Obama Signs NDAA

and promises not to use the section that allows him to indefinitely detain citizens since it goes "against our traditions." WTF? It goes against our CONSTITUTION! you moron! It goes against what it means to be an American!

This can't be happening.

http://www.infowars.com/president-ob...ns-but-i-wont/

Also

http://www.naturalnews.com/034537_ND...hts_Obama.html

Here is an uncluttered version of the Statist in Chief's signing statement.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...sident-hr-1540

“In 1789, today's NDAA law would have been called treasonous, and those who voted for it would have been shot dead as traitors. This is not a call for violence, but rather an attempt to provide historical context of just how destructive this law really is.”

Hey cute old guy, just shut up and be a good little Serf....us unedumacated loves the Obama and iffen he want to throw us in jail we iz jut fine wit it....he gonna takes all da rich people an gets thez money and gives uz the free stuff...more cheese please...

Politicians like un-armed peasants 10-1....

As though he'd actually veto a power grab! LMAO.

So, COG, am I correct in assuming that his "signing statement" does not carry the weight of law and is therefore worth exactly as much as his other promises are?

As though he'd actually veto a power grab! LMAO.

So, COG, am I correct in assuming that his "signing statement" does not carry the weight of law and is therefore worth exactly as much as his other promises are? Originally Posted by Iaintliein

signing statements are meaningless. All it does is inform congress that he will not enforce or implement that provision or section he objects to.

Obama won't do those provisions as he ''claims'', but it doesn't prevent the next president from enforcing those provisions.

signing statements are meaningless. All it does is inform congress that he will not enforce or implement that provision or section he objects to.

Obama won't do those provisions as he claims, but it doesn't prevent the next president from enforcing those provisions. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Your faith in him is waaay beyond mine. I don't think he will hesitate to break his word not to use this if he sees political expediency in doing so.

signing statements are meaningless. All it does is inform congress that he will not enforce or implement that provision or section he objects to.

Obama won't do those provisions as he ''claims'', but it doesn't prevent the next president from enforcing those provisions. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Your faith in him is waaay beyond mine. I don't think he will hesitate to break his word not to use this if he sees political expediency in doing so. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

I didn't make that clear before the correction. -note the scare quotes.

I don't have any faith in him or his claims. he breaks promises so often I don't think anyone believes him unless he is saying it for himself if its true.

I wrote earlier that there was a difference between Obama and Wilson. Wilson was able to throw political opponents in prison like Eugene V. Debs and Emma Goldman and Obama couldn't. Okay that has changed now and for the worse. At least Debs and company were railroaded in a civilian system with constitional rights. Now, we can get arrested, detained, and have no rights under a military system. I hate the idea that most of us didn't see this or ignored it. I guess we figures that our liberal brethern were serious about rights and would go to war over this. I guess we know where they are coming from now. The new elite (as long as they are useful).

Apparently no one wants to defend Obama on this one. I agree, there is no defense for what he has done, and what the "bipartisan" Congress has done.