PDA

View Full Version : Presidential Signing Statements...


M-Funf
01-11-2007, 12:42 PM
I'm pretty steamed about this :rant:

***Climbs up on soapbox***

So, the other day, a co-worker of mine (disclosure: "W" hatin' liberal) starts talking about some report that came out last week from an ABA panel about George Bush's abuse of "Signing Statements", which, in simple terms, are sort of the opposite of a line item veto (which GW has never been able to do in his terms in office). It's the ability for the President to ADD something to a bill after it has gone through Congress. This has been used throughout history, mostly to add a comment about the bill, or say how important it is in the progress of the nation, etc. My co-worker regurgitated the report findings, which stated that GW had used signing statements over 800 times, more than all previous presidents COMBINED (600)!

This guy was the typical in your face lib, with that "defend that, facist" attitude. I stood there and smiled. He asked why I wasn't saying anything, and I explained that I didn't know much about signing statements, but that I'd have to look into it before I made any statement (rational, right?)

So, I start doing some research, and find that the ABA study shows 800 "Challenges" to provisions, many of which were not added. The actual number of Signing Statements was much lower, actually less than their beloved Clinton...:rolleyes:

So I come back into the office the next day (you should know that there are only 4 other people in my office, and we are all very conservative) and present my findings to my co-worker. He proceeds to say that I'm wrong, can't prove a thing. I point him to three separate sources who have reviewed the ABA study, and also to the ABA study itself, which (in a footnote) says "It is important to understand that these numbers refer to the number of challenges to provisions"

Now the guy is pissed. So he tries to derail me with Iraq. :mad: There's nothing I hate more than somebody trying to derail me from the topic at hand. I try to steer the discussion back to the issue, and he says they're all related :confused:

At that point I just laughed and walked away. Clearly the guy has been brainwashed deep enough that it has rotted his brain...

***climbs down off soapbox***

P.S. If you want to read more about it, here are a couple of interesting links...

Powerline Blog (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014817.php#014817)

I like this one, less "legaleze"
UCSB Presidency Papers (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php#q2)

Maristar210
01-11-2007, 12:49 PM
I'm pretty steamed about this :rant:

***Climbs up on soapbox***

So, the other day, a co-worker of mine (disclosure: "W" hatin' liberal) starts talking about some report that came out last week from an ABA panel about George Bush's abuse of "Signing Statements", which, in simple terms, are sort of the opposite of a line item veto (which GW has never been able to do in his terms in office). It's the ability for the President to ADD something to a bill after it has gone through Congress. This has been used throughout history, mostly to add a comment about the bill, or say how important it is in the progress of the nation, etc. My co-worker regurgitated the report findings, which stated that GW had used signing statements over 800 times, more than all previous presidents COMBINED (600)!



This guy was the typical in your face lib, with that "defend that, facist" attitude. I stood there and smiled. He asked why I wasn't saying anything, and I explained that I didn't know much about signing statements, but that I'd have to look into it before I made any statement (rational, right?)

So, I start doing some research, and find that the ABA study shows 800 "Challenges" to provisions, many of which were not added. The actual number of Signing Statements was much lower, actually less than their beloved Clinton...:rolleyes:

So I come back into the office the next day (you should know that there are only 4 other people in my office, and we are all very conservative) and present my findings to my co-worker. He proceeds to say that I'm wrong, can't prove a thing. I point him to three separate sources who have reviewed the ABA study, and also to the ABA study itself, which (in a footnote) says "It is important to understand that these numbers refer to the number of challenges to provisions"

Now the guy is pissed. So he tries to derail me with Iraq. :mad: There's nothing I hate more than somebody trying to derail me from the topic at hand. I try to steer the discussion back to the issue, and he says they're all related :confused:

At that point I just laughed and walked away. Clearly the guy has been brainwashed deep enough that it has rotted his brain...

***climbs down off soapbox***

P.S. If you want to read more about it, here are a couple of interesting links...

Powerline Blog (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014817.php#014817)

I like this one, less "legaleze"
UCSB Presidency Papers (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php#q2)



Chances are if you fire a weapon into a crowd of tort lawyers, you'll kill a few liberals......................................

Maristar210
01-11-2007, 12:49 PM
I'm pretty steamed about this :rant:

***Climbs up on soapbox***

So, the other day, a co-worker of mine (disclosure: "W" hatin' liberal) starts talking about some report that came out last week from an ABA panel about George Bush's abuse of "Signing Statements", which, in simple terms, are sort of the opposite of a line item veto (which GW has never been able to do in his terms in office). It's the ability for the President to ADD something to a bill after it has gone through Congress. This has been used throughout history, mostly to add a comment about the bill, or say how important it is in the progress of the nation, etc. My co-worker regurgitated the report findings, which stated that GW had used signing statements over 800 times, more than all previous presidents COMBINED (600)!



