Obama signs NDAA
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:47:24 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Obama signs NDAA
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Obama signs NDAA  (Read 1440 times)
CatoMinor
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,007
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 31, 2011, 07:02:28 PM »

For anyone who considers themselves to be "progressive", I would hope voting Green Party is looking much more tempting.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 31, 2011, 07:13:22 PM »

So he's basically treating the signing statement as a way to get a line item veto, but gives him an out in case he decides to renege on that "veto".
Logged
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,022
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 31, 2011, 07:43:04 PM »

I see he's being a moderate hero in order to get re-elected.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 31, 2011, 07:45:12 PM »

Signing statements are ridiculous things.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 01, 2012, 02:22:58 AM »

Signing statements are ridiculous things.

I've always found them to be pointless.  If you truly believe the signing statement, you'll just argue that in a court of law.  If anything, it hurts your cause because you believe what you're signing to be somewhat legally controversial from the get-go.

But here he's at least doing it somewhat better than Bush.  Bush did it to argue his constitutional point of view.  Obama admits he disagrees with the law but seems to think if he vetos it, nothing will get re-passed, which has to be very scarry to his Democratic allies in the Congress, since it basically tells them he's given up fighting.
Logged
Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook
The Obamanation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 01, 2012, 03:09:43 AM »

Fascist.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 01, 2012, 03:15:24 AM »


Do elaborate... what about the signing of this bill is fascist?
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,236
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 01, 2012, 03:19:43 AM »

Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 01, 2012, 03:56:53 AM »

This bill is very, very over-blown by conspiracy theorists on the internet too lazy to actually read it. If you actually take the time to look it over instead of being told what to believe by Paultard blogs and Info Wars, you'll realize that it doesn't change the current policy at all. The bill specifically says that it does NOT authorize the detention of citizens and only authorizes the detention of those involved in the 9/11 attacks, the Taliban or al-Qa'ida. It doesn't authorize "indefinite" detention either; it says "until the end of hostilities" and Obama has already all but declared the end to hostilities against the Taliban and will probably do the same against al-Qa'ida at some point in the near future.

Lastly, the NDAA is not just the "indefinite detention bill"; that's a tiny, tiny sliver of the whole massive package. Obama does not have a line-item veto, and so vetoing the entire bill because of this one provision would have meant letting the entire Department of Defense go unfunded for at least a month while he's either forced to negotiate with the Teabagger congress or they reconvene, pass it over his veto anyway, and the law goes into force without a signing statement.

It just pisses me off that left-wingers, who presumably want the United States to implement policy that is as progressive as possible, want Obama to take checks away from veterans and soldiers for a month or two as well as seriously endanger his chance of keeping corporate shill Mitt Romney out of the White House, just to veto a bill that doesn't really change anything at all to prove some stupid principle. It's the same thing with lefties whining about how Obamacare is a failure because it doesn't have a public option and we should have let 30 million people continue to go without insurance because we didn't get everything we wanted in the bill. Being president, especially when the other half of government is controlled by out and out fascists who have explicitly stated that their entire legislative agenda is making you lose re-election, is about compromise and sometimes abandoning some principles1 so that you can protect others.

1Though, again, as far as civil liberties go, this bill basically changes nothing from the status quo.
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,822
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 01, 2012, 04:07:54 AM »

Well said, Lief.
Logged
LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,322
Thailand


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 01, 2012, 07:04:09 AM »

I thought Republicans are supposed to bite on any bone thrown to them about Obama?
Logged
Pingvin
Pingvin99
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,761
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 01, 2012, 12:19:13 PM »

RPG Style or something like-style:
OBAMA - MODERATE-TO-LIBERAL PALADIN LVL 75
SIGN NDAA Y/N
YOU SELECTED Y
ROCKY ANDERSON - PROGRESSIVE WARRIOR LVL 40
+3-5% BONUS
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 01, 2012, 04:42:59 PM »

I thought Republicans are supposed to bite on any bone thrown to them about Obama?

That word is so overused it annoys me at who it's misused against.
Logged
Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook
The Obamanation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 01, 2012, 10:36:48 PM »

I thought Republicans are supposed to bite on any bone thrown to them about Obama?

That word is so overused it annoys me at who it's misused against.

Ok then, unnecessarily authoritarian.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: January 02, 2012, 02:26:29 AM »

I thought Republicans are supposed to bite on any bone thrown to them about Obama?

That word is so overused it annoys me at who it's misused against.

Ok then, unnecessarily authoritarian.

The bill as a whole isn't immensely authoritarian; however, that's at least logically applicable in this case.  Too often peoplel equate authoritarian with fascism, when the two certainly are not the same.
Logged
LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,322
Thailand


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: January 02, 2012, 02:59:14 AM »
« Edited: January 03, 2012, 03:41:47 PM by Mr. Moderate »

I thought Republicans are supposed to bite on any bone thrown to them about Obama?

That word is so overused it annoys me at who it's misused against.

Ok then, unnecessarily authoritarian.

The bill as a whole isn't immensely authoritarian; however, that's at least logically applicable in this case.  Too often peoplel equate authoritarian with fascism, when the two certainly are not the same.

Republicans would know the difference.
Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: January 02, 2012, 02:07:52 PM »

Conservatives and liberals agree that we don't need liberty. Yay!
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: January 02, 2012, 03:03:36 PM »

Its a narrowly tailored method of effectively accomplishing a compelling interest in our safety in the least aggresive manner.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: January 02, 2012, 03:37:21 PM »

Its a narrowly tailored method of effectively accomplishing a compelling interest in our safety in the least aggresive manner.

As long as he sticks to his word in the signing statement.  Democrats should be hoping that he's just doing this to appear more bi-partisan for the 2012 elections, because if this is a sign of things to come, he won't be accomplishing anything after his reelection.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: January 02, 2012, 03:41:41 PM »

Its a narrowly tailored method of effectively accomplishing a compelling interest in our safety in the least aggresive manner.

As long as he sticks to his word in the signing statement.  Democrats should be hoping that he's just doing this to appear more bi-partisan for the 2012 elections, because if this is a sign of things to come, he won't be accomplishing anything after his reelection.

Much like how he was before the election, then.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: January 02, 2012, 04:38:06 PM »

Its a narrowly tailored method of effectively accomplishing a compelling interest in our safety in the least aggresive manner.

As long as he sticks to his word in the signing statement.  Democrats should be hoping that he's just doing this to appear more bi-partisan for the 2012 elections, because if this is a sign of things to come, he won't be accomplishing anything after his reelection.

I'll be going with that....though I am more interested in SCOTUS's session to see even if the Democrats can even make major policy changes anymore. We might be back to the days of Lochner and the Four Horsemen, where the US was basically governed economically, by the least common denominator...and with mob justice on anything else.
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: January 02, 2012, 04:59:44 PM »

Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.05 seconds with 12 queries.