• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Obama vetoes bill, Mitch McConnell blames him for the override

sunmaster14 said:
Of course he does. If he wants Congress to vote against victims of terrorism, which is politically difficult to say the least, he has to engage them much earlier to either get the bill quashed from the beginning or amended in such a way as to make it practical. Once a bill gains momentum, it is politically difficult to stop.

This is actually a perfect example of one of the ways in which Obama has been a bad President. Obamacare suffered from his lack of engagement in similar fashion.

That being said, I actually think the bill is a good idea. There will be some blowback, but I think it's worth it. The world can function just fine with the removal of foreign sovereign immunity for acts of terrorism by a state. Admittedly, it raises the risk for politicians, which is probably why they're the ones who are concerned.
Click to expand...
*********** please the White House has made it clear for months that the bill is a bad idea but it can't force those jokers to not pass it and not override the veto.

The idea that maybe that if Obama personally talked to Mitch McConnell early about it that it may not have happened is an absurd lie.
 
Last edited:
sunmaster14 said:
Of course he does. ~snipped irrelevant ignorance.
Click to expand...


Did Obama create the bill in the first place?? Last I knew that was Congress. So Congress makes this bill, signs it to law and doesn't know what's in it until Obama reads it and vetoes it?

THEN they don't read the reasons why he vetoed it in the first place?

Why the **** are they even in Washington?


No, sunmaster. Just no. There is NO defense of this in any way, shape or form. This is NOT on Obama. Period, full stop. This should be held up as example #1 on why your brand of hyper-partisan politics has no place in America any longer.

Christ. It took me 5 minutes sitting on my couch to determine why this bill was bad.
 
Last edited:
Tony Stark said:
*********** please the White House has made it clear for months that the bill is a bad idea but it can't force those jokers to not pass it and not override the veto.
Click to expand...

Hell, *I've* understood the arguments against it for months, and I barely even concerned myself with it. It's McConnell's job to know, so the only thing this tells me is that he's claiming to be either an idiot, or just horribly incompetent.

Of course, given his history of putting party above country throughout Obama's two terms, I'll freely say it's the latter.
 
Mumbles said:
Hell, *I've* understood the arguments against it for months, and I barely even concerned myself with it. It's McConnell's job to know, so the only thing this tells me is that he's claiming to be either an idiot, or just horribly incompetent.

Of course, given his history of putting party above country throughout Obama's two terms, I'll freely say it's the latter.
Click to expand...
He's just a *********** liar.
 
Mumbles said:
Hell, *I've* understood the arguments against it for months, and I barely even concerned myself with it. It's McConnell's job to know, so the only thing this tells me is that he's claiming to be either an idiot, or just horribly incompetent.

Of course, given his history of putting party above country throughout Obama's two terms, I'll freely say it's the latter.
Click to expand...

Yes! Exactly. Only a passing interest in it reveals how terrible a precedent it sets.
 
NoahFence said:
Yes! Exactly. Only a passing interest in it reveals how terrible a precedent it sets.
Click to expand...

The problem is, I am betting that most american politician (and probably most American) are stuck in the "american exceptionalism" type of train of thought , and it does not come to their mind that somebody would dare do to them what they do to others. In other word they don't understand the principle of reciprocity, or feel they are immune to it.
 
Is it wrong of me to hope that we now get sued for the war in Iraq, the illegal torturing we did under Bush's term, and holding people indefinitely without trial or evidence in Guantanamo? Maybe some good will come out of this after all.
 
Tony Stark said:
What a piece of ****.
Click to expand...

I believe you meant to write: slime sucking, mother raping, feces eating, lower than pond scum, traitorous roundworm there!!!!*








* to be concise, I have left out many more other failings of that thug.
 
foophil said:
Is it wrong of me to hope that we now get sued for the war in Iraq, the illegal torturing we did under Bush's term, and holding people indefinitely without trial or evidence in Guantanamo? Maybe some good will come out of this after all.
Click to expand...

Something very expensive for the American Taxpayers more likely.

Given that in order to allow an action to be brought against the Saudis in a US court you'd have to waive the limitation period, and that principle when applied to the US (and it will be) and its actions may cause all sorts of past peccadillos to get litigated.
 
Congress has 'Buyers Remorse' and may have to take up a bill when they return to session after the election hiatus.

It seems they need a bill to fix the bill they overrode the veto on, as they didn't think through the ramifications. Such has countries suing US soldiers.
 
Maybe they should have run the bill past some lawyers before voting on it. I mean, wouldn't it be great if each state could send a bunch of lawyers to Washington just to help write bills, review proposed bills, and do that sort of thing?

Apparently there are no lawyers in congress....:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Ok, it's official. Our Congress is a bunch of flaming morons. Term limits, anyone?
 
It will only get worse with Hillary. If they have time to override, or even write laws. What with the new witch trial starting Jan 1.
 
NoahFence said:
Obama gets NO BLAME for this. None.
Click to expand...

Of course he does. If he wants Congress to vote against anything, he needs to be for it, which is politically difficult to say the least. He has to engage them much earlier to get them to believe he is against what he is for and for what he is against.

This is actually a perfect example of one of the ways in which Obama has been a bad President, suffering from his lack of understanding of what kind of weasels he is dealing with.
 
fishbob said:
Of course he does. If he wants Congress to vote against anything, he needs to be for it, which is politically difficult to say the least. He has to engage them much earlier to get them to believe he is against what he is for and for what he is against.

This is actually a perfect example of one of the ways in which Obama has been a bad President, suffering from his lack of understanding of what kind of weasels he is dealing with.
Click to expand...

That last is the most true of anything recently said in politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom