Boy King?

[California Girl]

The OP makes a flawed assumption - that we call Obama the 'boy king' because he's an 'out of control despot'. Since that is not true, everything that follows it is nonsense. The term about 'boy king' or 'messiah' etc is about those who blindly support him, not about the man.

Being not religeous I do not place the same weight on "Boy King" that you do. That is but one of dozens of lables suggesting Obama is power mad. Trying desperately to reject the signing statement FACTS by being dismissive as you always try as your first line of defense will not work. Do try and stay focused. The OP is about first year signing statements. The "followers" of Obama have nothing to do with signing statements.

Your OP states that the label is connected to signing statements - it is not. Ergo, your entire premise is flawed. Live with it.

I have made no comment about the signing statements so how the hell you come to the conclusion that I am 'trying desperately to reject the FACTS' is just more of your usual bull shit.

 

[bucs90]

Bottom line is this: Until we get someone in office who doesn't WANT to be a politician, no one will have the backbone to really fix this country. Up to now, we've always had career politicians who did whatever it took to get re-elected and keep lobbyists happy.

Fred Thompson said it best: "I don't necessarily want to be president, I just want to do some things that you have to be president to do."

Exactly. We need someone who wants to fix the country FIRST, and wants to be president SECOND. That person will act according to integrity, not what lobbyists want.

Despite what the left thought they were electing, Obama is NOT that guy. Of course, neither was McCain. And at least Obama's regime has caused so many Americans to WAKE UP and take notice of their country and the socialist push we are seeing. 2010 and 2012 will hopefully correct our course.

 

[gslack]

Bottom line is this: Until we get someone in office who doesn't WANT to be a politician, no one will have the backbone to really fix this country. Up to now, we've always had career politicians who did whatever it took to get re-elected and keep lobbyists happy.

Fred Thompson said it best: "I don't necessarily want to be president, I just want to do some things that you have to be president to do."

Exactly. We need someone who wants to fix the country FIRST, and wants to be president SECOND. That person will act according to integrity, not what lobbyists want.

Despite what the left thought they were electing, Obama is NOT that guy. Of course, neither was McCain. And at least Obama's regime has caused so many Americans to WAKE UP and take notice of their country and the socialist push we are seeing. 2010 and 2012 will hopefully correct our course.

WHAT? Obama against socialism?????

Dude seriously the post was truly brilliant until that point....

unified healthcare is a socialist policy. Government buying into the car industry is a socialist policy. A carbon tax is a socialist policy. keeping the patriot act as is, a socialist policy... He is perhaps the most socialistic president ever.... Hell man even the term "left" denotes a more socialistic view or political alignment.

Seriously I think you need to research progressivism, liberalism, and the modern democratic party a bit.....

 

[HUGGY]

So what does it take to get you fuckwits to stay on topic? Do I have to get Gunny to change the title? There are plenty other degridations to pick from.

See that is the real problem with your kind. You are dishonest. The topic is clear. First year presidential signing statements. Why is it that you cannot respond to "First year presidential signing statements?" My opinion backed up by facts..that Obama has had the fewest signing statements as a first year than any president for almost half a century.

Can you deny that?

Are you really that stupid?...or as I suggested just dishonest?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Lotta people flapping thier gums about Obama the "Boy King" meaning he is an out of control despot.

Here are the facts
2009 Obama signing statements...7
2001 Bush signing statements...24

Wouldn't this be a fair gauge of Hubris?

Who was the Boy King again?

Your thoughts?

You're missing the point, which has nothing to do with signing statements. He reminds a lot of us of an insolent child who has ascended to power. He lectures and wags his finger at the collective American, yet he hasn't a clue on most topics he speaks on, that is painfully obvious the minute his mouth gets going. He is without a doubt, the least qualified person at any gathering. He throws tantrums whenever he is challenged (which isn't all that often, unfortunately). He continually blames his predecessor.. for EVERYTHING.

He is incredibly immature and sophomoric.

Hence.. Obama the Boy King.

