Editorials & Other Articles

treestar

(82,383 posts)

18. They will believe what they want to believe, regardless of facts

Reply to Tx4obama (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 01:58 PM

Jan 2012

How dare you interfere in a good outrage!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

84 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"NDAA does a lot of things, but the one thing it doesn't do is authorize the detention of Americans" [View all] Tx4obama Dec 2011 OP

Not good enough! Off with his head! gateley Dec 2011 #1

Astonishing. FedUp_Queer Jan 2012 #7

Yep. Astonishing. nt gateley Jan 2012 #8

Seems to me like you are arguing both sides of the issue? mazzarro Jan 2012 #28

I don't think anything is all good or all bad in politics. I'm thankful for the good we get, gateley Jan 2012 #51

Well he may have said that, and Feinstien's bill may say that, but how will a teddy51 Dec 2011 #2

re: teddy51 TheDizzzle Jan 2012 #5

There were THREE Feinstein amendments, the 3rd one passed before the NDAA bill did n/t Tx4obama Jan 2012 #9

Correct. freshwest Jan 2012 #47

Good stuff. Read the article linked to in the article as well: napoleon_in_rags Dec 2011 #3

"Wow government listening to the people...how exciting is that?" <--- ROFLMAO stockholmer Jan 2012 #15

you don't need to 'detain' someone SixthSense Jan 2012 #50

It amazes me sometimes, shouldn't the legislative branch receive the ire? I mean I blame... roseBudd Dec 2011 #4

Exactly. FedUp_Queer Jan 2012 #6

It is an appropriations bill, there is no line item veto. roseBudd Jan 2012 #16

True, but ... ddickey Jan 2012 #22

No, he could NOT have vetoed the bill. TheWraith Jan 2012 #25

He could have, he should have ddickey Jan 2012 #27

They believe in magic POTUS roseBudd Jan 2012 #30

So what? Downtown Hound Jan 2012 #43

Cowardice, plain and simple. FedUp_Queer Jan 2012 #71

Obama's veto might not have stopped the enactment of the bill, but there is a chance it would have JDPriestly Jan 2012 #76

You are so right. FedUp_Queer Jan 2012 #80

Had he vetoed the bill, most likely, the Democrats in the Senate would have prevailed JDPriestly Jan 2012 #82

Surreal. FedUp_Queer Jan 2012 #83

You are not alone. JDPriestly Jan 2012 #84

He could have vetoed the bill cheapdate Jan 2012 #26

Uh huh. Now is not the time for gay rights. Now is not the time to question our president Downtown Hound Jan 2012 #45

A person of truly good character does what is right and if he does it with strength and conviction, JDPriestly Jan 2012 #77

Non-sequiter FedUp_Queer Jan 2012 #70

It's easier to blame one person instead of 535. Besides, they like some of those jobs. freshwest Jan 2012 #49

Those who didn't read and understand the President's signing statement will also refuse to lamp_shade Jan 2012 #10

Oh? Did he say citizens can't be detained without charges? Great -- where is that? DirkGently Jan 2012 #20

A signing statment doesn't mean jack shit Downtown Hound Jan 2012 #46

Oh, come on!! polmaven Jan 2012 #11

Nice propaganda MNBrewer Jan 2012 #12

+10000, the OP is pure bollocks stockholmer Jan 2012 #14

Funny, when we blew up that kid with a missile, we heard AUMF trumped the Constitution. DirkGently Jan 2012 #17

Not true. Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #24

Yes indeed - just like people believed G.W. Bush more than all the screaming antiwar activists? mazzarro Jan 2012 #29

It's an excuse they can later use to explain their ignorance when their rosy predictions turn out to Downtown Hound Jan 2012 #36

A signing statement? Downtown Hound Jan 2012 #35

You didn't know that? Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #39

Once again, please try clarifying your ramblings a little bit so they make sense. n/t Downtown Hound Jan 2012 #41

Signing statements are extra-Constitutional MNBrewer Jan 2012 #55

President Obama already signed this bill into law. Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #59

The signing statement carries no force of law MNBrewer Jan 2012 #60

You said that already. Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #61

And you replied with a non sequitur, so I repeated it. MNBrewer Jan 2012 #62

It is the law. Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #64

No, I called the OP propaganda MNBrewer Jan 2012 #65

Are you honestly trying to say that the president's signing statement carries the rule of law with Downtown Hound Jan 2012 #63

We already have the Patriot Act, War Commissions Act, secret CIA prisons all over the globe... lib2DaBone Jan 2012 #13

Why? OWS is one reason. This Act that was passed, IS terrorism, by the state. webDude Jan 2012 #19

BINGO! Downtown Hound Jan 2012 #38

They will believe what they want to believe, regardless of facts treestar Jan 2012 #18

What fact would that be? Downtown Hound Jan 2012 #40

No, it doesn't treestar Jan 2012 #52

Okay, explain to me how it doesn't Downtown Hound Jan 2012 #53

Here's a start treestar Jan 2012 #54

LOL. From your own link: Downtown Hound Jan 2012 #56

Oh and as for me proving that it is unconstitutional, I give you the 5th Amendment Downtown Hound Jan 2012 #58

However... FedUp_Queer Jan 2012 #81

"I want to clarify that my Administration will not " DirkGently Jan 2012 #21

What kind of rag tag crap is that from a constitutional lawyer???? Pleeez like a used car lot lunasun Jan 2012 #33

He's been convinced to hold on to power he says he will not use. Wasn't that the plot of LOTR? DirkGently Jan 2012 #66

This from the same president who FedUp_Queer Jan 2012 #72

"NDAA does a lot of things, but the one thing it doesn't do is authorize the detention of Americans" plantwomyn Jan 2012 #23

And they should not be if they are actively attempting to cause loss of life roseBudd Jan 2012 #31

Why do we need a special law at this time to deal with terrorists Downtown Hound Jan 2012 #42

I really don't care if they have a freaking atom bomb. plantwomyn Jan 2012 #44

plantwomyn happy holidays from lunasun in Chicago!!! lunasun Jan 2012 #34

It's not that it's "new." It codifies & builds upon Bush's illegal interpretation of AUMF. DirkGently Jan 2012 #69

It does authorize the detention of American citizens; it simply doesn't "require"'it ddickey Jan 2012 #32

Ding!!! Ding!!! Ding!!! FedUp_Queer Jan 2012 #73

Not to mention citizenship is locked in stone.. except it isn't, should Congress pass this POS bill Uncle Joe Jan 2012 #74

As others have noted, your post is a steaming pile of crap Downtown Hound Jan 2012 #37

I agree completely. ddickey Jan 2012 #57

Miss the days when "Tx4obama" was on my ignore list. blkmusclmachine Jan 2012 #48

Happy New Year to YOU :) Tx4obama Jan 2012 #68

As noted elsewhere MFrohike Jan 2012 #67

The language of the law is too ambiguous. JDPriestly Jan 2012 #75

I think that misses the point. morningfog Jan 2012 #78

And what gives Jason Easley, with a Bachelors in Political Science... Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #79