Bush to veto defense authorization bill.
Bush to veto defense authorization bill.
The White House announced today that President Bush intends to veto a major defense authorization bill, “citing concerns over language that it claims could endanger Iraqi assets held in U.S. banks“:
The President intends to veto H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (”NDAA”). One provision in the bill – section 1083 – would significantly amend current law (the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) in ways that would imperil Iraqi assets held in the United States, including reconstruction and central bank funds. If enacted, Section 1083 would permit plaintiffs’ lawyers immediately to freeze Iraqi funds and would expose Iraq to massive liability in lawsuits concerning the misdeeds of the Saddam Hussein regime.
The new democratic government of Iraq, during this crucial period of reconstruction, cannot afford to have its funds entangled in such lawsuits in the United States. Once in place, the restrictions on Iraq’s funds that could result from the bill could take months to lift, and thus Section 1083 cannot become law even for a short period of time.
The bill also contains a 3.5 percent military pay raise. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) have condemned Bush’s threat, saying Bush “should have raised its objections earlier” and is “bowing to the demands of the Iraqi government.” More on the legislation HERE.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Reid is wrong–Bush can’t “bow to the demands of the Iraqi government” because Bush IS the Iraqi gov’t.
December 28th, 2007 at 2:56 pmNo problem. Just keep sending him the same bill over and over again. Then
When he vetos it, stand on the Capital steps and shout to the world:
December 28th, 2007 at 2:57 pm“Why can’t we give the brave soldiers a pay raise?” & “Why does Bush
not support the troops?”. Have that happen a couple times, and Bush will come around. After all, bush is a coward and only gets assertive if he believes the dems will back down. Stand up to any bully, and the
bullying stops almost immediately.
It is too bad the President doesn’t have a line-item veto, or he could
just veto this one provision of the bill that appears designed to assist the the powerful trial lawyer lobby.
Comment by good_golly — December 28, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
Goofy you are losing it. This is a trial lawyer issue how? This is a misappropriation of funds issue and the congress is trying to recoup stolen funds. But since Bush thinks stealing tax money is good and oversight is bad he’ll veto it.
December 28th, 2007 at 2:59 pmBush kowtows to Bush: a truly bizarre new position for “The Decider”…
December 28th, 2007 at 2:59 pmWe can piss away billions, if not trillions, in Iraq… We can leave pallets of cash lying around for the taking… We can spend money, resources, and lives on the Iraqi people – but we cannot sue for our own interests and well-being?
When is the Administration going to do something for the American people for a change? I thought the President was supposed to protect America and American interests…
December 28th, 2007 at 3:00 pmIt is too bad the President doesn’t have a line-item veto, or he could
just veto this one provision of the bill that appears designed to assist the the powerful trial lawyer lobby.
Comment by good_golly
Yeah, again that pesky and inconvenient document we call the Constitution is causing all of our problems. Geez, what a loser. A trial lawyer issue? You can do better than that, can’t you?
December 28th, 2007 at 3:01 pm7–don’t encourage that mess good_golly. It will just accuse you of being anti-Christian.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:02 pmWorks for me. Now the Democrats can go back and do it right. By “right” I mean putting in language to start brining our troops home.
Or, at the very least, defund the contractors. I don’t know why it doesn’t occur to the Democrats that defunding the Contractors is the best way to end our occupation. Bush won’t be able to keep our troops there without the contractors. And, if we fund the troops but not the contractors, people will not be able to accuse the Democrats of not supporting the troops.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:06 pmOnce again the dems try their edge-tactic of trying to end the war without actually defunding it, the most direct route.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:06 pmI’m really confused.
Are these funds the Iraqi government held in U.S. banks before the invasion? Or funds held in U.S. banks by the new GOI after the invasion? And if so, why? Doesn’t Iraq have a banking system? Yes, it was sold to Sweden and Dubai right after the invation and they have the occasional problem of millions of dollars falling off the back of a truck, but till…
December 28th, 2007 at 3:06 pm7–don’t encourage that mess good_golly. It will just accuse you of being anti-Christian.
Comment by Tender Chicken
Or, he’ll just stick around making more inane statements. Just ignore the fool. He’ll get bored playing with himself and go away eventually.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:07 pmFollowing up on how #3 properly framed this issue
“So why is President Bush Jr against Saddam Hussein’s victims being compensated for the brutalities they suffered during his regime?”
Vetoing a pay raise for US troops by insisting Saddam’s victims not have legal recourse for their suffering
That’s how this issue should be framed
December 28th, 2007 at 3:09 pmOnce again the dems try their edge-tactic of trying to end the war without actually defunding it, the most direct route.
Comment by Lobishomen
And exactly what will happen, Jason, if they tried to defund the occupation (it IS NOT a war)? The Republiscums will filibuster or Bush will veto.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:09 pmThis bill passed the house 397 to 27 with 8 no votes. It passed the senate 92 to 3 with 5 no votes. What’s going on here? There are more than enough votes to override his veto. Are the republicans now going to flip flop on their earlier vote? the 27 nays in the house were all Dems.
there is something much more to this. Is this administration worried about the collapse of the Iraqi govt. due to the lawsuits that will be coming? If so, this is just one more nail in the coffin of Bush’s plan and Rove’s permanent republican majority.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:09 pmJeez… Bush cares so much about Iraqi assets in the US–I wish he cared this much about US assets in Iraq. When it’s our money being pissed away over there, there seems to no shut-off valve. And most of the money that Iraq’s crooked leaders have squirreled away over here was our tax money to begin with, it grates even more.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:10 pmWasn’t one of the main reasons we jumped into Iraq was because of the brutal dictator? And now the same person who said it was justified to remove Saddam because of his reign of terror is the obstacle to those who want to see justice done.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:11 pmgreat point Menehune. How much did we spend on the police academy building that dumps crap on it’s inhabitants.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:12 pmI don’t comment often so not sure who the current trolls are, but I do have to say that #1 must be a complete idiot.
