Liberal logic

[Chris]

 

[Flopper]

By the way when if ever did Obama actually sign a Budget for the Country and not a continuing resolution?

I don't think you understand the budget process. Each year by law the president must submit a budget for the coming year to congress. This is a budget request which he signs. Congress uses the president's budget plus their own changes to come up with a concurrent resolution. Once this resolution is passed it becomes the official budget. Concurrent resolutions do not require a signature by the president. So no, Obama has never signed a budget passed by congress, nor has any other president.

The president's responsibility is to submit his request to congress. From that point on, it is between the House and Senate to agree on a budget. The primary responsibility lies with the Congress not the President.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Your facts are 100% uncited and largely untrue. For example,

- Bush did not end the Iraq war. Setting a timetable for doing something is not the same as doing something. If Obama had chosen to extend the Iraq war (as many, mostly on the right, urged him to do) he could have done so. Instead he made the conscious decision to end the war when and how he did. Bush himself acknowledged that his successor would decide how and whether to end the Iraq war (Bush: Successor Decides Iraq Pullout - CBS News).

- Obama didn't promise to end the Iraq war immediately. That would have been impossible. Politifact rates as "promise kept" his Iraq promise (PolitiFact | The Obameter: Campaign Promises that are about Military).

- Similarly, Obama didn't pledge to end the Afghan war immediately. In fact, he pledged to increase troop levels there, which he did (see link above).

- Obama has never called for granting automatic residence status to undocumented residents in large numbers (there's no such thing as an "illegal Mexican", people aren't illegal).

- Obama has not started three wars. There haven't been any declared wars for awhile, and I can't think of a reasonable definition of "war" that would include three military conflicts during the Obama presidency.

- Obama hasn't "refused" to close the border. No US President or any other force in history has demonstrated an ability to close the US border entirely.

- Obama has never indicated in a signing statement that he will violate a law because he disagrees with it. Like other presidents, he has used signing statements to indicate parts of laws which he argues are unconstitutional, while at the same time he has dutifully enforced constitutional laws (such as DODT or the Bush tax cuts for the rich) with which he disagrees.


Some of your statements of fact are true (if misleading or irrelevant), but I don't really want to wade into a discussion of them while they are so interlaced with counterfactuals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/u...es-signing-statement-on-budget-bill.html?_r=1

pretty much destroys one of your claims.

My claim was:

- Obama has never indicated in a signing statement that he will violate a law because he disagrees with it. Like other presidents, he has used signing statements to indicate parts of laws which he argues are unconstitutional, while at the same time he has dutifully enforced constitutional laws (such as DODT or the Bush tax cuts for the rich) with which he disagrees.

The first paragraph of your source says that:

WASHINGTON — When President Obama signed a budget bill on Friday, he issued a signing statement claiming a right to bypass dozens of provisions that placed requirements or restrictions on the executive branch, saying he had “well-founded constitutional objections” to the new statutes.

So while I appreciate your sourcing, by my reading it doesn't so much "destroy" my claim as conform to it precisely. To wit, Obama is claiming a constitutional objection rather than an objection on personal principle.

He has zero authority to ignore laws because HE thinks they are unconstitutional. His remedy is to A) not sign the law or B) take the law to court so that the proper authority ( the Supreme Court) can judge whether it is Constitutional or not.

Or does Obama just get to make those decisions for himself cause he is a Liberal?

You said he never stated he would violate the law when the article clearly states he did JUST that.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

This ^^^ is why our nation is so fucked..

Here's a bar graph of federal government spending from 2001-2009

Government Spending Chart: United States 2001-2009 - Federal State Local Data

Please tell me how it supports your claim that "most of the spending under Bush was under a progressive super majority."


- or


SHUT THE FUCK UP

And why do you believe I would accept that as a valid source?

Because its clearly the only one you've seen so far.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Here's a bar graph of federal government spending from 2001-2009

Government Spending Chart: United States 2001-2009 - Federal State Local Data

Please tell me how it supports your claim that "most of the spending under Bush was under a progressive super majority."


- or


SHUT THE FUCK UP

And why do you believe I would accept that as a valid source?

Because its clearly the only one you've seen so far.

Goddamn that refutation is so solid.

 

[ladyliberal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/u...es-signing-statement-on-budget-bill.html?_r=1

pretty much destroys one of your claims.

