General Discussion

TheKentuckian

(26,314 posts)

225. The only material part of the President's position is he signed the bill and

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 01:55 PM

Jan 2012

all the signing statements in the world don't change that not one iota.

He signed the bill.

He signed the bill.

He signed the bil.

His position is he affirmed the legislation. His non-binding caveats or his current posture of creative enforcement are only as meaningful as the President decides they are. Not just this President but any going forward. The President is fully free to make his statement and then utterly disregard it from the moment he sets down the pen and that being the case, his position was to enact the legislation.

He signed the bill.

He signed the bill.

He signed the bill and the rest is spin.

Every single person that affirmed this bill should be run out on a fucking rail and barred from holding any Federal office for life.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

366 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Permit me to laugh at David Swanson [View all] ProSense Jan 2012 OP

Has had some well-deserved scrutiny. elleng Jan 2012 #1

Different piece. n/t ProSense Jan 2012 #4

OOPS! elleng Jan 2012 #8

That's OK ProSense Jan 2012 #14

'dangerous if not delusional' elleng Jan 2012 #27

+1 ellisonz Jan 2012 #34

That tastes bad. freshwest Jan 2012 #189

It's a form of "Shit or get off the pot!" You no like? immoderate Jan 2012 #241

I'd ProSense Jan 2012 #246

no, they would rather do what they so often accuse others of. unapatriciated Jan 2012 #247

No ProSense Jan 2012 #249

He did not justify supporting RP and you know it. unapatriciated Jan 2012 #259

Are you bored with intellectually dishonest posts about Glenn Greenwald? Puregonzo1188 Jan 2012 #2

Are ProSense Jan 2012 #5

Hey thanks Obama for signing into law a provision that allows another Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #55

What? ProSense Jan 2012 #81

It was Bush interpretation of the law and now it is codified. Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #83

Not ProSense Jan 2012 #90

SCOTUS didn't decide Padilla. The 9th circuits ruling stands. Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #107

Bush's claims should never have been codified. They are now law. What a tragedy this is. sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #112

Didn't you here? UnrepentantLiberal Jan 2012 #293

lol - yes the president can do whatever the hell he wants with signing statements TBF Jan 2012 #157

He failed to deny the next administration that power. a simple pattern Jan 2012 #298

Heresy never sleeps! They are everywhere! ProSense has a list!!! JackRiddler Jan 2012 #223

I remember when Bush did the same stuff leftupnorth Jan 2012 #3

Wait ProSense Jan 2012 #7

Geez. leftupnorth Jan 2012 #17

What about the fact that congress has the votes to override a veto? FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #20

The ProSense Jan 2012 #21

Fix it???? The damn thing was just passed. This is not a game and it is offensive TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #82

spot on.. nt G_j Jan 2012 #183

+ 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! WillyT Jan 2012 #204

fuckin-a! frylock Jan 2012 #227

"Who the fuck cares what Obama's intentions are . . . " Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #238

If that's all Democrats care about now, what an indictment your statement is. sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #271

Of course Democrats care. Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #275

+1 eom tledford Jan 2012 #242

Damn, Kentuck, wish I'd said that! Bravo!!!! tpsbmam Jan 2012 #263

That is called cutting through the bullshit. Agony Jan 2012 #288

Another +1 UnrepentantLiberal Jan 2012 #294

Yes, I'm SERIOUSLY tired of Obama (and the Dems in general) going along with bad legislation Lydia Leftcoast Jan 2012 #354

Most excellent come back. truedelphi Jan 2012 #360

Signing statements do not "rewrite" legislation. And they are no different... reACTIONary Jan 2012 #180

I dunno, but maybe we should focus on electing progressive Democrats and Independents to Congress? Old and In the Way Jan 2012 #24

Exactly. If someone, ANYONE! actually brought Obama a good bill he would sign it. FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #28

I suppose there is someone sitting behind him, forcing him to sign stuff he really doesn't want to. leftupnorth Jan 2012 #33

Not really, just reality. FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #41

So he vetos a bill with good stuff in it. Old and In the Way Jan 2012 #63

Trading away our civil liberties for "lots of good stuff" is criminal and insane and for crumbs TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #87

Which would be true if he did that...but he didn't. Old and In the Way Jan 2012 #123

'Will not authorize without trial the indefinite military detention' sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #128

I think you're overreacting. First, U.S. citizens are exempt, Second... FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #162

