- Joined
- May 30, 2007
- Messages
- 9,595
- Reaction score
- 2,739
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
The AP adds, “In a letter to the president, four senior House members said they were ’surprised’ and ‘chagrined’ by Obama’s statement in June accompanying a war spending bill that he would ignore restrictions placed on aid provided to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.”
Good to see some Democrats are waking up to the fact that him and Bush are one in the same.
Raw Story Democrats scold Obama on signing statements
They don't resent his fame so much as they enjoy their own perquisites.I sense MANY Democrats can't wait for the opportunity to bury Obama. They resent his rock-star fame and his razor-thin resume. Now that the tide is turning on Obama, perhaps they will turn on him, too.
They don't resent his fame so much as they enjoy their own perquisites.
Carter tried to dictate to Congress and got his head handed to him.
Clinton tried to muscle healthcare through Congress and got his head handed to him.
Johnson did muscle Medicare through Congress--but he'd been on Capitol Hill since before WWII, he knew where all the bodies were buried, and he knew whose arm to twist and whose palm to grease.
Dear Leader wants to evoke memories of Lyndon Johnson. I'm just waiting for the politician to chime in with "I knew Lyndon Johnson. I served with Lyndon Johnson. Lyndon Johnson was a friend of mine. Dear Leader, you are no Lyndon Johnson."
Good to see some Democrats are waking up to the fact that him and Bush are one in the same.
Raw Story Democrats scold Obama on signing statements
Because he made a signing statement Obama is the same as Bush? Doesn't every president use signing statements? The problem with Bush was he used them all the time and essentially negated every document he signed.
"I will issue signing statements to address constitutional concerns only when it is appropriate to do so as a means of discharging my constitutional responsibilities," the president pledged.
Obama's signing statement said he wouldn't allow provisions regarding international financial institutions to interfere with his ability to conduct foreign diplomacy.
Now that the tide is turning on Obama, perhaps they will turn on him, too.
Not really, why would the Dems turn on Obama just to get a Republican president that will veto everything they do?
I dont see you criticizing The Obama for His use of signing statements.Because he made a signing statement Obama is the same as Bush? Doesn't every president use signing statements? The problem with Bush was he used them all the time and essentially negated every document he signed.
Good to see some Democrats are waking up to the fact that him and Bush are one in the same.
Raw Story Democrats scold Obama on signing statements
Correction; Bush is NOTHING like Obama. Bush never spent us into a $1.8 trillion deficit with more to come and Bush never made a political grab at power as this administration has with it's czars and policies.
Please do not place Bush in the same category as Obama, Obama has taken Government power grab to all time new highs.
Good to see some Democrats are waking up to the fact that him and Bush are one in the same.
Raw Story Democrats scold Obama on signing statements
The problem with Bush was he used them all the time and essentially negated every document he signed.
Because he made a signing statement Obama is the same as Bush? Doesn't every president use signing statements? The problem with Bush was he used them all the time and essentially negated every document he signed.
Obama came out against signing statements I believe. Kinda a hypocrite, no?
Yep Bush was an angel and Obama is the Devil. Obama's spending excuses Bush's spending. :roll:
Obama's spending excuses Bush's spending. :roll:
I want to address this one in particular; Bush's spending dealing with 9-11, two wars which were authorized by vast bi-partisan majorities and Hurricane Katrina which devastated a major US city pale in comparison to Obama's unilateral passed (nothing in this administration can be considered bi-partisan) "stimulus" spending us into a $1.8 trillion deficit.
Is that what you "infer" from my comments? I suggest that you get some reading glasses or learn some reading comprehension.
Your trite attempts to read nonsense into every comment that doesn't fit your narrow Liberal partisan points of view are amusing at best. :2wave:
I want to address this one in particular; Bush's spending dealing with 9-11, two wars which were authorized by vast bi-partisan majorities and Hurricane Katrina which devastated a major US city pale in comparison to Obama's unilateral passed (nothing in this administration can be considered bi-partisan) "stimulus" spending us into a $1.8 trillion deficit.
It is almost as asinine an argument as suggesting that this massive deficit was the result of republicans in charge.
Here is a clue for you; in 2006 when republicans were in charge the deficit was in decline and at about $168 billion. Since Democrats took over in 2007, and with the junior Senator Obama's help, the deficit has shot up to over $1.8 trillion. One can only WISH that we were back at the deficits caused by Bush.
Carry on. :rofl
All of which was as incompetently handled, inefficiently handled, and spent as much money as possible. An occupational war which we are still not out of, huge increases in government power including spying and warrantless searches, not to mention horrible legislation such as The Real ID Act. An increase in executive order and signing statements which basically comes down to legislature through the executive. Yup...Bush sucks, Obama sucks; and the government is spinning out of control.
First off learn how to use the quote feature, it isn't that hard.
Secondly, yes, you have basically come in here and tried (and failed) to try and excuse Bush's out of control spending and increasing the size of the government.
None of which excuses increasing government size, and the spending and mismanagment that Bush has done.
Apologies for attacking the methods of your God Bush.
As Ikari said, Bush's spending sucked and was wrong, and I think Obama is spending way to much is wrong.
Obama's spending DOES NOT excuse Bush's spending as you would like us to believe.
Carry on :moon:
Here's a clue for you; Bush is no longer in charge, Obama is. :rofl
Carry on.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?