My claim was:



The first paragraph of your source says that:

WASHINGTON — When President Obama signed a budget bill on Friday, he issued a signing statement claiming a right to bypass dozens of provisions that placed requirements or restrictions on the executive branch, saying he had “well-founded constitutional objections” to the new statutes.

So while I appreciate your sourcing, by my reading it doesn't so much "destroy" my claim as conform to it precisely. To wit, Obama is claiming a constitutional objection rather than an objection on personal principle.

He has zero authority to ignore laws because HE thinks they are unconstitutional. His remedy is to A) not sign the law or B) take the law to court so that the proper authority ( the Supreme Court) can judge whether it is Constitutional or not.

Or does Obama just get to make those decisions for himself cause he is a Liberal?

You said he never stated he would violate the law when the article clearly states he did JUST that.

Again I feel you misrepresent me. As I said,

- Obama has never indicated in a signing statement that he will violate a law because he disagrees with it. Like other presidents, he has used signing statements to indicate parts of laws which he argues are unconstitutional, while at the same time he has dutifully enforced constitutional laws (such as DODT or the Bush tax cuts for the rich) with which he disagrees.

I am at a loss as to how one could conclude from that passage that I was claiming that Obama would never disobey a law even if he felt that it was constitutional.

You introduce a new issue (deserving of a thread in itself): what is the proper remedy for an executive confronted with a law he or she feels is unconstitutional? The constitution (The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net) grants him or her the "executive power" but does not seem to explicitly require that all laws be enforced at all times (indeed, under Anglo-American Common Law, the executive has prosecutorial discretion and may elect not to pursue apparent violations of the law). The Constitution does, however, require the president to preserve, protect, and defend it, which presumably also requires that he or she obey it.

Thus, a president confronted with an apparent contradiction between law and constitution not only may but must disregard the law. Of course if a president is misguided or insincere in these objections the Supreme Court may enjoin him or her to follow the law, or the legislature may impeach him or her. Since neither of these events have occurred for Obama (unlike his two immediate predecessors) he is not merely free but duty-bound to place his own informed understanding of the Constitution above the law.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

My claim was:



The first paragraph of your source says that:



So while I appreciate your sourcing, by my reading it doesn't so much "destroy" my claim as conform to it precisely. To wit, Obama is claiming a constitutional objection rather than an objection on personal principle.

He has zero authority to ignore laws because HE thinks they are unconstitutional. His remedy is to A) not sign the law or B) take the law to court so that the proper authority ( the Supreme Court) can judge whether it is Constitutional or not.

Or does Obama just get to make those decisions for himself cause he is a Liberal?

You said he never stated he would violate the law when the article clearly states he did JUST that.

Again I feel you misrepresent me. As I said,

- Obama has never indicated in a signing statement that he will violate a law because he disagrees with it. Like other presidents, he has used signing statements to indicate parts of laws which he argues are unconstitutional, while at the same time he has dutifully enforced constitutional laws (such as DODT or the Bush tax cuts for the rich) with which he disagrees.

I am at a loss as to how one could conclude from that passage that I was claiming that Obama would never disobey a law even if he felt that it was constitutional.

You introduce a new issue (deserving of a thread in itself): what is the proper remedy for an executive confronted with a law he or she feels is unconstitutional? The constitution (The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net) grants him or her the "executive power" but does not seem to explicitly require that all laws be enforced at all times (indeed, under Anglo-American Common Law, the executive has prosecutorial discretion and may elect not to pursue apparent violations of the law). The Constitution does, however, require the president to preserve, protect, and defend it, which presumably also requires that he or she obey it.

Thus, a president confronted with an apparent contradiction between law and constitution not only may but must disregard the law. Of course if a president is misguided or insincere in these objections the Supreme Court may enjoin him or her to follow the law, or the legislature may impeach him or her. Since neither of these events have occurred for Obama (unlike his two immediate predecessors) he is not merely free but duty-bound to place his own informed understanding of the Constitution above the law.

So you think Obama is free to violate the Constitution at will because he disagrees with law HE CHOSE to sign? I would disagree, he made a decision as the Executive to SIGN the law, he can not now claim he does not have to follow it.

And exactly did Bush do anything similar?

 

[Mr.Nick]

He has zero authority to ignore laws because HE thinks they are unconstitutional. His remedy is to A) not sign the law or B) take the law to court so that the proper authority ( the Supreme Court) can judge whether it is Constitutional or not.

Or does Obama just get to make those decisions for himself cause he is a Liberal?

You said he never stated he would violate the law when the article clearly states he did JUST that.

Again I feel you misrepresent me. As I said,

- Obama has never indicated in a signing statement that he will violate a law because he disagrees with it. Like other presidents, he has used signing statements to indicate parts of laws which he argues are unconstitutional, while at the same time he has dutifully enforced constitutional laws (such as DODT or the Bush tax cuts for the rich) with which he disagrees.

I am at a loss as to how one could conclude from that passage that I was claiming that Obama would never disobey a law even if he felt that it was constitutional.

You introduce a new issue (deserving of a thread in itself): what is the proper remedy for an executive confronted with a law he or she feels is unconstitutional? The constitution (The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net) grants him or her the "executive power" but does not seem to explicitly require that all laws be enforced at all times (indeed, under Anglo-American Common Law, the executive has prosecutorial discretion and may elect not to pursue apparent violations of the law). The Constitution does, however, require the president to preserve, protect, and defend it, which presumably also requires that he or she obey it.

Thus, a president confronted with an apparent contradiction between law and constitution not only may but must disregard the law. Of course if a president is misguided or insincere in these objections the Supreme Court may enjoin him or her to follow the law, or the legislature may impeach him or her. Since neither of these events have occurred for Obama (unlike his two immediate predecessors) he is not merely free but duty-bound to place his own informed understanding of the Constitution above the law.

So you think Obama is free to violate the Constitution at will because he disagrees with law HE CHOSE to sign? I would disagree, he made a decision as the Executive to SIGN the law, he can not now claim he does not have to follow it.

And exactly did Bush do anything similar?

Progressives believe Obama can do whatever the fuck he wants...

 

[Sarah G]

Bush was President for 8 years and the deficit went up 6 trillion dollars. The left HOWLED like mad about that, insisting it was all bad debt.

Obama is President 4 years and the deficit went up 6 trillion dollars ( twice as fast as under Bush) the Rating for debt in the Country was cut because Obama and the Dems won't cut spending. And that is GOOD debt according to the Left.

They whined about Bush and still do, while praising Obama who has doubled down on everything Bush did. Same laws, double the spending, same wars plus more. And still Bush's debt was worse then Obama spending it TWICE as fast.

Liberal Logic seems a bit mixed up?

It was bad debt. We will never get any return on our investment on those two wars. He and Cheney did but the taxpayers got nothing back and they never will.

Obama's money is stimulus. It could be very good stimulus if the congress would get serious about how it is spent instead of being afraid of how every bill will look on election day.

 

[Article 15]

Bush was President for 8 years and the deficit went up 6 trillion dollars. The left HOWLED like mad about that, insisting it was all bad debt.

Obama is President 4 years and the deficit went up 6 trillion dollars ( twice as fast as under Bush) the Rating for debt in the Country was cut because Obama and the Dems won't cut spending. And that is GOOD debt according to the Left.

They whined about Bush and still do, while praising Obama who has doubled down on everything Bush did. Same laws, double the spending, same wars plus more. And still Bush's debt was worse then Obama spending it TWICE as fast.

Liberal Logic seems a bit mixed up?

The odd part is that most of the spending under Bush was under a progressive super majority.

Dems have spent/allocated/approved nearly 10 trillion since republicans (2007-2011)

WTF...

Now dems are bitching how the house is blocking them...

Does a democrat have a fucking idea that doesn't involve money????

I have tons...

The so called "super" majority didn't exist until Bush left office. The dems took the house and senate in 2006 but didn't get a super majority until the 2008 elections and even then it was in name only.

Fuck, you're dumb.

 

[Article 15]

It's that time of the month again for RGS. The other it was Giffords and today its BOOOOSHHHH.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Bush was President for 8 years and the deficit went up 6 trillion dollars. The left HOWLED like mad about that, insisting it was all bad debt.

Obama is President 4 years and the deficit went up 6 trillion dollars ( twice as fast as under Bush) the Rating for debt in the Country was cut because Obama and the Dems won't cut spending. And that is GOOD debt according to the Left.

They whined about Bush and still do, while praising Obama who has doubled down on everything Bush did. Same laws, double the spending, same wars plus more. And still Bush's debt was worse then Obama spending it TWICE as fast.

Liberal Logic seems a bit mixed up?

The odd part is that most of the spending under Bush was under a progressive super majority.

