obama caves again

[Liability]

So, it was OK when Bush was using signing statements, but not Obama?

Keep digging that asshole!

As always, you are quick to miss the bus and the point.

the POINT, you hypocritical nitwit, is that you libs were frothing at the mouth crazy angry when President Bush issued signing statements. but you go oddly silent when the ONE does so.

Why isn't it the POINT that you wingnuts were oddly silent when Shrub was using signing statements, but are now frothing at the mouth crazy angry when President Obama does so?

The wingnuts (i.e., you tools) were the ones frothing at the mouth.

I wasn't oddly silent or silent at all.

Properly utilized, I like signing statements.

I don't even object to President Obama's use of signing statements (except to the extent his statements are idiotic in and of themselves, of course).

The fact is, with his latest move, the President is essentially using an after the fact signing statement to dismantle a law which never gave him the authority he pretends to wield in the first fucking place. He is doing so not with an ACTUAL signing statement either. You seem strangely confused on that obvious fact, you plodding nitwit.

And, it was a pleasure to expose -- in such a summary fashion -- the false claim made by Jillian which YOU lapped up as revealed "truth." Naturally, I didn't expect to see you man up and acknowledge how obviously and indisputably wrong you were!

 

[Liability]

list of george bush signing statements:

List of Presidential Signing Statements Issued by George W. Bush

list of barack obama's signing statements



Presidential Signing Statements - List of Obama's Signing Statements

False:

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540 | The White House

Well, that's one! Only another 749 to go to catch up with Shrub!

I guess this is parity in your mind.

Meanwhile, to help you with the basic math:

1 =/= 0.

And I don't care IF he catches up or not, you bombastic plodding dolt. I do not object, in principle, to signing statements.

 

[Synthaholic]

And yet Mormons can marry more than one person!

Honestly, I don't know how you live in a brain that small.

Not legally. Kinda fucks up your argument.

Not really, they are allowed even if it is technically illegal.

" Today, over 14 million members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) are strictly monogamist, and members who are known to practice polygamy are excommunicated. Still, the practice of plural marriage continues among tens of thousands of members of various fundamentalist splinter groups long disassociated from the main body of the church, such as the Apostolic United Brethren (AUB) or the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS). These polygamist sects are generally located in Utah, Arizona, Texas, and other parts of the Western United States, Canada, and Mexico. Even though polygamy is generally illegal in all 50 states and in all three countries, practitioners are almost never prosecuted unless there is evidence of abuse, statutory rape, welfare fraud, or tax evasion."

They are not 'allowed', they are just not prosecuted. Just like a lot of perjury is not prosecuted.

 

[Liability]

list of george bush signing statements:

List of Presidential Signing Statements Issued by George W. Bush

list of barack obama's signing statements



Presidential Signing Statements - List of Obama's Signing Statements

False:

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540 | The White House

i don't think that's the kind of statement they mean.
signing statements, which don't seek to alter the meaning of laws, have always been used. it was the *way* bush used them that was so onerous.

but good find.

Come on.

He clearly tells the world what parts of the law he had just signed he deemed to be Constitutionally violative of the Executive Branch's separate power.

That is not an iota different than what President Bush had done.

(And it wasn't such a tough find. I had cause to post it some time ago. I think it may have been when he issued it.)

 

[Synthaholic]

Saul Alinsky Explains Community Organizing as an Outside Agitator. - YouTube

MILTON FRIEDMAN-what alinsky never told obama... - YouTube

Wow.

Milton absolutely nailed that windbag liberal pontificator.

Two members have now pussied out, but you would never!

So....

What is wrong with organizing a community?

 

[Synthaholic]

As always, you are quick to miss the bus and the point.

the POINT, you hypocritical nitwit, is that you libs were frothing at the mouth crazy angry when President Bush issued signing statements. but you go oddly silent when the ONE does so.

Why isn't it the POINT that you wingnuts were oddly silent when Shrub was using signing statements, but are now frothing at the mouth crazy angry when President Obama does so?

The wingnuts (i.e., you tools) were the ones frothing at the mouth.

I wasn't oddly silent or silent at all.

Properly utilized, I like signing statements.

I don't even object to President Obama's use of signing statements (except to the extent his statements are idiotic in and of themselves, of course).

The fact is, with his latest move, the President is essentially using an after the fact signing statement to dismantle a law which never gave him the authority he pretends to wield in the first fucking place. He is doing so not with an ACTUAL signing statement either. You seem strangely confused on that obvious fact, you plodding nitwit.

And, it was a pleasure to expose -- in such a summary fashion -- the false claim made by Jillian which YOU lapped up as revealed "truth." Naturally, I didn't expect to see you man up and acknowledge how obviously and indisputably wrong you were!

I didn't claim that Obama has never used a signing statement.

Obese FAIL!

 

[California Girl]

Hmmm. The Catholic Church is, apparently, no overly enthusiastic about Obama's 'accommodation'. Oops.

"A step in the right direction" is hardly a ringing endorsement.

