Obama Dares GOP: Go Ahead, ‘Have a Vote on Whether What I’m Doing Is Legal…I Will Veto’

[BULLDOG]

He can veto any bill...

>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<
it's not a ******* bill, you stupid ******* it is simply a VOTE !!!!

i vote you are a stupid *******

veto that !!
............... dipshit

So it will just be a bunch of childish republicans saying " Who doesn't like the mean old president.....a show of hands?" That is more like a bunch of teenage girls than an act of congress.

 

[Oldstyle]

Whether something is legal or not doesn't make it right.

But as your dear leader said... Its the right thing to do

-Geaux

Whether something is "right" or not is a matter of opinion. I don't consider it unexpected the President would do something he thought was right as opposed to something he thought was wrong. The President is expected to exercise the powers of the Presidency. That is what he is paid to do. No President does that with the full agreement of the citizenry. There is always going to be some who think his policies are bad. Those people have the option of voting for someone else the next election.

missing the point.

He can not veto a finding.

The vote is for a finding.

He is well aware that President may misinterpret the law as he believed Bush did with waterboarding and whether or not it was torture.

So why say "I will veto" a vote that may show a heavy bipartisan majority finding it was illegal? Shouldn't he be willing to listen?

It is his holier than thou...smartest man in the land attitude that concerns me.

I am not missing the point. Of course he can't veto a finding. Frankly, I'm not sure there is any such thing. If the Congress is going to actually do something, all they can do is pass a bill. A finding has no legal weight of any kind. The President doesn't have to veto it, he can just ignore it. So I am assuming what the President meant was he will veto any bill sent to him that would render what he is doing illegal.

His attitude does not concern me. I really don't think the Presidency is a place for someone with a small ego. Whether or not I agree with a President's policies, I'd prefer he was forceful rather than weak about them.

If only this President was as "forceful" with foreign policy as he is dealing with the opposition party! Just saying...

it doesn't take forcefulness to deal with the opposing party when you are president. It takes the ability to be president and work for all of the people. Not just a select few.

I couldn't agree more, Jar...

I think the biggest weakness of Barack Obama is that he doesn't have the personality to forge political compromises. He becomes petulant when he doesn't get what he wants and he refuses to build relationships with others to foster cooperation.

For me, one of the telling passages in Robert Gates book about what was going on in the Obama White House is that when the GOP won the House after the first mid-term election, someone in Obama's Cabinet suggested that the President call John Boehner and congratulate him on becoming the new Speaker of the House. The problem was...nobody seemed to know Boehner's number because nobody at the Obama White House ever called the Minority Leader. Think about that...two years in and not only had Obama not forged some sort of relationship with the opposition leader ...as Clinton had with Gingrich and Reagan had with O'Neil...he didn't even know how to get a hold of the guy!

 

[BULLDOG]

No, we need to hit our reps hard and let them know we won't stand for this. We need to form massive protests and have to get the word out to the general public what is really going on. I still believe that 2/3rds of our country does care about the country and rule of law. Unfortunately, the 1/3rd dominates the media, and the message, misconstruing the message for their benefit. We have to become louder than them.

Only as good as the Congress that is willing or not to take the illegalities on, as well as a doj to follow the Constitution.

So let me get this straight libs...if the pres can veto anything and everything,what good are checks and balances?

So we only get this with a total breakdown of government?
Never have I seen such disregard of the wishes of the American people.

Hell, he told Border Patrol that if they enforce the law, instead of ignoring it as he has decreed, their jobs and benefits are on the line, because "it's the right thing to do".

Congress had just as soon disband.

Congress is worthless as tits on a boar.

Dont know about you but I'm getting tired of being treated like a second class citizen in my own damn country.
We should give obama what he wants...a shooting war. Because I'm not seeing any other way to put an end to this bullshit.

Make up your pea brained mind. Are you a patriot or a traitor?

 

[BULLDOG]

Did you hear the documents recovered from OBL, only 10% were even gone through? It was shut down, to delve deeper, due to, possibly, implications of this administrations want of an agreement with Iran.

Where did you come up with that bit of information? Pull it out of your butt?

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the vote is to ceate law, yes, it can be vetoed.

It is a vote on the "sense" of an issue, then no, it won't go to the WH at all.

Craig Bannister is wowing up the far right is all.

 

[BULLDOG]

No, it is not up for debate. If something is legal or not is a matter to be determined by the Judicial branch of the government. The Congress can make a law to make something the President is doing illegal, but not retroactively. And the President can veto that bill. That's how the government works and it doesn't suddenly work some other way just because your guy didn't get elected.

The only person basing an argument on emotion is you.

Whether something is legal or not doesn't make it right.

