• 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

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...
He needs to be more cynical perhaps?
 
They have that big signing ceremony when a bill isn't vetoed, it would be cool if they had a ceremony when they are. Maybe the President could, with great gravitas, drop his pants and make a dooky on it.

"There. That's a fine, firm stool. Send that back to Congress with my compliments."
 
Tony Stark said:
What a piece of ****.
Click to expand...

It was known for a long time that President Obama was planning on vetoing the bill. If anyone didn't understand his reasoning it would be their responsibility to consider and understand the objections to the bill before voting in favor of it.
 
After near unanimous approval of the bill to insinuate the president is at fault is disingenuous at the least.
 
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.
Click to expand...

What's the point, since they always vote against him anyway?
 
marplots said:
They have that big signing ceremony when a bill isn't vetoed, it would be cool if they had a ceremony when they are. Maybe the President could, with great gravitas, drop his pants and make a dooky on it.

"There. That's a fine, firm stool. Send that back to Congress with my compliments."
Click to expand...

:D:thumbsup::D:thumbsup::D:thumbsup::D:thumbsup:
 
marplots said:
They have that big signing ceremony when a bill isn't vetoed, it would be cool if they had a ceremony when they are.
Click to expand...

Didn't Reagan do that a few times? The veto signing ceremony that is, not the dooky part. He made a number of comments about having his "Veto Pen" ready throughout his career as Gov. and Pres., I would guess he must have had a ceremony with at least one of them.
 
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.
Click to expand...

When he started laying out his reasoning publicly in April that was too late?

Scroll to about 27 minutes in or just pull up the transcript.
 
crescent said:
Didn't Reagan do that a few times? The veto signing ceremony that is, not the dooky part. He made a number of comments about having his "Veto Pen" ready throughout his career as Gov. and Pres., I would guess he must have had a ceremony with at least one of them.
Click to expand...

The wooden desk he used to veto bills is on display at his museum. Seriously, they actually celebrate the desk.
 
Dr. Keith said:
When he started laying out his reasoning publicly in April that was too late?

Scroll to about 27 minutes in or just pull up the transcript.
Click to expand...


Interesting!

Charlie Rose: And what about this legislation in the congress that will allow families to sue the Saudi government? I know the government's in different circumstances.

Barack Obama: Exactly. I'm opposed because of that second clause in your sentence and that is this is not just a bilateral U.S./Saudi issue. This is a matter of how generally the United States approaches our interactions with other countries. If we open up the possibility that individuals in the United States can routinely start suing other governments, then we are also opening up the United States to being continually sued by individuals in other countries, and that would be a bad precedent because we're the largest super power in the world. And we are everywhere and we are in people's business all the time and, you know, if we are in a situation where we're suddenly being hauled in to various courts because of the claim that some individual has been harmed, then that will tie us up and it could harm U.S. servicemen, U.S. diplomats, a whole bunch of stuff. So, as a matter of policy, this is just not something that we have ever done. This is not unique to this administration, and I think it's important for us to maintain that principle.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom