New group wants Bush out

The Daily Texan (UT paper) ^ | 10/17/2005 | Jimmie Collins

[WestTexasWend]

Organization hands out fliers, graffitis to get message out - There are only 16 days until the beginning of the end of the Bush regime, according to the World Can't Wait, a new political organization. The Austin chapter plans to be on campus and around town handing out fliers and actively advertising their cause.

"This administration does not represent us ... even though they say they do," said Sonya Morales, head of the Austin chapter.

Today marks the fifth day of encampment outside the White House counting down to Nov. 2, the day WCW has organized protest marches in 40 cities and college campuses across the nation. Nov. 2 is also the one-year anniversary of President Bush's re-election to office.

"We're not just going to be the same old people sitting at tables on the West Mall," Josh Waldman, an Austin WCW member, said. "We're going to be making noise and getting attention."

Advocates of the organization have spray-painted information regarding the WCW Web site and its motto, "Resist or Die," on buildings and sidewalks on or near the UT campus.

Because the offenses occurred at an institution of higher education the graffiti "is considered a state jail felony," said Sgt. Leigh Glass, a spokeswoman at UTPD. The department will be investigating the owners of the Web site to find out who committed the crime. Morales said the organization does not advocate the graffiti but that it is an indication the organization is inspiring people.

According to WCW, the march is only one event in a string of others meant to change the current political climate to one similar to that during the Vietnam War.

"We want to bring things back to that type of movement," Waldman said.

While WCW's goal is to drive Bush's administration out of office, they admit that may not immediately happen.

"The office is built specifically so the president could ignore public opinion," said David Prindle, a UT government professor.

Public opinion polls as of Thursday showed 38 percent of the country believes Bush is doing a good job.

"Bush is not setting any records in unpopularity, but it is very difficult to remove a president from office," Prindle said.

"A Republican congress is not going to impeach Bush unless he's caught committing felonies in the White House," Prindle said. "Nothing in his character suggests he would resign ... and barring a stroke or cerebral hemorrhage, I don't see Cheney removing him from office."

[AmericaUnite]

What is this Gang Rule. Who the H#** are they? And Who Cares!

[Zeppelin]

just thought I'd let y'all know that I've been all over campus since 8:00 this morning, and haven't been handed one such flier, nor seen this group. Glad this "effort" didnt materialize.

In an aside, we should see a good game this weekend.

HOOK EM! =D

[A message]

Stuck completely on stupid.

[cksharks]

I agree shoot the stupid pri--s on site.

[Thunder90]

There being ran by the Revolutionary Communist Party, and supported by the WWP and the CPUSA

[armymarinemom]

If I recall correctly, that one particular Marine was ticked off.

Yes he is. Take a very close look at this left hand. My DIL caught that right off the bat.I guess being a Marine wife for six years gives you a good eye for hand gestures in photos.

[nwrep]

Wow, a bunch of communist faggots passing out pamphlets in Austin. I am sure Bush is shaking in his boots.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>Uh, yes he does. Says so right here in the Constitution. You may not like it, you are going to have to suck it up anyway. Don't these people have lives?<<<

When the President starts following the Constitution, he will represent us. Not before. And if you are going to pretend to be an authority on the Constitution, and lecture others on it, you should at least read it.

[txrangerette]

Your reasoning is flawed. Did you flunk logic? The President is the President.

Did FDR follow the Constitution? What about LBJ? What about most of our Presidents, especially the modern ones? If they failed to follow the Constitution, they were still the President. In the sense that they are the President, they do indeed represent the collective votes of the American people and are duly sworn in to act as the Chief Executive.

You can whine all day that "they don't represent us because ________________________". Constitutionally, they DO. Get over it.

Oh, that's right. You have read the Constitution. That makes you the decider of all that's right and true. NOT.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>Did FDR follow the Constitution? What about LBJ? <<<

No, and they did not represent us. They represented Socialism, which is TYRANNY!

>>>What about most of our Presidents, especially the modern ones? If they failed to follow the Constitution, they were still the President.<<<

And they are still Tyrants, which means (in any logical mind) that they represented themselves, not us.

>>>In the sense that they are the President, they do indeed represent the collective votes of the American people and are duly sworn in to act as the Chief Executive.<<<

They are elected according to principles enumerated in our Constitution. If they ignore it as soon as they are in power, they are tyrants!

God help us...

[Danae]

Really. Please educate my lame arse ignorant self. Please tell me what you know of the Constitution that I do not know.

Assume

Ass u me

Please also provide a definition of the above.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>Really. Please educate my lame arse ignorant self. Please tell me what you know of the Constitution that I do not know.<<<

I did. But I will try to put it in simpler terms you can understand. When the President fails to support the Supreme Law of the Land, and fails to follow laws made pursuit to it, he does not represent the people. He is a tyrant who is representing himself.

[Danae]

When the President starts following the Constitution, he will represent us. Not before. And if you are going to pretend to be an authority on the Constitution, and lecture others on it, you should at least read it.

So just WHERE in that is your lofty interpretation of the Constitution in this??? Hmmnnn, no where. You stated an opinion in a condescending manner. Hardly a display of intellectual prowess.

I did. But I will try to put it in simpler terms you can understand. (Oh please DO! I am so excited I could just burst out into song!) When the President fails to support the Supreme Law of the Land, and fails to follow laws made pursuit to it, he does not represent the people. He is a tyrant who is representing himself.

Uhh, again you are stating your opinion and not fact, let alone the promised interpretation of the Constitution. Here, let me be fair, you come up with evidence as to this "Supreme Law of the Land" clause in the constitution that has been violated, what Article or Amendment gives hoodlums the right to destroy or damage property not belonging to them in the name of a "New" Anti-Bush sewing club, and I might not ignore your silly arse in the future. There is none. Hating the President does NOT give anyone license to wantonly damage the property of others. The only thing you could weakly grab at is the Border issue, which I happen to agree with.That, however, does NOT back your argument, if indeed you can even call it such!

So, just where is the indictment against the President, and please do include Precedent with that argument. You DO know what that is right??

Just to refresh your memory (No need to thank me) this is an excerpt from the article you happen to be commenting on:

Advocates of the organization have spray-painted information regarding the WCW Web site and its motto, "Resist or Die," on buildings and sidewalks on or near the UT campus. Because the offenses occurred at an institution of higher education the graffiti "is considered a state jail felony," said Sgt. Leigh Glass, a spokeswoman at UTPD. The department will be investigating the owners of the Web site to find out who committed the crime. Morales said the organization does not advocate the graffiti but that it is an indication the organization is inspiring people. According to WCW, the march is only one event in a string of others meant to change the current political climate to one similar to that during the Vietnam War. "We want to bring things back to that type of movement," Waldman said. While WCW's goal is to drive Bush's administration out of office, they admit that may not immediately happen.

So, in light of the discussion at hand, you want to pose the oh so GREAT logic that states Law breaking in the name of a Political goal is alright. Please, I wait with bated breath. Please tell me just WHERE in the constitution that gives these people the right to break the law? Please don't use the sorry excuse of, "Well they did it so it is ok." or the equally lame "two wrongs make a right". It is indicative of either a weak mind or little mind to begin with. Thanks ever so much, oh great mighty Guru, I look forward to your synopsis and detailed interpretation of Constitutional Law.

[SuziQ]

So who's funding this group?

[SuziQ]

According to WCW, the march is only one event in a string of others meant to change the current political climate to one similar to that during the Vietnam War.
"We want to bring things back to that type of movement," Waldman said.

I don't think he's going to find a huge following on any college campus because of the fact that there is not a draft this time. Most students either have no opinion, or have a family member serving and don't want to do anything that could jeopardize that person. There are always a few who can be whipped into an anti-war frenzy, but they are a distinct minority this time around.

[GOPJ]

What a yawn. These kids represent the school administration, they're establishment. Who cares what they parrot.

[PhilipFreneau]

So just WHERE in that is your lofty interpretation of the Constitution in this???

Where are you from, Europe? Article VI, Clause 3 reads, The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.

You stated an opinion in a condescending manner. Hardly a display of intellectual prowess.

I do tend to be froward with the froward.

...let me be fair, you come up with evidence as to this "Supreme Law of the Land" clause in the constitution that has been violated, what Article or Amendment gives hoodlums the right to destroy or damage property not belonging to them in the name of a "New" Anti-Bush sewing club, and I might not ignore your silly arse in the future.

You have assumed that I stated hoodlums had such a right. And I thought you were an expert on what happens when one assume things. How disappointing.

[Danae]

Ohhh a word I have not seen in at least 10 years! froward: Meaning: turning back to one's own ways; difficult to deal with: stubbornly disobedient or contrary; going in one's own willful ways. Very well applied to yourself. Kudos for the attack of honesty.

Back to your original quote:
When the President starts following the Constitution, he will represent us. Not before. And if you are going to pretend to be an authority on the Constitution, and lecture others on it, you should at least read it.

Ooo!AND a BRILLIANT quoting of Article 6 to boot.

Yes, I was born in the United States. Make not ASS U MPTIONS that you can not come close to proving just to be insulting. That is a sign of a weak mind as well.

You STILL have not made your argument. Exactly where is the President not holding up the Constitution? Exactly how is it that you can exclude the entire Congress from your analysis, do you "Just Blame Bush" as a knee jerk response? Only thing I can come up with is not defending the Borders of this Nation, but that is a real big HARD thing to prove, seeing as he is following not only the Presidents that came before him and followed the same policies, but Congress has a hand in that as well. Be all that as it may, it is still not any sort of walking talking proof of his failure to up hold the Constitution. By no means do I excuse him for not closing the Borders. I am quite livid about it actually.

NEXT! Say, while you are furiously digging up arguments, why don't we ASSUME that we are speaking about both your original post and the story that it was related to instead of tilting at windmills? Lets stick to the topic dear.

[Young Scholar]

Because the offenses occurred at an institution of higher education the graffiti "is considered a state jail felony," said Sgt. Leigh Glass, a spokeswoman at UTPD.

That would be really unfortunate if these people couldn't vote in the next election.