But as your dear leader said... Its the right thing to do

-Geaux

Whether something is "right" or not is a matter of opinion. I don't consider it unexpected the President would do something he thought was right as opposed to something he thought was wrong. The President is expected to exercise the powers of the Presidency. That is what he is paid to do. No President does that with the full agreement of the citizenry. There is always going to be some who think his policies are bad. Those people have the option of voting for someone else the next election.

missing the point.

He can not veto a finding.

The vote is for a finding.

He is well aware that President may misinterpret the law as he believed Bush did with waterboarding and whether or not it was torture.

So why say "I will veto" a vote that may show a heavy bipartisan majority finding it was illegal? Shouldn't he be willing to listen?

It is his holier than thou...smartest man in the land attitude that concerns me.

I am not missing the point. Of course he can't veto a finding. Frankly, I'm not sure there is any such thing. If the Congress is going to actually do something, all they can do is pass a bill. A finding has no legal weight of any kind. The President doesn't have to veto it, he can just ignore it. So I am assuming what the President meant was he will veto any bill sent to him that would render what he is doing illegal.

His attitude does not concern me. I really don't think the Presidency is a place for someone with a small ego. Whether or not I agree with a President's policies, I'd prefer he was forceful rather than weak about them.

If only this President was as "forceful" with foreign policy as he is dealing with the opposition party! Just saying...

just because you say it doesn't make it true.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

No, we need to hit our reps hard and let them know we won't stand for this. We need to form massive protests and have to get the word out to the general public what is really going on. I still believe that 2/3rds of our country does care about the country and rule of law. Unfortunately, the 1/3rd dominates the media, and the message, misconstruing the message for their benefit. We have to become louder than them.

Only as good as the Congress that is willing or not to take the illegalities on, as well as a doj to follow the Constitution.

So we only get this with a total breakdown of government?
Never have I seen such disregard of the wishes of the American people.

Hell, he told Border Patrol that if they enforce the law, instead of ignoring it as he has decreed, their jobs and benefits are on the line, because "it's the right thing to do".

Congress had just as soon disband.

Congress is worthless as tits on a boar.

Dont know about you but I'm getting tired of being treated like a second class citizen in my own damn country.
We should give obama what he wants...a shooting war. Because I'm not seeing any other way to put an end to this bullshit.

Make up your pea brained mind. Are you a patriot or a traitor?

I stand with the Constitution. And you're something totally different..

 

[HenryBHough]

Spoken like a true tyrant. Lawless Obama is gutter water and a cancer on Amercia

Now isn't that comparison a little unfairly rough on cancer?

 

[BULLDOG]

No, we need to hit our reps hard and let them know we won't stand for this. We need to form massive protests and have to get the word out to the general public what is really going on. I still believe that 2/3rds of our country does care about the country and rule of law. Unfortunately, the 1/3rd dominates the media, and the message, misconstruing the message for their benefit. We have to become louder than them.

So we only get this with a total breakdown of government?
Never have I seen such disregard of the wishes of the American people.

Hell, he told Border Patrol that if they enforce the law, instead of ignoring it as he has decreed, their jobs and benefits are on the line, because "it's the right thing to do".

Congress had just as soon disband.

Congress is worthless as tits on a boar.

Dont know about you but I'm getting tired of being treated like a second class citizen in my own damn country.
We should give obama what he wants...a shooting war. Because I'm not seeing any other way to put an end to this bullshit.

Make up your pea brained mind. Are you a patriot or a traitor?

I stand with the Constitution. And you're something totally different..

Then why are you advocating an armed attack against our country?

 

[PratchettFan]

No, it is not up for debate. If something is legal or not is a matter to be determined by the Judicial branch of the government. The Congress can make a law to make something the President is doing illegal, but not retroactively. And the President can veto that bill. That's how the government works and it doesn't suddenly work some other way just because your guy didn't get elected.

The only person basing an argument on emotion is you.

Whether something is legal or not doesn't make it right.

But as your dear leader said... Its the right thing to do

-Geaux

Whether something is "right" or not is a matter of opinion. I don't consider it unexpected the President would do something he thought was right as opposed to something he thought was wrong. The President is expected to exercise the powers of the Presidency. That is what he is paid to do. No President does that with the full agreement of the citizenry. There is always going to be some who think his policies are bad. Those people have the option of voting for someone else the next election.

missing the point.

He can not veto a finding.

The vote is for a finding.

He is well aware that President may misinterpret the law as he believed Bush did with waterboarding and whether or not it was torture.

So why say "I will veto" a vote that may show a heavy bipartisan majority finding it was illegal? Shouldn't he be willing to listen?

It is his holier than thou...smartest man in the land attitude that concerns me.

I am not missing the point. Of course he can't veto a finding. Frankly, I'm not sure there is any such thing. If the Congress is going to actually do something, all they can do is pass a bill. A finding has no legal weight of any kind. The President doesn't have to veto it, he can just ignore it. So I am assuming what the President meant was he will veto any bill sent to him that would render what he is doing illegal.

His attitude does not concern me. I really don't think the Presidency is a place for someone with a small ego. Whether or not I agree with a President's policies, I'd prefer he was forceful rather than weak about them.

If only this President was as "forceful" with foreign policy as he is dealing with the opposition party! Just saying...

Such as?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

No, we need to hit our reps hard and let them know we won't stand for this. We need to form massive protests and have to get the word out to the general public what is really going on. I still believe that 2/3rds of our country does care about the country and rule of law. Unfortunately, the 1/3rd dominates the media, and the message, misconstruing the message for their benefit. We have to become louder than them.

Hell, he told Border Patrol that if they enforce the law, instead of ignoring it as he has decreed, their jobs and benefits are on the line, because "it's the right thing to do".

Congress had just as soon disband.

Congress is worthless as tits on a boar.

Dont know about you but I'm getting tired of being treated like a second class citizen in my own damn country.
We should give obama what he wants...a shooting war. Because I'm not seeing any other way to put an end to this bullshit.

Make up your pea brained mind. Are you a patriot or a traitor?

I stand with the Constitution. And you're something totally different..

Then why are you advocating an armed attack against our country?

STFU La raza boy. You have no say.

 

[PratchettFan]

Obama has replaced the US Constitution, our laws, and our representatives in congress with his "It was the right thing to do" doctrine, wow.

No, he hasn't. That is just nonsense.

 

[PratchettFan]

Whether something is legal or not doesn't make it right.

But as your dear leader said... Its the right thing to do

-Geaux

Whether something is "right" or not is a matter of opinion. I don't consider it unexpected the President would do something he thought was right as opposed to something he thought was wrong. The President is expected to exercise the powers of the Presidency. That is what he is paid to do. No President does that with the full agreement of the citizenry. There is always going to be some who think his policies are bad. Those people have the option of voting for someone else the next election.

missing the point.

He can not veto a finding.

The vote is for a finding.

He is well aware that President may misinterpret the law as he believed Bush did with waterboarding and whether or not it was torture.

So why say "I will veto" a vote that may show a heavy bipartisan majority finding it was illegal? Shouldn't he be willing to listen?

It is his holier than thou...smartest man in the land attitude that concerns me.

I am not missing the point. Of course he can't veto a finding. Frankly, I'm not sure there is any such thing. If the Congress is going to actually do something, all they can do is pass a bill. A finding has no legal weight of any kind. The President doesn't have to veto it, he can just ignore it. So I am assuming what the President meant was he will veto any bill sent to him that would render what he is doing illegal.

His attitude does not concern me. I really don't think the Presidency is a place for someone with a small ego. Whether or not I agree with a President's policies, I'd prefer he was forceful rather than weak about them.

If only this President was as "forceful" with foreign policy as he is dealing with the opposition party! Just saying...

it doesn't take forcefulness to deal with the opposing party when you are president. It takes the ability to be president and work for all of the people. Not just a select few.

Well, if the complaint is that he is a mediocre president and was never really qualified for the job, I'm with you there.

 

[depotoo]

Al Qaeda documents outline U.S. terror campaign - CNN.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/05/03/Foreign/Graphics/osama-bin-laden-documents-combined.pdf
Al Qaeda Wasn t on the Run The Weekly Standard
In all, the U.S. government would have access to more than a million documents detailing al Qaeda’s funding, training, personnel, and future plans. The raid promised to be a turning point in America’s war on terror, not only because it eliminated al Qaeda’s leader, but also because the materials taken from his compound had great intelligence value. Analysts and policymakers would no longer need to depend on the inherently incomplete picture that had emerged from the piecing together of disparate threads of intelligence—collected via methods with varying records of success and from sources of uneven reliability. The bin Laden documents were primary source material, providing unmediated access to the thinking of al Qaeda leaders expressed in their own words.

A comprehensive and systematic examination of those documents could give U.S. intelligence officials—and eventually the American public—a better understanding of al Qaeda’s leadership, its affiliates, its recruitment efforts, its methods of communication; a better understanding, that is, of the enemy America has fought for over a decade now, at a cost of trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives.

Incredibly, such a comprehensive study—a thorough “document exploitation,” in the parlance of the intelligence community—never took place. The Weekly Standard has spoken to more than two dozen individuals with knowledge of the U.S. government’s handling of the bin Laden documents. And on that, there is widespread agreement.

“They haven’t done anything close to a full exploitation,” says Derek Harvey, a former senior intelligence analyst with the Defense Intelligence Agency and ex-director of the Afghanistan-Pakistan Center of Excellence at U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM).

