General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThree reasons to vote for Obama even though he signed NDAA
1) More than 80 Senators voted for the bill, which means it passed by a veto-proof margin.
2) The bill did not change existing law with the exception of a weak clause inserted by Feinstein
3) The President's signing statement
President Obama signed NDAA, but it was an existing law that Bush used to try to justify his indefinite detention of a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100299985
There are those who reject that NDAA supports indefinite detention of U.S. citizens
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100248562
Some Senators insist the existing law does not support indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, and the need for clarification arose from the ambiguity fueled by other Senators who do.
But Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, said citizen terrorism suspects should retain their “fundamental civil liberties” in order to protect the founding principles of the United States.
“I think at a bare minimum, that means we will not allow U.S. military personnel to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens, regardless of what label we happen to apply to them,” he said.
Before voting to leave current law unchanged, the Senate rejected, 55 to 45, a proposal by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, to instead say that Americans are exempt from detention under the 2001 authorization to use military force.
The uncertainty over the current law added confusion. Some, like Mr. Graham and Mr. Levin, insisted that the Supreme Court had already approved holding Americans as enemy combatants, even people arrested inside the United States. Others, like Senators Feinstein and Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, insisted that it had not done so.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/us/senate-declines-to-resolve-issue-of-american-qaeda-suspects-arrested-in-us.html?_r=1
The majority of the Senators who voted for the bill are still going to be members of Congress after the election.
Consider Barbara Boxer's explanation for her vote.
I was deeply disappointed that the final version of the NDAA did not include important language authored by Senators Mark Udall (D-CO) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) regarding detainees that would have protected civil liberties while helping to keep us safe. During floor consideration of the NDAA, I voted for an amendment offered by Senator Udall that would have replaced the detainee provisions in the bill with a requirement for the Administration to report to Congress on detention authorities. Unfortunately, this amendment failed by a vote of 38-60.
I also voted for an amendment offered by Senator Feinstein that would have clarified that mandatory military detention would apply only to terrorist suspects captured outside the United States. This amendment also failed by a vote of 45-55.
I have now agreed to be a co-sponsor of S.2003, the Due Process Guarantee Act. This important bipartisan legislation would protect American citizens arrested within the United States from being held indefinitely by the U.S. military.
I strongly oppose any expansion of military detention authority that erodes our civil liberties. However, I voted for the National Defense Authorization Act because it includes a number of provisions for our troops and their families, including a pay raise requested by President Obama and important health care benefits.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100267507
Obama issued a signing statement, pledging:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100295851
Full text: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100295851#post7
I believe President Obama will support Feinstein's fix:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100225975
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
comipinko
(541 posts)You should, as a start.
"Are you conceding that his signing of NDAA was wrong?"
...I'm not. While I would have loved to see a symbolic veto, it would not have prevented the law from being enacted.
It would have served to make friends among his critics, but the problem would still exist. It's also one created by an existing law.
I read his statement of policy regarding the bill, and I'm satisfied with his signing statement.
comipinko
(541 posts)And, I can not for the life of me understand how anyone who calls themself a Democrat , can be. Trust in (a) (the) man is not enough. And it never should be. Seems to me, any Democrat that is OK with this, (in fact any american), is wearing rose colored glasses, is un-informed, or just does not care.Do you really think his "signing statement" will have any effect on his successors?? If you do, why?? Or are you happy to just "hope" for the best?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)that the law itself is wrong? Vetoing it wouldn't have made a difference, but it's still a bad law. Do you at least believe that?
Charlemagne
(576 posts)Hey could, at least, say he was trying to protect the country from a piece of legislation that would harm civil liberties.
He could always not enforce the parts he didnt want to. But instead of sending it back (thus making a political statement) and making congress take the blame for such an action, he signed it. Regardless of the signing statement, he signed it.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I was just waiting to see if ProSense had the courage to actually take a stand on the issue. Apparently not.
Yeah its one thing to make a statement, but to totally avoid the basic question is ridiculous.
You know, the cover up is bigger than the crime....that sort of thing.
dawg
(10,621 posts)I don't think there is one valid reason or excuse for the NDAA. But that is a problem with our entire political system, not just the President.