No, I am not reacting enough considering the seriousness of this issue. All I am doing sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #248

+ 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! WillyT Jan 2012 #205

Another bravo..... tpsbmam Jan 2012 #266

There's always a Congressional finger pointing at the White House a simple pattern Jan 2012 #299

He could have vetoed the bill. He didn't. Based on the fact that Senate Dems pushed FISA, I don't Leopolds Ghost Jan 2012 #161

What good would a veto have done, they would have overrode his veto and used it against him. FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #163

Clinton could've said the same thing and not vetoed tons of bills Leopolds Ghost Jan 2012 #165

Also, 2 points -- I was right that the threat to cut military spending was a sham Leopolds Ghost Jan 2012 #167

You don't know that there would have been an override. JackRiddler Jan 2012 #222

No, what he did is signed the bill. His statement doesn't change that fact an iota TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #219

Uh oh, someone's making WAY too much sense, here! MADem Jan 2012 #89

Wait, this "good bill" is a bill to overturn the stick Obama implemented in his and Boehner's carrot Leopolds Ghost Jan 2012 #164

Heh, not a single person replied to my obvious fact. Leopolds Ghost Jan 2012 #306

Exactly. We know very well that treestar Jan 2012 #193

And the GOP is loving this. freshwest Jan 2012 #194

it's a shame the President is required to sign every bill whether he wants to or not. what a piratefish08 Jan 2012 #127

How could he even lift the pen with his weak little noodly arms a simple pattern Jan 2012 #300

Authoritarians apparently come in red AND blue. leftupnorth Jan 2012 #29

What does that even mean?! The poster was simply stating that we should focus on electing a pro FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #32

yeah, I hear that a lot. What have we gotten for our efforts to do so in the past? leftupnorth Jan 2012 #43

"Cynicism is all I've gotten out of it.' Old and In the Way Jan 2012 #71

Ain't no rush, we're already there. eom tledford Jan 2012 #243

I should add: ProSense Jan 2012 #10

Permit me to put your opinion in my circular file proud2BlibKansan Jan 2012 #6

That's ProSense Jan 2012 #9

You poor, victimized soul. girl gone mad Jan 2012 #109

Here's the answer Kaleko Jan 2012 #11

Oh ProSense Jan 2012 #12

Mirror, mirror on the wall, Kaleko Jan 2012 #30

Are ProSense Jan 2012 #37

Is this a call out to another DUer? sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #49

Maybe ProSense Jan 2012 #54

No, I asked a question, if I were going to alert, I would have done so. sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #59

Well ProSense Jan 2012 #60

Actually the choice was yours. To confront another member directly with respect, or sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #67

"Not my problem." OK! n/t ProSense Jan 2012 #85

What I'm saying is right there on the page. n/t Kaleko Jan 2012 #52

No, not by his signing statement but by the actual law he enacted. His signing statement TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #91

The ProSense Jan 2012 #93

Policy that he doesn't have hold to, much less a future President. TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #105

Swanson claims Obama asked Congress not to excempt US citizens tkmorris Jan 2012 #13

Here ProSense Jan 2012 #16

Why wasn't this just vetoed out of hand? Sounds like there are a ton of problems with it? leftupnorth Jan 2012 #19

1-There's plenty of good in the bill. 2-Congress has the votes to override the veto. FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #22

And if people are really truly stupid enough to believe them, we deserve exactly what we get. leftupnorth Jan 2012 #35

Of course they are. FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #42

Oh well. Then we will suffer in out collective stupidity. If we can be that easily manipulated, leftupnorth Jan 2012 #47

To see how easily people can be manipulated, watrwefitinfor Jan 2012 #154

Oh, well... God forbid the Republicans run Swanson's propaganda against the NDAA n/t Leopolds Ghost Jan 2012 #307

This must be your 1st election you'll be voting in...amirite? nt Old and In the Way Jan 2012 #72

So, our policy now is to throw away Constitutional Rights in bill after bill so the sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #50

Hard to see how one could become cynical, isn't it? leftupnorth Jan 2012 #57

I'm not the one who writes the bills. FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #74

the question isn't whether or not you think it is acceptable and whether or not it should be vetoed grantcart Jan 2012 #344

The President's position was to affirm the legislation, as he did the Patriot Act, as TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #357

Your statements do not appear to counter the clearly defined facts established in the OP grantcart Jan 2012 #358

Your statement was that Obama's position was being misrepresented. TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #359

so your position is that by taking the fact that he has signed a bill you can subjugate grantcart Jan 2012 #361

If the facts are signed into law then they are the only ones that count. TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #362

No ProSense Jan 2012 #363

A signing statement is not a position. girl gone mad Jan 2012 #364

No TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #365

Perhaps some might see it as his position today, but what will his position be tomorrow? Make7 Jan 2012 #366

That section on 1031 is pretty funny MFrohike Jan 2012 #45

Wait ProSense Jan 2012 #51

Wait for what? MFrohike Jan 2012 #64

That's ProSense Jan 2012 #73

I'm speaking of the administration MFrohike Jan 2012 #88

I ProSense Jan 2012 #92

No MFrohike Jan 2012 #103

That's ProSense Jan 2012 #113

True MFrohike Jan 2012 #116

Thank You, MFrohike bvar22 Jan 2012 #213

I agree with bvar & sabrina....MFrohike, these are outstanding posts that should be an OP tpsbmam Jan 2012 #318

Excellent post. These posts of yours should be an OP as it appears many sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #277

Ever Since He Denounced That Mean Mr. Roosevelt For Making Imperial Japan Go To War, Sir The Magistrate Jan 2012 #15

+1 JNelson6563 Jan 2012 #155

Magistrate, you do not see a problem with the NDAA? It is a subject of mirth? Leopolds Ghost Jan 2012 #305

The Law, Sir, Is Very Poor, And Swanson Is, Shall We Say, Tremendously Flawed The Magistrate Jan 2012 #316

Yeah, I dunno anything about Swanson... Leopolds Ghost Jan 2012 #328

I'd be interested in knowing who wrote this crappy piece of legislation. Old and In the Way Jan 2012 #18

Just goes to show that people on the left can jump to conclusions too -- it's best to read and Emillereid Jan 2012 #23

The law is enacted the amendment is a dream, as you have stated yourself. TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #99

"Blue links of change" has turned into Bold Font. flvegan Jan 2012 #25

Holy crap ProSense Jan 2012 #26

"Fear"? flvegan Jan 2012 #31

Wait ProSense Jan 2012 #38

Yes, I am. flvegan Jan 2012 #66

Actually ProSense Jan 2012 #69

Everyone matters. JNelson6563 Jan 2012 #156

Best bang for DLC buck RetroLounge Jan 2012 #138

Are you calling out a DUer with this post? Generic Other Jan 2012 #36

Yes, it is. Swanson is a DUer, I just asked the same question. Going to read the rules sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #53

You can call out DUers. You "take your chances." joshcryer Jan 2012 #56

No ProSense Jan 2012 #58

It has 33 recs last I counted, including mine. n/t. apocalypsehow Jan 2012 #324

If they publish things that the general public has access to treestar Jan 2012 #195

Swanson is a member of DU. And everything we all write here is available to the sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #278

"Famous" DUers should be able to be criticized on DU treestar Jan 2012 #283

Swanson is not famous, and from what I read this weekend, Greenwald is a nobody. sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #286

No one should be called out? treestar Jan 2012 #287

No one should be called out ''like this" sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #291

Letting me laugh at someone is not really a smear treestar Jan 2012 #320

Yeah, I never get criticized here. stevenleser Jan 2012 #295

Calling another DUer out in a subject line, inviting the community to mock that person, used to be sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #323

Oh boy, David Swanson is next on the hit list quinnox Jan 2012 #39

OK ProSense Jan 2012 #40

You are too much prosense quinnox Jan 2012 #44

Wait ProSense Jan 2012 #48

ProSense: "Why not take the opportunity to respond on topic?" Kaleko Jan 2012 #61

Here's ProSense Jan 2012 #65

Do you really not see why people are not responding in a serious way to this OP? sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #101

Yes, ProSense Jan 2012 #111

Sometimes it might happen that somebody debating you makes a valid point. Warren Stupidity Jan 2012 #256

Someone's life is being ruled by David Swanson. T S Justly Jan 2012 #46

It's almost tragic. Cali_Democrat Jan 2012 #62

It's ProSense Jan 2012 #68

Rod is that you? Rex Jan 2012 #70

Actually ProSense Jan 2012 #75

I guess people really do hate public schools Rex Jan 2012 #76

This thread is proof that the Jury system is a failure. Odin2005 Jan 2012 #77

Amen proud2BlibKansan Jan 2012 #79

+1 bahrbearian Jan 2012 #134

Good thing pecwae Jan 2012 #137

the Obama apologists are using it to intimidate their critics. Odin2005 Jan 2012 #208

+1 ...and it's also a good reason to get rid of the channel mom (host) system... L0oniX Jan 2012 #280

Interesting...you struck a nerve. Old and In the Way Jan 2012 #78

What question? proud2BlibKansan Jan 2012 #80

A ProSense Jan 2012 #84

A signing statement is not a law. A signing statement is valid to whatever degree and for whatever TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #96

Well ProSense Jan 2012 #102

No, he did so by signing the damn bill, Prosense. The debate about the practice is a different topic TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #120

Is ProSense Jan 2012 #122

The only material part of the President's position is he signed the bill and TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #225

+1 Cameron27 Jan 2012 #244

Hahahaha! Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #268

Why is it hilarious? Leopolds Ghost Jan 2012 #308

Because it is fundamentally wrong. Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #319

I'm sure a lot of folks from Kentucky are reflexively anti-Obama, and that's a shame. Leopolds Ghost Jan 2012 #327

"...and the rest is spin." Hell Hath No Fury Jan 2012 #321

Is the OP from the Twilight Zone? (nt) T S Justly Jan 2012 #86

the nerve struck is that a lot of us are shocked that someone is allowed to call out another DUer RainDog Jan 2012 #130

Did you get tired of Glenn and decided to call out a fellow DUer. unapatriciated Jan 2012 #94

Well, ProSense Jan 2012 #95

" ...I have a threshold for rejecting intentional distortion." TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #97

No ProSense Jan 2012 #104

Then why do you keep flaunting the signing statement as the final answer? TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #115

What? ProSense Jan 2012 #118

YOU are the one arguing that Obama gave himself the power to TBF Jan 2012 #159

Nope unapatriciated Jan 2012 #98

Is that right? Dewey Finn Jan 2012 #106

I haven't been insisting on anything. unapatriciated Jan 2012 #114

You ProSense Jan 2012 #110

Yeah, because otherwise we'd never see one DUer call out and mock Dewey Finn Jan 2012 #100

This message was self-deleted by its author ProSense Jan 2012 #108

What is wrong with taking the position... unapatriciated Jan 2012 #117

Well ProSense Jan 2012 #119

didn't highjack your thread. unapatriciated Jan 2012 #121

actually, people were telling you that you're offensive n/t RainDog Jan 2012 #133

I sorta hate that line of argument hfojvt Jan 2012 #201

If she had have posted the thread without the smear title..... unapatriciated Jan 2012 #236

I have not seen one coherent answer to this and I doubt you will be able to supply one. Bonobo Jan 2012 #124

The ACLU hfojvt Jan 2012 #206

This thread right here Blue_In_AK Jan 2012 #125

Did you read Swanson's other call-out of Democrats? Ikonoklast Jan 2012 #202

this post is really sad.... madrchsod Jan 2012 #126

AGREED. PA Democrat Jan 2012 #135

And there pecwae Jan 2012 #142

It's a disgusting thread! Wind Dancer Jan 2012 #160

what an embarrassing OP magical thyme Jan 2012 #129

Don't you ever take a vacation? nt Union Scribe Jan 2012 #131

Post removed Post removed Jan 2012 #141

or sleep? bvar22 Jan 2012 #214

Whatever happened a simple pattern Jan 2012 #301

Permit me to laugh at ProSense kentuck Jan 2012 #132

He/she/it really hasn't an ounce of class. nt Bonobo Jan 2012 #136

I Cali_Democrat Jan 2012 #144

+ Bonobo Jan 2012 #150

Speaking of class, ProSense Jan 2012 #182

Oh ProSense Jan 2012 #181

Remember, when you laugh at NoSense RetroLounge Jan 2012 #140

Stay classy, RL...nt SidDithers Jan 2012 #231

Well, ProSense Jan 2012 #168

"I am not a prominent writer and commentator." SomethingFishy Jan 2012 #239

lol eom tledford Jan 2012 #251

David Swanson? RetroLounge Jan 2012 #139

Eventually, the jury system will weed out destructive posts. Give it time. Catherina Jan 2012 #145

Like this one? Bobbie Jo Jan 2012 #177

Lol good try. The sooner the Jury system Catherina Jan 2012 #188

LOL Bobbie Jo Jan 2012 #197

LMAO. You almost amuse me but not quite. n/t Catherina Jan 2012 #200

Why would anyone laugh at Swanson? Catherina Jan 2012 #143

If that is how you roll, knock yourself out. mmonk Jan 2012 #146

There is one consideration for you though. mmonk Jan 2012 #151

Permit me to say that nasty flamebait like this are why I don't take anything you say seriously. PA Democrat Jan 2012 #147

No, see, ProSense's witchhunts are helping Obama's reelection by stamping out heresy! JackRiddler Jan 2012 #224

I detest the tactic used here. Horrid, rank, foul right wing techiniques. Bluenorthwest Jan 2012 #148

Well ProSense Jan 2012 #169

I don't really understand why you are making a big deal about this Quantess Jan 2012 #149

Actually ProSense Jan 2012 #171

Actually NorthCarolina Jan 2012 #176

Sometimes I wish the qualifications for blogging JNelson6563 Jan 2012 #152

Kick and fucking rec... SidDithers Jan 2012 #153

Love how the Swanson fans are keeping this kicked! JNelson6563 Jan 2012 #158

You may be right! n/t ProSense Jan 2012 #186

Is he the next target on Karl's hit list? ClassWarrior Jan 2012 #166

Fair enough Autumn Jan 2012 #170

Thanks ProSense Jan 2012 #172

Your welcome Autumn Jan 2012 #174

I know ProSense Jan 2012 #179

Yes I do, but what chaps my ass, is he gave any future administration that power. Autumn Jan 2012 #187

Well, ProSense Jan 2012 #192

Signing statements aren't law, Swanson is correct, and Swanson... joshcryer Jan 2012 #173

+1 ClassWarrior Jan 2012 #175

That's ProSense Jan 2012 #178

No, he is not talking about signing statements there, that is a poor reading on your behalf. joshcryer Jan 2012 #184

Wait ProSense Jan 2012 #185

Yes, I'm using your "paraphrase" because you're assigning something to Swanson that... joshcryer Jan 2012 #191

Why ProSense Jan 2012 #196

"He rewrote the law as he signed it." joshcryer Jan 2012 #199

Seriously ProSense Jan 2012 #207

A signing statement does not alter law. joshcryer Jan 2012 #210

And ProSense Jan 2012 #212

I'm glad you finally recognize that he wasn't mentioning signing statements there. joshcryer Jan 2012 #285

I agree with you. bvar22 Jan 2012 #215

DU rec and kick. n/t JTFrog Jan 2012 #190

Please permit me to join you. Tarheel_Dem Jan 2012 #198

Looks like you've been "permitted" whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #203

Looks like you have too. ClassWarrior Jan 2012 #209

Hmm... whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #211

You mean you broke forum rules elsewhere, too? Links, please? ClassWarrior Jan 2012 #220

Oh undoubtedly whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #237

An the bar for acceptable behavior at DU... bvar22 Jan 2012 #216

I ProSense Jan 2012 #217

I think you are funny and entertaining, bvar22 Jan 2012 #226

+1 lol eom tledford Jan 2012 #253

Didn't ProSense Jan 2012 #257

Swanson exagerates Betty Karlson Jan 2012 #218

Post removed Post removed Jan 2012 #221

This thread is a disgrace. n/t myrna minx Jan 2012 #228

The ProSense Jan 2012 #229

Yes... it most certainly is. As is the jury that elected to do NOTHING. hlthe2b Jan 2012 #230

And posters pecwae Jan 2012 #245

DU in general is becoming a disgrace.... Hell Hath No Fury Jan 2012 #234

DU has been a disgrace for a long time. TransitJohn Jan 2012 #252

We lost a LOT of important voices in the first year + of O -- Hell Hath No Fury Jan 2012 #255

Yes, it is amazing how low the standards have fallen. CrispyQ Jan 2012 #261

As long as we continue to support them -- Hell Hath No Fury Jan 2012 #273

"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American Zorra Jan 2012 #232

I predict a simple pattern Jan 2012 #303

K&R BklnDem75 Jan 2012 #233

Personally, I hope this thread stays right at the top of DU:GD... girl gone mad Jan 2012 #274

So do I BklnDem75 Jan 2012 #279

So in your mind rofl smilies= facts. girl gone mad Jan 2012 #281

Looks like pointing out errors/false truths to me BklnDem75 Jan 2012 #282

I did read the OP.. girl gone mad Jan 2012 #284

Obama added a signing statement to relieve fears born from the right and adopted by the left BklnDem75 Jan 2012 #289

