You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #102: Read your post again. You did not use those exact words, but you sure conveyed it. No [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-11-09 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #99
102. Read your post again. You did not use those exact words, but you sure conveyed it. No
Edited on Sat Jul-11-09 08:04 AM by No Elephants
mindreading was necessary, only the ability to read and think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -House overwhelmingly rejects signing statement Lone_Star_Dem  Jul-09-09 06:13 PM   #0 
  - They wouldn't do that to Bush. The fucking cowards. n/t  ThirdWorldJohn   Jul-09-09 06:15 PM   #1 
  - It wouldn't have come up for a vote ...  zbdent   Jul-09-09 06:35 PM   #5 
  - no, this is a good point!  pasto76   Jul-09-09 09:12 PM   #30 
     - you may want to do some reading  merh   Jul-09-09 11:51 PM   #49 
        - 78% of Bush's signing statements were unconstitutional. There was noting done by the scholars like  ThirdWorldJohn   Jul-10-09 12:20 AM   #52 
        - You are not wrong.  merh   Jul-10-09 12:49 AM   #54 
        - the precedent for future admins is the critical element  natrat   Jul-10-09 06:45 AM   #65 
           - Violations by this administration are not more palatable than violations by future  No Elephants   Jul-10-09 04:02 PM   #75 
        - Fuckin' cowards indeed and the 'pukes fuckin' hypocrites to the last man or woman!  indepat   Jul-10-09 03:07 PM   #72 
        - You are correct that nothing was done re: Bush. However, I am glad something has finally been  No Elephants   Jul-10-09 03:54 PM   #73 
        - Signing statements either to create or amend law or to deny that the President is subject to the law  No Elephants   Jul-10-09 03:59 PM   #74 
           - If you read what I linked you would discover that not all signing  merh   Jul-10-09 06:48 PM   #93 
              - If you read what I posted, you would discover that I never claimed all signing  No Elephants   Jul-11-09 07:58 AM   #101 
  - You forget a good share of the Dems are DINO's.  RC   Jul-09-09 06:37 PM   #7 
  - Don't be silly  Politicalboi   Jul-09-09 07:46 PM   #19 
  - Are you saying that 492 House members are racist and this resolution was racist?  ProgressIn2008   Jul-10-09 07:22 PM   #95 
  - Amen! Now that they've got a sane president and good reason to play along  Stevepol   Jul-09-09 08:34 PM   #25 
  - What is the reason to play along with an unconstitutional signing statement?  No Elephants   Jul-10-09 04:07 PM   #76 
  - bush and obama  maglatinavi   Jul-10-09 02:08 AM   #60 
  - Slightly less embarrassing now that Congress finally did something about unconstitutional signing  No Elephants   Jul-10-09 04:14 PM   #77 
  - Frankly I didn't know they COULD do it. n/t  Papa Boule   Jul-10-09 02:34 AM   #62 
  - Don't you wish they had done this during Bush's term? n/t  ProSense   Jul-09-09 06:16 PM   #2 
  - Don't forget the two rules  Seedersandleechers   Jul-09-09 06:27 PM   #3 
  - Hell yeah  KakistocracyHater   Jul-09-09 07:10 PM   #15 
  - But it was ok when Bush did it?  Oregone   Jul-09-09 06:29 PM   #4 
  - no, it wasn't okay when Bush did it  choie   Jul-09-09 06:38 PM   #8 
  - Yeah, repulsive. Repulsive like a fox!!!  napoleon_in_rags   Jul-10-09 12:29 AM   #53 
  - Stem cell research is paying off!  Beartracks   Jul-09-09 08:33 PM   #24 
  - Another one equating testicles with courage.  No Elephants   Jul-10-09 04:22 PM   #79 
     - It's not a link between testicles and courage...  Beartracks   Jul-11-09 02:38 PM   #110 
  - Because testicles are the exclusive source of courage? Agree that Congress should have acted  No Elephants   Jul-10-09 04:15 PM   #78 
  - I was wondering about that signing statement  HughMoran   Jul-09-09 06:36 PM   #6 
  - It;s not his first of this kind, just the first time Congress acted officially, instead of  No Elephants   Jul-11-09 08:54 AM   #107 
  - I'm liking Congress better these days.  Vidar   Jul-09-09 06:38 PM   #9 
  - It was a Republican ammendment?!? WTF?  prostomulgus   Jul-09-09 06:40 PM   #10 
  - R or D, it was a good amendment  appal_jack   Jul-09-09 06:49 PM   #12 
  - Another intelligence agency, run by the executive branch?  boppers   Jul-09-09 07:14 PM   #17 
  - The president has the authority to conduct foreign policy,  JDPriestly   Jul-09-09 09:04 PM   #28 
  - Exactly. n/t  ihavenobias   Jul-09-09 09:28 PM   #33 
  - Cant argue with that.  Egnever   Jul-09-09 09:55 PM   #35 
  - Hear! Hear!  seabeckind   Jul-10-09 01:11 AM   #56 
  - For those who put Party (or Obama) over the Constitution of the United States and the rule of law,  No Elephants   Jul-10-09 04:30 PM   #80 
  - Congress told the President "No"?  Hydra   Jul-09-09 06:44 PM   #11 
  - This is a good thing.  dbonds   Jul-09-09 06:56 PM   #13 
  - Only two dissents. Very impressive. Now if we could just get them to vote against their  bertman   Jul-09-09 07:06 PM   #14 
  - Excellent news. Obama was flat out wrong. Glad Congress stepped up, for once.  Mojambo   Jul-09-09 07:10 PM   #16 
  - +1  Deep13   Jul-09-09 08:24 PM   #23 
  - +2  emilyg   Jul-09-09 11:18 PM   #46 
     - +3  Dutch   Jul-10-09 03:03 AM   #63 
  - Dems always step up...  snake in the grass   Jul-09-09 09:14 PM   #31 
     - The Democrats did not initiate this. The Republicans did. That's why it finally happened. But,  No Elephants   Jul-10-09 04:46 PM   #83 
  - K&R  Vidar   Jul-09-09 07:36 PM   #18 
  - I can't believe I'm saying this...  jgraz   Jul-09-09 07:49 PM   #20 
  - Funny how they get all patriotic, Constitutional and assertive with a (D) in the WH.  DCKit   Jul-09-09 07:53 PM   #21 
  - Why is a unconstitutional signing statement by Obama less of an abuse than  No Elephants   Jul-10-09 04:37 PM   #81 
     - I didn't say it was, Karnak. n/t  DCKit   Jul-10-09 10:24 PM   #99 
        - Read your post again. You did not use those exact words, but you sure conveyed it. No  No Elephants   Jul-11-09 08:02 AM   #102 
  - Well at least they did it. nt  Deep13   Jul-09-09 08:23 PM   #22 
  - About time  rpannier   Jul-09-09 08:42 PM   #26 
  - Good for them!  Milo_Bloom   Jul-09-09 09:00 PM   #27 
  - Who were the two dissenting votes?  cowcommander   Jul-09-09 09:10 PM   #29 
  - I'd love to know, too.  chill_wind   Jul-10-09 01:06 AM   #55 
  - That's fine, but where were they..  mvd   Jul-09-09 09:18 PM   #32 
  - What basis did Obama's statement have? All signing statements saying the POTUS  No Elephants   Jul-10-09 04:40 PM   #82 
     - I thought there was at least some validity..  mvd   Jul-10-09 05:37 PM   #92 
        - No. The domain of the Executive does not include the power of the purse. I  No Elephants   Jul-11-09 08:07 AM   #103 
           - To be fair, the purse wasn't part of his rationalization  mvd   Jul-11-09 12:02 PM   #109 
  - I'm glad they did it....Just funny how they WOULDN'T do it to Bush  DWilliamsamh   Jul-09-09 09:41 PM   #34 
  - Please see Reply # 83.  No Elephants   Jul-10-09 04:48 PM   #84 
  - Obama should be ashamed for penning a signing statement.  styersc   Jul-09-09 09:57 PM   #36 
  - I don't think they are illegal, actually.  SeattleGirl   Jul-09-09 10:38 PM   #40 
  - not illegal  maglatinavi   Jul-10-09 02:20 AM   #61 
  - Not all signing statements are illegal. Most simply bloviate. No harm, no foul.  No Elephants   Jul-11-09 08:14 AM   #104 
  - I don't know of any signing statements by Clinton that were illegal. If you have a specific  No Elephants   Jul-10-09 04:52 PM   #85 