 

[Liability]

Why isn't it the POINT that you wingnuts were oddly silent when Shrub was using signing statements, but are now frothing at the mouth crazy angry when President Obama does so?

The wingnuts (i.e., you tools) were the ones frothing at the mouth.

I wasn't oddly silent or silent at all.

Properly utilized, I like signing statements.

I don't even object to President Obama's use of signing statements (except to the extent his statements are idiotic in and of themselves, of course).

The fact is, with his latest move, the President is essentially using an after the fact signing statement to dismantle a law which never gave him the authority he pretends to wield in the first fucking place. He is doing so not with an ACTUAL signing statement either. You seem strangely confused on that obvious fact, you plodding nitwit.

And, it was a pleasure to expose -- in such a summary fashion -- the false claim made by Jillian which YOU lapped up as revealed "truth." Naturally, I didn't expect to see you man up and acknowledge how obviously and indisputably wrong you were!

I didn't claim that Obama has never used a signing statement.

Obese FAIL!

Yes you did, you dishonest ton of goo.

You applauded Jillian's incorrect post.

 

[Amelia]

list of george bush signing statements:

List of Presidential Signing Statements Issued by George W. Bush

list of barack obama's signing statements



Presidential Signing Statements - List of Obama's Signing Statements

False:

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540 | The White House

Well, that's one! Only another 749 to go to catch up with Shrub!

I guess this is parity in your mind.

One? He's just a flat out hypocrite but Obama's apologists don't mind.

Obama Embraces Signing Statements After Knocking Bush for Using Them - The Daily Beast


Obama does whatever Obama wants and he always has a reason for why he is right and how what he does is different from what he condemned before.

Nothing, not his promises, not the will of the voters, not the constitution, nothing is too big of an impediment for Obama, and his supporters follow him around with a pooper scooper and pretend there is nothing wrong.

 

[Liability]

Libs LOVE retroactive signing statements -- err -- amendments!

It is clearly permitted somewhere in one the Constitutional penumbras.

list of george bush signing statements:

List of Presidential Signing Statements Issued by George W. Bush

list of barack obama's signing statements

President Obama has not yet issued any signing statements

Presidential Signing Statements - List of Obama's Signing Statements

This is why Liability is so much fun: all bluster, no facts.

Just to cement the Simply-Assholic plodding lie.

 

[sealybobo]

Most women are pro choice. I have even talked to many who thought they were pro life but then after a couple questions they realize they are actually pro choice. It is amazing how many people say they are pro life because its the right thing to do and personally they would not get an abortion at the time you are asking them the question, but after a couple questions they are definately pro choice.

Like what if they were in highschool? Whether they would get the abortion or not, most women want it to be their decision.

Or I ask them what if their daughter had a scholarship to Harvard and she got knocked up the summer before she was set to go off to Harvard?

Or a poor inner city woman who won't give the baby up for adoption but she is mentally ill and she knows she will abuse the child. Wouldn't you want that person to have the option to get an abortion?

Maybe only in the first trimester, but most women want the option to be legal.

You just have to give them a couple scenerios.

Not to even freakin mention in cases of rape or insest. Those are slam dunks. But I don't even need these to get most women to say they are pro choice, when they aren't sure how they feel.

Because everyone understands its a regretable thing to do. A necessary evil. But it certainly is not murder. Not in my world.

And if you feel it is murder, then don't have one. Your choice. And most women who have gotten an abortion and feel guilty about it, if given the chance all over again, most of them would still go through with it. At the time it was the right thing to do, for them.

 

[JDzBrain]

There was NO CAVE! This POS and his liberal/progressive drones have just defined the conception of a child as a catastrophic DISEASE!!!

Do you dipshits not know what insurance is? It's...besides being legalized extortion when local, state or federal governments MANDATE it's purchase...a hedge against catastrophic events. You are "supposedly" banking money with an insurer against the possibility of an UNAVOIDABLE catastrophic event that you can't pay out of pocket. You know, premature death in the family, cancer treatment, car wreck bigger than a bent fender or a tornado hitting your house?

As a matter of fact, the equity of whole life insurance policies USE to pay for a LOT of the retirement plans by people who planed ahead. It was money in the bank!

SCREWING leading to pregnancy DOES NOT QUALIFY as a unavoidable catastrophic event!

Birth control is cheap, it can be gotten about anywhere and there are DOZENS of government programs that give it to the "underprivileged" among us. Hell, birth control is, in and of it's self a form of insurance...against pregnancy. They are forcing insurance companies to pay for insurance. How ridiculous is THAT concept!?

THIS....this, besides being an assault on the 1st amendment, is the first step toward their plan to force tax payers to pay for abortion. Plain and simple!!!!

All Obama did with this "proclamation" of compromise was shift responsibility to avoid pissing off liberal Catholics and deflect attention away from the fact that Obamacare defines the conception of children as a catastrophic disease....WHICH was the original intent of this crap all along!

Forcing ALL health care insurers and the new government option health insurance to pay for ON DEMAND ABORTION!

Now, the question is...just how STUPID are voters? Cause nearly 80% of Americans say that...even those who believe in abortion...that tax dollars should NOT pay for abortion. So the question remains, how stupid are we if we fall for this crap?

