Obama on Signing Statements from the Campaign

About: the weekly standard

Remember this http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123680763049200481.html well here is a youtube on signing statements on the campaign trail:
(***) <== link to the YouTube
He even explains the constitutional arguments I spoke about the other day somewhere. But apparently they are only an inconvenience when he wants to make his own signing statements.

Tags

  1. signing statements
  2. unconstitutional
  3. obama lies
  4. persuit of truth
  5. kramer
  6. john stuart

Comments


Mark de LA says
This is what I mean by Obama's statements having such a fragile half-life & such a small truth coefficient that they have to be nuanced, spun & re-explained every time they are examined.


Mark de LA says
seth 2009-03-13 12:10:58 11622
In fairness perhaps you should provide a exact quote where he said he would never make a signing statement.  Then perhaps you should read this particular signing statement and complain about something specific.  Sans that detailed study, this item is just your normal obama bashing.
Did you miss the words coming out of his own mouth? I think Obama-juice affected your hearing


Mark de LA says
seth 2009-03-13 13:18:31 11622
source: M above
Did you miss the words coming out of his own mouth? I think Obama-juice affected your hearing
Yeah i listened to them.  Too bad we can't peruse the truth here because you refuse to follow intelligent rules of discourse. 
Ad hominem always results in RWG. It is clear to me that when Obama says that signing statements are abused & then goes right ahead later and uses them that he doesn't mind the inconsistency or as I would say it Obama's loss of integrity.  This is why rules of logic & the rational approach to truth can fail - GIGO!!!


Seth says
MR 2009-03-13 17:01:12 11622
seth 2009-03-13 13:56:46 11622
MR 2009-03-13 13:46:37 11622
Wikipedia on Rationality.
source: ... A logical argument is often described as "rational" if it is logically valid. However, rationality is a much broader term than logic, as it includes "uncertain but sensible" arguments based on probability, expectation, personal experience and the like, whereas logic deals principally with provable facts and demonstrably valid relations between them. For example, ad hominem arguments are logically unsound, but in many cases they may be rational.
...
It is still argument rather than proof, truth or even facts. It is highly prejudiced upon the assumptions of the parties in the argument and their being on the same page of reality, context or baseline of experience & assumptions.

There are very few thing in life that can be "proved".  If you are wanting proof for this kind of thing you are in the wrong ballpark.
What are you arguing to do if not to prove your point?  We are used to expecting proofs of theorems in mathematics. We are used to watching cops & law programs where lawyers prove that their clients are innocent or guilty.  If there is no absolute truth then I expect in your world nothing can be proved either! If truth has a very small half-life anyway then why look for it at all?

Look, obviously "prove" is a natural language word and can be used in many contexts like the several ones above which you switch between.  When i said "very few things in life can be proved" i was referring to formal proof (see your reference for logical argument).   That is a true statement because life is not an academic world composed only of formal logical objects.  As to the rest, i've explained the pursuit of truth to you already too many times so i won't repeat myself again.  Suffice it to say that it starts with a common purpose of wanting to get to the bottom of something without all the bullshit.  Let me know if you ever want to do that.

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-03-13 13:56:46 11622
MR 2009-03-13 13:46:37 11622
Wikipedia on Rationality.
source: ... A logical argument is often described as "rational" if it is logically valid. However, rationality is a much broader term than logic, as it includes "uncertain but sensible" arguments based on probability, expectation, personal experience and the like, whereas logic deals principally with provable facts and demonstrably valid relations between them. For example, ad hominem arguments are logically unsound, but in many cases they may be rational.
...
It is still argument rather than proof, truth or even facts. It is highly prejudiced upon the assumptions of the parties in the argument and their being on the same page of reality, context or baseline of experience & assumptions.

There are very few thing in life that can be "proved".  If you are wanting proof for this kind of thing you are in the wrong ballpark.
What are you arguing to do if not to prove your point?  We are used to expecting proofs of theorems in mathematics. We are used to watching cops & law programs where lawyers prove that their clients are innocent or guilty.  If there is no absolute truth then I expect in your world nothing can be proved either! If truth has a very small half-life anyway then why look for it at all?


Mark de LA says
Let me know if you ever want to quit using ad hominem attacks & remove your head out of your ass & quit the RWG!

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-03-14 12:19:23 11622
MR 2009-03-14 11:56:14 11622
seth 2009-03-14 11:41:22 11622
MR 2009-03-14 11:38:12 11622
seth 2009-03-14 11:29:53 11622
There was no ad hominem attack in my last comment.
Nor in mine!
Nor did i accuse you of it.
So what?
Because you accused me of it ...
source: M ending his train with RWG
Let me know if you ever want to quit using ad hominem attacks
... Now i'm not claiming that i never use ad hominem, afterall one does not expect to wade into a swamp and not get wet.  However,  when i am actually trying to get to the bottom of something without the bullshit, i almost never do.  You own ad hominem remarks on this item makes your accusation an especially hyprocritical way to end a discussion.    

Well perhaps you missed my sarcasm on the subject, I accused you of lying. Perhaps your use of the word bullshit should be reviewed.

Mark de LA says
More today on Obama & Signing Statements:
source: ...

Two days after issuing the memo, Obama issued his first signing statement exerting executive power after receiving a $410 billion omnibus spending bill. He said the bill would "unduly interfere" with his authority by directing him how to proceed, or not to, in negotiations and discussions with international organizations and foreign governments.

Obey and the other House lawmakers said this week that Obama's signing statement on the war bill will make it tougher in the future to persuade other lawmakers to support the World Bank and IMF.

If Congress can't place conditions on the money, "it will make it virtually impossible to provide further allocations for these institutions," they wrote.


...


See Also

  1. Thought Obama versus the Wright with 3 viewings related by tag "kramer".
  2. Thought about: A Scary Attitude From The Chief Law Enforcing Officer with 0 viewings related by tag "signing statements".
  3. Thought Crisis Over (or NOT) ? with 0 viewings related by tag "kramer".
  4. Thought FUCK Representative Government with 0 viewings related by tag "unconstitutional".
  5. Thought about: Audio and Video of Kramer's Racial Tirade with 0 viewings related by tag "kramer".