Quote# 79718

[Obama moves to end DOMA]

It is not just the Defense of Marriage but the immigration laws, the voter intimidation of white voters and a few I can't think of. What other laws are they not enforcing that we don't know about? Did we ever have a president who just decided to ignore the laws he didn't agree with? Are we living under a dictator?

Joseph the Carpenter, RR 64 Comments [2/27/2011 4:24:50 AM]
Fundie Index: 58

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 3 | bottom


"Did we ever have a president who just decided to ignore the laws he didn't agree with?"

George W. Bush anyone?

2/27/2011 4:31:52 AM


Well, well. They were awfully fast to forget about Bush, I see.

2/27/2011 4:34:50 AM



Forgetting, denying, either way, it's pathetic that they even had to ask.

2/27/2011 4:36:36 AM

Cid Highwind

Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not American, so... what's DOMA?

2/27/2011 4:38:33 AM

No, flower, you are not living under a dictator. You're just a bit thick.

2/27/2011 4:41:15 AM

Horus IX

Bush Jr.

And that is just in the 30+ years I've been alive.

@Cid Highwind: DOMA is the Defense Of Marriage Act enacted by congress in the 90s during the Clinton administration.

2/27/2011 4:43:17 AM


I don't think these people really understand what living under a dictator would be like.

2/27/2011 4:47:09 AM

Raised by Horses

*cough* the Patriot Act *cough*

Anyway, this is pretty standard fare for fundies, i.e. pick and choose.

2/27/2011 5:02:48 AM


DIctator was George Jr. Doma defense of marriage act, allows gays to marry.

2/27/2011 5:19:00 AM

Cid Highwind

@Horus IX: Thank you :)

2/27/2011 5:20:16 AM

Percy Q. Shunn

Did we ever have a president who just decided to ignore the laws he didn't agree with?

Why, yes, in fact we have had just that...

2/27/2011 5:35:58 AM


Why would a dictator vote to increase the rights of the people?

Are the members of RR high or something, because I cannot think of anything that would make "more rights = dictatorship" seem even remotely sensible.

Correction to Brianisha: The so-called "Defense" of Marriage Act was written to PREVENT gay people from having the right to marry. In other words, it was "defending" marriage from.....people who want to get married.

2/27/2011 5:37:20 AM

Professor M

@Raised by Horses --

Do you know what keeps poking me as the most obnoxious bit about the "PATRIOT" Act? It's not even consistently enforced. The definition of "terrorism" it uses includes all acts of violence intended to produce a particular political outcome and/or to intimidate a particular segment of the civilian population. Now, if that were all that the Act in question did, I wouldn't have such a problem with it -- but in terms of enforcement, it doesn't even do what it says. By the law's own definition, acts of racist and homophobic violence are terrorism. And while a number of acts that the U.S. government (under both Bush II and Obama) has considered "acts of terrorism" are bullshit, I'd actually support a policy of recognizing that acts of racist, heterosexual-supremacist, cis-supremacist, male-supremacist, etc. violence are acts of terrorism (i.e. acts which are both acts of assault and/or murder aimed at their immediate targets and threats and acts of intimidation towards the population of which the immediate targets are perceived as members). Of course, both Congress and the White House (under both Bush II and Obama) have read into the PATRIOT Act the rider that acts of violence are only to be considered "terrorism" if the targets include straight white cis-gendered Christian men. (OTOH, acts which aren't violent may still be considered acts of terrorism if the government can in any way tie you to someone they don't like. So the torture and murder of a transgender woman isn't an act of terrorism, but providing clean socks to someone who later decided to endorse the violent overthrow of the government is.)

2/27/2011 5:55:06 AM

Creedence Leonore Gielgud

"the voter intimidation of white voters"

Mmm hmm...you gonna cite some actual documented examples, or just continue to make shit up?

"Did we ever have a president who just decided to ignore the laws he didn't agree with?"

Pretty much all of them. It's kind of what politicians do.

2/27/2011 6:01:48 AM


The irony of this statement from an individual who no doubt considers Dubya "saintly" is palpable.

2/27/2011 7:01:42 AM


Aside from everything else that has already been said:

You can start with the Louisiana Purchase for the Executive Branch exceeding its authority, and you probably would miss something earlier.

Laws have always had opportunistic and arbitrary enforcement. That also includes laws that are technically but not legally unenforceable and are applied randomly. Think of the ratio of people who speed on the highway to those who receive a ticket for one example.

Dictatorship? No. We live under a hierarchical tyranny with enough fringe benefits to make it marginally acceptable. The alphas use a skillful array of misdirection techniques to blur their privileged place in our society, and the ever-widening gulf between their lifestyle and the middle class. One example: film and sports celebrities are the faux elite. They are the pretty monkeys we have all been taught to look at.

If you're posting on Rapture Ready, you are already too deep in denial to be reached by any of that information, or you're a troll.

2/27/2011 7:10:45 AM


I'm not American, but surely all those admendments to the constitution are results of the people in power not agreeing with the status quo?

2/27/2011 7:17:39 AM

Uh, that whole "intimidation of white voters" thing was made up by Hannity and Co. at Faux News. The so-called New Black Panthers was just two guys, and they were at the polling place not to intimidate white voters, but to protect (albeit badly) black voters from intimidation, because blacks had been targeted there before.

And the dictator who ignored laws he didn't agree with was Bush.

2/27/2011 7:25:34 AM


Someone else who can't stand the idea of democracy. A president is elected who he doesn't like, and a law might be repealed that he likes, so, of course, he's "living under a dictator".
And, have you ever had a president who broke the law? YES. Bush and Nixon spring to mind.

2/27/2011 7:26:23 AM


Did we ever have a president who just decided to ignore the laws he didn't agree with?

Sure. It happens all the time, especially since Reagan, who is credited with having expanded the concept of the "unitary president". G. W. Bush, in particular, took that to mean that Congress has practically no say whatever in how the President does his job, so that any law passed that requires almost anything of the President (e.g., actually enforcing it) can be ignored by the President.

2/27/2011 7:46:44 AM


"What other laws are they not enforcing that we don't know about?"

Most of them, I would guess. There's some pretty stupid ones on the books. And I don't mean "stupid" as in I don't agree with them, I mean, "what the hell were they smoking when they passed that?" kind of laws.

"Did we ever have a president who just decided to ignore the laws he didn't agree with?"

Did you miss the entire previous Administration?

"Are we living under a dictator?"

Apparently you missed Bush's famous quip about not minding living under a dictatorship--so long as he's the dictator.

2/27/2011 7:55:08 AM


@Creedence Leonore Gielgud, a strong argument can be made that President Taft didn't ignore any laws, including those he didn't agree with. Without going into too many details, it was his enforcement of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act that pissed off Teddy Roosevelt to the point that TR formed the Progressive Party and tried to run again.

2/27/2011 7:55:19 AM

Doubting Thomas

Did we ever have a president who just decided to ignore the laws he didn't agree with?

About 3 years ago (PATRIOT Act). And back in the 80's under Reagan (Iran-Contra ring a bell?). And back in the 70's (Watergate). All Republican presidents.

Are we living under a dictator?

Not since about 3 years ago.

2/27/2011 8:15:39 AM

Allegory for Jesus

"Did we ever have a president who just decided to ignore the laws he didn't agree with?"

lol. Short memory, huh?

2/27/2011 8:17:35 AM


He's just refusing to DEFEND DOMA in court, he's not magically making it go away in an instant. If he was really a dictator then DOMA would have been gone awhile ago.

2/27/2011 8:20:33 AM

1 2 3 | top: comments page