 

[tommywho70x]

i'm gonna go out on a limb here without doing any advance research --- just a gut feeling, but it seems to me that obama hasn't signed much legislation and consequently nowhere near as many signing statements.

i'm not sure i understand how this comparison serves to vindicate or convict either one of them (bush or obama) of being a despot (kinda strong term when one considers cats like mao, stalin or hitler)

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

i'm gonna go out on a limb here without doing any advance research --- just a gut feeling, but it seems to me that obama hasn't signed much legislation and consequently nowhere near as many signing statements.

i'm not sure i understand how this comparison serves to vindicate or convict either one of them (bush or obama) of being a despot (kinda strong term when one considers cats like mao, stalin or hitler)

HAs nothing to do with being a despot... more to do with his personality and how he deals with things. More a statement about an immature person in a position of great power.

 

[HUGGY]

Lotta people flapping thier gums about Obama the "Boy King" meaning he is an out of control despot.

Here are the facts
2009 Obama signing statements...7
2001 Bush signing statements...24

Wouldn't this be a fair gauge of Hubris?

Who was the Boy King again?

Your thoughts?

You're missing the point, which has nothing to do with signing statements. He reminds a lot of us of an insolent child who has ascended to power. He lectures and wags his finger at the collective American, yet he hasn't a clue on most topics he speaks on, that is painfully obvious the minute his mouth gets going. He is without a doubt, the least qualified person at any gathering. He throws tantrums whenever he is challenged (which isn't all that often, unfortunately). He continually blames his predecessor.. for EVERYTHING.

He is incredibly immature and sophomoric.

I'm missing the point? Comon SoggyDoggy. It is my fucking thread. I know you are stupid and OH..so fucking cursed with looks but hey... don't you think I just might know the topic of my own thread? Just fucking forget the title..I admit I could have chosen a better insult you fuckwits throw around as the lead words.

The entire bulk and meaniing of this thred is about first year presidential signing statements. CalTwats diversion is not the topic. Care to address the topic? Surprise me and use your brain with an intelligent reply to my topic.

 

[tommywho70x]

i'm gonna go out on a limb here without doing any advance research --- just a gut feeling, but it seems to me that obama hasn't signed much legislation and consequently nowhere near as many signing statements.

i'm not sure i understand how this comparison serves to vindicate or convict either one of them (bush or obama) of being a despot (kinda strong term when one considers cats like mao, stalin or hitler)

HAs nothing to do with being a despot... more to do with his personality and how he deals with things. More a statement about an immature person in a position of great power.

i would think that an examination of why he has hidden so many personal documents from the people and allegations of crack cocaine use, homosexual liasons and the like would be more in order.

 

[HUGGY]

i'm gonna go out on a limb here without doing any advance research --- just a gut feeling, but it seems to me that obama hasn't signed much legislation and consequently nowhere near as many signing statements.

i'm not sure i understand how this comparison serves to vindicate or convict either one of them (bush or obama) of being a despot (kinda strong term when one considers cats like mao, stalin or hitler)

At Last!!!! An intelligent response!!!

I didn't do a survey of legislation ..but that might explain it.

 

[California Girl]

Lotta people flapping thier gums about Obama the "Boy King" meaning he is an out of control despot.

Here are the facts
2009 Obama signing statements...7
2001 Bush signing statements...24

Wouldn't this be a fair gauge of Hubris?

Who was the Boy King again?

Your thoughts?

You're missing the point, which has nothing to do with signing statements. He reminds a lot of us of an insolent child who has ascended to power. He lectures and wags his finger at the collective American, yet he hasn't a clue on most topics he speaks on, that is painfully obvious the minute his mouth gets going. He is without a doubt, the least qualified person at any gathering. He throws tantrums whenever he is challenged (which isn't all that often, unfortunately). He continually blames his predecessor.. for EVERYTHING.

He is incredibly immature and sophomoric.

I'm missing the point? Comon SoggyDoggy. It is my fucking thread. I know you are stupid and OH..so fucking cursed with looks but hey... don't you think I just might know the topic of my own thread? Just fucking forget the title..I admit I could have chosen a better insult you fuckwits throw around as the lead words.

The entire bulk and meaniing of this thred is about first year presidential signing statements. CalTwats diversion is not the topic. Care to address the topic? Surprise me and use your brain with an intelligent reply to my topic.

