All hail, the once and future king!

[Katzndogz]

The difference between Bush and BoyBarry is that although Bush and other presidents have used signing statements and executive orders from time to time, they were never used as a substitute of legislation. BoyBarry DOES.

Sort of like thinking, if it's okay to use a lighter to fire up the BBQ, it's equally okay to use it to burn down a house. After all BOTH are using a lighter.

Katz, you are clearly a liar. Or haven't the faintest notion of what was done during Georgie Boys Presidency.

None of it was legislation.

The Boy Barry believes he is the monarch.

 

[bripat9643]

What a dumb ass you continue to be, Pattycake. I did not in any way endorse signing statements. But your fellow was the first to use them in a major way. And, as previously stated, people on both sides of the aisle stated that it was not a good precedent.

You don't like it, get the SC to address it. Until then, enjoy the meaning of a double edged sword.

You can't seem to make up your mind as to whether you approve of signing statements or not. Here's your chance to state your position for the record. Are signing statements legitimate or an outrage? Please answer the question.

My position is that they are offensive to the Constitution, which gives the president authority to approve or reject legislation passed by Congress. It doesn't give him the slightest authority to modify it.

 

[The T]

What a dumb ass you continue to be, Pattycake. I did not in any way endorse signing statements. But your fellow was the first to use them in a major way. And, as previously stated, people on both sides of the aisle stated that it was not a good precedent.

You don't like it, get the SC to address it. Until then, enjoy the meaning of a double edged sword.

You can't seem to make up your mind as to whether you approve of signing statements or not. Here's your chance to state your position for the record. Are signing statements legitimate or an outrage? Please answer the question.

My position is that they are offensive to the Constitution, which gives the president authority to approve or reject legislation passed by Congress. It doesn't give him the slightest authority to modify it.

An impeachable offense...

 

[The Rabbi]

To ascribe signing statements to one president or party is a sign of partisan ignorance.

Moving the goalposts because you're getting kicked to the curb?
Please show where Bush ever declared in a signing statement that he would not enforce a law.

I showed it to you earlier.

You failed to read. That's not our problem.

Darn are you thick.
Posting a listing of Bush's signing statements is meaningless. If you had had an adult explain my post to you you might have understood that.

 

[paperview]

You can lead a dink to water but you can't make him think.

 

[The Rabbi]

You can lead a dink to water but you can't make him think.

Speaking of yourself again?
I made a challenge and you failed. Had you actually provided evidence of something I would have been forced to admit you were right.
But you failed to meet the challenge, which was showing where Bush ever issued a signing statement that indicated he would not enforce a law Congress passed. Which is what Obama has done.
Since you failed I can only conclude there is no such statement. Your insults will not cover up your failure in this debate. They only expose your stupidity.

 

[paperview]

That you spent a mere 60 seconds at the reference I posted is not. my. problem.

You asked for information anyone who freakin lived in the Bush era knows about, I provide you with the exact text of those Signing Statements and then want to be lead like an oxen with its ring through it's nose to the well.

Show proof your attention span is longer than a minute and actually READ some of them, then I might reconsider my current assumption you are entirely worthless of my time.

I might direct you to the legal definition of Signing Statement as a Primer.

 

[The Rabbi]

That you spent a mere 60 seconds at the reference I posted is not. my. problem.

You asked for information anyone who freakin lived in the Bush era knows about, I provide you with the exact text of those Signing Statements and then want to be lead like an oxen with its ring through it's nose to the well.

Show proof your attention span is longer than a minute and actually READ some of them, then I might reconsider my current assumption you are entirely worthless of my time.

I might direct you to the legal definition of Signing Statement as a Primer.

What an utter fail of a post.
You are clueless. You are lazy. If you have proof, post it. Not a link to all the signing statements. That's useless.
All you need to do is show one, just one, statement where Bush said he would not enforce law duly passed. That would end the discussion. Instead you want to act like it's my fault you can't back up what you say.