Autumn
(44,973 posts)but I'm voting for him in spite of those.
"1 2 and 3 sound more like excuses to me but I'm voting for him in spite of those. "
...I guess this isn't directed at you, only those who believe signing NDAA is a deal breaker.
Logical
(22,457 posts)"Has there been anything Obama has done that you disagreed with? Serious question. "
...has nothing to do with the OP.
Logical
(22,457 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)There was no logic incorporated
Logical
(22,457 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)your presumptive analylsis is bogus, without merit, and a complete bag of manufactured crap.
Logical
(22,457 posts)on the evidence available. And once presented with an opportunity to address my assumption he/she refused so I have to evaluate and decide on my own. Until countered by the evidence I assume I am correct.
Please post links to posts that prove I am wrong. I will check back in a few hours for your evidence.
comipinko
(541 posts)If you did, seems to me, you may expose yourself as either a lemming, or a hypocrite.(and it is hard to answer a question like that with "cut and paste".)
"You can not answer that, honestly, can you???"
...con point to the dishonest part of my statement?
"Has there been anything Obama has done that you disagreed with? Serious question. "
...has nothing to do with the OP.
"If you did, seems to me, you may expose yourself as either a lemming, or a hypocrite.(and it is hard to answer a question like that with "cut and paste".)"
It seems to me you're obsessed with me. Get over it.
comipinko
(541 posts)I am not surprised.( and it seems you are a bit full of yourself, with your "obsessed" comment, dilusions of grandeur?) LOL.
Why don't you point to the part of your post that answered the question.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Seems you can not even answer a question."
...why not ask me if I'm afraid of what people think of me, it has as much relevance to the OP.
Seriously, if you're seeking cheap thrills, look elsewhere.
comipinko
(541 posts)a certain congress woman from MN.
Such behaviour is foul from either side.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"a certain congress woman from MN.
Such behaviour is foul from either side. "
...like that "certain congress woman from MN," you don't know what you're talking about.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=123606
I suppose that's why you engage in obfuscation.
comipinko
(541 posts)LOL.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Holy shit, just answer the question."
Do you beat your wife?
Seriously, how does the answer to the question change the points in the OP?
What the hell is the purpose?
Refute the OP or ignore it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)"When was the LAST TIME that you beat your wife?"
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 5, 2012, 08:37 PM - Edit history (1)
a suggestion for those who consider it a burning question: Go to the Help & Meta-discussion forum, start a thread calling me out and asking me to answer that question, and I'll be happy to answer.
Maybe then people will stop asking me dumb questions that aren't related to the thread.
I can dream.
Response to ProSense (Reply #44)
Post removed
ProSense
(116,464 posts)You are a poor representative for your beliefs, your side, and yourself.
I mean that sincerely. You astonish me, and bore me, in equal measures.
...really need to get over it. Pratice ignore.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Geez.
Raffi Ella
(4,465 posts)A member of our forum who fiercely fights the propaganda/advocates for nothing more than the re-election of the Democratic President and this is how you treat them?
Disagree with her all you like but have some respect. All you're doing is making yourself look bad.
And for the record, she represents her beliefs, her side, and herself just fine and better than most, in my humble opinion.
comipinko
(541 posts)no value.
Raffi Ella
(4,465 posts)Newb, you're not half as clever as you seem to think you are. She is a respected member of this community- Who the hell are you?
comipinko
(541 posts)"Newb" ROFFLMFAO !!
peto vestri, parvulus !!
Response to comipinko (Reply #84)
Post removed
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)more or less it says.....
go to your room, youngster.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)of that phrase, but why didn't you just use the English language?
Welcome to DU, BTW--I note that you've only been here a month.
comipinko
(541 posts)But, what is your point about how long Ive been here? Do you have a problem with that?
Oh, and in answer to your question of why, to give others something to do other than making stupid OPs.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Welcome!
comipinko
(541 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)comipinko
(541 posts)fun, isn't it?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Now you've let me do a bad latin pun and a monty python joke. Welcome!!!
comipinko
(541 posts)and spot-on.
Logical
(22,457 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)And gets into long debates.
You'd think supporting one's arguments was a bad thing.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)Because she's willing to support Obama's re-election. But they really aren't interested in debating her...no, they prefer to fling insults and goad her into saying something that will get her banned.
Spazito
(50,144 posts)"...they prefer to fling insults and goad her into saying something that will get her banned." certainly seems to be what is happening.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)And if it wadn't supplied the resounding bitching would be about all the 'unsubstatiate' rhetoric. Your comment makes you look petty
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 5, 2012, 09:51 PM - Edit history (1)
So strange.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Why is it so incredibility difficult for you to answer this simple question?"
...I hate bullies, and I especially hate bullies who insist on asking off-topic and silly questions based on their illogical theories.
And the disingenuousness of trying to come off as if the answer matters or will be believed.
Harbor your doubts and conspiracies, leave me out of it. The OP made a point, respond to it, or not.
comipinko
(541 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)Are you a witch? God will forgive the innocent we burn, as He forgives us for doing His work.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)...answering questions is so easy. 
treestar
(82,383 posts)Why do people who are never happy with the President think they are any better?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)And it's not answering questions.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"PS has a JOB to do.
And it's not answering questions. "
...the other conspiracy theorists and self-appointed DU police have a job to do too.
Robb
(39,665 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Sounds rather tyrannical to me.
No one owes you an answer to any question you choose to ask them.
It is just ad hominem, and has nothing to do with the point. You mean you'd stick to the issue if a new poster posted it? You're making it about people, not issues.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)If you thought it was a bad law, and wrong. I notice you won't touch answering that with a ten-foot pole. I even agreed that the veto wouldn't have amounted to much either way, but asked you directly if you disagree or agreed with the law.
I think your hesitance to answer answers far more questions than you intend.
Response to Logical (Reply #4)
Post removed
treestar
(82,383 posts)Obama is a politician. His supporters don't have a duty to point out the negative.
Honestly, you'd think negativity and fault finding were a virtue.
Logical
(22,457 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)But in their support, they had the right to focus on what they saw as the positive.
I'm not proud of any Republicans.
I am a Democrat, so I focus on the positive, and don't see that I have some duty to you or Republicans to focus on the negative as you do. No one's perfect in this world.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Obama has made mistakes. Defending EVERYTHING he does is as bad as saying he has never done anything right.
I will vote for Obama and he is the only choice we have in 2012 because the GOP are idiots.
But I can still objectively agree about his mistakes. I get tired of the endless cheerleading here as I also get tired of the "Obama is a Republican" crap.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Then it is odd to hang out on a Democratic Board.
We have Republicans to bash Obama for anything and everything. Wanting to help him be re-elected means focusing on the positive.
It is just as tiring to see people who post a negative even in threads about something positive.
Logical
(22,457 posts)But that someone cannot start any thread that says Obama did something wrong without some posters trying to spin it as positive is a joke. We all know some things Obama did was not a great thing. Why not just admit it and move on and not try to spin it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)saying it is too little too late or someone else's credit.
This double standard is worthy of Republicans.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and have to deflect away from it, it says that you KNOW your answer is going to reflect badly upon you.
When a person's ethics change from situation to situation based solely upon the candidate they endorse, it gives the appearance of being either an astro-turfer or a sycophant. I'm not saying that this is the case here, but it DOES give your argument less weight, because you have the appearance of being one to agree mindlessly.
On a political board, where we would hope people's minds would engage, that is a detriment. I realize that some don't like it, but that is just how human nature works. When you support indefensible positions merely out of support for the "brand name", well, you just pretty much look like a fanboy/fangirl.
treestar
(82,383 posts)So Republican to make it about the poster and not about the content of the post.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and instead attempting to deflect on that question and others, it gives other posters a general impression. Like it or not, that's not an "ad hominem" attack, it's merely pointing out a tendency for extreme bias.
It's awfully Republican to claim someone is making an ad hominem attack, and then turn right around and make an ad hominem attack on someone else, thereby doing what you just accused THEM of doing (note it wasn't me that asked that question, but I asked another one that directly related to the OP and the OP refused to answer it). It's called projection, and is a favorite tactic of those who don't have much of a real argument, just ill-placed righteous indignation.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Demanding that they answer a particular question that has to do with them personally and not an issue. That's just plain tyranny.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)This is a message board. If you post with opinions on something, expect people to ask for clarification of what your opinions actually are.