So the topic is NOT why Obama is called the 'boy king'? Cuz that's what you said in your OP. Don't have a hissy fit when your error is pointed out to you. Fact: He is NOT called the 'boy king' because of the signings. That was YOUR error.... stop being a fucking idiot when others point that out.

In fact, you are just trying to create something out of nothing. Fool.

 

[HUGGY]

You're missing the point, which has nothing to do with signing statements. He reminds a lot of us of an insolent child who has ascended to power. He lectures and wags his finger at the collective American, yet he hasn't a clue on most topics he speaks on, that is painfully obvious the minute his mouth gets going. He is without a doubt, the least qualified person at any gathering. He throws tantrums whenever he is challenged (which isn't all that often, unfortunately). He continually blames his predecessor.. for EVERYTHING.

He is incredibly immature and sophomoric.

I'm missing the point? Comon SoggyDoggy. It is my fucking thread. I know you are stupid and OH..so fucking cursed with looks but hey... don't you think I just might know the topic of my own thread? Just fucking forget the title..I admit I could have chosen a better insult you fuckwits throw around as the lead words.

The entire bulk and meaniing of this thred is about first year presidential signing statements. CalTwats diversion is not the topic. Care to address the topic? Surprise me and use your brain with an intelligent reply to my topic.

So the topic is NOT why Obama is called the 'boy king'? Cuz that's what you said in your OP. Don't have a hissy fit when your error is pointed out to you. Fact: He is NOT called the 'boy king' because of the signings. That was YOUR error.... stop being a fucking idiot when others point that out.

In fact, you are just trying to create something out of nothing. Fool.

GAAAWWWWDDD!!!! I feel sorry for your boyfriend!!! Just forget this thread. You are not capable of dealing with something this simple.

What did you find out about a timeline?

 

[PixieStix]

They do like to portray him as a sort of messiah though, to little children

I saw this garbage the other day in a close out store I looked at it, and thought OMObama

 

[California Girl]

I'm missing the point? Comon SoggyDoggy. It is my fucking thread. I know you are stupid and OH..so fucking cursed with looks but hey... don't you think I just might know the topic of my own thread? Just fucking forget the title..I admit I could have chosen a better insult you fuckwits throw around as the lead words.

The entire bulk and meaniing of this thred is about first year presidential signing statements. CalTwats diversion is not the topic. Care to address the topic? Surprise me and use your brain with an intelligent reply to my topic.

So the topic is NOT why Obama is called the 'boy king'? Cuz that's what you said in your OP. Don't have a hissy fit when your error is pointed out to you. Fact: He is NOT called the 'boy king' because of the signings. That was YOUR error.... stop being a fucking idiot when others point that out.

In fact, you are just trying to create something out of nothing. Fool.

GAAAWWWWDDD!!!! I feel sorry for your boyfriend!!! Just forget this thread. You are not capable of dealing with something this simple.

What did you find out about a timeline?

LOL. I'm sure he would want me to thank you for your sympathy. In fairness, I do advertise the 'tricky bitch' status quite clearly.

I have a partial timeline.... If you manage not to have a hissy fit at me in the next day or two, I might even let you see it.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Hey, you're the one who brought up signing statements; I never mentioned it except in response to your attempt to deflect by pointing out that Bush has more than Obama.... not sure why you did as it had nothing to do with my point. Unless you have comprehension issues.

Go take an Adderall and focus.

 

[HUGGY]

Hey, you're the one who brought up signing statements; I never mentioned it except in response to your attempt to deflect by pointing out that Bush has more than Obama.... not sure why you did as it had nothing to do with my point. Unless you have comprehension issues.

Go take an Adderall and focus.

Step s-l-o-w-l-y away from the thread. It is my topic..my thread..and you just do not understand the discussion. I underget what the other one was doing. It is her nature to disrupt. You on the other hand really think the discussion is about whatever pops into your noggin. That is fine but I don't want to discuss your brain farts. Thanks for coming by.

 

[tommywho70x]

so is it my imagination or has the congress just not finished much legislation since obama's election and in consequence, he hasn't signed many bills?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

"Your thoughts?" is how you ended your premise. I responded by saying I thought your were missing the point as to why we call him the "boy king"

Your response... ramblings about me not being able to follow along and brain farts. May I ask, how old are you? It is my sincerest hope that you are very young.....

