constitution which included the Bill of Rights when passed, you are guaranteed free speech, etc.

It is in the Declaration of Independance that states some of these rights which are unalienable and are "God given".

And idiots who want the protection and the right are the same people who deny that God exists who is the very being that you say gave you these rights.

Therefore with God, you have no rights!

Without these rights you wouldn't even be allowed to be a moron!
Reply:With that mentality, you make it apparent that you have no concept of the history or value of the constitution. Perhaps you should do a little research on the constitution and you find that that very "piece of paper" gives you the rights you have to day. If you are truly ignorant of the subject, educate yourself. However, if you are stupid that's another story!!
Reply:Oh, man. You are being ridiculous.
Reply:Why do you believe things the Liberals say?

According to the Liberals the rights of CHristians and Jews need to be restricted but the rights of Muslims need to be increased to a point that Non-Muslims are to be required to read Koran in the same Schools where Bibles and Torahs are to be banned.
Reply:What does that have to do with being a Bush lover? (btw-I'm not one them either)

It's not just a peice of paper.

That "piece of paper" articulates what this country stands for and what principles constitute our rule-of-law.
Reply:just as all contracts are.
Reply:It's not just a piece of paper!It's a peice of paper with words.
Reply:hahaha... nice question... it's kind of funny to watch them all hang themselves...
Reply:It's more than a peice of paper. The writings represent our freedom. We needed a piece of paper to write the down the laws. Laws are not written on air. They are written on paper.
Reply:It is just 'a god damn piece of paper' to people who have never read it or don't understand it.

I suggest you read it.
Reply:That is true, its also true that your brain is just Carbon (C), really poor quality carbon at that.
Reply:because Bush is incapable of thinking for himself.
Reply:Oh and the only reason you could write this without reprisal is that goddamned piece of paper.

Move to China or North Korea or even Iran and try it
Reply:yeah...who knows why bush lovers do ANYTHING THEY DO?!
Reply:Lol beats me
Reply:they closed there eye's and stuck there heads in the sand when he says that.IT never happened.
Reply:That's a good question since republicans all the way back to Lincoln have had total disregard for the constitution!
Reply:Yeah! Burn that goddamn thing! I mean who needs it OR the Bill of Rights!
Reply:You must be a fan of Air America. Ever consider finishing 6th grade?
Reply:If I were a bush hatter I'd be embarrassed by this question.
Reply:It is what our country is formed on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It tells the basic laws of our country. There is a reason that you can ask this question its called freedom of speech and it is from guess what the constitution!!!!!! Didn't you listen in Social Studies????????????????? God get a life!!!!??? You are a shame to the US. I maybe a fairly liberal democrat but that is past the line. In fact I despise Bush!!!!
Reply:thats real funny
Reply:i dont know, i guess they dont have n e thing better to do,personally i dont like bush i think we would have been better off with a democrat in office

If Bush proved that you can rig the electoral voting system, should we go back to paper ballots?

Who cares if we have to round up a million volunteers to count the least it would be honest.

If Bush proved that you can rig the electoral voting system, should we go back to paper ballots?
We should certainly not allow paperless voting, but we needn't go back to pure paper.

Scanned votes would be fine, since the marked ballots would be available for recount.

Ditto machines that provide paper backup.

The other thing we need to do is an amendment to eliminate the Electoral College, which allowed him to steal 2000 -- "All we need to do is prevent Democrats in Florida from voting, and we've won!"

I think we also need some system in place for when there wasn't in fact a real election, where voters were allowed to vote.

Saying, "Well, they clearly stole it, but there's no choice but to swear him in" is sheer insanity.

And that's what we've got.
Reply:It is so sad that people do not understand the electoral college. Just because you do not agree with the results, it does not mean it was rigged or whatever other crap you want to come up with. You claim Dems were turned away from the polls, I can also say Repubs were turned away as well. Report It

Reply:There is TONS of evidence of rigging -- Republicans removed Democrats in Florida from the voter lists. It happened. I know your side doesn't approve of fact, evidence, or reality, but some of us do. Report It

Reply:Yes, you can SAY Republicans were turned away, but there is no reason or evidence behind it.

Republicans ran Florida's system, and removed Democrats for having part of their names in common with people who died or were in prison, and for other bogus reasons. Report It