That said, Bush is vetoing this for one reason: because he can. He’s utterly irrelevant to this campaign, and ALL he can do is throw mud at the process. That can only serve only one purpose: to embarrass the legislature in general and the Dems in particular.
This idea that he’s protecting Iraqi assets? Hogwash. If he cared an iota about the state of the economy there then he wouldn’t have allowed those (hundreds of) BILLIONS dollars to be wasted and “lost”. Maybe instead he could try to find that planeload of cash that has since evaporated.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:14 pmNancy…do not amend this bill. Send it back to him over and over. Hoow about a one-two punch SCHiIP, military pay raise, SCHIP, military pay raise. over and over. Give Bush the old rope-a-dope until he’s out on the canvas.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:16 pmNo concern about why this particular bit was ensconced in a defense bill?
December 28th, 2007 at 3:16 pmNo it won’t.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:19 pmWell, this should show Bush’s followers that “the poor, brutalized Iraqis” were never anything more than the excuse he needed to invade. Now that they’ve served his political ends, they can be discarded.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:19 pmgood point justasking.
Stefan, also a good point. seems like he’s closing the barn door after the animals have escaped.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:19 pmNo it won’t.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
And you know this because your boy scout troop doesn’t need a pay raise.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:21 pmSeems simple, just call the senators back to their seats and remove this particular chunk. It is all about the pay raise for the troops, right?
December 28th, 2007 at 3:22 pmWell, this should show Bush’s followers that “the poor, brutalized Iraqis†were never anything more than the excuse he needed to invade. Now that they’ve served his political ends, they can be discarded.
Comment by barfly — December 28, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
Bush doesn’t care about the American people why would he care about a bunch of brown people who aren’t Christians. No gain no gain.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:23 pmNo it won’t.
Comment by Lobishomen
If you say so. You certainly do have a high opinion of yourself, don’t you jason?
December 28th, 2007 at 3:23 pmIt is all about the pay raise for the troops, right?
Comment by Lobishomen —
And justice for the poor, brutalized Iraqis.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:23 pmNo concern that the government in Iraq, which failed to meet any of those oh-so-important benchmarks, is getting more cover from the Bush administration than the American troops stationed there?
December 28th, 2007 at 3:23 pmAnd you know this because your boy scout troop doesn’t need a pay raise.
Comment by Shayne — December 28, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!….whew, funny!
Nope, I know this because Bush has said that after the bill has been reworked he will ask that the troop payraise be made retroactive to January 1st. And of course the dems will agree.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:24 pmSeems simple, just call the senators back to their seats and remove this particular chunk. It is all about the pay raise for the troops, right?
Comment by Lobishomen
It’s also about justice for the Iraqi people. But, you wouldn’t know anything about that, would you. To you they are all a bunch of islamofascist brown people.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:24 pmSeems simple, just call the senators back to their seats and remove this particular chunk. It is all about the pay raise for the troops, right?
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
Maybe you like getting in just the right position so Bushco can crap on your head but some of us prefer to fight back. OK you can go back to your blankie now.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:24 pmThere are already enough votes in both the house and senate to override this veto without changing one letter in the bill. If congress (meaning both sides) have any real balls they would override this.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:25 pmSend the bill back without the offending provision and it will get signed.
Comment by good_golly —
Shorter good_golly: “Iraqis are such chumps.”
December 28th, 2007 at 3:25 pmAnd justice for the poor, brutalized Iraqis.
Comment by barfly — December 28, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
The Iraqi government is against this provision, or do you advocate that the U.S. meddle in their internal affairs?
December 28th, 2007 at 3:26 pmSend the bill back without the offending provision and it will get signed.
Comment by good_golly — December 28, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
The bill passed by a veto proof margin. Who is playing politics here, your boy hero W that’s who. This is all just so confusing for you ghoulie isn’t it.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:26 pm“The Iraqi government is against this provision, or do you advocate that the U.S. meddle in their internal affairs?”
Comment by Lobishomen —
What makes them so special, that we don’t hold them to the same legal standards as other countries?
December 28th, 2007 at 3:27 pmComment by Shayne — December 28, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
The senate is still in session. Call back the senators and have this non-defense related measure stricken from the bill and it will pass. That is unless the dems don’t want it to.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:27 pmNope, I know this because Bush has said that after the bill has been reworked he will ask that the troop payraise be made retroactive to January 1st. And of course the dems will agree.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
But since the vote was veto proof why should the bill be reworked. By the way numbnutz Bush is president not king of the US.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:28 pmLobishomen, where have you been for the last six years? The US has been meddling with every possible aspect of Iraq. Your responses are such kneejerk reactions they are laughable.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:28 pmI mean, If Britian asked us to do this for them, would we?
December 28th, 2007 at 3:28 pmThe bill passed by a veto proof margin. Who is playing politics here, your boy hero W that’s who. This is all just so confusing for you ghoulie isn’t it.
