>> ^NetRunner:

For anyone who wants to read the actual signing statement, it's here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/stateme
nt-president-hr-1540
So the reason why Bush-era signing statements were bad is because Congress would force him to sign laws that would say things like "U.S. citizens detained as terror suspects need to be given trials in federal court", and Bush would issue a signing statement saying "That constrains my Constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief to protect the U.S., so take your courts and shove 'em."
The Obama-era signing statements are good, because Congress sent him a bill saying "You can detain anyone indefinitely without trial", and Obama says "I believe that the authority granted by this bill violates the Constitution, so I won't use it".
But Cenk, Cenk sees these as equivalent, because he's a fucking idiot.
And yes, I wish Obama would have just vetoed it and made Congress override his veto, but that would have just been pure political theater. Worthwhile political theater, IMO, but it wouldn't have changed a damn thing.


I disagree with you, and agree with Cenk on this.

Yes, Obama said this is bad and we won't use it.
But, as Cenk points out it is now Law and subsequent administrations can easily use this law to detain citizens indefinitely.

For anyone who wants to read the actual signing statement, it's here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540

So the reason why Bush-era signing statements were bad is because Congress would force him to sign laws that would say things like "U.S. citizens detained as terror suspects need to be given trials in federal court", and Bush would issue a signing statement saying "That constrains my Constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief to protect the U.S., so take your courts and shove 'em."

The Obama-era signing statements are good, because Congress sent him a bill saying "You can detain anyone indefinitely without trial", and Obama says "I believe that the authority granted by this bill violates the Constitution, so I won't use it".

But Cenk, Cenk sees these as equivalent, because he's a fucking idiot.

And yes, I wish Obama would have just vetoed it and made Congress override his veto, but that would have just been pure political theater. Worthwhile political theater, IMO, but it wouldn't have changed a damn thing.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I know this bill was passed with a large veto proof majority, but it would have been nice if he'd at least forced the senate to override it.


Acually, a veto-proof majority would have to be a 2/3 vote. 2/3rds of 435 is not 283, it's 290. The House was not veto-proof from NDAA and Obama easily could have vetoed.

I know this bill was passed with a large veto proof majority, but it would have been nice if he'd at least forced the senate to override it. I don't know how that works, if it's ever been done before or if it's even an option, but it would have gone a long way with his supporters.

The bill was passed with a veto proof 83 votes in the Senate.

Shady

-They refuse to disclose most of their funding.
-The funding that has been disclosed comes mostly from Arno Consulting, a far right organization that has been involved in 5 different voter fraud cases.
-Chairman Peter Ackerman is an investment banker with connections to Koch Industries and the Cato Institute. (http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/relationship.asp?personId=662219) (http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute)
-There is no oversight or transparency to their process.
-The way the site is run could easily push the results in the direction that the secret funders want it to go.


Arno Political Consultants Controversies (from wiki).

-In 2004, APC hired JSM who hired YPM who is accused of tricking people into registering to vote as a Republican.[2]
-In 2004, APC is accused of forging signatures on a petition to legalize slot machines in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.[5]
-In 2005, APC has come under fire for allegedly fraudulent ballot petitioning strategies, particularly pertaining to a Massachusetts anti-gay marriage proposal as put forth by the Massachusetts Family Institute.[6][7]
-In 2007, APC hired JSM, Inc. who hired independent contractors who gave snacks and food to homeless people in exchange for signing petitions and registering to vote.[8]
-In 2009, proponents of a payday loan veto referendum sued APC in Franklin County for breach of contract and negligence. 13,000 signatures were thrown out because the Form 15's had not been appropriately filled out. They were seeking $438,000. [9] Both parties reached an undisclosed settlement agreement on July 29th, 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arno_Political_Consultants

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/9200-white-house-backs-off-ndaa-veto-threats

Veto is not expected. Obama sealed in my mind as the worst president in my lifetime, Bush down to second place.

BTW, didn't pass unanimously according to Wiki, "The bill passed with 93 'yea' votes to 7 'nay'. Wiki also says the text was revised and faces another join house vote tomorrow. Pretty scary this one, even if 7 of them said nay, that is still 93% of our Senate that is basically crazy...thems not good odds.


Confirmed: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00218


One last update: http://www.campaignforliberty.org/profile/7786/blog/2011/12/13/ndaa-update

They aren't hopeful of a veto. C4L can be a little reactionary and overly critical, but in this case, better safe than sorry. Start contacting Senators pronto, you would be amazed how much it helps.

>> ^Edgeman2112:

Obama said he will veto it if it passes the house.
And Norway and Sweden are the best places to live. Once the kids are in college, wife and I are off.


Yea, until it's ruined by the European Union. Africa is the future!

Obama said he will veto it if it passes the house.

And Norway and Sweden are the best places to live. Once the kids are in college, wife and I are off.

>> ^Edgeman2112:

Oh cmon now.
The senate passed it, but the house hasn't voted yet, and Obama strongly objects to this which makes a veto likely. The bill is not law. Stop playing the fear factor or I won't take your seriously every again.


The video states that it currently is not law, but it is on its way to potentially becoming law. It provides details of what the proposed law is and why it is a threat to our civil liberties, and effectively states that as citizens it is our right to stand up against the injustices of our government. As citizens it is our duty to be informed voters.

While their screwy video production makes them look quite kooky, the point they are making is very valid. Unfortunately the average US voter is too busy watching the 700 Club to bother researching and understanding the issues that affect our country in any detail beyond a propaganda laden sound bite. This video does serve its purpose. To help bring about awareness. We are discussing it in some manner, so in that way it is a success.

It is a responsible citizen's duty to understand, and research an issue thoroughly and to come to one's own conclusion. This video does one thing. It brings about a dialog that the US corporate propaganda laden media establishment will NOT start in any meaningful way. With any luck, it will help encourage the average lazy uneducated US voter to use that thing in their head called a brain and to stop taking everything on 'faith', and become participatory democratic citizens.

In a Democracy, when we stop thinking. When we start trusting our government without question. When we stop protesting our grievances as our constitutional rights grant. Then we have lost our Democracy. We might as well hand over the reigns to a dictatorship.

Oh cmon now.

The senate passed it, but the house hasn't voted yet, and Obama strongly objects to this which makes a veto likely. The bill is not law. Stop playing the fear factor or I won't take your seriously every again.

Hey we need a *bluesky channel.

In reply to this comment by dag:
There's a bit of history behind the current poll approval system. See here for background:
http://happy.videosift.com/talk/Wilhelm-The-New-Channe
l-in-town-and-a-new-invocation-too

I would say you have the right to create "a" channel, but not "any" channel - as your channel choice impacts on the community. For example, you may think that the "Green Donkey Dicks" channel is a fab idea, but the community would probably (maybe?) veto this choice.

In reply to this comment by BoneRemake:
I have the ability to make my own channel because I have earned the right to do so.

Why is it that every new channel gets a show and tell with a vote system.

Is it not my right to make whatever channel I want ?

if yes,

why this unwritten rule mentality, why give the ability, if it can be taken away ( I assume)

I just read Glen Greenwalds piece, it seems obvious to me that Obama will not veto this. The supposed veto threat is just a posture, held for a few days.

Wow, was that pathetic. Here's a tip to the Obama campaign trying to reframe his failure... CUE CARDS GO UNDER THE CAMERA SO HE ISN'T STARING OFF THE SCREEN WHEN HE READS YOUR TALKING POINTS.

So, this video pretty much says the only thing Obama has done is a stupid Health Insurance reform that benefits no one but Insurance companies (his campaign contributors) and a few million people not currently covered, and it might kick in around three years from now. Bravo.

Appointed someone to Supreme Court, OMG!!!! Let's make a statue.

Actually let Congress do something about DADT since he failed to act. Wow, he didn't veto it. Bravo. (We'll pretend we don't realize he could have ended it any any time immediately with Executive Order)


In the end his only argument for Obama is that he doesn't like Nader (who would enact a semblance of Progressive change) and GOP candidates are bad. Wow, GLOWING RECOMMENDATION!!

Even Obama's re-election campaign can only muster this lame attempt at viral endorsements. The guy sounds like he is defending a creepy uncle with the enthusiasm of a funeral director.