Dems have spent/allocated/approved nearly 10 trillion since republicans (2007-2011)

WTF...

Now dems are bitching how the house is blocking them...

Does a democrat have a fucking idea that doesn't involve money????

I have tons...

The so called "super" majority didn't exist until Bush left office. The dens took the house and senate in 2006 but didn't get a super majority until the 2008 elections and even then it was in name only.

Fuck, you're dumb.

I wonder who spends money and passes legislation???

Let me guess - presidents!!!

 

[ladyliberal]

He has zero authority to ignore laws because HE thinks they are unconstitutional. His remedy is to A) not sign the law or B) take the law to court so that the proper authority ( the Supreme Court) can judge whether it is Constitutional or not.

Or does Obama just get to make those decisions for himself cause he is a Liberal?

You said he never stated he would violate the law when the article clearly states he did JUST that.

Again I feel you misrepresent me. As I said,

- Obama has never indicated in a signing statement that he will violate a law because he disagrees with it. Like other presidents, he has used signing statements to indicate parts of laws which he argues are unconstitutional, while at the same time he has dutifully enforced constitutional laws (such as DODT or the Bush tax cuts for the rich) with which he disagrees.

I am at a loss as to how one could conclude from that passage that I was claiming that Obama would never disobey a law even if he felt that it was constitutional.

You introduce a new issue (deserving of a thread in itself): what is the proper remedy for an executive confronted with a law he or she feels is unconstitutional? The constitution (The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net) grants him or her the "executive power" but does not seem to explicitly require that all laws be enforced at all times (indeed, under Anglo-American Common Law, the executive has prosecutorial discretion and may elect not to pursue apparent violations of the law). The Constitution does, however, require the president to preserve, protect, and defend it, which presumably also requires that he or she obey it.

Thus, a president confronted with an apparent contradiction between law and constitution not only may but must disregard the law. Of course if a president is misguided or insincere in these objections the Supreme Court may enjoin him or her to follow the law, or the legislature may impeach him or her. Since neither of these events have occurred for Obama (unlike his two immediate predecessors) he is not merely free but duty-bound to place his own informed understanding of the Constitution above the law.

So you think Obama is free to violate the Constitution at will because he disagrees with law HE CHOSE to sign? I would disagree, he made a decision as the Executive to SIGN the law, he can not now claim he does not have to follow it.

And exactly did Bush do anything similar?

I don't think it makes any legal or constitutional difference whether he signed the law, whether it was passed over his veto, or whether the law was signed before he came into office. In any event, of course he is not free to violate the constitution.

And Bush did do something similar, he made plenty of signing statements. I wasn't a fan of most of his (and I'm not defending any particular signing statement of Obama's). One difference between Bush and Obama is that the actions of Bush's executive branch have been ruled unconstitutional (see, eg, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) whereas none of Obama's have (yet).

 

[Mr.Nick]

I feel like biting my own ear off.......

Geez..

Maybe civics is that difficult.

Legislative, Judaical, Executive....

No understand...

 

[Mr.Nick]

Again I feel you misrepresent me. As I said,



I am at a loss as to how one could conclude from that passage that I was claiming that Obama would never disobey a law even if he felt that it was constitutional.

You introduce a new issue (deserving of a thread in itself): what is the proper remedy for an executive confronted with a law he or she feels is unconstitutional? The constitution (The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net) grants him or her the "executive power" but does not seem to explicitly require that all laws be enforced at all times (indeed, under Anglo-American Common Law, the executive has prosecutorial discretion and may elect not to pursue apparent violations of the law). The Constitution does, however, require the president to preserve, protect, and defend it, which presumably also requires that he or she obey it.

Thus, a president confronted with an apparent contradiction between law and constitution not only may but must disregard the law. Of course if a president is misguided or insincere in these objections the Supreme Court may enjoin him or her to follow the law, or the legislature may impeach him or her. Since neither of these events have occurred for Obama (unlike his two immediate predecessors) he is not merely free but duty-bound to place his own informed understanding of the Constitution above the law.

So you think Obama is free to violate the Constitution at will because he disagrees with law HE CHOSE to sign? I would disagree, he made a decision as the Executive to SIGN the law, he can not now claim he does not have to follow it.

And exactly did Bush do anything similar?

I don't think it makes any legal or constitutional difference whether he signed the law, whether it was passed over his veto, or whether the law was signed before he came into office. In any event, of course he is not free to violate the constitution.