Comment by Shayne — December 28, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
Sorry but this is exactly the sort of measure which should have been attacked earlier, before the bill was voted on. It calls into question when and how the measure was added to the bill and who did and did not know about it.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:29 pmThe Iraqi government is against this provision, or do you advocate that the U.S. meddle in their internal affairs?
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
But this is about money in US banks and is approved by the congress. Do you think the Iraqi government should have more control bills passed than our own congress. Can you spell TREASON?
December 28th, 2007 at 3:29 pm“Sovereign nations are normally immune from lawsuits in U.S. courts. An exception is made for state sponsors of terrorism and Iraq was designated such a nation in 1990. After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, however, Congress passed a law and Bush issued a decree stating that Iraq was exempt from such lawsuits.
After that exemption was passed, the administration challenged and successfully overturned a $959 million court ruling for members of the U.S. military who said they were tortured as prisoners of war during the first Persian Gulf War.”
emphasis mine
December 28th, 2007 at 3:31 pmBut since the vote was veto proof why should the bill be reworked. By the way numbnutz Bush is president not king of the US.
Comment by Shayne — December 28, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
Because the measure in question is a thorn, and if this defense bill is so important (and it is) it could and would be passed without the Iraq legal measure attached to it.
Present the legal measure as a stand-alone bill next year and see how much traction it gets.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:31 pmSorry but this is exactly the sort of measure which should have been attacked earlier, before the bill was voted on. It calls into question when and how the measure was added to the bill and who did and did not know about it.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
Weren’t you the same guy crying about following the Constitution on another thread. Only you are calling into question how the measure was added. Both your fat head and all this nonsense were wedged so firmly up your a$$ it’s amazing you pulled this out.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:33 pmThe Iraqi government is against this provision, or do you advocate that the U.S. meddle in their internal affairs?
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
Right, because the US isn’t actually, physically, in Iraq, and hasn’t been in Iraq since 2003
Miss Teen South Carolina has nothing on the trolls here when it comes to pure stupidity
December 28th, 2007 at 3:34 pmBut this is about money in US banks and is approved by the congress. Do you think the Iraqi government should have more control bills passed than our own congress. Can you spell TREASON?
Comment by Shayne — December 28, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
This measure would allow Iraqis to sue their government in federal court in the United States for damages over injuries suffered under Saddam Hussein’s regime. The Iraqi government would have to pick up the tab for any legal awards and they know it. The last thing that struggling government needs is a mighty influx of lawsuits which could potentially drain their already struggling economy.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:35 pmIt must be torture for him to have to veto things.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:35 pmIt is too bad the President doesn’t have a line-item veto, or he could
just veto this one provision of the bill….
Comment by good_golly — December 28, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
Why have Congress at all. Or you could just let Bush dictate exactly what he wants in every bill. Then he wouldn’t have to bother vetoing anything.
You can’t honestly believe that the president should have a line-item veto? WOW.
If the president was so concerned about this one provision in this bill then why didn’t he say something about it weeks ago. Then it could have been solved and the Troops could be getting the pay raise and other legislation for them that this bill provides.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:36 pmComment by KingCranky — December 28, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
You are having trouble with the company line: “The U.S. needs to get out of Iraq and let them settle things themselves” or some such tripe as heard during the last four years.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:36 pmPresent the legal measure as a stand-alone bill next year and see how much traction it gets.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
Well the whole country and congress is about making you and Bush happy and giving you everything you want just the way you want it giftwrapped, isn’t it. Congress should waste time on stand alone bills every time you don’t like something. Not much of an egomaniac are you. No wonder you love Bush so much, soul mates.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:37 pmThe government of Iraq raised objections to Section 1083, in which Congress strengthened the ability of victims of the brutality of Saddam Hussein to seek compensation. The Iraqi government has (had) warned that plaintiffs, including former U.S. POWs who had been held captive during the first Gulf War in the 1990s, might cite this section in seeking compensation from its assets currently in U.S. banks — reportedly $25 billion. The Iraqi government has threatened that, unless President Bush agrees to veto the Defense Department legislation, Iraqi leaders will immediately move assets out of U.S. banks.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:38 pmWhy is it “playing politics” when Dems do something Bush doesn’t like, but when Bush goes against the wishes of Congress, then that’s a good thing?
December 28th, 2007 at 3:38 pmno, not Iraqis. again, emphasis mine:
“The Justice Department also sought to defeat a lawsuit brought by U.S. citizens held hostage during Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait. That case has been taken over by lawyers for the new Iraqi government and is ongoing in a Washington federal court.”
December 28th, 2007 at 3:38 pmIt’s this simple: Bush is going to veto a pay raise for the troops because he doesn’t believe that the Iraqi people deserve the right to sue and win damages for the harm that the terrible dictator Saddam Hussein inflicted on them. He hates our troops and the Iraqi people equally. And all his bluster about bringing justice to the Iraqis was nothing but empty air. So put that in your pipe and smoke it trolls. There’s your glorious leader with absolutely no clothes on–sporting a laughably small package sans codpiece.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:39 pmIn both the house and senate only one republican voted against this. I didn’t record who that was. there is no need to rework this. If they do, it will be seen as a weakness in the house and senate because of the landslide passage. 397 to 27 and 92 to 3 are huge obstacles. For that many congressmen/women to flip flop wouldn’t be wise for their political future.
Bush is holding up raises for our soldiers to continue to prop up Iraq. His priorities are missplaced.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:39 pmIf the president was so concerned about this one provision in this bill then why didn’t he say something about it weeks ago.
Because in a 10,000 page bill full of all sorts of things that have nothing to do with ‘defense’, crap like this can get missed until the eleventh hour.
If there is such hand-wringing about the troops pay-raise then perhaps the dem leadership needs to get busy and call the senators and congressman back, strike the offending measure from the bill and get the money to the troops.
The senate is still in session, call the people back and get them to work.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:39 pmOh, it’s the defense bill. We HAVe to do something. Bull. He wants to veto it, let him. Either override the veto or send the next DOD funding bill after January 20, 2009. Either way, this should not be an issue.
And, if the spineless Dems decide to give the little boy what some other nation supposedly wants, they better extract something for U S troops in return — say normal rotations, decent pay and above-adequate medical care (including mental health). But will they . . . No! Suckers.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:43 pmComment by leftcoast — December 28, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
Okay, now it’s making more sense. Thank you!
December 28th, 2007 at 3:43 pmLobis, why do you think Congress should capitulate to what Bush wants? Why shouldn’t Bush capitulate to what Congress wants?
December 28th, 2007 at 3:44 pmOr, Lobishomen, they can simply come in, repeat their votes for the bill, and override Bush’s Veto a second time. Bush is racking up lots of filibusters in the Senate thanks to his allies there, and a handful of vetoes. What’s another override? :)
December 28th, 2007 at 3:45 pmWhat’s the hurry lobishomen? Bush hasn’t even vetoed the bill yet. He’s just threatening to. Leftcoast has a great take on it above. It’s odd that Bush has no problem spending billions on this missadventure but is scared sober if the Iraqis pull 25 billion from our banks.
The bill is veto proof and he’s scared.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:45 pmComment by Shayne — December 28, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
What is wrong with a stand-alone bill? Why should the U.S. houses have to present everything as an omnibus? There is no Constitutional requirement for a bill to be salad-bowled with other bills in order to be considered.
If there is/was no objection to this legal measure added to a defense bill, then it should be no problem getting it passed in record time next year.
Or, if it is soooo important, call the senators back and have them vote on it right now.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:45 pmSo is it correct to assume that Congress would override the veto considering the YEA votes for passing it in Congress?
I wonder if Bush is really scared of the oversight and accountability in regards to contractors?
December 28th, 2007 at 3:47 pmOr, Lobishomen, they can simply come in, repeat their votes for the bill, and override Bush’s Veto a second time. Bush is racking up lots of filibusters in the Senate thanks to his allies there, and a handful of vetoes. What’s another override? :)
Comment by Jeremy in Denver — December 28, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
Yes they can do that, and in doing so fulfill their Constitutional requirements as the President is doing.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:48 pmLobis, get over it. The senators did vote on it. They voted for it.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:48 pmBush is the ONE who doesn’t like it. Please explain why Congress should give into his demands.
Hmmmmmm, you didn’t have any complaints when the Republicans inserted poison pills all over legislation that they didn’t like…Why didn’t you call for the minimum wage increase to be a stand-alone bill?
December 28th, 2007 at 3:49 pmThere are three equal branches of government. Just because your boy king doesn’t like anything, doesn’t mean he has the right to disregard anything he doesn’t like. You may think that the GOP Controlled Congress kowtowing to him and the Democratic-Controlled Congress capitulating to him is normal business, but that goes against what the Founding Fathers envisioned.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:51 pmunfortunately, I can see the Democrats caving in again and removing it. People like lobishomen will be happy to see that…
December 28th, 2007 at 3:51 pmLobis, why do you think Congress should capitulate to what Bush wants? Why shouldn’t Bush capitulate to what Congress wants?
Comment by Wilco — December 28, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
Because it isn’t about capitulation, it’s about the granted powers of the office. You don’t want the POTUS to veto anything then take away the power; the process shouldn’t be about “capitulating”, it should be about good solid lawmaking.
The bill is passed, Bush vetoes the bill, now it will move on to its next step in the process.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:52 pmNo, don’t send him the bill over and over again. Just call endgame. No more bills. period. Take the rest of your chimpidency off, asswipe.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:52 pmComment by Arn Gunnutes — December 28, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
You forgot to BOLD your last post. Please resubmit with the proper text.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:53 pmLobes, you sound all tuckered out defending your chympident.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:54 pmTake the wife, pack up the car and go to your local Cineplex.
Get a couple of tickets to “Now Hiring”.
Lobis, I’m not arguing Bush shouldn’t be able to veto. You are arguing Congress should just strip the language from the Bill so that Bush will sign it. That is capitulating. Why do you think Congress should capitulate and not the President?
December 28th, 2007 at 3:57 pmLobis, get over it. The senators did vote on it. They voted for it.
Bush is the ONE who doesn’t like it. Please explain why Congress should give into his demands.
Comment by Wilco — December 28, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
They shouldn’t unless they decide to do so through the normal process of lawmaking and then you can point fingers all around.
The POTUS is given the power to “not like something” through the strength of his Constitutionally-granted veto whether you like it or not.
Don’t hate the system, because one day it may work in your favor.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:57 pmBush was for it before he was against it.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:01 pmTsk, tsk, tsk.
84, then let him veto. Then comes the override. Next.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:04 pmLobis, I’m not arguing Bush shouldn’t be able to veto. You are arguing Congress should just strip the language from the Bill so that Bush will sign it. That is capitulating. Why do you think Congress should capitulate and not the President?
