Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TheKentuckian

(24,949 posts)
73. It does no such thing. Obama himself is under no obligation to hold to it.
Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:31 PM
Jan 2012

I also have to add that yours is the most cynical post I have ever seen. You have essentially twisted an assault on our rights passed by a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President into a gun with a stick with a carrot at the end.

Vote for us and we won't dissappear you but we have assured the power so that should a TeaPubliKlan be President EVER again, there is more power for the wicked villians to abuse with impunity.

That is insane on the face, you can't remember back to 2000???

I'm hoping this is the thought process of a lone hyper-partisan. I had never thought of such a deep treason, I can only hope others with power didn't share your Machiavellian mentality but considering the loose principles, triangulation, and general whoring for dollar$, it cannot be utterly ruled out.
Afterall, who in any good conscience could shovel this shit?

Because O said he wouldn't use this power & the other side is worse. CrispyQ Jan 2012 #1
So we can shred the constitution here so they won't shred it over there FreakinDJ Jan 2012 #42
And who better to shred the Constitution than a constitutional scholar? CrispyQ Jan 2012 #147
Makes you wonder why any Lawmaker would think we need provisions like that FreakinDJ Jan 2012 #148
Makes you wonder why we vote for any of them. CrispyQ Jan 2012 #155
I on't believe politicians anymore. emilyg Jan 2012 #116
That's probably wise. Kablooie Jan 2012 #162
Stay home. nt JoePhilly Jan 2012 #2
Why pose the question as if you want an answer? Robb Jan 2012 #3
and yet........ Sherman A1 Jan 2012 #40
Because his opponent will do somethings which are much, much worse. baldguy Jan 2012 #4
I'm trying to imagine what that would look like. Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2012 #144
The part about future presidents is truely frightning. n/t Little Star Jan 2012 #5
Obama isn't about to do anything like the critics complain about bigtree Jan 2012 #6
Why sign a bill that is "positioned for a court review"? Besides the courts have done terrible rhett o rick Jan 2012 #21
veto wouldn't have stopped the bill bigtree Jan 2012 #26
He didnt need to sign the bill to tell everyone that he wasnt going to enforce it. If his veto was rhett o rick Jan 2012 #63
"he could have publicly explain his intention" SunsetDreams Jan 2012 #77
It's for the courts, not pr bigtree Jan 2012 #95
Good grief. You are desparately trying to rationalize why he should have signed that horrible bill. rhett o rick Jan 2012 #115
"Good Grief" well no, I didn't rationalize anything but stated fact. SunsetDreams Jan 2012 #120
Predicting what his critics would say isnt a fact. rhett o rick Jan 2012 #139
I stated what his Critics HAVE said SunsetDreams Jan 2012 #142
Because the clause putting Sec Def in charge of detentions was replaced with an elective position patrice Jan 2012 #47
If it's a bad bill, send it back. Force Congress to override. This rhett o rick Jan 2012 #64
Ooo, replaced the Secretary of Defense with the President, now that just inpires confidence, MadHound Jan 2012 #82
The court issues outlined in the signing statement were too arcane for me, but if patrice Jan 2012 #93
Wow, just wow, MadHound Jan 2012 #94
You display your prejudice that it is party interests and not considering that someone CAN patrice Jan 2012 #98
I'm not the one displaying here, but hey, carry on. n/t MadHound Jan 2012 #102
That's pretty funny given OP. So . . . if not display, what IS your purpose? nt patrice Jan 2012 #108
If you are not displaying, why don't you just be quiet and not vote? patrice Jan 2012 #109
Is there some reason I should not "display"? Pray, tell!! I missed it. Am I not qualified patrice Jan 2012 #110
So anyone who disagrees with you is anti-Constitution? There are major social justice sources like patrice Jan 2012 #107
Let's look at what Mother Jones has to say, shall we MadHound Jan 2012 #114
I don't dispute the criticisms. I dispute what to do about them, as though the whole path initiated patrice Jan 2012 #123
Maybe it's just me but it's ironic Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2012 #146
A peace symbol does not mean that you forsake the struggle for truth. It does mean that you engage patrice Jan 2012 #149
Do you think most people, even those that vote, know or care what the NDAA is? CrispyQ Jan 2012 #136
Actually makes more sense to have a civillian Sheepshank Jan 2012 #151
Because more people will know more about the WHOLE thing because of court review. nt patrice Jan 2012 #50
I am sorry but no. How many people know where the courts stand on Hamdi and Padilla? rhett o rick Jan 2012 #65
You're making perfect the enemy of better. Increasing awareness is a good thing, especially patrice Jan 2012 #76
Did you read what you wrote? Seriously? MadHound Jan 2012 #80
Ilove the way you say you want a civil discussion and you lead your response with ridicule bigtree Jan 2012 #96
I love the way you try to slip out of questions and criticism by creating strawmen MadHound Jan 2012 #100
So whats your plan? Ohio Joe Jan 2012 #7
So don't vote for him, then. Dewey Finn Jan 2012 #8
You won the thread. Number23 Jan 2012 #59
So I guess, according to you, the RepubliCONs are better? RoccoR5955 Jan 2012 #9
I think the OP is showing the frustration some have with a president rhett o rick Jan 2012 #61
How is it shallow and childish? RoccoR5955 Jan 2012 #133
Bad selection of words. I am showing my frustrations. rhett o rick Jan 2012 #138
When someone smugly and arrogantly tells me I have no other choice, bvar22 Jan 2012 #160
Yes sir there is always another choice. rhett o rick Jan 2012 #164
That's bullshit & you know it. CrispyQ Jan 2012 #140
We do something by RoccoR5955 Jan 2012 #157
Umm, nice thought and all that, MadHound Jan 2012 #181
reminds me of one of the supposed rationales for the '09 attack on Gaza: MisterP Jan 2012 #10
Then don't do those things. MineralMan Jan 2012 #11
Cute, but no--it isn't that simple SaintPete Jan 2012 #170
He's the lesser of 2 evils. limpyhobbler Jan 2012 #12
This is a hard pill to swallow: CrispyQ Jan 2012 #143
Are you really looking for a response with a reason you might consider? Or just trying to win gateley Jan 2012 #13
why should we care about the particular unfactual hyperbole of a particular anonymous poster? grantcart Jan 2012 #14
I talk to you, don't I???? cliffordu Jan 2012 #23
It appears that no one can give you a good answer. Criticism, yes. A good answer, no. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #15
The signing statement makes it impossible for American citizens to be held indefinitely WonderGrunion Jan 2012 #16
couldn't a Democrat ignore it too? getdown Jan 2012 #45
It does no such thing. Obama himself is under no obligation to hold to it. TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #73
To insert the sarcasm tag, CrispyQ Jan 2012 #145
Insofar as you seem to be complaining of a bill that contained waffle-language, to the effect struggle4progress Jan 2012 #17
What do you mean by "waffle-language"? ronnie624 Jan 2012 #158
As passed, HR 1540 (the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012," signed struggle4progress Jan 2012 #168
Whom does the legislation recognize as a "covered person"? ronnie624 Jan 2012 #169
That's defined in 1021(b) struggle4progress Jan 2012 #171
That is as I remember it. ronnie624 Jan 2012 #174
You shouldn't do anything you don't want to do. joshcryer Jan 2012 #18
Posting in detail about what he doesn't want to do Dewey Finn Jan 2012 #27
I'm perfectly fine with it. joshcryer Jan 2012 #29
Oh, me too. Dewey Finn Jan 2012 #33
I can't really speak for you. As for me... tkmorris Jan 2012 #19
You don't have to do anything. Lisa D Jan 2012 #20
Let your conscience be your guide. cliffordu Jan 2012 #22
WHY? elleng Jan 2012 #24
Anybody is more than one decision. TBF Jan 2012 #25
I think there's still a functional difference between parties, but that doesn't merit... joshcryer Jan 2012 #31