And Bush did do something similar, he made plenty of signing statements. I wasn't a fan of most of his (and I'm not defending any particular signing statement of Obama's). One difference between Bush and Obama is that the actions of Bush's executive branch have been ruled unconstitutional (see, eg, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) whereas none of Obama's have (yet).

Answer the fucking question...

 

[Article 15]

The odd part is that most of the spending under Bush was under a progressive super majority.

Dems have spent/allocated/approved nearly 10 trillion since republicans (2007-2011)

WTF...

Now dems are bitching how the house is blocking them...

Does a democrat have a fucking idea that doesn't involve money????

I have tons...

The so called "super" majority didn't exist until Bush left office. The dens took the house and senate in 2006 but didn't get a super majority until the 2008 elections and even then it was in name only.

Fuck, you're dumb.

I wonder who spends money and passes legislation???

Let me guess - presidents!!!

You really know jack shit. You almost certainly started following politics sometime after the 2008 elections.

Bush submitted the budgets and signed them.

Queue RGS whine about no budgets....

 

[ladyliberal]

So you think Obama is free to violate the Constitution at will because he disagrees with law HE CHOSE to sign? I would disagree, he made a decision as the Executive to SIGN the law, he can not now claim he does not have to follow it.

And exactly did Bush do anything similar?

I don't think it makes any legal or constitutional difference whether he signed the law, whether it was passed over his veto, or whether the law was signed before he came into office. In any event, of course he is not free to violate the constitution.

And Bush did do something similar, he made plenty of signing statements. I wasn't a fan of most of his (and I'm not defending any particular signing statement of Obama's). One difference between Bush and Obama is that the actions of Bush's executive branch have been ruled unconstitutional (see, eg, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) whereas none of Obama's have (yet).

Answer the fucking question...

Which "fucking question"? If you mean the question,

So you think Obama is free to violate the Constitution at will because he disagrees with law HE CHOSE to sign?

my answer (expanded upon in other posts) was

In any event, of course he is not free to violate the constitution.

If you mean,

And exactly did Bush do anything similar?

then my answer was

And Bush did do something similar, he made plenty of signing statements.

If there was another question that I'm missing, I'll blame the late hour. If not, perhaps you will.

 

[Mr.Nick]

The so called "super" majority didn't exist until Bush left office. The dens took the house and senate in 2006 but didn't get a super majority until the 2008 elections and even then it was in name only.

Fuck, you're dumb.

I wonder who spends money and passes legislation???

Let me guess - presidents!!!

You really know jack shit. You almost certainly started following politics sometime after the 2008 elections.

Bush submitted the budgets and signed them.

Queue RGS whine about no budgets....

Well I have been online since 1994-95....

I have been following politics for a good 15 years or so....

You can believe what you like, however that doesn't make it truth.

Not to mention you know absolutely nothing about government or history.

It's almost embarrassing really - at least for you...

 

[Mr.Nick]

I don't think it makes any legal or constitutional difference whether he signed the law, whether it was passed over his veto, or whether the law was signed before he came into office. In any event, of course he is not free to violate the constitution.

And Bush did do something similar, he made plenty of signing statements. I wasn't a fan of most of his (and I'm not defending any particular signing statement of Obama's). One difference between Bush and Obama is that the actions of Bush's executive branch have been ruled unconstitutional (see, eg, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) whereas none of Obama's have (yet).

Answer the fucking question...

Which "fucking question"? If you mean the question,



my answer (expanded upon in other posts) was



If you mean,

And exactly did Bush do anything similar?

then my answer was

And Bush did do something similar, he made plenty of signing statements.

If there was another question that I'm missing, I'll blame the late hour. If not, perhaps you will.

You didn't answer the question - you just babbled..

Grow the fuck up and answer what you have been asked..

 

[ladyliberal]

Answer the fucking question...

Which "fucking question"? If you mean the question,



my answer (expanded upon in other posts) was



If you mean,



then my answer was

And Bush did do something similar, he made plenty of signing statements.

If there was another question that I'm missing, I'll blame the late hour. If not, perhaps you will.

You didn't answer the question - you just babbled..

Grow the fuck up and answer what you have been asked..

I'm not sure what you mean by "the question", since I mentioned two questions. They were both yes or no questions, and my answers were "no" and "yes" respectively. If you wish me to address other specific points please ask a specific question.