| sethnintendo said: Has Obama signed anything into law with a stipulation that he didn't have to follow the law? I suppose he hasn't since I don't think they have sent anything back to him that he vetoed. You remember who did this? That is right! Your good ole buddy Bush. Remember that torture bill that was too clean for his tastes that he vetoed and was sent back to him requiring his signature? Remember when he wrote that he is signing the bill but he doesn't have to follow the laws? That right there is when the presidential powers expanding by a million. That is the mindset of a king that they are above the law and don't have to follow it. Guess what? I have that same mindset with marijuana but at least not with torturing. I didn't see too much outrage from the "liberal" media when Bush did it. However, all fucking hell would break lose if Obama did. Just trying to point out how dumb the American public and both parties are. |
What you seem to be referring to is signing statements though they don't work like how you say they work, any way Obama is the worst hypocrite and here is the proof:
During his presidential campaign, Obama rejected the use of signing statements. He was asked at one rally: "when congress offers you a bill, do you promise not to use presidential signing statements to get your way?" Obama gave a one-word reply: "Yes."[19] He added that "we aren't going to use signing statements as a way to do an end run around Congress." On March 11, 2009, President Obama issued his first signing statement, attached to the omnibus spending bill for the second half of FY2009.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement
It is interesting to see liberals condemn Bush but worship Obama for the same things....and somehow claim that they do not happen.