I can't defend the poster who asked the question that generated this response, and don't need to do so because I'm not the one who asked the question in the first place. What I can say is that what I thought was a perfectly reasonable question went unanswered. I can only assume it is because the OP didn't want to have to actually take a stand that was either unpopular or showed disagreement with President Obama.
Maybe you'd like to answer it. While I realize that the veto wouldn't have changed anything one way or the other, I still believe this is a bad law. Do you believe it is a good law or a bad one?
treestar
(82,383 posts)It's like that to change the issue to a personal question to Prosense and then criticize her for not answering it. She doesn't have to. Go back to the issue - doesn't matter whether Prosense ever criticizes the President or not - that has no bearing on the particular issue at hand.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 7, 2012, 04:49 PM - Edit history (2)
"Anyone who defends EVERYTHING Obama does is not a valid source of information"
"Not a valid sourse of information?" The irony is astounding....when I have yet to see you do anything by try to demolish Obama...as if that makes you credible? (there...is that decyphered well enough for you on edit?)
So did you mean that there is a person on DU that analizes EVERYTHING Obama does? All day, everyday. Crapping at noon is defensible? How about Obama's mole? How about being left handed? That's all part of EVERYTHING? You made a point to use caps to make a point I imagine. Prosense does not defend EVERYTHING Obama does. Not by a long shot....yet it's your assertion in CAPS none the less.
You fail to logically conclude (and most other WOULD logically conclude) that ProSense is Pro Obama and therefore her paradigm is to provde support. Why does that invalidate anything?
Logical
(22,457 posts)
lumpy
(13,704 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)At least, we'll get to keep birth control. 
--imm
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)always the same opinion anyway.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)always the same opinion anyway.
...should learn to ignore things you do not care about.
Logical
(22,457 posts)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)1. Yes, 93 senators is a veto-proof margin, but then the onus would be on the senate, not the president. We would be having a completely different conversation.
2. A cold comfort
3. Signing statements are worthless, they have less legal force than executive orders. The next president, and there will be one some day, can just as easily undo a EO or SS.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"1. Yes, 93 senators is a veto-proof margin, but then the onus would be on the senate, not the president. We would be having a completely different conversation."
...should have been on the Senate, Levin is the author of the bill, but most people were focused on the veto.
But should it really come to that? Congress itself should come to its senses and ditch the indefinite detention provisions. And just as importantly, Congress should listen to you and every other American on what we all as Americans want for our country. Secret deals for indefinite military detention without charge or trial? Tell Congress we are better than that. It's not who we are as Americans, and it is not the country or the world we want to pass on to our children and grandchildren.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/behind-closed-doors-congress-trying-force-indefinite-detention-bill-americans
"2. A cold comfort"
Still, NDAA or not the problem exists.
"3. Signing statements are worthless, they have less legal force than executive orders. The next president, and there will be one some day, can just as easily undo a EO or SS."
The statment isn't "worthless" if Obama is the "next president." Also, the point is to press for the Feinstein fix for the "next president" after Obama.
NNN0LHI
(67,190 posts)So yes, the next president, and I agree there will be one some day too, can pretty much add or subtract anything they please with their own EO or SS when they sign the reauthorization of the updated version.
Or am I looking at this incorrectly?
Don
getdown
(525 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)If they are so worthless.
93 Senators is a lot. Sounds like the whole issue is hot air created by Obama haters.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)it could be an impeachable offense.
A president could just as easily take th NDAA and issue a signing statement that he believed the law DID grant him the authority to detail US citizens, arrested on US soil and hold them indefinitely without due process. If that was not the law's intent a president operating under the auspices of his own SS would be legally liable.
The problem with BUsh's SS is they were worthless, just like Obama's. The outrage is that president's make their own law.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And it's not an impeachable offense to interpret the law. The law is not black and white on that or any subject.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Bush's SS had no legal authority. He could not claim his interpretation was valid and make it the force of law. For him to pretend otherwise was the height of legal arrogance. If SS's were legally valid than there would not be anything wrong with Bush issuing them and acting upon them.
But that's the point: they AREN'T legal writ and he had no authority to issue them or act upon his own private interpretations. I would imagine if any particularly controversial provision came to a head in the courts Bush and his lot would be at a disadvantage arguing before the courts that they committed action X based on their private interpretation of Law Y. First, I would imagine the courts would take a dim view of having their constitutionally mandated role as interpretors of all things legal usurped. Then I would imagine they would interpret the law based on what they felt congress intended, not on what some cowboy wanted to do.
Now, I happen to ascribe different motives to President Obama. I do not believe him to be the reckless arrogant that was the previous administration. However, that doesn't mean he is unable to do the right thing poorly. Still, he is beset by the same problem: signing statements have no legal authority. Congress wrote what it wrote and the courts will -- assuming constitutional muster is passed -- interpret regardless of what Bush, Obama or any other president personally feels like enforcing.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)In addition to the excellent summary of information you provide.
(1) It should also be noted (it seems to go without saying, but I think people forget this) that the NDAA was not just about this one issue. It was a huge, 565-page, $662 billion bill, created annually, that "authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counter-terrorism initiatives within the U.S. and abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide."
The consequences of vetoing it (which the president threatened to do, and for that reason did get a quasi-concession, though clearly not enough to avoid him issuing a stern signing statement) were fairly enormous: all US Defense operations, including soldiers' pay, and intelligence operations, would grind to a halt.
This is not to condone its contentious provision about detention, which has been discussed ad infinitum here. But to remind people what the stakes were. The amended language and the signing statement have given me, personally, assurance that this administration, at least, will not detain an American citizen in this country without charges or trial, or indefinitely under its watch. A new NDAA will have to be written and voted on before the current term of this administration ends--that is, for 2013. This is not, de facto, a permanent provision. I think people are best advised to move on to assuring that this language is taken out of the next NDAA.
(2) This is perhaps an aside that will be scorned. But I feel compelled to comment. It amazes me sometimes how a number of people here (and I don't know that they are coterminous with those who sincerely are alarmed at the NDAA provision, though certain well-discussed bloggers that have created contention on this board lately do fit in this double category) can speak highly of a candidate like Ron Paul for his stances on drugs or war, while completely ignoring his absolutely horrific stances on issues like economics, on totally gutting social programs like Medicare, Medicaid and SS, on race, on sexual orientation, etc. And yet this one single issue, they claim, makes them turn virulently on a president who has accomplished a broad range of progressive moves in these other areas. That, to me, speaks of another agenda. And it makes no sense.
You are right to explain to these people (though it will certainly fall on deaf ears) why they should support this president, despite the NDAA issue.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)...spot on!
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)It provides the opening to sow dissension on the board and hopefully damage his election chances. Probably serves as a working lab for trying out the meme in advance of a 3rd party candidate that will inevitably be run to Obama's left.
They'd prefer Obama to symbolically veto a bill which would be summarily over-ridden and accomplish nothing - except create all kinds of election year opportunities for Republican RW smears and misinformation. This is such a big concern to these Obama critics - but go find a single thread where any one of them criticize Congress for delivering this legislation to him.
They want to change Obama and move him to the Left? Fine...focus the attention on getting an overwhelming majority of progressive Democrats and Independents elected to the House and Senate, then watch the transformation. Funny, though...all of these holier-than-thou Obama critics spend precious little time promoting that idea here.
bro
(1 post)With 86 senators voting for the bill they could overrule a veto in the senate, but woldn't they need to veto it in the House of Representatives as well?
With 283 (65%) voting yes, and 136 (31%) voting no, they would have problems getting the 2/3 necessary to override the veto. If my calculations are correct they'd need 289 to vote yes to override the veto. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Edit: Unless they'd only need 2/3 of the votes and not of the total members of The House. In that case they'd be able to veto as well.
Response to bro (Reply #23)
comipinko This message was self-deleted by its author.
"Edit: Unless they'd only need 2/3 of the votes and not of the total members of The House. In that case they'd be able to veto as well."
...it's of the voting majority.
<...>
31.September 25, 1992: Vetoed S. 323, Family Planning Amendments Act of 1992. Overridden by Senate, 73-26 (66). Override attempt failed in House, 266-148 (276 needed).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes#George_W._Bush
comipinko
(541 posts)That is unlikely to be the case. Is Obama not the leader of our party? Would his veto have so little weight?? Really?? I know you will not answer any questions. At least not the ones asked! LOL.
Lemmings proficiscor eyes publicus, raptor nex.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)\"Of course your silly logic assumes that a POTUS veto would NOT change any DEM. votes.\"
They certainly heeded his statement of policy, huh? Leave logic to those who understand it.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)well it is not all latin....
lemmings march to thier doom with open eyes.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Welcome to DU--I note you you've only been here a month!
comipinko
(541 posts)you seem obsessed with the fact that I have been here a month. Why?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)We don't have a parliamentary system.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Why doesn't anyone tell me these things? I didn't even know it was alright to talk about it yet.
ProSense, have you ever answered a question with anything other than another question? Just curious.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"ProSense, have you ever answered a question with anything other than another question? Just curious."
...I have. Now, want to fill me in on why you are so focused on me?
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Um...because yoju wrote the OP.
Just a guess.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Um...because yoju wrote the OP.
So because I wrote the OP someone can ask a question unrelated to the OP, such as:
"ProSense, have you ever answered a question with anything other than another question? Just curious."
Why not ask me what color my eyes are? Or ask me if I've ever posted in another forum?
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)"Has there been anything Obama has done that you disagreed with? Serious question."
No answer.
It's a simple question. You've filled God knows how many replies avoiding it.
It's a simple question.
You will dodge it in 3...2...1...
Mm.
Poor representative.
Everyone watch...he's about to do it again.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)No answer.
It's a simple question. You've filled God knows how many replies avoiding it.
It's a simple question.
You will dodge it in 3...2...1...
Mm.
Poor representative.
Everyone watch...he's about to do it again.
...don't seem to understand that the question has nothing to do with the points in the OP.
FYI, I'm a she, and you're becoming obsessed!
Robb
(39,665 posts)... If you'll be proud of this post in the morning?
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)if I get an answer.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)accusing me of being paid.
Your bullying attempts are obsessive.
Robb
(39,665 posts)You can block them with the "ignore" function; you can set it to ignore mail but not posts if you wish.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It's unrelated, ad hominem or meant to create material for ad hominem
It is switching the subject to Prosense rather than the issue. Classic, perfect ad hominem.
Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #52)
bigtree This message was self-deleted by its author.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)I stated as much in my post. You even quoted me.
You are a prolific poster that has an unusual posting style that many consider irritating, and a reputation for dodging questions. You should expect criticism and questions. You certainly seem to thrive on responses to your posts.
You seem to have read too much into my simple question, sorry didn't know you were so sensitive.
Sorry don't much care what your physical attributes are, or where or what you post, other than DU.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)I went back through my post history and this is the only post that shows you responding to me. Seems if I was focused on you we would have had more conversations.
It appears we both like the same topics, not hard to understand, I recognize many names that repeat it the threads I read, yours is but one of them. I am not a prolific poster so I'm sure you recognize other names more than mine, are they focusing on you also? If so there's a name for that. You also don't often answer questions when asked, except with another question. It's a common tactic, easily recognized.
Oh, one more question, and what actually prompted my earlier response to you. I noticed most people have stopped posting about Ron Paul and Glen Greenwald? Seemed to coincide with the admission that President Obama signed the NDAA and what it contained. Don't tell me my theory that Paul and Greenwald were just diversions is wrong?
Edit to add: Also what WilliamPitt said also.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)I went back through my post history and this is the only post that shows you responding to me. Seems if I was focused on you we would have had more conversations.
So out of the blue, you just decided to ask: "ProSense, have you ever answered a question with anything other than another question? Just curious."
Hello, focus!
Your "theory that Paul and Greenwald were just diversions is wrong"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211#post174
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002117079
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002124972
Ron Paul truly is a lunatic and I'm not a fan of Greenwald.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Focus on what?
