Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

GW Bush hates Santa

Old 12-24-07, 06:13 PM
  #1  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Astoria, NY
Posts: 416
GW Bush hates Santa

Saw this on Digg...

37,000 Americans asked CCR to send a copy of the U.S. Constitution to George W. Bush as an early holiday present in the hope that he might actually read it. Santa made the trip down from the North Pole in his sleigh to try to deliver the law.

http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/vid...titutions-bush
remjim is offline  
Old 12-24-07, 06:25 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,051
If George really hated Santa, we'd be having another successful test of the Missile Defense System tonight.
OldDude is offline  
Old 12-24-07, 06:37 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Working for Gizmonic Institute
Posts: 10,430


Didn't plan ahead enough to have somebody like the...ohh, I don't know... the US Postal Service deliver it?
crazyronin is offline  
Old 12-24-07, 06:40 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Working for Gizmonic Institute
Posts: 10,430
Originally Posted by OldDude
If George really hated Santa, we'd be having another successful test of the Missile Defense System tonight.
He subbed it out to the private sector
crazyronin is offline  
Old 12-24-07, 06:46 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Drexl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 15,998
CCR? You mean John Fogerty took time out of his schedule to do this?
Drexl is offline  
Old 12-24-07, 07:11 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
you're from NYC, explains the thread
al_bundy is offline  
Old 12-24-07, 09:03 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Bacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: the 870
Posts: 21,135
You mean W can read??
Bacon is offline  
Old 12-24-07, 09:06 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,051
Only upside-down, if you recall the photochopped picture.
OldDude is offline  
Old 12-25-07, 11:11 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Ah, the old claim that he is not following the costitution from those who generally want to do away with gun ownership, only they will say that is what the constitution really meant, etc.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 12-26-07, 07:39 AM
  #10  
DVD Talk Legend
 
kenbuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bloomington, IN
Posts: 20,957
Originally Posted by kvrdave
Ah, the old claim that he is not following the costitution from those who generally want to do away with gun ownership, only they will say that is what the constitution really meant, etc.
Agreed. If people feel strongly enough about something that is contradicted by the Constitution, they should work towards changing it. It allows change, provided that enough people agree that it should be changed.

Linkage: http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.htm#con5
Originally Posted by Article V, US Consitution
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.
This applies equally well to adding new Amendments, canceling previous Amendments, or adding wording to "clarify" the intent of an already existing Amendment. Just propose an Amendment via your elected representative and then work towards seeing that it is ratified by your fellow citizens. If people are unwilling or unable to work within the system - a system that is specifically designed to accomodate this type of change - then they should shut the fuck up, IMO.
kenbuzz is offline  
Old 12-26-07, 09:29 AM
  #11  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 14,204
Originally Posted by kenbuzz
Agreed. If people feel strongly enough about something that is contradicted by the Constitution, they should work towards changing it. It allows change, provided that enough people agree that it should be changed.

Linkage: http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.htm#con5
This applies equally well to adding new Amendments, canceling previous Amendments, or adding wording to "clarify" the intent of an already existing Amendment. Just propose an Amendment via your elected representative and then work towards seeing that it is ratified by your fellow citizens. If people are unwilling or unable to work within the system - a system that is specifically designed to accomodate this type of change - then they should shut the fuck up, IMO.
I have no idea what this has to do with the OP. The whole point is that GWB is blatantly ignoring what the Constitution has to say about checks and balances, the seperation of powers, the role of the Commander-in-Chief, etc. Are you suggesting that Bush, Cheney, et. al., need to propose a new Ammendment via their elected representative? Or are you suggesting that we need a ammendment to the Constitution to make the President of the United States follow what is already in the Constitution???

On point... I would actually be shocked if GWB did hate Santa Claus. I actually have a hunch that Georgie still "hears the bells", if I can throw in a reference to The Polar Express. I think he wakes up on Christmas morning, still dressed in his wool jammies and his teddy bear slippers, and races downstairs to see what presents Santa (and the Democrat-controlled Congress) has left for him this year.
NCMojo is offline  
Old 12-26-07, 09:30 AM
  #12  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
GreenMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,363
But...but...it's not a suicide pact...so it should just be ignored, right? The terrorists are much more threatening than Japan was in WW2, or the Soviets were, after all!
GreenMonkey is offline  
Old 12-26-07, 11:22 AM
  #13  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Originally Posted by NCMojo
I have no idea what this has to do with the OP. The whole point is that GWB is blatantly ignoring what the Constitution has to say about checks and balances, the seperation of powers, the role of the Commander-in-Chief, etc. Are you suggesting that Bush, Cheney, et. al., need to propose a new Ammendment via their elected representative? Or are you suggesting that we need a ammendment to the Constitution to make the President of the United States follow what is already in the Constitution???
No more than any previous president. If Bush is blatantly ignoring the constitution, isn't the SCOTUS there to correct the problem? Just needs to go through the process. But generally it is just people claiming that the constitution is being ignored because it is a good sound bite.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 12-26-07, 01:46 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 14,204
Originally Posted by kvrdave
No more than any previous president. If Bush is blatantly ignoring the constitution, isn't the SCOTUS there to correct the problem? Just needs to go through the process. But generally it is just people claiming that the constitution is being ignored because it is a good sound bite.
Well, first of all, SCOTUS is comprised entirely of people appointed by partisan administrations, who choose candidates with a firm agenda in mind. Without question, the Supreme Court has in turn ruled in decidely partisan and unconstitutional manners, most recently and notably in deciding the outcome of the 2000 Presidential election.

Further, the Supreme Court by and large only tackles cases that are brought before it. While in theory judicial review has been a part of the Court's purveyance since John Marshall, in recent times the Court has been loathe to interfere with the actions of either of the other branches of government until precedence has been more clearly established.

As to the "sound bite" argument... it is fairly undeniable at this point that, at the very least, the Bush Administration is full of people who would wish that the Constitution could be ignored. Virtually every argument that has been made under the banner of "executive privelege" clearly seeks to undermine the checks and balances made explicit in the Constitution, to usurp the power granted to Congress in 1787.

And it also seems fairly undenable that the Bush Administration has, in many cases, actually crossed that line and acted unconstitutionally, from warrantless wiretapping to ignoring international treaties to their use of "signing statements" and refusing Congressional subpoenas, and more. This isn't some wild-eyed conspiracy theory -- it is pretty well established that there is a group of people in the White House dedicated to restoring the oft-quoted "imperial Presidency", who have seized upon the so-called "war on terrorism" as a means to that end. And while the issue of the current Administration using these self-declared powers may not give you pause... in twelve and half months, we are going to have an entirely new Administration, one with whom you may find much less to your liking. (And down the road there is the potential of who-knows-who running for office -- Michael Moore? Sean Hannity? Britney Spears? -- that should scare the living shit out of you no matter what your political persuasions.)
NCMojo is offline  
Old 12-26-07, 06:09 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Originally Posted by NCMojo
Well, first of all, SCOTUS is comprised entirely of people appointed by partisan administrations, who choose candidates with a firm agenda in mind. Without question, the Supreme Court has in turn ruled in decidely partisan and unconstitutional manners, most recently and notably in deciding the outcome of the 2000 Presidential election.


I didn't read past this as the black helicopters landed.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 12-26-07, 06:13 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Okay, I read the rest of it, and you said...
from warrantless wiretapping to ignoring international treaties to their use of "signing statements"
We went over long ago how every president has used signing statements. I was challenged to find another person who used one to say that they did not intend to enforce a certain part of a bill signed, and found one from Clinton in 5 minutes. As to the rest, is any of this new to presidents, or just being used by a president you don't agree with?
kvrdave is offline  
Old 12-27-07, 07:57 AM
  #17  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 14,204
Originally Posted by kvrdave
Okay, I read the rest of it, and you said...

We went over long ago how every president has used signing statements. I was challenged to find another person who used one to say that they did not intend to enforce a certain part of a bill signed, and found one from Clinton in 5 minutes. As to the rest, is any of this new to presidents, or just being used by a president you don't agree with?
Hey, thanks for taking the time to read the rest of my tinfoil-hat rant there, David. I'll try not to get all "kooky" on you in this reply.





But anyway, let's set aside the signing statement thing for now. I remember the Clinton example you came up with, and it was a valid argument. But there's just no question, Dave -- I mean, seriously, come on now -- that this Administration has gone to great lengths to exaggerate the role of the Executive Branch and dismiss or diminish the importance of the rest of government. Taken as a whole -- from their spurious argument that the President as CoC can unilaterally authorize wiretapping or ignore international treaties, to their justifications of "executive privelege" to bypass subpoenas and legitimate inquiries, and "national security" to ignore the Fifth and Sixth Ammendments -- you can't help but see a consistent disregard for the Constitution throughout the Administration's power base. It's not just me saying this. It's independent journalists, law professors, judges, politicians, historians... it's become consensus at this point, as proven and as incontrovertible as the law of gravity or, say, the theory of evolution.

(Whoops. Bad example. )

You asked me if my claims, my justifications, are just a case of there being a President in office I don't agree with. To answer your question: no. I didn't accuse Ronald Reagan or George Bush, Sr., of unconstitutional acts, even though I disliked their policies; and I have come out and criticized Bill Clinton for his peccadilllos and his faults, even though I am a huge admirer of his policies. But I would ask you, Dave -- and I think it is a much more fair question, considering the tone of your response -- is your knee-jerk defense in this matter just a case of there being a President in office that you do agree with? (Or at least one with an "R" beside their name?)
NCMojo is offline  
Old 12-27-07, 10:35 AM
  #18  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
I actually don't agree with Bush on much anymore. I didn't even vote for him last time. But it gets tiring when I hear the demonizing of any president from the opposite side for stuff they all have done. I was critical of Bush and Republicans who disagreed with Clinton not having a aclear objective with the military and were using it for nation building, but forgot all that when Bush hit office.

Actually, aside from his tax policy, there isn't I agree with him on. I tend to vote Republican but it is mainly on a tax issue. That seems to be the only significant difference in policy I can see in the past 20 years.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 12-27-07, 10:46 AM
  #19  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
The whole point is that GWB is blatantly ignoring what the Constitution has to say about checks and balances, the seperation of powers, the role of the Commander-in-Chief, etc. Are you suggesting that Bush, Cheney, et. al., need to propose a new Ammendment via their elected representative? Or are you suggesting that we need a ammendment to the Constitution to make the President of the United States follow what is already in the Constitution???
But...but...it's not a suicide pact...so it should just be ignored, right? The terrorists are much more threatening than Japan was in WW2, or the Soviets were, after all!
And strangely enough, one particular president who did ignore the constitution and put innocent civilians into camps, and tried to pack the Supreme Court is regarded by most libs as the best president of the 20th Century. Go figure.
bhk is offline  
Old 12-27-07, 11:04 AM
  #20  
DVD Talk Legend
 
kenbuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bloomington, IN
Posts: 20,957
Originally Posted by NCMojo
I have no idea what this has to do with the OP. The whole point is that GWB is blatantly ignoring what the Constitution has to say about checks and balances, the seperation of powers, the role of the Commander-in-Chief, etc. Are you suggesting that Bush, Cheney, et. al., need to propose a new Ammendment via their elected representative? Or are you suggesting that we need a ammendment to the Constitution to make the President of the United States follow what is already in the Constitution???
Sorry if my tangent wasn't clear. I was responding to kvrdave's comment about anti-gun folks creatively interpreting the Constitution to try further their agenda. My point was that if something is in the Constitution, we all must abide by it. If someone thinks differently, they can change it IF they can get enough folks to play ball with them. If they can't, or if they're unwilling to try, then they should stick a cork in their pie hole.

I was commenting specifically about the 2nd Amendment, not about the rest of the stuff you mentioned. Anyway, we return back to the original discussion, already in progress...
kenbuzz is offline  
Old 12-27-07, 12:58 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 14,204
Originally Posted by kenbuzz
Sorry if my tangent wasn't clear. I was responding to kvrdave's comment about anti-gun folks creatively interpreting the Constitution to try further their agenda. My point was that if something is in the Constitution, we all must abide by it. If someone thinks differently, they can change it IF they can get enough folks to play ball with them. If they can't, or if they're unwilling to try, then they should stick a cork in their pie hole.

I was commenting specifically about the 2nd Amendment, not about the rest of the stuff you mentioned. Anyway, we return back to the original discussion, already in progress...
Just so you know -- I agree with your point in regard to the 2nd Ammendment. If you want to ban handguns (for example), you really need to pass a Constitutional ammendment. Similarly, I think that the abortion issue will be resolved (one way or the other) via ammendment.
NCMojo is offline  
Old 12-27-07, 01:03 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 14,204
Originally Posted by bhk
And strangely enough, one particular president who did ignore the constitution and put innocent civilians into camps, and tried to pack the Supreme Court is regarded by most libs as the best president of the 20th Century. Go figure.
Saying FDR was a great President is hardly a "liberal" viewpoint, unless you consider anyone who is not an ultra-conservative part of the left-wing. Actually most liberals -- while recognizing that he did take us through two of the biggest challenges America has ever faced, the Great Depression and WW II -- would candidly acknowledge that FDR never should have sent Japanese-Americans to internment camps, and that his attempt to "pack the court" was blatantly unconstitutional. Taken as a whole, his Presidency probably should rank in the top ten... but there's hardly consensus, especially among liberals, that he's the best of the 20th century.

Now, Bill Clinton, on the other hand...
NCMojo is offline  
Old 12-27-07, 01:06 PM
  #23  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
that FDR never should have sent Japanese-Americans to internment camps, and that his attempt to "pack the court" was blatantly unconstitutional.
I guess then I don't understand why there is such a thing as Bush Derangement Syndrome and not a FDR Derangement Syndrome.
bhk is offline  
Old 12-27-07, 01:15 PM
  #24  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di SalÚ
Posts: 32,736
Originally Posted by bhk
I guess then I don't understand why there is such a thing as Bush Derangement Syndrome and not a FDR Derangement Syndrome.
Because the news media used to be controlled by a conservative eastern establishment mindset that wouldn't propagate such an attitude?
wendersfan is offline  
Old 12-27-07, 02:02 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,831
I think you'll find a number of us have pointed out the similarities between GWB and FDR - and how it isn't a good thing.
Red Dog is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.