Reply:The Dems are traditionally the vote cheaters.
Reply:Republicans won, Democrats lost. Just admit it.
Reply:Whats this about Rumsfeld?
Reply:Goddamn, can't you lieberals lie better than that? It's getting old and it's still as stupid of a whine as it was two years ago.
Reply:What makes you thinks dems don't commit voter fraud.
Reply:Definitely, that should be a priority next election.
Reply:Spin it anyway you want to - face it, President Bush was elected, isn't it about time you dealt w/ it?
Reply:A paper trail is different from paper ballots and I have so few trees to hug.
Reply:But he wasn't proved to have rigged anything was he. Get over it. this from someone who believes in a party that wants people in prison who have been found guilty of major crimes to be able to vote. What ever happended to that liberal who was caught with a voting machine in the trunk of his car down in Florida in the 2000 election. I'll tell you not a damn thing lol.
Reply:Yeah sure, because 1,000,000 people can be counted on to be honest. Furthermore, that is how we do it now. Volunteers at local precincts counting paper ballots and the talley on various voting booths. Did you really think George Bush sat in a room all by himself and counted the 40+million ballots cast?
Reply:What an in accurate question. Please name the court case that proved that Bush rigged an electoral voting system? On the contrary Bush v Gore (2000) proved that the Constitution works, and our system works. Small states and rural areas should not be left to the whims of urban America. Our founding fathers knew it, why don't you?
Reply:Except for the fact that Bush never proved as such.
Reply:You forgot to check your conspricy theorist notebook again. The Dems claim violations in Ohio but we still use paper ballots. By the way all those claims were proven false.
Reply:wow, really can I see the proof of your idiotic accusations?
Reply:Are you sure your screen name is not Dumb Betty, as even with paper ballots, we would still rely on the electoral college to choose our President.
Reply:Well, when Bush does that, I may agree. He hasn't so all the what if waste of time questions are really a waste, don't you think.
Reply:why do democrats only speak of voter fraud when republicans WIN elections...never when they do...hmmm...
Reply:OMG you Lefties are just Nuts!!!! Rigging the election hmmm lets talk about that for a min shall we. Nancy Pelosi when does she want an end to the war or a pull out date?? Hmmm fall 2008?? Isnt that during an election?? Rigging hey I smell something funny and it isnt fish. Its dirty politics cant win honest got to cheat. Oh and during the last election wasnt it the Dems who slashed tires so that some known republicans couldnt make it to the poles?? hmmmm ya we're riggin and your cheatin!!!! Get a life really!!!
Reply:No, because, if you recall Florida, they had paper ballots, and all the problems with "chad and hanging chad, etc". What this country needs to do is have a voting period, say one week long. Everyone who votes or is eligible to vote must bring in their voter card and do a tamper proof ballot. Once the ballot is complete. A person checks to make sure that the ballot is filled out correctly, but if they try to tell the voter who to vote for, they will be immediately arrested. Have one person from each political party present to keep the others honest. Then manually count the ballots, ensuring that each ballot is numbered and in sequence, so that none are lost, misplaced or any other excuse that has been used in the past. Sure, it will be expensive, but the only other choice is the current system or lack thereof.
Reply:The votes weren't rigged. Al gore just couldn't stand the fact that he lost. He is such a poor loser. Democrats are the ones who proved the voting system can be rigged. Or is that why all those dead people voted for Clinton? we go again..another liberal in need of a fact checker...lets see the miami dade arguement..oh yeah, this is the one were the ny times paid for the study and in one of four scenarios it was debatable and only uneder very unusal conditions...cmon...




the only thing bush proved is that the supreme court correctly issues rule of law and cant be bought or pressured by liberal whining. and speaking of liberal whining...using the same type of stated twisted logic it was proved that clinton was guilty of....

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance

- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*

- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation

- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify

- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly

- First president sued for sexual harassment.

- First president accused of rape.

- First first lady to come under criminal investigation

- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case

- First president to establish a legal defense fund.

- First president to be held in contempt of court

- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions

- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad

- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

Who cares if we had to bend the rules about lying under oath and campaign fraud and impeachment in office and conduct in the white house. etc, etc, you see a correlation liberal???

sorry you lose on this one...have a nice day...


Reply:still want a recount do ya. figures. do you mean electronic voting system and not electoral system? what are you talking about?
Reply:The electoral voting system was compromised when it was a paper system. Remember the chads!
Reply:Heaven knows that it's simply impossible to rig paper ballots.
Reply:I think we should go back to paper ballots. Why do we have to have the results of the election within hours? The media is pushing the electoral process so they can maybe scoop their competitors. I would rather have elections that can be challenged and have a reasonable chance of being fair.
Reply:The volunteers are more dishonest. Take Washington states governor's election in 2004. they had 3 recounts and each time more ballots are found for the Dem's. Wouldn't you know it on the third count 200 plus new ballots are found in King County and now we have a socialist democratic Governor... yeah fair all right....
Reply:Nah, his term is almost over. Let him finish his term and elect a new person for 08.

Does that mean we need to redo the last elections as well. Did the Democrats rig that election.


Which would win in a fight... A can of Bush's baked beans, or an 18-pack of Charmin toilet paper?

the beans..

