Negotiating With The Taliban.

[Admiral Yi]

You lost me.  I thought we were talking about inconsistency, like outrage over Bush's signing statements and indifference over Obama's.

[Razgovory]

You lost me.  I thought we were talking about inconsistency, like outrage over Bush's signing statements and indifference over Obama's.

How many Signing statements have Bush done vs Obama?

[Admiral Yi]

  Seriously?

[Razgovory]

Seriously?

Well, I thought you might know what with your "fucking good radar".

[Admiral Yi]

   Maybe time for a nap Raz.

[Eddie Teach]

Raz, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the problem more with the idea of making signing statements at all than just a feeling they were overused?

[Razgovory]

Raz, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the problem more with the idea of making signing statements at all than just a feeling they were overused?

Actually I was under the impression that it was the sheer number of them that and what they encompassed, not that they existed (they have existed for a long time before Bush was even born).

Edit:  So consider yourself corrected.

[Eddie Teach]

Actually I was under the impression that it was the sheer number of them that and what they encompassed, not that they existed (they have existed for a long time before Bush was even born).

Edit:  So consider yourself corrected.

You can't take a qualitative measure like that, bundle it with a quantitative measure and claim it's all about quantity. So you're left to either argue that Obama is not utilizing them in the same manner as Bush, that both are wrong to do so, or that neither is.

Other Presidents had used signing statements before Bush, but his usage of them to "interpret" the law was considered novel and an usurpation of powers from the other branches. At any rate, why would it be ok if he did it once or twice but not if he did it regularly?

[Razgovory]

Fortunately I didn't do that, so there's no problem.

[Berkut]

As I believe Speesh pointed out earlier, partisan inconsistency is hardly a GOP monopoly.

That I can certainly agree with - I don't think there is any doubt that if the situation was reversed we would see much the same from the Dems. These are the people who were falling all over each other fighting over who would abandon Iraq the fastest if elected. And engaged in active and aggressive legislative attempts to undermine the military in Iraq.

[Berkut]

As I believe Speesh pointed out earlier, partisan inconsistency is hardly a GOP monopoly.

Which is not to say I'm conceding inconsistency on Berghahl.

I will not deny that there are Democrats who take the same tact.  However they do not dominate the party and efforts to do so were anemic.  For instance back in 2006 Democrats did dominate the congress, and many wanted to end the war.  And while it was discussed they did not cut all funding to the military to force the President's hand.  Compare this to the government shutdown last year.

It was more than "discussed", they tried to do it over and over and over again. They failed to ever get the votes necessary to succeed, but it wasn't for a lack of trying.

[derspiess]

Actually that was a pretty nice post, and not rambling at all. I think he nailed you to the wall.

Of course you do.

[Berkut]

Actually that was a pretty nice post, and not rambling at all. I think he nailed you to the wall.

Of course you do.

Indeed - I am well known for my unequivocal support for Raz.

[derspiess]

Actually that was a pretty nice post, and not rambling at all. I think he nailed you to the wall.

Of course you do.

Indeed - I am well known for my unequivocal support for Raz.

Nah.  I just happen to be one of those Republicans that made you ashamed to be a Republican when you were one

[Jacob]

Nah.  I just happen to be one of those Republicans that made you ashamed to be a Republican when you were one

In this case, the shameful part is dodging the substance of the discussion.