Obama Drops NDAA Veto.Follow

They're free to be our neighbours, I just want a large yard between us.

Yeah, isn't there something you can do about that?

I approve of the chaos that would cause.

eh my 2 cents for what it is worth.

Obama dropped the ball, but that doesn't really matter, the government of the united states (the whole government) has a single priotrity above all else, and that is to up hold the contents of the Constitution of United States. This bill screams doing the opposite. Everyone in a government position should be ashamed that this was even penned in the first place.

(I also hold the same feelings in regards to the PATRIOT act, amongst others.)

This is clearly striping citizens of their right to fair trials and due process. Which is completely against the Constitution. Everyone of the persons names on this bill should be removed and tried in court for attempting to usurp the rights of the people.

***** you went to war with England for less, now you let your own government turn your country into a police state.)

Well we don't want the terrorists to win do we?

Besides it's Obama. He's pretty much been willing to compromise on security concerns and environmental stuff.

I only hope that what happened in New Orleans was the exception and not the rule..
Going door to door to the homes of registered owners and snatching their **** in the time when you they would most NEED them is QUITE ludicrous IMO. It would be like your local restaurant robbing your house of all your food just because they can cook better..

Then again I live in one of the two most UNfriendly gun states in the Union.. They'll probably declare martial law once Obama is out of office..

You mean the years when the GOP held majorities in both chambers of Congress? Which would, incidentally, include chairing every Congressional committee including investigation powers?

Yeah. Nice try though.


...that would require you to know something about politics and history, I know.

Edited, Dec 16th 2011 8:15pm by Jophiel

Very slim majorities. Yes. What's your point?



Sure. Again, what's your point? Remember when the Dems held majorities in both chambers of Congress but not the presidency? Didn't get what they wanted, did they? It was only when they held both by a large margin *and* held the White House that they got to pass what they wanted without having to give concessions.

And we can see how well that worked out, can't we?


I just always find it amusing how you attack the GOP for being partisan when they oppose what the Dems are trying to do, but when they do compromise with the Dems and exactly what they said was bad about what the Dems wanted happens, you effectively blame them for *not* being partisan and sticking to their guns. Apparently saying "We think this is a bad idea, but you wont allow this legislation to go forward without us letting you have it" isn't sufficient for the GOP to say "I told you so" when that compromise turns out to be a mistake?


Even more broadly, given the sheer number of things the GOP has compromised to the Dems which turned out to be huge mistakes should convince anyone that A) the Dems are either idiots or are deliberately trying to ***** over the country, and B) that the GOP is justified to block most Dem ideas on partisan lines.

It's like you've never heard of a filibuster. But I know you have. Which leads me to assume you're just full of shit.

Um... And that's beyond the political aspect of things. A slim majority means that you can't afford to do anything that may cost you even a seat or two in the next election. Surely you understand that susceptibility to loss of those chair positions might just influence which things a party makes a priority and which issues they'll let drop if there's opposition.


It's like you have no understanding of how a minority party can hold up the majority party's agenda. But again, I know you know this because you've been complaining about it for the last 5 years. So I guess we're back to you being full of shit.



No. Why do you think that? I'm sure there's some contorted logic you're applying here, but I don't see it. Perhaps if the contorted process brings you to a confusing and nonsensical result, you should see if there's another much more straightforward explanation which makes complete sense? Like maybe that I'm making a point about how political parties don't always get to do everything they want to do just because they hold a majority in Congress. Sometime the reason is because they don't hold a sufficient majority to overcome opposition and have to compromise. Other times it's because they don't hold the white house and can't overcome opposition from a veto (even threatened).

You choose the oddest moments to get tunnel vision on a topic Joph.



Huh? The GOP had a slim majority in congress in 2005 Joph (if we're talking specifically about the Barney Frank incident, but they weren't much better off in 2003 either). You do recall that they lost control of both houses in 2006, right? You don't think that perhaps in 2005 they knew that they were on the edge of losing control and therefore weren't willing to push against any strong opposition?

Why do you suppose that so much of the legislation passed between 2001 and 2006 was bi-partisan? It was because the GOP never had the numbers to push anything truly partisan through. You love to insist therefore that they are equally responsible for the things they compromised on, as the party that insisted on those things as part of a compromise. But that makes no damn sense at all. If that was true, and you can make out the housing investigation failure as some kind of exception, then we should expect to see a whole bunch of legislation which passed on partisan lines over that time period. But we don't.


So where does that leave us? IMO, we should judge based on what a party wants, and recognize that it isn't always going to be able to get what it wants. But placing equal blame on the party that wants the thing that you don't like and the party that failed to fight hard enough to prevent it from happening is just plain silly. It's silly regardless of the specific issue. What's funny though is that you find it silly *only* when someone's trying to place equal blame on your party in those situations. You freely participate in the same silliness when it's the other party though.


So like I said. You appear to be inconsistent with your position on this sort of thing. But it's not really inconsistency. You are consistently pro-liberal and pro-Democrat no matter how irrational. That's perfectly ok, of course, except that you then pretend that this isn't the case and project it onto everyone else. To show you the contrast, I *don't* blame Obama for signing this bill. Now partially, it's because I don't think the bill is that big of a deal. But, if 5 years from now, it turns out that some provision that Obama (and the Dems) opposed but allowed to remain as part of a compromise ends out biting us in the ***, you will *never* hear me insist that Obama is equally responsible. I don't think it'll happen, but if it is, I will apply the same consistent reasoning I've applied all along.

You, on the other hand...


Edited, Dec 16th 2011 7:04pm by gbaji

Of course. That's the status quo. Desperately cling to whatever shreds of power you may have left.

I dunno, Joph, he does look pretty sinister.