Which would win in a fight... A can of Bush's baked beans, or an 18-pack of Charmin toilet paper?
Reply:the toilet paper would "mop up" the beans
Reply:Beans. The can is harder than the paper.
Reply:Toilet paper
Reply:18-pack of charmin toilet paper would defenetly win it can do a 1 hit K.O. LOL
Reply:The beans will break through and demolish the paper.
Reply:I'm not sure who would win but I sure pitty the toilet!
Reply:Bush's baked beans! since the Charmin doesn't like to be SQEEZZZED and since eating beans means lots of GAS happening....the Charmin would be to vain and freaked from the farts and to busy RUNNING AWAY! Anyway, Bush's baked beans are FANTASTIC....although later people will Ultimately NEED the maybe it will be HANDS DOWN! Tie!
Reply:Charmin or Bush's baked beans because the beans can go politacal and charmin can go wipe it up
Reply:the can of beans; if u drop the can it'll go right thru the paper
Reply:It would be a clean sweep by the toilet paper.
Reply:The Charmin, naturally. It is practically indestructable! He could wipe that beans A$$ with only 2 squares!
Reply:Haha. The Baked Beans would totally wipe the floor with Charmin's.
Reply:the toilet paper, hands down
Reply:the toilet paper for sure
Reply:The beans!!!!!!!! They're soooooo good, especially the BBQ ones, really sweet and tasty. The beans would win b/c we'd open up a can and they'd get all over the tp and make a huge mess. From what was left over from the tp,we would use to tp houses! LOL, just kidding, we'd wrap my 'lil brother and his geeky friends up as mummies for Halloween!
Reply:hmmmmmm.....baked beans...????
Reply:Cha-cha-cha... CHAR-MIN!
Reply:can of bush beans weights more
Reply:great question lol..........

speaking for its job toilet paper never wins..........getting sh*t wiped all over you is what i would call losing.........

unless its Chuck Norris brand toilet paper, which doesnt take sh*t from anybody
Reply:now thats my kind of question

I'll go with the beans if cooked in beer but on its own the Charmin would win
Reply:I think the Toilet paper would win because it would wrap the tin of baked beans up.
Reply:takes less than 1 roll to take care of the mess when I eat Charmin has my vote
Reply:Let me see... Beans might cause diarrea which could be cleaned up by Cha Cha Cha Charmin. Charmin! [Duh!]

What did Bush mean when he said " The Constitution is just another G.. D.. piece of paper "?

Didn't he swear to uphold it when he was sworn in as President ?

What did Bush mean when he said " The Constitution is just another G.. D.. piece of paper "?;q=Con...

After about 400 articles or so it seems to peter off and become not about Bush anymore. For anyone saying "there's no source", there's quite a few sources. It just seems to be another dry-drunk bully statement that he's pretty famous among his staff for ranting, sort of like his "There won't be any diplomacy, F*** Saddam, we're taking him out." Really repugs, learn to use a search engine.

Don't get so bent out of shape, it's just another goddamned piece of's not like he wants to desecrate the flag or anything.
Reply:he meant that he really doesn't give a **** about you, me, or anyone else in this country. if he did, he would've protected us rather than lead us into a war.
Reply:It means, Leaders don't have to follow their country's constitutions.

I think law was created to benefit and protect people, if for any reason its hasn't done what it means to do, I agree on won't have to follow. People's interest should be above all, included the law.
Reply:The president and people like him think they are above the law.
Reply:Got a source for that you mindless troll? no of course you don't but since that's what some equally ignorant other liberal told you, you accept is as fact.

BTW - that makes you a nothing but a lemming doing the bidding of your rich democratic leaders. HAHAHAHAHA. Used again just like Monica - good girl, now go clean up that dress.
Reply:that he thinks the constitution is a goddamned paper.

He just couln't care less about the constitution!

His actions speak louder than words.
Reply:This is really strange! I googled that line and got

a tiny number of hits. Twenty-one to be exact. Of those, four used the curse word. Only one made the correlation between Pres. Bush and the statement. The "quote" appeared in a question found in a forum similar to Yahoo Answers.


By the way, has anyone been able to verify the story that Bush recently called the Constitution "A goddamned piece of paper"?


No one had an answer.

Considering that the other twenty instances of the "quote" were about evenly split between Democrat and Republican blogs or forums where one side accused the other of just such a sentiment.

The mainstream media would not have missed the opportunity to make such a "quote" by the President into a great big bash-Bush moment.
Reply:That was his first lie as president!

This is how Bush thinks!

Bush ignores laws he inks, vexing Congress By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

29 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A bill becomes the rule of the land when Congress passes it and the president signs it into law, right?

Not necessarily, according to the White House. A law is not binding when a president issues a separate statement saying he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard it on national security and constitutional grounds.

That's the argument a Bush administration official is expected to make Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who has demanded a hearing on a practice he considers an example of the administration's abuse of power.

"It's a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution," Specter said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I'm interested to hear from the administration just what research they've done to lead them to the conclusion that they can cherry-pick."

He is anti American, anti-Constitution,is a fascist and needs to be impeached!!

The last law he decided he was not going to go by? The Patrriot Act! What a misnomer!

Since when did Bush become a judge?
Reply:WTF, I did'nt know he said that. Man..... I still think clinton was better, I mean at the job. I know he did wrong things, but he was really good at being the president. %26amp; If Bush said that, someone needs to run his @ss to the front line %26amp; wait for a RPG to hit him or for him to be draged through the streets.... GOD is what this country was founded on. %26amp; all this stuff about taking God out of the courthouse, schools, %26amp; everyother system is bull. What is it that we swear on? the Bible. %26amp; re-writing the constitution is the same as re-writing the Bible to me.
Reply:When did he say this? Can you cite your source, or are you just engaging in mindless leftist propaganda-spewing?

Answer: He never said it.