Comment by Wilco — December 28, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
The entire gist of the dem argument against the veto is that Bush it vetoing the bill because of the Iraq legal measure…and oh yeah the troops aren’t going to get a payraise!
So strip the measure out, shouldn’t be that big a deal since this is a DEFENSE bill and should focus on DEFENSE. Resubmit the Iraq measure at a later date and hope for a better outcome; if it gets vetoed even as a stand-alone then live with it and move on. It is how the process works.
The founding fathers of the U.S. intended for gridlock so as force accomodation between political groups, and so that heinous things would have severe trouble getting through the process.
You may find a day when something truly awful somehow makes it to the President’s desk and only his veto would stop it, would you then demand that he “just go along” with the consensus?
December 28th, 2007 at 4:04 pmThe bill is passed, Bush vetoes the bill, now it will move on to its next step in the process.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
I know dudes like you use these places to feel all full of your preceived intellect but we have all seen “School House Rocks” and are familar with the legislative process and how that lonely old billed sittin’ on capital hill becomes a law
December 28th, 2007 at 4:04 pmLobis: “the process shouldn’t be about “capitulatingâ€, it should be about good solid lawmaking.”
This is what happened. The bill was written. It was passed by both the House and Senate. You suggested Congress should remove the offending language and send the revised bill to Bush. Again, why? Congress passed the offending language. So why should they remove the language, when they already passed the bill with the language and have an overwhelming majority to overcome a veto?
December 28th, 2007 at 4:06 pmIf there is such hand-wringing about the troops pay-raise then perhaps the dem leadership needs to get busy and call the senators and congressman back, strike the offending measure from the bill and get the money to the troops.
The senate is still in session, call the people back and get them to work.
Comment by Lobishomen
Your entire attitude, your entire posture is geared toward making Bush happy. Bush is not happy with the work Congress has done, time to bring ‘em back to re-work the bill so bush likes it. All compromises must be made by Congress, all accommodations must be made by Congress.
Your little king stomps his feet and the entire federal government must awaken to calm ‘dear leader’? Bush is a tyrant and a petulant little boy – maybe you have a crush on him? Thankfully our version of democracy works a little differently. You have hung your star onto a major loser – think about that for a minute.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:06 pm84, then let him veto. Then comes the override. Next.
Comment by Menehune — December 28, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
Yes, or maybe it won’t.
At least then the process will have served its intended function and you can move on, hopefully without the usual cries of “he cheated”!
December 28th, 2007 at 4:07 pm1.
It is too bad the President doesn’t have a line-item veto, or he could
just veto this one provision of the bill that appears designed to assist the the powerful trial lawyer lobby.
Comment by good_golly — December 28, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
I seem to remember that the Supreme Court struck down the Line-Item Veto as unconstitutional in 1998. That had been given to President Clinton by the Rep. congress. It was one of the few cases where Ruth Bader-Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas were on the same side, opposite Scalia and Breyer.
Politics DOES make strange bedfellows.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:09 pmLobis, part of the process is also overturning a veto. You left that one out.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:11 pmThat’s available to Congress, too. Not scrapping the bill and coming up with a new one Bush might sign.
Comment by StratRat — December 28, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
Obviously you are unhappy with the political process in your country, though I can assume it is because of the person who holds the presidency.
Have you any legal basis on which to bash Bush about this veto or you do wish to alter the Constitution to aide and abet your-how you would say it-”petulant” desires? You must be unaware of how “your” version of democracy works since you seem to have no idea that the veto is part of said system, no matter the consequences of its use.
Bush as POTUS has a veto pen, he intends to use it, and the lawmaking process will start again at that point. It is the process your people have put into place. Don’t like it? Fine, change the people or change the system.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:12 pmSo strip the measure out, shouldn’t be that big a deal since this is a DEFENSE bill and should focus on DEFENSE.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
Why should they strip the measure out? Bush should just sign the bill.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:12 pmI am interested in how this will play out. If a bill passed with those numbers doesn’t get enough votes to override the President’s veto, I will tip my hat to him and then redouble my efforts to see the Democratic leadership replaced. You could be right–the Dems might cave again, but perhaps not.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:13 pmthe “offending language” was only offensive to the congressional republicans after the Iraqi gov’t complained. good to know.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:13 pmYou are having trouble with the company line: “The U.S. needs to get out of Iraq and let them settle things themselves†or some such tripe as heard during the last four years.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
Rather poor attempt at deflecting YOUR stupidity, which you inflicted on all here with this gem
The Iraqi government is against this provision, or do you advocate that the U.S. meddle in their internal affairs?
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
To which I replied
Right, because the US isn’t actually, physically, in Iraq, and hasn’t been in Iraq since 2003
Miss Teen South Carolina has nothing on the trolls here when it comes to pure stupidity
Comment by KingCranky — December 28, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
I suppose, in some bizarro-world, tortured troll logic, that the US military, and those private, liability-free contractors like Blackwater, can occupy Iraq without actually meddling in Iraq’s internal affairs
I also suppose, according to that same troll-logic, the sun doesn’t produce heat and water isn’t wet
December 28th, 2007 at 4:15 pmBush as POTUS has a veto pen, he intends to use it, and the lawmaking process will start again at that point. It is the process your people have put into place. Don’t like it? Fine, change the people or change the system.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
Why are you posting this? No one here has said Bush doesn’t have the right to veto.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:16 pmLobis, part of the process is also overturning a veto. You left that one out.
That’s available to Congress, too. Not scrapping the bill and coming up with a new one Bush might sign.
Comment by Wilco — December 28, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
I am completely in agreement with you about overturning the veto, and no I did not leave that out on purpose.
The dems just happened to mention that the bill, if vetoed, would deny the troops a payraise (seemingly a large concern of theirs) so the expedient thing to do would be to call the senators back and either override or strip the measure.
I guess we will see whether or not the Iraqi measure was something all the pols were fully aware of or not.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:16 pmWhy are you posting this? No one here has said Bush doesn’t have the right to veto.
Comment by Nat — December 28, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
He thinks he is “schooling” people. It is a weird trait that the pompous have in which they mistakenly believe that others are ill informed
December 28th, 2007 at 4:18 pmWhy are you posting this? No one here has said Bush doesn’t have the right to veto.
Comment by Nat — December 28, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
Correct, but there is quite a bit of whining that Bush will use the veto at all, that somehow he is going above and beyond what he is Constitutionally allowed to do.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:18 pm102…you can not vote to override until the veto is made.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:21 pmIt is a weird trait that the pompous have in which they mistakenly believe that others are ill informed
Comment by dbadass — December 28, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
There must be some ill-informed here because there seems to be a belief that Bush vetoing a bill, as is his right, is somehow wrong because the bill made it to his desk in the first place and therefore the veto should not be used.
Maybe you just confused about that part.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:21 pmCorrect, but there is quite a bit of whining that Bush will use the veto at all, that somehow he is going above and beyond what he is Constitutionally allowed to do.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
Actually Bush is the one doing the whining and you like a good concubine has come here to defend your man.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:22 pmOr, if it is soooo important, call the senators back and have them vote on it right now.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
I’ve been talking to the brick wall at my house, it has better cognitive skills than you do.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:23 pm102…you can not vote to override until the veto is made.
Comment by Menehune — December 28, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
Yes, which is why I said: “if vetoed”.
Thank you very much.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:23 pmThe Iraqi government is against this provision, or do you advocate that the U.S. meddle in their internal affairs?
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
You can look at it another way: the Iraqi government is meddling in our internal affairs.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:24 pmThe Iraqi government is against this provision, or do you advocate that the U.S. meddle in their internal affairs?
Comment by Lobishomen
By the “Iraqi government”, do you mean Maliki and our installed puppets or do you mean the Iraqi Parliament, which was actually elected by the people of Iraq? I’m betting you think that the Iraqi government is Maliki and his other corrupt puppets.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:25 pmYes they can do that, and in doing so fulfill their Constitutional requirements as the President is doing.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
The president is not “required” to veto any bill. Is English your second language?
December 28th, 2007 at 4:25 pmBush as POTUS has a veto pen, he intends to use it, and the lawmaking process will start again at that point. It is the process your people have put into place. Don’t like it? Fine, change the people or change the system.
Comment by Lobishomen
Oh my…What we have here folks is someone who does not understand that Congress is the first branch of government, ahead of the presidency according to the Constitution (Article One).
The veto pen – dear boy – does not start the process again. It is a continum which then the legislative branch of our government (you remember civics, right?) will decide what to do. In this case, it seems the legislative branch will over ride the veto and the bill becomes law. Done deal & your boy king will not get to help his friends in the Banking industry at the expense of our brave soldiers. How can you support this man?
Your mis-understanding of the process is stunning, considering the debate you find yourself in.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:25 pmthat somehow he is going above and beyond what he is Constitutionally allowed to do.
Comment by Lobishomen
Would that be something like the 700+ signing statement he has done Jason? You are not making any more sense in this new incarnation than you did as Jason.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:26 pmReid is wrong–Bush can’t “bow to the demands of the Iraqi government†because Bush IS the Iraqi gov’t.
Comment by Above the Clouds
December 28th, 2007 at 4:26 pmQuite possibly the Bush Crime Family does NOT want to bow down to ANY democratized country in the Middle East. And to think Pakistan was going in that direction.
Check out this video where Bhutto states one of her possible assassins could be the one that assassinated OBL. The comment is at the almost halfway mark.
Frost over the World – Benazir Bhutto – 02 Nov 07
unfortunately, I can see the Democrats caving in again and removing it. People like lobishomen will be happy to see that…
Comment by ucsbclassics53 — December 28, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
Well Lobishomen is a proud fascist.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:27 pmI’ve been talking to the brick wall at my house, it has better cognitive skills than you do.
Comment by Shayne — December 28, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
Someone who talks to brick walls shouldn’t get in the habit of insulting the cognitition of others.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:27 pm“Iraq to massive liability in lawsuits concerning the misdeeds of the Saddam Hussein regime”
Correct me if I am mistaken, but a sovereign government can not be held liable for the debts and misdeeds of a previously deposed government.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:27 pmLobi can’t decide who’s side he’s on, but he’s definitely against Americans.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:28 pmThe bill is passed, Bush vetoes the bill, now it will move on to its next step in the process.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
You have a real knack for the obvious, Einstein.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:28 pmLobishomen, there’s this funny thing about Congress, the reason I’m not up in arms about even Republican pills being put on Democratic bills. The concept is give and take.
Republicans want their war bucks. There’s no question about that. And they don’t want oversight, as that reduces their relevance.
