Reply With Quote
shhhhh....
I hadn't looked for a while, but President Obama released another signing statement that he says he will not follow the law congress passed.
Why can he do this and liberals and stay tight lipped, but cried when President Bush did it?
ing hypocrites!
512 - Statement on Signing the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009, end of statement:
However, provisions of this bill within sections 1110 to 1112 of le XI, and sections 1403 and 1404 of le XIV, would interfere with my cons utional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the Congress prior to such negotiations or discussions. I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to engage in foreign diplomacy or negotiations.
BARACK OBAMA
shhhhh....
ing dumbass partisan bull .
This forum blows.
has it always been this way?
Why do you say that?
I just want to know where the liberal outcry is in signing statements. Why only when President Bush did it?
Personally, this is an area I applaud President Obama in. Not letting congress infringe on his Article II powers.
When you explain your hypocrisy on many other issues then you might have an ounce of credibility. Until then you are as guilty of those on the left for the exact same thing. Somehow I think that has escaped you..
let me guess this concept of hypocrisy is foreign to you as well?
There are not to many people out there that will allow a person to do anything they want. No matter what Obama does you will say it is ok. I know "blame Bush" Thank goodness most voters don't think this way as indicated in his approval rating.
What hypocrisy? Tell me, please.
Most voters did blame Bush as indicated by Bush's approval rating.
Your hypocrisy is well do ented on this board. Tell you what from here on out I will point your hypocrisy as we go along. I know you will provide me ample opportunity to do so.
Jack your obseesion with s has blinded you to the fact that I am not an Obama cheerleader.
Yes you are
I'm not talking about the gays
You are
I don't agree with this when Obama does it either. If he thinks it will interfere with his powers, then he should veto the bill outright.
Give it some time... I'm sure that if Obama does that on a bill that doesn't agree with liberals, he'll do that as well.
Also WC, the main person who broke the information on signing statements, Charlie Savage from the Boston Globe, has been discussing Obama's willingness to carry on Bush's legacy of federal power.
Obama sucks, but he is still better than what the old fool mccain would have done.
The "progression" from gore to Kerry to Obama was nothing to hoot about as well. I give dean a half nod in there as well. Yeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaagaggggggggghhhhhhhhhh
One question i have is are all 57states covered by this statement?
At least neither of us are hypocritical on this. I agree both presidents had the right, you disagree.
I wonder if his brain goes into all kinds of tangents, and maybe he was thinking of Heinz hinny, of Heinz 57?
Aren't any of you Bush Bashers besides LnGrrrR going to complain about Obama's signing statements?
I'm not sure if they really bug me all that much. If they raise real cons utional issues I can see their being handled in the courts. I'm more concerned with what presidents actually do instead of what they say they might do or may be able to do.
An interesting take from someone who knows far more about the subject than any of us: http://executivewatch.net/2009/07/21...powers-sanity/
A summary for those who don't care to read: only two of the nine signing statements are unconventional and came with the Omnibus Appropriations Act, President Obama is on pace to match Reagan and Clinton signing statement numbers (which he still considers too high), and that Congress is, to some extent, pushing back. If Obama stays on pace, he would produce 40 signing statements in this term, and 40 in his next. Bush, in his first six years, objected to over a thousand provisions.
I agree with the author that I'm no fan of signing statements, but surely you can see the difference between the Bush administration and this one. Now, if you'd like to go after Obama for regressing to Reagan/Clinton numbers but not stopping the practice entirely, I could understand, but Bush flagrantly abused the practice.
shut your two pieces of parallel pussies up already. If someone thinks he is more capable of being the president, then he should have paid the 100,000 dollars for registering as a presidential candidate. Probably Obama isn't doing this work as good as someone else of the 350 millions would have done, but Obama is the man that collected more than half of the total votes and put his hand on the Bible and cons ution on his inauguration.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
