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
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Permit me to laugh at David Swanson [View all]
tledford
(917 posts)243. Ain't no rush, we're already there. eom
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:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Bush's claims should never have been codified. They are now law. What a tragedy this is.
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#112
Fix it???? The damn thing was just passed. This is not a game and it is offensive
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#82
If that's all Democrats care about now, what an indictment your statement is.
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#271
Yes, I'm SERIOUSLY tired of Obama (and the Dems in general) going along with bad legislation
Lydia Leftcoast
Jan 2012
#354
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
Trading away our civil liberties for "lots of good stuff" is criminal and insane and for crumbs
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#87
No, I am not reacting enough considering the seriousness of this issue. All I am doing
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#248
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
Also, 2 points -- I was right that the threat to cut military spending was a sham
Leopolds Ghost
Jan 2012
#167
No, what he did is signed the bill. His statement doesn't change that fact an iota
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#219
Wait, this "good bill" is a bill to overturn the stick Obama implemented in his and Boehner's carrot
Leopolds Ghost
Jan 2012
#164
it's a shame the President is required to sign every bill whether he wants to or not. what a
piratefish08
Jan 2012
#127
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
Actually the choice was yours. To confront another member directly with respect, or
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#67
No, not by his signing statement but by the actual law he enacted. His signing statement
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#91
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
Oh well. Then we will suffer in out collective stupidity. If we can be that easily manipulated,
leftupnorth
Jan 2012
#47
Oh, well... God forbid the Republicans run Swanson's propaganda against the NDAA n/t
Leopolds Ghost
Jan 2012
#307
So, our policy now is to throw away Constitutional Rights in bill after bill so the
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#50
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
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
Perhaps some might see it as his position today, but what will his position be tomorrow?
Make7
Jan 2012
#366
I agree with bvar & sabrina....MFrohike, these are outstanding posts that should be an OP
tpsbmam
Jan 2012
#318
Ever Since He Denounced That Mean Mr. Roosevelt For Making Imperial Japan Go To War, Sir
The Magistrate
Jan 2012
#15
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
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
Yes, it is. Swanson is a DUer, I just asked the same question. Going to read the rules
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#53
Swanson is a member of DU. And everything we all write here is available to the
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#278
Swanson is not famous, and from what I read this weekend, Greenwald is a nobody.
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#286
Calling another DUer out in a subject line, inviting the community to mock that person, used to be
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#323
Do you really not see why people are not responding in a serious way to this OP?
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#101
Sometimes it might happen that somebody debating you makes a valid point.
Warren Stupidity
Jan 2012
#256
+1 ...and it's also a good reason to get rid of the channel mom (host) system...
L0oniX
Jan 2012
#280
A signing statement is not a law. A signing statement is valid to whatever degree and for whatever
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#96
No, he did so by signing the damn bill, Prosense. The debate about the practice is a different topic
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#120
The only material part of the President's position is he signed the bill and
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#225
I'm sure a lot of folks from Kentucky are reflexively anti-Obama, and that's a shame.
Leopolds Ghost
Jan 2012
#327
the nerve struck is that a lot of us are shocked that someone is allowed to call out another DUer
RainDog
Jan 2012
#130
Then why do you keep flaunting the signing statement as the final answer?
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#115
I have not seen one coherent answer to this and I doubt you will be able to supply one.
Bonobo
Jan 2012
#124
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
Yes I do, but what chaps my ass, is he gave any future administration that power.
Autumn
Jan 2012
#187
No, he is not talking about signing statements there, that is a poor reading on your behalf.
joshcryer
Jan 2012
#184
Yes, I'm using your "paraphrase" because you're assigning something to Swanson that...
joshcryer
Jan 2012
#191
I'm glad you finally recognize that he wasn't mentioning signing statements there.
joshcryer
Jan 2012
#285
"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American
Zorra
Jan 2012
#232
Obama added a signing statement to relieve fears born from the right and adopted by the left
BklnDem75
Jan 2012
#289
so a president's promise negates a bad law? Would future presidents keep that promise too?
yurbud
Jan 2012
#258
And the attacks on progressives by ProSense - this time David Swanson - continues
slay
Jan 2012
#262
it's going to be even funnier when that republican president you keep threatening people with..
frylock
Jan 2012
#267
Or more precisely, the NDAA is what is at issue here. Otherwise ProSense's post is devoid of content
Leopolds Ghost
Jan 2012
#311
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
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
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
One nice thing about free speech is it allows you to air out what people really feel...
Leopolds Ghost
Jan 2012
#335
What's sad about DU3 is that the list of recommenders cannot be easily set on ignore.
Festivito
Jan 2012
#345
He prefers out-loud speech rather than the quiet. You prefer the D body count. No embarrassment.
Festivito
Jan 2012
#349
Just have to wonder if you are happy with the persona you've created here.
girl gone mad
Jan 2012
#352