posted February 25, 2014 01:39 PM            

I was referring to indefinite detainment. Obama said he would veto that bill. If he had character, he would have. But he is absent of any character. You said it yourself; it would have been enacted. So, why not use this opportunity to keep your word? Even if it's just symbolic. Because that crook never keeps his word. About anything.

posted February 25, 2014 04:22 PM            

quote:

---

I was referring to indefinite detainment. Obama said he would veto that bill. If he had character, he would have.

---

So now you're changing the subject in order to be right? What happened to your strong moral center? I would think that if you had been making the point about indefinite detention you'd have changed the subject much earlier.

We've discussed NDAA at length here as well, and -same as this case- there was a super-majority that passed it. A veto would have been merely symbolic, and wasted everyone's time. http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum26/HTML/001407.html It needed to be passed in order for the military to continue with appropriate funding.

quote:

---

And you can betcha if I post it, I believe it. Take off your Obama-colored glasses, and realize that not everyone is a liar and a cheat like your beloved King.

---

posted February 25, 2014 05:06 PM            

You are saying that when Obama tells the American people that he promises he will veto a bill, he is really just bluffing, but he intends on signing it, because he is spineless. Agreed!

posted February 25, 2014 07:56 PM            

quote:

---

There's no need to post any links.

---

There apparently is, if you forgot. It's the very same story as this one: You disingenuously wanted Obama to veto bills passed by a super majority.

quote:

---

Thast's the point. It IS symbolic. It keeps his word. It shows strength of character. Instead, it shows him to be two-faced lying scum.

---

Only, it doesn't. That's your particular interpretation, but when NDAA was signed, there was a signing statement attached outlining his continued concerns contained in that package. The "Monsanto Protection Act" had nothing to do with labeling, which is what he had talked about. You're simply acting out a bias. That's all.

You didn't have a problem with Bush when he signed things into law that he didn't agree with (and also wrote signing statements indicating that he would interpret such laws as he saw fit).

posted February 26, 2014 01:36 AM            

I'd like to believe you would give him credit for standing his ground, but I just don't think that's the case.

posted February 26, 2014 09:18 AM            

How broad minded of you acoustic!

You're not even against Kommander Korruption, Bill Clinton raping Juanita Broderick, sexually assaulting Kathleen Wiley in the Oval Office or carrying on an adulterous affair with that White House intern.

Not to mention Kommander Korruption's treason in installing a Communist Chinese spy at the Commerce Dept and giving him "Top Secret" security clearance so he could steal American secrets, including military weapons secrets.

You're just soooo broad minded acoustic.

posted February 26, 2014 02:20 PM            

But, the far left whacko extremist mind is packed with more outright stupidity per square inch than any other minds on earth. Yet, we never hear you moan, groan, wheeze, whine and shriek about the stupidity of those minds.

Perhaps we should play you a little hypocrisy music acoustic.