You do know that you answer most questions with a question, don't you? On that part there is no doubt. Like I said, it's common, perhaps you didn't know you were doing it, thought I'd let you know.
As for my theory, darn it, I thought I was on to something. Funny of the three O.P.s you could find, two of them were by you. Just a coincidence I'm sure, oh well not the first time I've been wrong.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Hello, focus!
Focus on what? "
...wasn't a directive, it was a declarative statement.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Not that you would ever try to tell anyone what to think.
Isn't the ability to see the original before edit sometimes interesting? Of course meaningless but still interesting.
On Edit: Just a little cleanup.
Response to ProSense (Reply #28)
Post removed
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)you used in your prior posts?
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)He will be the Democratic nominee.
Outside of that I will be holding my nose and carrying a barf bag.
Just as I have many times before in the last 40 years of voting.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Although, I've only been voting since 2000.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)He will be the Democratic nominee.
Outside of that I will be holding my nose and carrying a barf bag.
Just as I have many times before in the last 40 years of voting.
...You didn't vote for Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Nader or either Bushes.
Cool!
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)i have voted third party in races where there was no Democrat on the ballot.
comipinko
(541 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)At the end of the day, I imagine we interpret not merely words, but deeds too in such as way as to better fit our own conclusions.
A metaphorical Lysenko-ism in which the conclusions are drawn prior to the facts seems to be awfully popular these days. Good pay I imagine... if one gets the job.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)If a fucking Republican gets elected they will NOT abide by Obama's signing statement and it will be open season on OWS.
Iggo
(47,534 posts)2. He's not a Republican.
3. I don't need three reasons.
Logical
(22,457 posts)comipinko
(541 posts)We MUST trust his every 3-D chess move. we are far too dumb (except for one un-named poster) to even begin to understand his 6 steps ahead logic. Just get in line and keep your stupid views to yourself.
redqueen
(115,101 posts)and now he gets berated for using them.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)Just like Obama's Republican critics in Congress....there is no right thing for him to do when your intent is to make him a one-term President.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)And by those proffered rationalizations, it becomes obvious that even you know that Obama's actions have gone too far. You just have too much invested to admit that, perhaps even to yourself.
"Those aren't reasons to vote for Obama, those are rationalizations for his actions"
..."reasons" or "rationalizations for his actions" is a matter of perspective
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=124612
comipinko
(541 posts)
Romulox
(25,960 posts)spanone
(135,781 posts)redqueen
(115,101 posts)Go figure.
Saving Hawaii
(441 posts)#1: Cuz if you don't he's gonna indefinitely detain you during the lame duck session and stay in office anyways. Touche!
grantcart
(53,061 posts)but rather side track the discusssion proves that for the knee jerk anti Obama crowd,
the logic ship has long since departed.
Response to grantcart (Reply #92)
comipinko This message was self-deleted by its author.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Black and white thinking leads to this kind of drama.
getdown
(525 posts)has been hijacked and is a stream of actions over multi-administrations and decades and parties.
So Dems as always become Lesser of Evils and those who vote wisely prefer that to Proud of Their Evils
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)In fact don't waste your time, gas, or energy in the process at all.
It doesn't matter one whit.....right?
getdown
(525 posts)what was said 
it would help if folks could see the forest for the trees though. know what we're really dealing with
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)lesser of two evil argument Part deux.
I'm just sick of the falling on our swords mentality. You signalled it with a heavy hand in your post....don't tlike being called in it? Think about what you say first and clearly state what you really mean.
getdown
(525 posts)what i said
and i didn't say what you pretend i did
and i don't respond well to those who act like asses
know whadda mean?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)criticize their policies and still vote for them. I'm disappointed in some of the things President Obama has done, but I'm sure a hell not going to sit at home or vote for a nutjob Republican (is there any other kind these days?).
right on maude...
(29 posts)1) Then throw ALL the bums out who voted for this travesty! (Why would this be a reason to support the POTUS?!)
2) What in bloody hell is that "weak clause?!"
3) LOL! Oh, THAT made me feel sooo much better!