Why ProSense Jan 2012 #290

So is part of DU3 being allowed to call out fellow DU'ers SomethingFishy Jan 2012 #235

Why did Obama need to issue a signing statement? SomethingFishy Jan 2012 #240

no getdown Jan 2012 #250

Pathetic mudslinging! Vinnie From Indy Jan 2012 #254

so a president's promise negates a bad law? Would future presidents keep that promise too? yurbud Jan 2012 #258

I sure wish we still had an unrec feature. CrispyQ Jan 2012 #260

And the attacks on progressives by ProSense - this time David Swanson - continues slay Jan 2012 #262

My post was not about you. I agree with you. nt Mojorabbit Jan 2012 #265

I thought it was against the rules to call out another DUer. nt Mojorabbit Jan 2012 #264

it's going to be even funnier when that republican president you keep threatening people with.. frylock Jan 2012 #267

Unrec... joeybee12 Jan 2012 #269

Good catch. AtomicKitten Jan 2012 #270

I plan on keeping this one kicked, too.. girl gone mad Jan 2012 #272

+1 slay Jan 2012 #292

Thanks ProSense Jan 2012 #296

David Swanson? grantcart Jan 2012 #276

Argument by reputation is not a refutation. Leopolds Ghost Jan 2012 #310

Or more precisely, the NDAA is what is at issue here. Otherwise ProSense's post is devoid of content Leopolds Ghost Jan 2012 #311

I'm glad to see someone say that Bluenorthwest Jan 2012 #338

So, I disagree with David more often than not lately, but I am glad he is out there. stevenleser Jan 2012 #297

Reasonable response. But the president also has influence over his own party. sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #302

Erm, that's what the veto is for. Congress had veto override on this bill. joshcryer Jan 2012 #312

Not a reasonable response. Voting for civil rights legislation could've harmed the Democratic Party. Leopolds Ghost Jan 2012 #309

I think he would've stayed good on his promise to veto were it not for Feinstein's amendment. joshcryer Jan 2012 #313

So what now? The bill stands? Are we supposed to "deal with it"? Leopolds Ghost Jan 2012 #330

I agree with you. I am disappointed in no veto. The bill will stand... joshcryer Jan 2012 #331

You make my point for me. We actually remember and got civil rights as stevenleser Jan 2012 #314

And we actually lost civil rights as a result of not vetoing this bill. Leopolds Ghost Jan 2012 #333

That is easily shown to be untrue. The veto would have been easily overridden. nt stevenleser Jan 2012 #340

Go ahead. I spend quite a bit of time laughing at you. donheld Jan 2012 #304

DUzy! girl gone mad Jan 2012 #315

And ProSense Jan 2012 #317

Which one of you doesn't know who donheld is? Hell Hath No Fury Jan 2012 #322

Who is calling links to factual evidence "spam?" great white snark Jan 2012 #325

I think you made his point jannyk Jan 2012 #326

Indeed slay Jan 2012 #329

Thumbs up. Way up! donheld Jan 2012 #339

Hmmmmmmmm? Bluenorthwest Jan 2012 #337

Inconvenient "spam" Bobbie Jo Jan 2012 #341

I used the verb "spamming" -- Hell Hath No Fury Jan 2012 #342

Are you saying that "he who has the most posts wins"? Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #334

Not at all. Hell Hath No Fury Jan 2012 #343

This is a rude and hostile call-out of a DUer. Quantess Jan 2012 #332

One nice thing about free speech is it allows you to air out what people really feel... Leopolds Ghost Jan 2012 #335

I got 2 of my posts censored here, for A LOT less than this! Quantess Jan 2012 #336

This OP = "is a rude and hostile call-out of DUers" getdown Jan 2012 #346

Not sure if you have been around DU for long, but Quantess Jan 2012 #350

one detractor said he didn't know much about Swanson getdown Jan 2012 #351

What's sad about DU3 is that the list of recommenders cannot be easily set on ignore. Festivito Jan 2012 #345

That's ProSense Jan 2012 #347

He prefers out-loud speech rather than the quiet. You prefer the D body count. No embarrassment. Festivito Jan 2012 #349

This thread just won't sink whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #348

Just have to wonder if you are happy with the persona you've created here. girl gone mad Jan 2012 #352

. ProSense Jan 2012 #353

Another thing: ProSense Jan 2012 #355

LOL Scurrilous Jan 2012 #356