Obama denounced ‘signing statements’ under Bush, now uses them as president

Those 100 million + would best be served by simply abstaining from the circus. If we stopped voting the process would be de-legitimized. There is no alternative, really. We can't rise up against the sophisticated weapons systems the power elite control, not even with semi-automatic assault rifles.

 

The alienation and estrangement is only going to get worse. The hundred million are going to be the losers in the globalized multicultural amerika. They will never have power again. They will develop a new consciousness. I don't mean that in a good way.

There is no need for assault rifles or physical conflict among amerikans. It makes more sense to wage open source warfare against the state itself by showing the peoples of this country that the US can't provide stability or order.

 

i don't see how that would help

 

That horrible scraping sound is your argument hitting the Iceberg, man the lifeboats!

 

Where does that absolve Obama from being a hypocrite?

[video=youtube;voWuAXts76E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voWuAXts76E[/video]

In case anyone forgot what Obama said.

 

I didn't either, at first.

[video=youtube;igbBItLemsM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igbBItLemsM[/video]

 

Which argument was that? The one about your disdain for hypocrisy being limited to the partisan party false choice distraction? Hardly.

 

Again, can you produce a link where Bush condemned signing statements then did them anyway? That is the scope of the thread. Just because you'd like to expand the scope doesn't mean your argument in this case isn't going down like the Andrea Doria.

 

Why would I provide evidence for an argument I neither made nor implied? Your logic seems to be faulty.

 

what a bunch of malarkey, the libertarian party is among the worst

Bush's Top Ten Flip-Flops - February 11, 2009

Nation Building and the War in Iraq

During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. In the second presidential debate, he said: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'"

The United States is currently involved in nation building in Iraq on a scale unseen since the years immediately following World War II.

During the 2000 election, Mr. Bush called for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from the NATO peacekeeping mission in the Balkans. His administration now cites such missions as an example of how America must "stay the course."


Free Trade

During the 2000 presidential election, Mr. Bush championed free trade. Then, eyeing campaign concerns that allowed him to win West Virginia, he imposed 30 percent tariffs on foreign steel products from Europe and other nations in March 2002.

Twenty-one months later, Mr. Bush changed his mind and rescinded the steel tariffs. Choosing to stand on social issues instead of tariffs in steel country – Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia – the Bush campaign decided it could afford to upset the steel industry rather than further estrange old alliances.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-646142.html

 

Since when does a wiggly fish sub for one that flips and flops anyway? Likewise... the answer to your problem isn't requiring from Obama a "full explanation" IF you aren't also going to require a full explanation from every human being for changing their positions on any given subject. GWB set a helluva a precedent.. But lets not get too carried away that Obama is going off the same deep end...

Clearly, GWB was trying to prove a point with nary a rightwing calling him on it...

Whenever someone posts thoughts such as this about this President, I am forced to ask why they never demanded an explanation from GWB on his oath before his election/selection in 1999 that he'd "BRING BACK" dignity and honor to the White House, then upon inauguration launched (when he wasn't ON VACATION) into bringing everything but those two patriotic American attributes anywhere near Pennsylvania Avenue.

You're welcome.

 

Are you familiar with signing statements?

 

Obama using even one contradicts what he said while getting elected.

[video=youtube;voWuAXts76E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voWuAXts76E[/video]

 

OK we'll expand the scope, has any Republican President condemned signing statements then used them himself?

 

But what is really your point? That Presidential candidates make promises they do not keep or condemn the exiting President's policies, then end up practicing some of them? Hello? Think about that.

I bet you were the first one to complain when Obama extended the Bush tax cuts. lol Or continued the war in Afghanistan, kept Gitmo up and running, continued extraordinary rendition?? Did you ask for a "full explanation" then?

 

It's computers that tell you the vote results anyway.. They still assume their presidents are being elected by the populace.

 

I do not care, if republicans are gonna use them, then I want dems to use them... I would support congress on banning that power, but only if it applied to both parties

people in congress do not want the opposite party to have those powers, but as President both parties use them

think Obama has done about 20 to Bush's couple hundred...

.

 

Rattle the cage all you want, they won't fly. Even mention things like Obama doing renovation work on the Guantanamo bay gulag, Republican sponsored assault rifle ban proposals in their congress etc.. or anything else from the half of the universe they are blinded to, it still won't shake 'em.

 

This is a fair point and a good one because we must realize that presidents are human and are allowed to change their mind, or adapt their position to meet different circumstances etc.

But after a certain point it happens so often and they give zero rationale or explanation for it, you pretty much realize they were just paying you lip service in the first instance.. They haven't changed their mind, rather they were lying to you about their intentions.

They even lie about why they aren't doing what they said they would, like Obama who is commander in chief of the military and how he can't shut down a military prison and release uncharged military captives because somehow congress must have jurisdiction over his offshore military gulag.

It's a thin line between them but you can see them fall way over on one side of it.. Especially when they recycle the same promises they already broke in their first term in their re-election campaign. And all their flag waving supporters say "we should elect him because he's going to do xxxxx" like they actually base what they think the candidate will do once elected based on what they say they will do!

 

You are quite right...what are you going to do change their attitudes? If you can't change those attitudes you won't be able to live with them unless you disempower and marginalize them completely. But if you do that they will start engaging in direct action outside the political system. And there's no telling where that will take us.

You don't want the conservatives to become that radicalized. It won't end well for the United States.

 

Libertarian party, eh? Is that what you got from the video? You could just admit you didn't even watch it.

 

Are you arguing against signing statements or hypocrisy? You can't seem to make up your mind.

 

Given enough time, even the most oblivious bird will notice the opening in the cage.

 

If knowing the truth results in such, so be it. The truth can never lead to a worse possible outcome than believing the lie.

 

America doesn't need a bird cage. It needs a miracle.