 

[Synthaholic]

Hmmm. The Catholic Church is, apparently, no overly enthusiastic about Obama's 'accommodation'. Oops.

"A step in the right direction" is hardly a ringing endorsement.

What's their problem with it now?

 

[logical4u]

So no one seems concerned that obamas so called compromise will force ins companies to cover these services FOR FREE.

How does he have this power? Where is the outrage?

That is the problem here. The left is jumping for joy because a President is DICTATING a requirement for a "Christian" religion. He has "appeared" to want to strike a medium by DICTATING that a group of companies (insurance) provide a product/service by mandate. This is unacceptable. The President has no AUTHORITY to dictate to a free people and their companies.

 

[Synthaholic]

Obama does whatever Obama wants and he always has a reason for why he is right and how what he does is different from what he condemned before.

Nothing, not his promises, not the will of the voters, not the constitution, nothing is too big of an impediment for Obama, and his supporters follow him around with a pooper scooper and pretend there is nothing wrong.

Change every 'Obama' to 'Bush' and you have described 2001-2009.

 

[logical4u]

caving? Hes again showing his inability to lead and again the people are speaking out against his ideology of big government!! There goes insurance rates ... AGAIN!!!!!

Good point! I wonder how much insurance rates will go up to provide this "free service"?

 

[logical4u]

On the plus side, the vast majority of woman will have access to inexpensive birth control where that wasn't the case last year.

The poor Catholics will have to pay for their own.

Wow the concept of having to actually pay for something is apalling to you leftwingers.

Nah, I just don't like seeing women treated as second class citizens. If you are covering all other types of preventative care then so should birth control be covered.

You prefer to see them treated as penis receptacles?

 

[PredFan]

Not legally. Kinda fucks up your argument.

Not really, they are allowed even if it is technically illegal.

" Today, over 14 million members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) are strictly monogamist, and members who are known to practice polygamy are excommunicated. Still, the practice of plural marriage continues among tens of thousands of members of various fundamentalist splinter groups long disassociated from the main body of the church, such as the Apostolic United Brethren (AUB) or the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS). These polygamist sects are generally located in Utah, Arizona, Texas, and other parts of the Western United States, Canada, and Mexico. Even though polygamy is generally illegal in all 50 states and in all three countries, practitioners are almost never prosecuted unless there is evidence of abuse, statutory rape, welfare fraud, or tax evasion."

They are not 'allowed', they are just not prosecuted. Just like a lot of perjury is not prosecuted.

"Not allowed, just not prosecuted"? How is it not allowed if it isn't prosecuted?

But this is really beside the point.

 

[sealybobo]

There was NO CAVE! This POS and his liberal/progressive drones have just defined the conception of a child as a catastrophic DISEASE!!!

Do you dipshits not know what insurance is? It's...besides being legalized extortion when local, state or federal governments MANDATE it's purchase...a hedge against catastrophic events. You are "supposedly" banking money with an insurer against the possibility of an UNAVOIDABLE catastrophic event that you can't pay out of pocket. You know, premature death in the family, cancer treatment, car wreck bigger than a bent fender or a tornado hitting your house?

As a matter of fact, the equity of whole life insurance policies USE to pay for a LOT of the retirement plans by people who planed ahead. It was money in the bank!

SCREWING leading to pregnancy DOES NOT QUALIFY as a unavoidable catastrophic event!

Birth control is cheap, it can be gotten about anywhere and there are DOZENS of government programs that give it to the "underprivileged" among us.

THIS....this, besides being an assault on the 1st amendment, is the first step toward their plan to force tax payers to pay for abortion. Plain and simple!!!!

All Obama did with this "proclamation" of compromise was shift responsibility to avoid pissing off liberal Catholics and deflect attention away from the fact that Obamacare defines the conception of children as a catastrophic disease....WHICH was the original intent of this crap all along!

Forcing ALL health care insurers and the new government option health insurance to pay for ON DEMAND ABORTION!

Now, the question is...just how STUPID are voters? Cause nearly 80% of Americans say that...even those who believe in abortion...that tax dollars should NOT pay for abortion. So the question remains, how stupid are we if we fall for this crap?

Do you know how much it costs to raise a child? About as much as cancer treatment. So either could break a person/couple. Sorry, you right wingers crashed the economy and put all the wealth in the hands of the top 1% and now you want us in the middle class to have kids when we can barely save enough to retire? This is what you get when you lower wages and the middle class turns into the working poor.

Have you not been paying attention to the Wallstreet protesters? Kids in their 20's and 30's can't afford to have children pal.

Pay them $35 hr and not $10 hr and maybe they would want to have kids.

 

[Liability]

The CORRECTED list of the Signing Statements offered by President Obama was 'updated" since the 2009 offering from Jillian.

List of President Obama's Signing Statements -

Many of them are pretty trite and undeserving of any concern.

But more than one DO offer his expressed concerns with perceived transgressions of the constitutional Separation of Powers.

So, poor old SimplyAssholic will have to re-correct his math.