• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats scold Obama on signing statements

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,595
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The AP adds, “In a letter to the president, four senior House members said they were ’surprised’ and ‘chagrined’ by Obama’s statement in June accompanying a war spending bill that he would ignore restrictions placed on aid provided to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.”


Good to see some Democrats are waking up to the fact that him and Bush are one in the same.

Raw Story Democrats scold Obama on signing statements
 
Hahahaha....hope and change. I love how he's basically doing everything that Bush was doing.

Ok, actually I don't love it because I really did want to better the government. It's just that this is really just a big "I told you so" before he was elected. Anyone who thought Obama was anything other than standard Chicago politician and of the same cloth as Bush was a fool.
 
Last edited:
I sense MANY Democrats can't wait for the opportunity to bury Obama. They resent his rock-star fame and his razor-thin resume. Now that the tide is turning on Obama, perhaps they will turn on him, too.
 
I sense MANY Democrats can't wait for the opportunity to bury Obama. They resent his rock-star fame and his razor-thin resume. Now that the tide is turning on Obama, perhaps they will turn on him, too.
They don't resent his fame so much as they enjoy their own perquisites.

Carter tried to dictate to Congress and got his head handed to him.

Clinton tried to muscle healthcare through Congress and got his head handed to him.

Johnson did muscle Medicare through Congress--but he'd been on Capitol Hill since before WWII, he knew where all the bodies were buried, and he knew whose arm to twist and whose palm to grease.

Dear Leader wants to evoke memories of Lyndon Johnson. I'm just waiting for the politician to chime in with "I knew Lyndon Johnson. I served with Lyndon Johnson. Lyndon Johnson was a friend of mine. Dear Leader, you are no Lyndon Johnson."
 
They don't resent his fame so much as they enjoy their own perquisites.

Carter tried to dictate to Congress and got his head handed to him.

Clinton tried to muscle healthcare through Congress and got his head handed to him.

Johnson did muscle Medicare through Congress--but he'd been on Capitol Hill since before WWII, he knew where all the bodies were buried, and he knew whose arm to twist and whose palm to grease.

Dear Leader wants to evoke memories of Lyndon Johnson. I'm just waiting for the politician to chime in with "I knew Lyndon Johnson. I served with Lyndon Johnson. Lyndon Johnson was a friend of mine. Dear Leader, you are no Lyndon Johnson."

Excellent points. Most of the Democrats didn't even know who Obama was five years ago, and now he's instantly the face of liberalism. You know they hate that.
 
Because he made a signing statement Obama is the same as Bush? Doesn't every president use signing statements? The problem with Bush was he used them all the time and essentially negated every document he signed.

In reaction to Bush's abuse of signing statements (which I think are clearly unconstitutional in any circumstance - but that's another thread), Obama said this

"I will issue signing statements to address constitutional concerns only when it is appropriate to do so as a means of discharging my constitutional responsibilities," the president pledged.

According to AP

Obama's signing statement said he wouldn't allow provisions regarding international financial institutions to interfere with his ability to conduct foreign diplomacy.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one, but I am troubled that Obama is employing this questionable tool, and given his record on transparency his usage should be closely watched
 
Now that the tide is turning on Obama, perhaps they will turn on him, too.

Not really, why would the Dems turn on Obama just to get a Republican president that will veto everything they do?
 
Not really, why would the Dems turn on Obama just to get a Republican president that will veto everything they do?

Erod is stating what he wishes would happen. ;)
 
Because he made a signing statement Obama is the same as Bush? Doesn't every president use signing statements? The problem with Bush was he used them all the time and essentially negated every document he signed.
I dont see you criticizing The Obama for His use of signing statements.
Why is that?
 
Good to see some Democrats are waking up to the fact that him and Bush are one in the same.

Raw Story Democrats scold Obama on signing statements

Correction; Bush is NOTHING like Obama. Bush never spent us into a $1.8 trillion deficit with more to come and Bush never made a political grab at power as this administration has with it's czars and policies.

Please do not place Bush in the same category as Obama, Obama has taken Government power grab to all time new highs.
 
Correction; Bush is NOTHING like Obama. Bush never spent us into a $1.8 trillion deficit with more to come and Bush never made a political grab at power as this administration has with it's czars and policies.

Please do not place Bush in the same category as Obama, Obama has taken Government power grab to all time new highs.

Yep Bush was an angel and Obama is the Devil. Obama's spending excuses Bush's spending. :roll:
 
Good to see some Democrats are waking up to the fact that him and Bush are one in the same.

Raw Story Democrats scold Obama on signing statements

REP. BARNEY FRANK
Chairman, House Financial Services Committee

REP. DAVID R. OBEY
Chairman, House Appropriations Committee

REP. NITA M. LOWEY
Chairman, House Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

REP. GREGORY W. MEEKS
Chairman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy

:rofl
 
Because he made a signing statement Obama is the same as Bush? Doesn't every president use signing statements? The problem with Bush was he used them all the time and essentially negated every document he signed.




Obama came out against signing statements I believe. Kinda a hypocrite, no?
 
Obama came out against signing statements I believe. Kinda a hypocrite, no?

Yes it is. But then, I haven't seen a president in my lifetime that isn't a politician and keeps true to EVERYTHING he says he does.

I agree though, it is still wrong.
 
Originally Posted by Truth Detector
Correction; Bush is NOTHING like Obama. Bush never spent us into a $1.8 trillion deficit with more to come and Bush never made a political grab at power as this administration has with it's czars and policies.

Please do not place Bush in the same category as Obama, Obama has taken Government power grab to all time new highs.

Yep Bush was an angel and Obama is the Devil. Obama's spending excuses Bush's spending. :roll:

Is that what you "infer" from my comments? I suggest that you get some reading glasses or learn some reading comprehension.

Your trite attempts to read nonsense into every comment that doesn't fit your narrow Liberal partisan points of view are amusing at best. :2wave:

Obama's spending excuses Bush's spending. :roll:

I want to address this one in particular; Bush's spending dealing with 9-11, two wars which were authorized by vast bi-partisan majorities and Hurricane Katrina which devastated a major US city pale in comparison to Obama's unilateral passed (nothing in this administration can be considered bi-partisan) "stimulus" spending us into a $1.8 trillion deficit.

It is almost as asinine an argument as suggesting that this massive deficit was the result of republicans in charge.

Here is a clue for you; in 2006 when republicans were in charge the deficit was in decline and at about $168 billion. Since Democrats took over in 2007, and with the junior Senator Obama's help, the deficit has shot up to over $1.8 trillion. One can only WISH that we were back at the deficits caused by Bush.

Carry on. :rofl
 
Last edited:
I want to address this one in particular; Bush's spending dealing with 9-11, two wars which were authorized by vast bi-partisan majorities and Hurricane Katrina which devastated a major US city pale in comparison to Obama's unilateral passed (nothing in this administration can be considered bi-partisan) "stimulus" spending us into a $1.8 trillion deficit.

All of which was as incompetently handled, inefficiently handled, and spent as much money as possible. An occupational war which we are still not out of, huge increases in government power including spying and warrantless searches, not to mention horrible legislation such as The Real ID Act. An increase in executive order and signing statements which basically comes down to legislature through the executive. Yup...Bush sucks, Obama sucks; and the government is spinning out of control.
 
Is that what you "infer" from my comments? I suggest that you get some reading glasses or learn some reading comprehension.

Your trite attempts to read nonsense into every comment that doesn't fit your narrow Liberal partisan points of view are amusing at best. :2wave:

First off learn how to use the quote feature, it isn't that hard.

Secondly, yes, you have basically come in here and tried (and failed) to try and excuse Bush's out of control spending and increasing the size of the government.

I want to address this one in particular; Bush's spending dealing with 9-11, two wars which were authorized by vast bi-partisan majorities and Hurricane Katrina which devastated a major US city pale in comparison to Obama's unilateral passed (nothing in this administration can be considered bi-partisan) "stimulus" spending us into a $1.8 trillion deficit.

It is almost as asinine an argument as suggesting that this massive deficit was the result of republicans in charge.

Here is a clue for you; in 2006 when republicans were in charge the deficit was in decline and at about $168 billion. Since Democrats took over in 2007, and with the junior Senator Obama's help, the deficit has shot up to over $1.8 trillion. One can only WISH that we were back at the deficits caused by Bush.

Carry on. :rofl

None of which excuses increasing government size, and the spending and mismanagment that Bush has done.

Apologies for attacking the methods of your God Bush.

As Ikari said, Bush's spending sucked and was wrong, and I think Obama is spending way to much is wrong.

Obama's spending DOES NOT excuse Bush's spending as you would like us to believe.

Carry on :moon:
 
Quote:Originally Posted by Truth Detector
I want to address this one in particular; Bush's spending dealing with 9-11, two wars which were authorized by vast bi-partisan majorities and Hurricane Katrina which devastated a major US city pale in comparison to Obama's unilateral passed (nothing in this administration can be considered bi-partisan) "stimulus" spending us into a $1.8 trillion deficit.

All of which was as incompetently handled, inefficiently handled, and spent as much money as possible. An occupational war which we are still not out of, huge increases in government power including spying and warrantless searches, not to mention horrible legislation such as The Real ID Act. An increase in executive order and signing statements which basically comes down to legislature through the executive. Yup...Bush sucks, Obama sucks; and the government is spinning out of control.

Once again, this is another vast "because you say so's." Have you ever "run" anything in your short life? Do you actually and naively believe that any organization in the history of man runs mistake free and with total competence? Do you inhabit the same universe that the rest of us inhabit?

The notion that you can makes such farcical claims in a vacuum of the realities and facts suggests that you have no need for facts or reality.

Before you jump on the Bushbot bandwagon, I am not defending Bush; he's a big boy and can do that himself, but I am fascinated by your fantastical perceptions of the REAL world and how things ACTUALLY work.

The world according to Ikari just does not exist; get over it already. :rofl
 
Nothing is perfect, so I should accept horrible expansions of government, abuse of power, and mishandling of huge natural disasters huh? Things which aggregated over each other have cost huge amounts of money, manpower, and lives? Really? That's your argument? As good as you can do huh, basically the Rumsfeld excuse? "This is hard, we know what we are doing, trust that we know what we are doing". Your blanket Bush defending and horrible partisanship is showing. That's about the most pathetic excuse I've heard for government treason and tyranny in quite some time. Well no one's perfect. HA
 
First off learn how to use the quote feature, it isn't that hard.

Secondly, yes, you have basically come in here and tried (and failed) to try and excuse Bush's out of control spending and increasing the size of the government.

Another pile of nonsensical bile from you; but alas, dealing with facts and what someone is actually arguing has never been your forte' has it Era?

None of which excuses increasing government size, and the spending and mismanagment that Bush has done.

Apologies for attacking the methods of your God Bush.

As Ikari said, Bush's spending sucked and was wrong, and I think Obama is spending way to much is wrong.

Obama's spending DOES NOT excuse Bush's spending as you would like us to believe.

Carry on :moon:

I have highlighted the typical hyperbolic BS rhetoric you spew here to illustrate why most of what you state is farcical at best lacking in facts and is merely your own biased personal opinions and nothing related to reality; consider it a favor to you in order to illustrate your hypocrisy and lack of credible debate skills.

Here's a clue for you; Bush is no longer in charge, Obama is. :rofl

Carry on.
 
Here's a clue for you; Bush is no longer in charge, Obama is. :rofl

Carry on.

And yet you continue to excuse Bush's actions :rofl:rofl. Here's a hint for you and is FACT, Obama's spending DOES NOT excuse Bush's. When you learn that fact, come back here.
 
The only bipartisan effort we've seen in Obama's presidency is the objection to his healthcare plan.
 
Back
Top Bottom