 

[HUGGY]

so is it my imagination or has the congress just not finished much legislation since obama's election and in consequence, he hasn't signed many bills?

I don't know. It seems difficult to get a first year list of signed bills for the last few prezez to compare. If you want to take a stab at it ...great.

 

[gslack]

Since HUGGY wants to play "misunderstood artist" and pretend no one with a legitimate debate is on topic in here, i will re-post this until the little coward stops ignoring it...

Spin it anyway you want to. It's your story... No matter how you do it though, Owe Bama is just plain fucked up.

There is no spin..just fact.

Presidential Signing Statements

Are you too stupid to read?

No spin???

okay then lets look at what your link says about presidential signing statements.....

Q: What is a Signing Statement?

A: A “Signing Statement” is a written comment issued by a President at the time of signing legislation. Often signing statements merely comment on the bill signed, saying that it is good legislation or meets some pressing needs. The more controversial statements involve claims by presidents that they believe some part of the legislation is unconstitutional and therefore they intend to ignore it or to implement it only in ways they believe is constitutional. Some critics argue that the proper presidential action is either to veto the legislation (Constitution, Article I, section 7) or to “faithfully execute” the laws (Constitution, Article II, section 3).

So a signing statement is "a written comment issued by a President at the time of signing legislation." Good or bad, whether he agrees or disagrees with the legislation its just a statement regarding the presidents thoughts, feelings or any trepidation or reservations he may have on it and any thing he may feel is his duty to address. He may also remark as to how he will use or resist the use of this legislation or its assertions.

Now I ask you how is that related to a power grab attempt? A signing statement is just what the Faq's states. Unless the presidents statement says something regarding his intent to oppose this legislation outright or something similar which would show an abuse or attempted usurpation of power not already given by his office the constitution and laws of the United States, this is no reflection of a power grab.....

A power grab would be more along the lines of Executive Orders which contradict, oppose, or conflict with the constitution or laws, or take liberties not granted to the office by such laws or the constitution.

Attributing signing statements to a power grab shows the level of understanding versus the level of propagandizing many people show these days.

Interestingly, there is a few more FAQ's on that page that need to be mentioned here as well.... THanks for the link HUGGY......

Q: I’ve searched your website for George W. Bush’s signing statements and only find about 140. The Boston Globe said there were 750. Where are the rest of them?

A: In an article published on April 30, 2006, the Globe wrote that “President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office.” In a clarification issued May 4, 2006, the Globe note that Bush had not really challenged 750 bills (which would have implied 750 signing statements), but “has claimed the authority to bypass more than 750 statutes, which were provisions contained in about 125 bills.”

Q: Is it true that George W. Bush has issued many more signing statements than any other president?

A: No, Bill Clinton issued many more signing statements. The controversy is about the kind of signing statements Bush has issued.

Q: What kind of claims does Bush make in his signing statements that has people upset?

A: In one frequently used phrase, George W. Bush has routinely asserted that he will not act contrary to the constitutional provisions that direct the president to “supervise the unitary executive branch.” This formulation can be found first in a signing statement of Ronald Reagan, and it was repeated several times by George H. W. Bush. Basically, Bush asserts that Congress cannot pass a law that undercuts the constitutionally granted authorities of the President.

Funny how things like this can be twisted to imply things they do not actually say....

Turns out Clinton had the most of them. And George W's statements they cry about only reminded congress they couldn't "pass a law that undercuts the constitutionally granted authorities of the President."... So he was reminding them of their limits...

And thats a power grab? Thats a bit of twisted logic isn't it? using that logic, we are all guilty of power grabs in our daily lives. Ever had to remind someone at work what their job is and/or its limits? Then using the logic from the OP thats a power grab... Not exactly realistic now is it...

Also, Obama has a near unbreakable majority in house and senate right now... Meaning the lions share of the legislation he will get to sign will reflect that majority. So why would he disagree with most of it or even a great deal of it? They are from the same side for the most part.... he wouldn't, meaning he wouldn't make so many disagreeing signing statements...

The entire premise of this OP is just silly propaganda that actually means nothing in the real world. Signing statements are NOT a power grab, and the fact he is on the same side as a near overwhelming majority in congress shows he would not disagree with very much of the legislation they put forth....