don't. Whisp Jan 2012 #28
The only kind of support he needs from the poster is a vote. ronnie624 Jan 2012 #159
Because with a Republican, you get the same decision plus a lot of crap that is far worse eridani Jan 2012 #30
Answer: alcibiades_mystery Jan 2012 #32
Please note: no one is seriously arguing with you. They're going limp. DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #34
The question did not ask for argument. If asked "what convincing reasons might I have to vote?"... joshcryer Jan 2012 #35
that makes no sense getdown Jan 2012 #46
Feel free to substantiate why you do not believe it makes sense. joshcryer Jan 2012 #51
too squirrelly getdown Jan 2012 #52
K, I'll consider it unsubstantiated, then. joshcryer Jan 2012 #54
carry on getdown Jan 2012 #55
Yep. nt Poll_Blind Jan 2012 #36
That seems to be the norm around here recently! Wind Dancer Jan 2012 #41
+100000 nt woo me with science Jan 2012 #43
I'm not sure I agree with your assessment. Jester Messiah Jan 2012 #167
Do you like pancakes? lonestarnot Jan 2012 #37
Whatevs... jefferson_dem Jan 2012 #38
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2012 #39
Outstanding sig line!! CrispyQ Jan 2012 #156
Our founders had many faults, ronnie624 Jan 2012 #161
There are thousands of reasons to vote for him. Autumn Jan 2012 #44
It is a shitty position to be in as a voter who cares about the Constitution, but... Poll_Blind Jan 2012 #48
Very true. We have gone down the rabbit hole. Autumn Jan 2012 #53
because we've been reduced even further to pretending that our votes count. getdown Jan 2012 #49
Because LIFE is about degrees of "the lesser of two evils", that is, unless you support genocide patrice Jan 2012 #56
Exactly. Which is why the President should have chosen the lesser of two evils and VETOED it. nt Poll_Blind Jan 2012 #58
That is an absolutist and, hence, oppressive position.Whose evils? How much greater or lesser? When? patrice Jan 2012 #67
You mean absolutist like...a recess appointment? Poll_Blind Jan 2012 #69
Deflection. patrice Jan 2012 #71
Deflection- such as turning my distaste for an unconstituional law into an issue about veterans... Poll_Blind Jan 2012 #75
Not nearly the deflection of trying to turn it to Recess Appointment. BTW, NDAA = FUNDING, so patrice Jan 2012 #78
The answers to your questions is absolutely. Would I rather there be a delay in military spending TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #81
That's your right, but it's not your right to REQUIRE that of others. If you have a right to patrice Jan 2012 #88
Without the rule of law, there is no framework available for deciding for ourselves save strength of TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #187
But then perhaps I'm making a mistake in thinking your concern is freedom and not a patrice Jan 2012 #97
There is no freedom in being permently detained without charge, much less trial. TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #188
Cool, let's defund the war, now, MadHound Jan 2012 #83
Yeah, just fuck the people we fucked-over with our little mistake, anyway. patrice Jan 2012 #90
Which fucked over people are you talking about? MadHound Jan 2012 #91
Apples & oranges. Both of course and with special focus on the SHIA patrice Jan 2012 #154
Everyone repeats that "lesser of two evils" line like there is great unquestionable wisdom in it. patrice Jan 2012 #70
This gives the ACLU a chance to fight it while it won't be used Motown_Johnny Jan 2012 #57
I don't believe any court will hear the case until someone is victimized by it. Poll_Blind Jan 2012 #60
Because reducing voter turnout can be harmful to other voters' personal issues & to America. patrice Jan 2012 #62
Again, agreed! Which is why I was surprised to see so many telling the OP NOT to vote for Obama! Poll_Blind Jan 2012 #66
Agree. patrice Jan 2012 #72
"...why should I support or vote for somebody, anybody, who signs this kind of legislation?" unkachuck Jan 2012 #68
You ASSUME "blind", without finding out. Why do you do that? patrice Jan 2012 #74
I'm not sure what you're asking.... unkachuck Jan 2012 #79
Your Protest Could Make You An Actual American... WillyT Jan 2012 #84
Then Don't Vote For Him- Stay Home or Vote for Someone Else indykatie1955 Jan 2012 #85
Be nice to at least be able to throw out a signing statement, huh? TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #86
Legislation like this - others that happened under Bush - xchrom Jan 2012 #87
if you don't want to you shouldn't JI7 Jan 2012 #89
I'd be shocked if OP ever voted for Obama alcibiades_mystery Jan 2012 #92
You mean they're a troll pretending to have voted for him? Poll_Blind Jan 2012 #99
Can't you see the evidence? It's right there in the OP MadHound Jan 2012 #101
I suppose either "You're pleased with Obama's performance" or "You're a Republican dupe." Poll_Blind Jan 2012 #113
Watta ya mean, troll? alcibiades_mystery Jan 2012 #112
Oh, YAY, it's Wedge Issue Wednesday! Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #103
Ah yes, that pesky Constitution, such a wedge issue. MadHound Jan 2012 #104
The President was damned if he did and double damned if he didn't Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #105
It is we who are truly double damned, MadHound Jan 2012 #106
You understand this has been in play since the AUMF was passed, right? n/t Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #117
Why do you need us to care about your not voting for Obama?...nt SidDithers Jan 2012 #111
Will YOU be voting FOR Obama in the coming election? bvar22 Jan 2012 #163
He would love to, but all he has is Harper, being a Conservative neo-liberal in Canada and all. Dragonfli Jan 2012 #173
Whatevah!! Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #118
Please do a lot more reading and research about "this" treestar Jan 2012 #119
Oh, I have, MadHound Jan 2012 #125
I think that LiberalAndProud Jan 2012 #121
Well, ProSense Jan 2012 #122
Well, looks like your options are vote for someone who has no chance of winning, or... MilesColtrane Jan 2012 #124
38 recs. A little short of what I would have anticipated. Anybody else? lamp_shade Jan 2012 #126
Do recs somehow contribute to the validity or worth of a post? MadHound Jan 2012 #127
I agree, some of those recs are clearly detractors. joshcryer Jan 2012 #128
Some of those recs are people who disagree but appear to rec for other reasons. joshcryer Jan 2012 #130
i think your claim is unfounded inna Jan 2012 #152
Where is unrec when you need it krawhitham Jan 2012 #131
i just became #51. ask, and you shall receive. inna Jan 2012 #153
Hey... thanks. lamp_shade Jan 2012 #172
The lesser of two evils argument seems to apply to you the most. joshcryer Jan 2012 #129
Actually, the poor, downtrodden, minorities, the afflicted MadHound Jan 2012 #182
That's due to voter suppression. In the end the Democrats get their vote... joshcryer Jan 2012 #186
You should probably read that constitution you're defending jeff47 Jan 2012 #132
It depends on why you're voting onenote Jan 2012 #134
It's partisan rivalry Puzzledtraveller Jan 2012 #135
You ask a good question, at the heart of what's wrong with the Democratic Party. Octafish Jan 2012 #137
+1 slay Jan 2012 #180
don't--vote for Romney or vote for someone on the left who has no chance of winning WI_DEM Jan 2012 #141
Stay the fuck home Sheepshank Jan 2012 #150
K&R Wind Dancer Jan 2012 #165
Mischaracterizations such as "fine with this bill" do nothing for any case. In fact, it is possible patrice Jan 2012 #177
Who is forcing you to do so? Jester Messiah Jan 2012 #166
Come on folks. 12 more recs needed. There's money in it for me. lamp_shade Jan 2012 #175
Takin' those marbles and goin' home, eh? DeathToTheOil Jan 2012 #176
K&R (nt) T S Justly Jan 2012 #178
Good question slay Jan 2012 #179
Whatever you decide please let us know in the same dramatic fashion. great white snark Jan 2012 #183
Let's see how mighty thin the lesser of two evils argument is under President Santorum. ClassWarrior Jan 2012 #184
So don't. I'm done with trying to change minds on DU. Nt DevonRex Jan 2012 #185
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why should I endorse, or ...»Reply #73