This guy was the typical in your face lib, with that "defend that, facist" attitude. I stood there and smiled. He asked why I wasn't saying anything, and I explained that I didn't know much about signing statements, but that I'd have to look into it before I made any statement (rational, right?)

So, I start doing some research, and find that the ABA study shows 800 "Challenges" to provisions, many of which were not added. The actual number of Signing Statements was much lower, actually less than their beloved Clinton...:rolleyes:

So I come back into the office the next day (you should know that there are only 4 other people in my office, and we are all very conservative) and present my findings to my co-worker. He proceeds to say that I'm wrong, can't prove a thing. I point him to three separate sources who have reviewed the ABA study, and also to the ABA study itself, which (in a footnote) says "It is important to understand that these numbers refer to the number of challenges to provisions"

Now the guy is pissed. So he tries to derail me with Iraq. :mad: There's nothing I hate more than somebody trying to derail me from the topic at hand. I try to steer the discussion back to the issue, and he says they're all related :confused:

At that point I just laughed and walked away. Clearly the guy has been brainwashed deep enough that it has rotted his brain...

***climbs down off soapbox***

P.S. If you want to read more about it, here are a couple of interesting links...

Powerline Blog (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014817.php#014817)

I like this one, less "legaleze"
UCSB Presidency Papers (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php#q2)



Chances are if you fire a weapon into a crowd of tort lawyers, you'll kill a few liberals......................................

bigmac
01-11-2007, 12:58 PM
Political discussions in the workplace are likely to be even more destructive than political discussions on Team Talk. Personally, I refrain.

shepherd
01-11-2007, 01:47 PM
Hey, you should never try to argue with a lawyer! ;)

Actually, looks like you won that argument M-F. The other guy is probably just too immature or insecure to admit it.

shepherd
01-11-2007, 01:48 PM
Chances are if you fire a weapon into a crowd of tort lawyers, you'll kill a few liberals......................................

You can say that again.

Workin' 4 Toys
01-11-2007, 01:49 PM
Now, I also refrain from political discussions during work. What I don't mind hearing is all the personnal perspectives.
What I don't appreciate is when someone tries to "push" their interpretations on me...
For that, I add a sarcastic remark and see where that leaves them.....:D

RexDog1
01-11-2007, 01:50 PM
Political discussions in the workplace are likely to be even more destructive than political discussions on Team Talk. Personally, I refrain.


Yep:popcorn:

NORTHERN LIGHTS
01-11-2007, 01:55 PM
Now, I also refrain from political discussions during work. What I don't mind hearing is all the personnal perspectives.
What I don't appreciate is when someone tries to "push" their interpretations on me...
For that, I add a sarcastic remark and see where that leaves them.....:D
haha thats what i do!

M-Funf
01-11-2007, 02:09 PM
Political discussions in the workplace are likely to be even more destructive than political discussions on Team Talk. Personally, I refrain.

bigmac,
I normally refrain from political discussions at work as well, but this guy went too far. He was almost dancing around me, pointing his fingers at me chanting "na-na-na na-na-naaaaaa" like a grade schooler.

I wanted to take the high road, but he was attackin' my boy GW...:noface:

Workin' 4 Toys
01-11-2007, 03:12 PM
but this guy went too far.
"They" tend to do that to get you "involved"...Stick with your gut and just let yourself think they are CRAZY...Regardless of the point...;)

JimN
01-11-2007, 04:00 PM
So give it to him as a printout with the links shown. That way, it's not you against him, it's him reading that he was wrong.

He started it and wanted you to wither like a dying flower. You were a lot more rational and he wasn't, from the start. If he keeps it up, tell him that it's a bad idea to argue like this on company time and that you're there to work (unless you all have a tendency to take breaks like this).

Must have gotten all full of steam when the Dems won in Congress.

I heard that Ted Kennedy made a comment about Iraq being Bush's "Viet Nam". OK, as opposed to Viet Nam being his brother's ACTUAL situation and problem?

bigmac
01-11-2007, 06:24 PM
bigmac,
I normally refrain from political discussions at work as well, but this guy went too far. He was almost dancing around me, pointing his fingers at me chanting "na-na-na na-na-naaaaaa" like a grade schooler.

I wanted to take the high road, but he was attackin' my boy GW...:noface:

I'm a big fan of the rope-a-dope when it comes co-workers looking to pick a fight.

"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience..."



.

M-Funf
01-11-2007, 06:28 PM
Dang :rant: :(

JimN
01-11-2007, 07:01 PM
Tell him, "Sir, I will not have a battle of wits with an unarmed man!"

Or, you could go the Phil Hartman doing Frank Sinatra route- "I got chunks of guys like you in my stool".