CIA Director sworn in on Constitution lacking Bill of Rights

Welp. Orwellian commie dystopia starts Monday then.

Guy wasn't even wearing a flag pin. Unless we get confirmation he was wearing Stars & Stripes boxers (not pinko briefs), don't open your door for anybody next week. If someone knocks, unload a magazine from your AK into the door.

The first thing he's going to steal from American citizens is an hour's sleep on Sunday morning...

At least the CIA has balls.

ASIS training is specifically designed to eliminate them.

Hence briefs.

Yeah, briefs aren't that good. Boxer briefs are much more comfy. XD

I posted a comment on that site to the same effect as my OP. I don't think it will appear, though. It's a hotly conservative blog and the comments are queued for moderation. A quick look at the comments already approved shows it's just an echo chamber there.

Damn conservatards. I don't get why they'd even have comments if the relevant ones just got filtered.

In all seriousness...is this really something that people make a big deal over? Really?

Well, yeah. Seeing as how that version of the Constitution lacks some of the most important pieces of political writing since, well, ever. Pieces of writing that fucking wars have been thought about and fought over.

I guess it depends on whether he's doing it to make a point, or if he's just a history buff and likes something about how that version was made.

I don't doubt that the Bill of Rights are, very obviously, important. But I don't think that it matters what he was sworn in on. He could've been sworn in on a copy of Hop on Pop for all I care, as long as he intends to do the job that he is supposed to do. Being sworn in is a ceremony. All that matters is what he does once he is in the position.

Ceremonies are symbolic, yes.

But symbols MATTER. For proof, just look through human history.

What the new CIA director did was either foolish, in which case he has no business in that job, ill-informed (ditto) or deliberately provocative.

Symbols may matter, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

But...it's not like he can break them, even if he didn't swear on them.

It's the CIA, yes of course he can, as long as he doesn't tell anyone about it.

Yeah, okay, let me rephrase that.

It's not like he wouldn't be able to find a way to break them, even if he had sworn on them.

a bit - Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky would like to disagree with you on the whole cigar business.

I don't know. It depends on what your definition of "cigar" is.

Clinton and Lewinsky used a cigar as a sex toy. The one you light up with a lighter or match. It came out in the Starr investigation and elsewhere.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.journalism.org/print/280

edited 9th Mar '13 4:55:14 AM by TamH70

And according to reports, it tasted good.

By swearing in do you mean "putting his hand on the document"? That's not important.

If you mean "he swore to uphold the constitution but not the bill of rights", then maybe.

The Bill of Rights are always there in law if not in ink regardless of what paper you use, but if you ask me, using a draft with scribbles from Washington himself is one of the most awesome ways to get sworn in.

100% agreed. Especially about the scribbles

That is what you're supposed to take away from it.

The swearing itself is really just as much a formality as what he swears upon. It's his job and sworn oath to uphold the entire Constitution as it is now, which includes all 27 amendments.

That's also why I'm wondering why this is even a controversy at all.

Because he's a liberal appointee, and therefore conservative nutjobs want to paint it as him and the Obama administration making a statement that your Constitutional rights are now null and void, and they'll be seizing your guns and bank accounts Monday morning.