  - Good  Time for change   Jul-09-09 10:07 PM   #37 
  - Maybe Obama planned it this way.  DUlover2909   Jul-09-09 10:30 PM   #38 
  - Please tell me you don't really believe that.  No Elephants   Jul-10-09 04:57 PM   #86 
     - Eh, anythning is possible. Maybe he told them to vote it down, I dunno.  DUlover2909   Jul-10-09 07:06 PM   #94 
  - Obama looks a lot more like Bush every day.  MindMatter   Jul-09-09 10:37 PM   #39 
  - Disagree with you on that one.  SeattleGirl   Jul-09-09 10:39 PM   #41 
     - Yes "more like Bush"  MindMatter   Jul-09-09 11:00 PM   #45 
     - Signing statements were not a Bush innovation  Inuca   Jul-10-09 10:32 AM   #70 
        - Bush was the first President to use unconstitutional signing statements.  No Elephants   Jul-10-09 05:12 PM   #87 
     - Have you been under a ROCK? Look at his record so far!  Zhade   Jul-09-09 11:44 PM   #48 
        - I'm not wearing blinders.  SeattleGirl   Jul-10-09 12:15 AM   #51 
        - I guess it's true that blinders are useless when your head's under the sand.  Zhade   Jul-11-09 08:32 PM   #111 
        - yes - and his record  choie   Jul-10-09 06:51 AM   #66 
  - What if he ignores their amendment?  katandmoon   Jul-09-09 10:46 PM   #42 
  - the amendment & obama  maglatinavi   Jul-10-09 02:05 AM   #59 
     - Baloney. This is the first amendment of its kind, ever. So, how is it possible that Bush  No Elephants   Jul-10-09 05:17 PM   #88 
  - Three cheers for Congress  Jack Rabbit   Jul-09-09 10:48 PM   #43 
  - This is one instance in which I'm okay with bipartisanship.  lumberjack_jeff   Jul-09-09 10:58 PM   #44 
  - YAAAAAY! Democracy is not dead after all!!!!! Whoopeeeeee! nt  grahamhgreen   Jul-09-09 11:19 PM   #47 
  - Impressive . . . .!!  defendandprotect   Jul-10-09 12:12 AM   #50 
  - Occasionally the House remembers that thing about co-equal branches  chill_wind   Jul-10-09 01:12 AM   #57 
  - Thank God  Phildog   Jul-10-09 01:46 AM   #58 
  - Article 2 Section 2, President's Treaty Powers  bigbrother05   Jul-10-09 04:13 AM   #64 
  - Wrong. JD Priestly laid it out correctly in Reply 28. It is Obama who overstepped, not the House.  No Elephants   Jul-10-09 05:20 PM   #89 
     - The President was right to issue the signing statement, and Congress was right to make the amendment  Scarsdale Vibe   Jul-10-09 11:37 PM   #100 
        - No, the President was not right to issue the signing statement. First, he has no "power of the  No Elephants   Jul-11-09 08:28 AM   #105 
  - Where were they when BUSH was doing it much worse?  Ian David   Jul-10-09 07:21 AM   #67 
  - Why is an unconstitutional signing statement by Obama much better than an  No Elephants   Jul-10-09 05:33 PM   #91 
  - signing statements are wrong.  tomp   Jul-10-09 09:01 AM   #68 
  - Not all signing statements are wrong, only the unconstitutional ones. Please see  No Elephants   Jul-10-09 05:28 PM   #90 
     - don't split hairs.  tomp   Jul-10-09 07:40 PM   #97 
        - I do agree here, despite my above comment  mvd   Jul-10-09 08:20 PM   #98 
        - If you read this thread, you will see that a number of posters  No Elephants   Jul-11-09 08:34 AM   #106 
           - is anyone objecting to presidents saying things about the law...  tomp   Jul-11-09 10:43 PM   #112 
  - Glad they are looking at the signing statements...  maryf   Jul-10-09 10:01 AM   #69 
  - Well done.  summerbreeze   Jul-10-09 11:03 AM   #71 
  - Agreed with poster above: heaven help me, I'm thinking the House is the only source of hope n change  ProgressIn2008   Jul-10-09 07:25 PM   #96 
  - Has there ever been a House vote against a Presidential act that is 429-2? Amazing--  No Elephants   Jul-11-09 09:07 AM   #108 

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC