General Discussion

treestar

(82,383 posts)

100. It's not that easy

Sat Mar 30, 2013, 01:49 PM

Mar 2013

He is responsible for it passing, but we have to keep the government going and the Rs have enough power and enough uncaring attitude as to what happens to people that they use government shutdown at every stand now. Called Presidenting while black, you don't get the same common courtesies that even Rs would give Presidents in previous times.

This stuff should get us to have Obama's back even more, as we refuse to stand for this kind of Republican treatment of our President. They won't even confirm ordinary court nominees. They are assholes through and through and we should be after them.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

120 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

When Obama signs a law into effect, he is not responsible... [View all] Bonobo Mar 2013 OP

its like chess Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #1

Or sometimes a stinky cheese HereSince1628 Mar 2013 #46

lol..nt Paul E Ester Mar 2013 #63

And when a law passes with good things and bad things in it onenote Mar 2013 #2

I expect him to veto it. Bonobo Mar 2013 #4

BS. Your point is your opposition to Obama, imo. No more nor less. pinto Mar 2013 #9

+1...nt SidDithers Mar 2013 #12

yup. They both also blamed him for everything before he even took office graham4anything Mar 2013 #31

+10000 Champion Jack Mar 2013 #35

I'm thinking you are onto something here Sheepshank Mar 2013 #56

BS. The point is Opposition to BAD policy. bvar22 Mar 2013 #106

I hear you. Totally support criticism. Support that there's a context, as well. pinto Mar 2013 #107

Well said. Overseas Mar 2013 #111

A veto could be responded with by petulant obstructionists... joshcryer Mar 2013 #25

You should at least pretend to read the posts you're responding to. jeff47 Mar 2013 #70

So protecting the American people from Corporate power is now 'a waste of sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #36

Environmentalists aren't even invited to the discussion. Octafish Mar 2013 #45

That's the big thing. AndyA Mar 2013 #102

Of course-- because they're bound to win anyway, see? You should learn to be a good, Marr Mar 2013 #64

Could you point out the specific language in the bill that's so objectionable? jeff47 Mar 2013 #69

I've already posted the specific language in the bill, attached to one of your own sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #94

Actucally, you didn't. You posted someone else writting about it. jeff47 Mar 2013 #103

Why should we... Oilwellian Mar 2013 #82

I thought I was voting for a person with principals, who do you think you voted for? A Simple Game Mar 2013 #73

Six of the seven members who proposed an amendment to strip the provision onenote Mar 2013 #86

Snopes did Monsanto, elleng Mar 2013 #3

It appears you are out of your element. Whisp Mar 2013 #5

Post removed Post removed Mar 2013 #10

+1...nt SidDithers Mar 2013 #13

I also got this today in an email Mojorabbit Mar 2013 #19

It took a lot a google time to read into this quaker bill Mar 2013 #113

Lol, the only problem with Monsanto's memo on how to handle the anger sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #37

+1. n/t FSogol Mar 2013 #44

+1 Whisp! n/t sheshe2 Mar 2013 #72

Hey, don't bother the Haters, they're on a roll! nt. OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #114

What the hell are you suggesting exactly? gcomeau Mar 2013 #6

A President has every right to veto a bill he disapproves of Art_from_Ark Mar 2013 #8

The continuing funding bill couldn't be vetoed, imo. Of course he had the right to veto. pinto Mar 2013 #16

Huh? I'm confused.... Bonobo Mar 2013 #17

Nothing is veto proof. Obama can veto any legislation in his role as President. pinto Mar 2013 #18

I don't have time to look that up right now. Bonobo Mar 2013 #20

I'm not focused on who's right or wrong. It's an interesting piece of political background, imo. pinto Mar 2013 #22

Probably wouldn't have gotten that impression without post #9. Bonobo Mar 2013 #23

See your point. pinto Mar 2013 #24

I don't have time to look it up either onenote Mar 2013 #88

I think definitely it would've caused havoc and lots of retaliation. joshcryer Mar 2013 #26

to take a stand one has to have princples one is willing to fight for nt msongs Mar 2013 #32

So he should have SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT for a SYMBOLIC gesture???? gcomeau Mar 2013 #49

Why would a bill like that pass with a veto proof majority unless the party sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #74

A bill like that? gcomeau Mar 2013 #78

Yes, that little rider only removed all regulations that protect our food supply. sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #87

No it didn't gcomeau Mar 2013 #90

There are a number of things that previous Presidents have done. bvar22 Mar 2013 #108

Oh come on. You know it was a blind amendment tacked on to the funding bill that had to be passed. pinto Mar 2013 #7

"blind"? onenote Mar 2013 #84

My understanding is that it was submitted without a sponsor of record. Hence "blind". pinto Mar 2013 #89

It was included in the substitute amendment "sponsored" by Mikulski onenote Mar 2013 #91

Ah, thanks. I must have misunderstood it. pinto Mar 2013 #93

Until you get a Constitutional amendment allowing for a line-item veto (something I would support), NYC Liberal Mar 2013 #11

Love to see you busted -again- for the smear. cliffordu Mar 2013 #14

It's not the OP who's been busted. sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #38

Thanks and people that make a big deal about the 6 months thing... Bonobo Mar 2013 #59

And the 'Don't worry it'll only last 6 months' argument rusty fender Mar 2013 #110

Read post #5 and tell me which of those things we can do without. nt. OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #116

Yup...nt SidDithers Mar 2013 #41

"It's all the Republicans' fault," or so we've been told. AnotherMcIntosh Mar 2013 #15

There's just ALWAYS some kind of excuse. Bonobo Mar 2013 #21

You call it excuses? Sheepshank Mar 2013 #65

I want legislation making laws be singlular. joshcryer Mar 2013 #27

I could not possibly agree more. nt Bonobo Mar 2013 #28

The best solution would be a one-time "gimmie." joshcryer Mar 2013 #33

Does everyone realize that PO already signed this bill into law? ReRe Mar 2013 #29

POTUS Obama could have vetoed the spending spill PufPuf23 Mar 2013 #30

You don't veto a spending bill and risk a government shutdown... Comrade_McKenzie Mar 2013 #34

But you would if you were a Republican President and the bill sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #39

That's a poor excuse. AnotherMcIntosh Mar 2013 #42

No, its actually a damn good excuse. phleshdef Mar 2013 #53

Nope, unless you're getting paid or otherwise financially benefiting from this, it's a poor excuse. AnotherMcIntosh Mar 2013 #60

Yea, shut the government down and kill the Violence Against Women Act to feel more uber progressive. phleshdef Mar 2013 #66

What you say is totally irrelevant to the thread. AnotherMcIntosh Mar 2013 #68

Its 100% relevant, in every single possible way. phleshdef Mar 2013 #105

then no one is markeybrown Mar 2013 #40

Do you ProSense Mar 2013 #43

There Bonobo Mar 2013 #47

What ProSense Mar 2013 #48

Oh Bonobo Mar 2013 #51

Like I said ProSense Mar 2013 #52

I Bonobo Mar 2013 #54

Oh, ProSense Mar 2013 #62

idle curiousity dsc Mar 2013 #95

Bill Clinton ProSense Mar 2013 #96

name one saying that dsc Mar 2013 #97

You ProSense Mar 2013 #98

translation dsc Mar 2013 #99

Translation ProSense Mar 2013 #101

One person and one person only... 99Forever Mar 2013 #50

Explain how the use of the veto pen would have played out in this case onenote Mar 2013 #83

What specifically was in the bill Obama signed? Sheepshank Mar 2013 #55

Isn't it odd that the people who are so enraged have not been able to point to the problem? (nt) jeff47 Mar 2013 #71

Read post #5. nt. OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #117

No. No. He caved to Monsanto for our own good and he couldn't find his veto pen. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2013 #57

what was in the bill that constituted caving to Monsato? thanks. n/t Sheepshank Mar 2013 #58

The bill completely removed all regulations and protections that were in place sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #75

Actualy it didn't.... Sheepshank Mar 2013 #109

So you support Monsanto then? Bush Sr was right in your opinion, to work so sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #118

Bullshit...typical RW twisting of "A" then must be "B" Sheepshank Apr 2013 #120

OMG he didn't veto a bill to fund the government that passed with a veto proof majority onenote Mar 2013 #81

"he couldn't find his veto pen." bvar22 Mar 2013 #112

Quit whining and eat your GMO peas already. limpyhobbler Mar 2013 #61

Indeed. woo me with science Mar 2013 #67

Then you better get busy finding the super Progressive candidate for 2016 ... or ... JoePhilly Mar 2013 #76

God, that was weak. Bonobo Mar 2013 #77

And yet totally accurate. JoePhilly Mar 2013 #79

Nothing is eating me alive. Bonobo Mar 2013 #80

Your OPs suggest other. JoePhilly Mar 2013 #85

I actually think the Obama "criticism" from the left helps him. gulliver Mar 2013 #92

It's not that easy treestar Mar 2013 #100

In 2008, one of the Presidential Candidates promised... bvar22 Mar 2013 #104

he was taken out of context... KG Mar 2013 #115

The CR was given to the President on 22 March and signed 26 March tammywammy Apr 2013 #119