Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ahhhh....right.....ok. Thanks for clearing it up for me. I guess that kind of "logic" only works in the minds of a liberal. Seemed pretty simple.
I guess that only works in the world of a lefty.
This isn't a left/right issue, Calvinist. I know you come from a bichromatic world, but do try to see in color this one time. As for logic, man, you really do not want to go there again...unless you've had some training in formal logic since last time.
It's perfectly fine what Obama did.
It's perfectly fine what Walker did. I never said otherwise.
The DIFFERENCE is that in Obama's case, he is interested in protecting the rights of a class of citizens. Walker is more interested in keeping rights away from those same citizens.
Both of their actions are normal, legal and an ordinary part of being a Chief Executive. The difference is their motivation. Obama is motivated out of concern that some citizens are being treated unequally under the law for no appreciable or logical reason.
Walker, on the other hand...well you can figure the rest out yourself.
This isn't a left/right issue, Calvinist. I know you come from a bichromatic world, but do try to see in color this one time. As for logic, man, you really do not want to go there again...unless you've had some training in formal logic since last time.
It's perfectly fine what Obama did.
It's perfectly fine what Walker did. I never said otherwise.
The DIFFERENCE is that in Obama's case, he is interested in protecting the rights of a class of citizens. Walker is more interested in keeping rights away from those same citizens.
Both of their actions are normal, legal and an ordinary part of being a Chief Executive. The difference is their motivation. Obama is motivated out of concern that some citizens are being treated unequally under the law for no appreciable or logical reason.
Walker, on the other hand...well you can figure the rest out yourself.
That's what's annoying about libs--you guys seem to think you can judge motives and unless it matches up to what you want....it's wrong. No matter what it is. If you think their motive was something a leftist would do? Good on him.
Fact of the matter is, your president stated he would ignore defending a Federal Law that the public has overwhelmingly stated they want. The fact that he thinks it will fail in court is irrelevant. It's his job to enforce the law. That's it. That's all there is to it. He's not the judicial branch, and he can't declare it unconstitutional. It's not his job. Perhaps a civics lesson is in order for you? You don't seem to be able to comprehend that.
Having said that, I'm not going to defend the Wisconsin Governor--I honestly don't know the details of the case. I don't see though, how it is any worse than what Skippy has done with DOMA.
That's what's annoying about libs--you guys seem to think you can judge motives and unless it matches up to what you want....it's wrong. No matter what it is. If you think their motive was something a leftist would do? Good on him.
I don't think you have any real idea what a "liberal" is. I think you have some kind of right-wing psychologic contstruct of what they think a liberal is supposed to be.
So really, you can dispense with the stupid labels and just talk about the issue, no?
Quote:
Fact of the matter is, your president
He's your President too.
Quote:
stated he would ignore defending a Federal Law that the public has overwhelmingly stated they want.
First of all, bull**** on the public overwhelmingly wanting it, second, it's a civil rights issue so what the majority thinks is irrelevant, third, as a constitutional scholar, Obama is keenly aware of the MAJOR constitutional hurdles this legislation is facing. He knows, as does anyone with any honesty and knowledge of this area of law, that the courts are going to chew it up and spit it out. So I am happy that he is not wasting precious DOJ resources on this fool's errand. In the meantime, he's not ignoring the law.
So spare me your faux outrage.
Quote:
The fact that he thinks it will fail in court is irrelevant.
It's his prerogative to tell the DOJ how to work. He's doing no more and no less than doing that, is violating NO law, and is only following the precedent set by many others before him, as was more than adequately explained to you in that very long thread from last month.
Quote:
It's his job to enforce the law. That's it. That's all there is to it.
He IS enforcing the law. He's just not going to go on a legal kamikaze mission on behalf of it, nor does he have to. It's his prerogative, just as it is Walker's prerogative to hire and fire contract counsel.
Quote:
He's not the judicial branch, and he can't declare it unconstitutional.
He didn't. He is entitled to his opinon, however.
Quote:
It's not his job.
Supervising DOJ isn't his job? Since when?
Quote:
Perhaps a civics lesson is in order for you? You don't seem to be able to comprehend that.
I'm going to warn you again. Don't make me embarrass you.
Quote:
Having said that, I'm not going to defend the Wisconsin Governor--I honestly don't know the details of the case. I don't see though, how it is any worse than what Skippy has done with DOMA.
It isn't, unless you look at the motivation behind it...
I don't think you have any real idea what a "liberal" is. I think you have some kind of right-wing psychologic contstruct of what they think a liberal is supposed to be.
So really, you can dispense with the stupid labels and just talk about the issue, no?
He's your President too.
First of all, bull**** on the public overwhelmingly wanting it, second, it's a civil rights issue so what the majority thinks is irrelevant, third, as a constitutional scholar, Obama is keenly aware of the MAJOR constitutional hurdles this legislation is facing. He knows, as does anyone with any honesty and knowledge of this area of law, that the courts are going to chew it up and spit it out. So I am happy that he is not wasting precious DOJ resources on this fool's errand. In the meantime, he's not ignoring the law.
So spare me your faux outrage.
It's his prerogative to tell the DOJ how to work. He's doing no more and no less than doing that, is violating NO law, and is only following the precedent set by many others before him, as was more than adequately explained to you in that very long thread from last month.
He IS enforcing the law. He's just not going to go on a legal kamikaze mission on behalf of it, nor does he have to. It's his prerogative, just as it is Walker's prerogative to hire and fire contract counsel.
He didn't. He is entitled to his opinon, however.
Supervising DOJ isn't his job? Since when?
And he's telling the DOJ to not defend it because he's deemed it unconstitutional. It's his job to defend the law...that's it. If Bush had done that you'd be howling about it--as are the libs that are now howling about the Wisconsin Governor.
But again, I don't expect consistency from a liberal. It's just not your strong point. I get that.
Quote:
I'm going to warn you again. Don't make me embarrass you.
ooooohhhhhh
Quote:
It isn't, unless you look at the motivation behind it...
That stuff you don't want to discuss.
And apparently a liberal is capable of knowing motive...and if it agrees with your agenda, as President Skippy's agenda does, it's ok.
This isn't a left/right issue, Calvinist. I know you come from a bichromatic world, but do try to see in color this one time. As for logic, man, you really do not want to go there again...unless you've had some training in formal logic since last time.
It's perfectly fine what Obama did.
It's perfectly fine what Walker did. I never said otherwise.
The DIFFERENCE is that in Obama's case, he is interested in protecting the rights of a class of citizens. Walker is more interested in keeping rights away from those same citizens.
Both of their actions are normal, legal and an ordinary part of being a Chief Executive. The difference is their motivation. Obama is motivated out of concern that some citizens are being treated unequally under the law for no appreciable or logical reason.
Walker, on the other hand...well you can figure the rest out yourself.
I'm afraid your position just has too much nuance for the average wingnut to comprehend.
If it aint in the bible, or it can't be explained in five words or less, good luck!
And he's telling the DOJ to not defend it because he's deemed it unconstitutional. It's his job to defend the law...that's it. If Bush had done that you'd be howling about it--as are the libs that are now howling about the Wisconsin Governor.
But again, I don't expect consistency from a liberal. It's just not your strong point. I get that.
ooooohhhhhh
And apparently a liberal is capable of knowing motive...and if it agrees with your agenda, as President Skippy's agenda does, it's ok.
They want him to be Dictator so bad they can't help themselves in revealing that.
I'm afraid your position just has too much nuance for the average wingnut to comprehend.
If it aint in the bible, or it can't be explained in five words or less, good luck!
Just like Liberals and the like have no idea that the President isn't a king or dictator. It is not his job to decide what laws to enforce or not. It is the courts job to undo the law if that is the case. If the law is on the books, it has to be enforced.
And he's telling the DOJ to not defend it because he's deemed it unconstitutional.
It's his prerogative, they work for him. I am amazed at how you and others here see this as being some kind of controversial act.
We had a LONG thread on this already, wherein it was shown that this is a common practice among Presidents and violates no law any of you could find.
That argument is over. Moving on.
Quote:
It's his job to defend the law...that's it. If Bush had done that you'd be howling about it--as are the libs that are now howling about the Wisconsin Governor.
Where am I howling? I see people howling because they disagree with the policy behind it, as do I. You could do the same with Obama, but oh no - it has to be an impeachable offense! It's the worst injustice ever! Blarrrrrrrgh!
Stop being silly.
Quote:
But again, I don't expect consistency from a liberal. It's just not your strong point. I get that.
Yawn.
Quote:
And apparently a liberal is capable of knowing motive...and if it agrees with your agenda, as President Skippy's agenda does, it's ok.
It is his apparent motive. I find it very unlikely that he fired the firm because they were dragging their feet on gay rights...
Just like Liberals and the like have no idea that the President isn't a king or dictator. It is not his job to decide what laws to enforce or not. It is the courts job to undo the law if that is the case. If the law is on the books, it has to be enforced.
Which is why he is still enforcing the law whilst instructing DOJ lawyers to stand down on defending it in court.
But evidently that is a nuance too subtle for the right wingers around here.
They want him to be Dictator so bad they can't help themselves in revealing that.
I am flabbergasted that you actually believe the stuff that you write.
What is it like to be an extremist?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