“A full exploitation? No,” he says. “Not even close. Maybe 10 percent.”


New Docs Reveal Osama bin Laden s Secret Ties With Iran The Weekly Standard

Did you hear the documents recovered from OBL, only 10% were even gone through? It was shut down, to delve deeper, due to, possibly, implications of this administrations want of an agreement with Iran.

Where did you come up with that bit of information? Pull it out of your butt?

Did you hear the documents recovered from OBL, only 10% were even gone through? It was shut down, to delve deeper, due to, possibly, implications of this administrations want of an agreement with Iran.

Where did you come up with that bit of information? Pull it out of your butt?

 

[BULLDOG]

No, we need to hit our reps hard and let them know we won't stand for this. We need to form massive protests and have to get the word out to the general public what is really going on. I still believe that 2/3rds of our country does care about the country and rule of law. Unfortunately, the 1/3rd dominates the media, and the message, misconstruing the message for their benefit. We have to become louder than them.

Dont know about you but I'm getting tired of being treated like a second class citizen in my own damn country.
We should give obama what he wants...a shooting war. Because I'm not seeing any other way to put an end to this bullshit.

Make up your pea brained mind. Are you a patriot or a traitor?

I stand with the Constitution. And you're something totally different..

Then why are you advocating an armed attack against our country?

STFU La raza boy. You have no say.

So far, I've been called a Jew, a Muslim, French, a woman, Gay, for some reason, one teabagger thought I was a short run truck driver, and a communist/socialist/anarchist. Now, for some reason, you seem to think I'm Hispanic. All or those claims are wrong.
Even if any of those things were true, it still doesn't answer the question of why you advocate an armed insurrection against our country while you claim to be a patriot. Care to explain yourself on that particular question? Are you truly the potential terrorist you claim to be, or just another crazy teabagger who will spout anything when he gets flustered.

 

[mudwhistle]

.

I heard this quote and I'm not sure what he means. Presidents veto bills.

To what is he referring?

.

For one,. the constitution need not apply.

-Geaux

Please do point out where in the Constitution it says a president can't exercise his ability to veto. I'll wait.

Amendments to the Constitution.

 

[BULLDOG]

.

I heard this quote and I'm not sure what he means. Presidents veto bills.

To what is he referring?

.

For one,. the constitution need not apply.

-Geaux

Please do point out where in the Constitution it says a president can't exercise his ability to veto. I'll wait.

Amendments to the Constitution.

Which amendment?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

No, we need to hit our reps hard and let them know we won't stand for this. We need to form massive protests and have to get the word out to the general public what is really going on. I still believe that 2/3rds of our country does care about the country and rule of law. Unfortunately, the 1/3rd dominates the media, and the message, misconstruing the message for their benefit. We have to become louder than them.

Make up your pea brained mind. Are you a patriot or a traitor?

I stand with the Constitution. And you're something totally different..

Then why are you advocating an armed attack against our country?

STFU La raza boy. You have no say.

So far, I've been called a Jew, a Muslim, French, a woman, Gay, for some reason, one teabagger thought I was a short run truck driver, and a communist/socialist/anarchist. Now, for some reason, you seem to think I'm Hispanic. All or those claims are wrong.
Even if any of those things were true, it still doesn't answer the question of why you advocate an armed insurrection against our country while you claim to be a patriot. Care to explain yourself on that particular question? Are you truly the potential terrorist you claim to be, or just another crazy teabagger who will spout anything when he gets flustered.

So you're ashamed of who you are.
No surprise there.
If the federal government continues on the track it's on you can expect trouble.
How this trouble manifests remains to be seen,but you cant let millions of illegals flood our country while Americans cant find decent work.
Eventually even democrats will be able to figure this out.....what then Pancho?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

.

Presidents can veto a vote?

.

He can't... which makes what Obama said pretty damn stupid. Unless he's claiming he can somehow nullify their vote. If he's making that claim, well, Houston, e have a problem.

Personally I think he's just running his head....

 

[Truthseeker420]

Spoken like a true tyrant. Lawless Obama is gutter water and a cancer on Amercia

-Geaux
-------------------------

Pres. Obama is daring Republicans to vote on whether or not his executive actions are legal.

Discussing opposition to his executive amnesty orders at an immigration town hall Wednesday, Obama said he would veto the vote because his actions are “the right thing to do”:

“So in the short term, if Mr. McConnell, the leader of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, want to have a vote on whether what I’m doing is legal or not, they can have that vote. I will veto that vote, because I’m absolutely confident that what we’re doing is the right thing to do.”

Obama Dares GOP Go Ahead Have a Vote on Whether What I m Doing Is Legal I Will Veto MRCTV

The veto is his Constitutional right.that's why we elected him. Republicans have a problem with the Constitution.