It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Change: Obama Signs Statement, allows him to Ignore US Laws

page: 2
32
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Just great. MORE reasons to not like Obama. I can't stand this man! (and that doesnt mean I liked bush either, I support none of them)

Peace



[edit on 24-7-2009 by jeasahtheseer]




posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
What a bunch of drama queens. REally. I think we need a "start" a get a hobby club on ats.

OMG Obama wore a black suit today, he must be the Anti christ!OMG Obama signed a stimilus package, we are all going to die! He sucks, teh world is ending!

We all know that the GOP are so threatened that the smear campaign is at an all time high, and it basically looks really silly.

And the Dems are a bunch of crybabies. Obama didn't do what we wanted. boo hoo

With that being said.

Obama said he would use the signing statements sparingly. He never said not at all. He criticized Bush for his constant use of them, more then any other president.

It has been used for ages, but it only evil now because you don't like Obama.


And I love how no one is allowed to mention that Bush is the one who drove the country to hell in a handbasket and if anyone mentions it, everyone on ats cries: that is an old arguement.but yet the gop are now trying to compare Obama to Bush as a smear tactic. Nice way to turn on one of your own. And nice double standard as usual.

Fact is, unless you know exactly what the stipulations are that the Dems put on the bill, and the exact reasons Obama did a signing statement, no one can make any determiniations or draw conclusions.

I for one, don't expect Obama to willingly sign thru every single bill that is passed just because it is the dem party.

The information is as vague as it gets.

Good lord no one knows what this is really about. So find out first before hopping on the typical played out un-informed smear campaign.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Sparingly eh, I guess that is why he has two dozen czars to push law ignoring decisions for him.

Then again, I guess anything that speaks out suspicion against Obamagod must always be smear



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Incrediable but no surprise. How do you spell martial-law or is it marshall-law. Either way this Obama creature is just warming up. Wait until he shows his real color. A burning hell will seem mild in comparison. God help us all. Love my 38 and 45. No way out for those who know the truth except complete freedom from these chains.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


LIke .. dislike .. it matters not. The words came from the man himself.

Questioner from the audience - Do you promise not to use signage statements, to get your way?

Obama - Yes

Furthermore, he went on to explain the situation, so it is totally unreasonable to assume he didn't understand exactly what he was agreeing to.




Obama said he would use the signing statements sparingly. He never said not at all. He criticized Bush for his constant use of them, more then any other president.


So, you and Obama, are both liars. I can see why you support him.

[edit on 24-7-2009 by Cyrin]



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Though im not particullarly fond of Obammas policies id have to say for the most part your right. Here however Obama is right congress overstepped there authority and he let them know it. Did any of you people read what he said heres a link.

www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

And by the way a signing statement doesnt change the law it advises people how the president will execute it.This is why hes called the excutive branch. If congress wishes they can argue it usually in a signing statment the president will use the constitution as he did in this case therefore there will be no challenge.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
This is small peanuts. Those of you who are still blindly thrashing away at Bush need to read some history before going into Angelina Jolie mode.

Pres. Lincoln abolished the writ of habeas corpus by executive order. Truman authorized the use of atomic warfare on civilians. Then the patron saint of the liberal elite, JFK put us in Vietnam, brought us to the brink of WW3 with the Russians, and launched a failed attempt to overthrow Cuba.

This new one, the messiah, is just warming up.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
My question is what Constitution did obama teach it sure couldn't of been The Constitution Of The United States Of America. Where did obama teach The Constitution for 10 years is my question?

Is it too much to ask for an accountability bill to hold these politicians accountable for their promises they make during their campaigns once they are elected? ^Y^

[edit on 24-7-2009 by amari]



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
I dont know Nixie...it is starting to get alot funner bashing Obama than it was bashing Bush.

You can actually imagine some of these Obamatrons crying, because they bought into it and they are now seeing how stupid and blind they are. It must suck.

I dont know about the ignoring laws though like you said. People can probably only speculate at this point. Sure is a whole bunch of other crap going on though ....hehe I cant wait to see everything unfold for the "better"



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


So, nixie, I see you defending obasma on so many threads. Do you really still agree with everything obasma has done/or is doing, or is this your attempt not to feel hypocritical for supporting him much so much like a sycophant?

Really, your argument seems to be that obasma is just acting a little bit like the Bush you hated, so that's OK. The rest of us can see that obasma has taken whatever rights you thought Bush was taking and trumped Bush by a large margin.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Agree totally.

Also, after years of experiencing a party in power that encouraged total acquiescence to its leader, Americans do not know how to handle disagreement in the ranks. It is American to disagree politically...that is our right, our heritage!

I remember a time when politicians in the same party could disagree with and debate each other, without fear of ostracism. A soup on the stove will burn at the bottom and be no good if it is not stirred occasionally.

Dissent is a good thing. It does not mean we reduce ourselves to acting like parties on a Jerry Springer show. How many Americans have even heard of the term "loyal opposition"? There is nothing wrong with disagreeing; there is something terribly wrong with forcing party members to act as one, especially without debate or discussion. And discussion and debate might take longer, which is why dictators would rather do without it.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Actually, this aspect of Obama's presidency has been very disappointing so far.

Obama has apparently been swept up by the Executive Branch's constant quest for legal loopholes and special powers.

On the other hand, I wonder how many people complaining about it do so for mere ideological reasons and not on principle?

How many objecting vocally to this did so when Bush did much the same?

And how many objecting to Bush's claims of executive privilege and immunity did so to Clinton's?

He seems to have started this trend.


However I am very disappointed in Obama for continuing this farce.

Not so much that I would change my vote (and put Sarah Palin a heartbeat from the big red button
), but enough that I might make a different choice next time - depending on the options available.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   
I said it before, adn im saying it now...remember that picture of bush and obama sitting togetehr before his inaguration? I am willing to bet, bush and obama were thier, deciding with echother, how much more of america needs to be chopped up.
This is grounds for impeachment form congress!! acting like a dictator, by USD law, is grounds for impeachment. imma send congress a few emails reminding them..jsut hope i dont get neutrlized or arrested.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
IF obama ha done this, and everyone inn congres has simply ood, awed at this with thiehr puppet mouth hanging open... something BIG is coming soon! Thats what i feel...and its more like public oppression and slavery. Thanks congress for back us up



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
I feel as if I'm in somekind of bizarre time warp. Wasn't this one of the things that Obama criticized Pres. Bush for doing?


Didn't you take your pill today citizen? Or get your mandatory flu shot?

I'm beginning to worry about your abnormal thought process. I may have to report this. Are you actually questioning the way things are? I hope I should have not to identify you for anti-progressive thought.

What you see IS reality. Just take your injections and stop thinking. Just listen, watch and relax...it will all become clear soon.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Bullhorn
 


thx for the video !! I LMAO listening to this.. and had to wipe the tears of laughter .. AJ's got the biggest b**** in Texas !!! LOL.

but you know what .. a lie is STILL a lie and BO is just that!



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   
One of the things which I am anxious to see, is what happens to where the Obama supporters will go. A bit of history first...

There was a local politician - and everyone knew he was corrupt and dishonest - but everywhere you looked you saw signs of support. Everyone you talked to said , "Yeah I'm a X supporter!". Until the indictments came in. Then, all of the sudden, almost magically, NOBODY ever liked that guy.

My neighbors across the street only put up that sign in their yard because : "Our son worked for X - but we never really trusted him. I always knew he was a bad guy " The guy I worked with said," Well, he did get a lot of funding for local projects - but I never really trusted him. I always knew he was a dirt-bag ..." Yeah. How did he get voted into office with 70%+ of the voters? Nobody trusted him but he stayed in office, term after term, until the truth officially came out. Meanwhile, I and others had said in public that this official was obviously a @#$%^T&* crook. We were considered cranks.

I wonder how many of these - current - Obama supporters are going to do the same when things come crashing down?

"What me? I never supported Obama!" will be the new mantra. When things come crashing down, one will wonder at how he got elected: because nobody you talk to will ever admit having voted for him. They will all deny having brought destruction upon us. Just watch.

I'm positive: Denial three times before the cock crows will be heard a lot in this country in the future.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   
But he's Obama, and he's come to save the day!!





If he can punch pirates, and solve ALL the universes problems, he can't be THAT evil.


[edit on 25-7-2009 by jephers0n]



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by jjkenobi

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
.eu?

Are you telling me that msm isn't reporting on this first?

anyone?


American MSM report something negative on Obama? Have you just crawled out from under a rock? That only happens when he pisses the media off.


Before you state the MSM ignored this issue completely, it would have been a good idea for you to actually check the mainstream media outlets. If you had, you might have come across these:

Boston Globe
"Democrats scold Obama on signing statements"
www.boston.com...

Associated Press
"Democrats irked by Obama signing statement"
www.google.com...

Reuters
"Top Democrats warn Obama on IMF funding qualifier"
www.reuters.com...

Associated Press
"Democrats challenge Obama signing statement"
www.google.com...

Liberal Bloggers at the Huffington Post
"Well, You Wanted Bipartisanship: House Awakens, Votes 429-2 For Oval Office Accountability"
www.huffingtonpost.com...

Another well-known liberal group - The Young Turks
'Line-Item Veto' by Any Other Name Still Stinks
www.theyoungturks.com...

There is a hundred more but I am tired of copying and pasting. It is important to note that the Associated Press story is reprinted in many, many other newspapers all over the world.

Now that that issue is settled, were you purposely lying when you said the MSM ignored the signing statements or did you simply refuse to do any research before making baseless assertion? Anyone who reads this forum has internet access and they need only spend a minute doing Google News searches in order to show you're wrong. Nice try, but you FAIL!




[edit on 25-7-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by wutone
 


Yea I don't get the Czar thing in the administration. It just sounds like a way to pack the cabinet full of people that couldn't possibly pass a confirmation hearing. And it seems that Obama is really piling on the Czars in this administration.

This is from back in May...


Obama fashions a government of many czars



By Steve Holland - Analysis

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Name a top issue and President Barack Obama has probably got a "czar" responsible for tackling it.

A bank bailout czar? Herb Allison. Energy czar? Carol Browner.

There's a drug czar, a U.S. border czar, an urban czar, a regulatory czar, a stimulus accountability czar, an Iran czar, a Middle East czar, and a czar for both Afghanistan and Pakistan, which in Washington-speak has been lumped together into a policy area called Af-Pak.

There are upward of 20 such top officials, all with lengthy official titles but known in the media as czars, and next week there will be one more, when Obama appoints a czar for cyber-security who will be charged with improving the security of computer networks.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Source: www.reuters.com...

I think president's used signing statements for a while now. Bush used them as a matter of course. But I don't think it's right. I think that it usurps the powers of both Congress and the SCOTUS for a president to make a de facto law without the checks and balances given in the Constitution.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join