Democrats want their oversight (and hence, relevance). There’s only a little question about that. They also don’t want to give the Republicans their war bucks.
In an ideal world, yes, the R’s say “OK, we’ll give you oversight if you give us our warbucks.” The R’s propose their warbucks bill, and the D’s propose their oversight bill, both bills are voted on, and the R’s vote for the oversight bill even though they don’t want oversight because they trust the D’s will vote for the warbucks bills even though they don’t want to, and vice versa.
Reality sets in, though. In today’s congress, the Warbucks bill would go first, and the D’s would hold their noses while hitting the green checkmark in front of them. THe R’s would happily hit the checkmark. Then the oversight bill comes up, and the Republicans would use every trick in the book to stop the oversight bill.
With a big omnibus bill like this, you get three big benefits. First, you don’t have every single sub-element getting a yay or nay vote, which takes forever. Second, compromises are enforced. And finally, the President can’t simply veto one part, which would be that line-item Veto people ask for.
Trade, when used properly, is the leveling influence that quells irrational passions. Alas, the Democrats have forgotten that trade requires equal parts of compassion and fortitude. What the trolls are argueing for is that the Dems give up the last bastions of the compromise in order to be walked over by the minority.
Don’t forget this time two years ago, the Dems were in the Minority and the Repubs used every trick in the book to quash whatever power they had. It’s funny now that the Repubs are the minority and seem to have lost very little control over the legislative process.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:28 pmFortitude, Dems. Fortitude.
Someone who talks to brick walls shouldn’t get in the habit of insulting the cognitition of others.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
Someone who can’t spell should STFU.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:28 pmComment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
I think folks are arguing the wisdom of a veto not the legal basis of a veto. Either way you still come off as sort of pompous and boorish. No offense. I just thought you might want to know
December 28th, 2007 at 4:30 pmBush no longer needs Signing Statements. He’s replaced them with Press Releases! Think I’m kidding?
“It looks like the White House is exploring new ways to signal that George Bush intends to go on ignoring sections of the bills he has signed. Several hours after signing the omnibus appropriations bill H.R. 2764, Bush released a curious press statement.“
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/26/214315/57/458/426692
December 28th, 2007 at 4:31 pmTake the wife, pack up the car and go to your local Cineplex.
Get a couple of tickets to “Now Hiringâ€.
Comment by RUCerious — December 28, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
Cineplex? They don’t have those in the little town of Shitsville that Lobelessman lives in. They still have one outdoor screen left from the fifties. Of course they don’t show movies there anymore but Lobeless has such a vivid imagination he takes the family there any way with microwave popcorn and slushies from Bubba’s Gas Station.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:31 pmcognitition ???????
Is that what you get when you sign a petitition?
December 28th, 2007 at 4:32 pm110. Well congress obviously saw the benefits of both provisions. They passed it by wide bipartisan margins. They are not beholden to strip it out just because the President says he doesn’t like it. So the ball is in the President’s court. You make it seem like the Congress should rush back into session to tailor the bill to the President’s liking. Not necessary. It is a popular bill as is.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:32 pmKeep it up Lobishomen, I think you hurt his ego, wait…I know you hurt his fragile ego. Great posts Lobishomen, very informative and well written, and without insult.
Comment by Southern Man — December 28, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
You and Lobishomen should get a room.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:33 pmThe veto pen – dear boy – does not start the process again. It is a continum which then the legislative branch of our government (you remember civics, right?) will decide what to do. In this case, it seems the legislative branch will over ride the veto and the bill becomes law. Your mis-understanding of the process is stunning, considering the debate you find yourself in.
Ummm….heh….uhh…perhaps you need to reread my statement. Here, I have reposted the relevant part for you:
“Bush as POTUS has a veto pen, he intends to use it, and the lawmaking process will start again at that point.”
Concentrate on the words “will start again at that point”, i.e. a “continum”(sic) that will eventually reach a point at which the veto is overridden or the bill is reworked and/or resubmitted in some fashion.
Stunning misunderstanding indeed.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:34 pmGreat posts Lobishomen, very informative and well written, and without insult.
Comment by Southern Man
Good God, the second idiot just arrived on the scene to help his tattered friend Lobi. Maybe between the two of them, they could read and understand the Constitution.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:35 pmBecause in a 10,000 page bill full of all sorts of things that have nothing to do with ‘defense’, crap like this can get missed until the eleventh hour.
If there is such hand-wringing about the troops pay-raise then perhaps the dem leadership needs to get busy and call the senators and congressman back, strike the offending measure from the bill and get the money to the troops.
The senate is still in session, call the people back and get them to work.
Comment by Lobishomen
So, Jason, why are you saying that this one provision should be struck from the bill but not the remainder of the “bill full of all sorts of things that have nothing to do with ‘defense’”
Can you spell the world h y p o c r i t e.
As I said before, you are singing the same song as this incarnation as you did when you are Jason and you aren’t getting any further than you did as Jason. You are still a gnat.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:35 pmGood God, the second idiot just arrived on the scene to help his tattered friend Lobi. Maybe between the two of them, they could read and understand the Constitution.
Comment by StratRat
That’s doubtful.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:36 pmComment by Southern Man — December 28, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
Thanks, though I actually found a few people here earlier who decided they wanted to actually debate without insulting me. The offhand slur seems to be the stock in trade for most the dems here, though I’m not exactly sure why that is.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:37 pmI know dudes like you use these places to feel all full of your preceived intellect but we have all seen “School House Rocks†and are familar with the legislative process and how that lonely old billed sittin’ on capital hill becomes a law
Comment by dbadass — December 28, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
dbadass, I don’t think lobelessman understood “I’m Just a Bill” when he saw it in his remedial US Constitution class so he could finally get his GED. He was only 18 and clearly it was too complicated for him.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:37 pmLobi and SM are sharoing what’s left of Jason Hitler’s damaged brain. it’s quite perfect: Lobi puts up simpleminded bullshit, and SM swallows it whole.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:37 pmComment by Southern Man — December 28, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
Stretching? The post you cite in no way supports the comment you make.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:38 pmStunning misunderstanding indeed.
Comment by Lobishomen
Because I don’t like to kick a person when he is down, I will leave this one alone. I do believe, however, that you have shown us your true dis-respect for the legislative branch of our government.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:39 pmThe offhand slur seems to be the stock in trade for most the dems here, though I’m not exactly sure why that is.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
Most likely because you’ve never made a point worth debating. Your shameless, ignorant partisanship prevents you from thinking clearly. Only another gullible fool like SM would have the same level of ignorance.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:39 pmHere is a list of things the Bush just vetoed.
#
This is what Bush plans to kill, from a friend at IAVA:
1. Extension of the window for VA care from 2 to 5 years. This would have protected new veterans from losing access to VA care. Without this fix, there’s nothing to keep Iraq and Afghanistan veterans from joining the 1.8 million veterans without health insurance.
2. Wartime Contracting Commission. A new “Truman Commission” to fight fraud and waste by military contractors.
3. Pre- and Post- Deployment Assessment for Traumatic Brain Injury. Studies suggest 150-300,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have received this kind of injury. These kinds of injuries don’t necessarily leave a visible wound, but they can seriously affect brain function, including memory and emotional response. Right now, many of these injuries are going undiagnosed and untreated.
4. Expanded job protections for family members of severely wounded troops. Right now, if a husband or wife of a wounded troop at Walter Reed needs to take more than three months to care for their spouse,
they can lose their job. This would have given them six months of job protection.
5. A new Center of Excellence for PTSD & TBI. Experts believe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder will affect about 30% of returning troops.
6. Better education benefits for National Guardsmen and Reservists.
7. Visa/refugee assistance for Iraqi Interpreters.
8. A pay raise of 3.5 percent for all members of the Armed Forces.
by The Cunctator on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 12:56:02 PM PST
Now I’m not a lawyer, but I did read the provision in the bill that Buss is supposedly opposed too. It seemed like a trivial matter to me,though I could be wrong. But it really did not seem enough to veto all these things. Maybe someone with a law degree can explain it better to me. Somehow this just seems like its political theater to me. Bush has been a little overly Veto happy lately. But there is clearly enough votes to override the veto so it should just be overridden.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:40 pmGood God, the second idiot just arrived on the scene to help his tattered friend Lobi. Maybe between the two of them, they could read and understand the Constitution.
Comment by StratRat — December 28, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
And as you can see, southern man, after just one post you are now fair game too.
A poor athlete blames his opponents, so judge for yourself the quality of their argument and their intellect.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:40 pmfound a few people here earlier who decided they wanted to actually debate without insulting me.
If you were debating, that would be fine. You are positing ridiculous shit regarding the Constitutionality of a veto, instead of the merits of the legislation in question.
That’s why you get scorn heaped on you. Figure it out.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:40 pmThe offhand slur seems to be the stock in trade for most the dems here, though I’m not exactly sure why that is.
Comment by Lobishomen
Let’s see. Moonbat, Leftard, Democrat party instead of the Democratic party. Need I go on?
December 28th, 2007 at 4:44 pmBecause I don’t like to kick a person when he is down, I will leave this one alone. I do believe, however, that you have shown us your true dis-respect for the legislative branch of our government.
Comment by StratRat — December 28, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
So in other words you don’t want to admit that you misread my post? I can accept that.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:44 pmA poor athlete blames his opponents, so judge for yourself the quality of their argument and their intellect.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
So why are you blaming your opponents? Wow, you are on the same level as SM. Only not as smart.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:44 pmLet’s see. Moonbat, Leftard, Democrat party instead of the Democratic party. Need I go on?
Comment by bilbobaggins — December 28, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
Yes, please go on. Please find a single post where I used any of those terms.
It is your brethren who are doing the insulting here without any provocation whatsoever.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:46 pmAnd as you can see, southern man, after just one post you are now fair game too.
Comment by Lobishomen
YOU may be new to TP, but those of us who have been here know SM very well. He rarely has anything helpful or accurate to say, so we don’t waste time by expecting anything useful. We are always hopeful for his growth as a person. Maybe today is the day – who knows?
December 28th, 2007 at 4:46 pmI can accept that.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
As has been accepted by all here that you don’t know what you’re blathering about. Give it up, you’re toast.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:46 pmYOU may be new to TP, but those of us who have been here know SM very well. He rarely has anything helpful or accurate to say, so we don’t waste time by expecting anything useful. We are always hopeful for his growth as a person. Maybe today is the day – who knows?
Comment by StratRat
This guy is not new. He is the new moniker of Jason, who, probably got banned yesterday for his vile, hateful posts.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:48 pmSomeone who talks to brick walls shouldn’t get in the habit of insulting the cognitition of others.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
Well you seem unable to understand even the simplest concepts. If I wanted to talk to somebody at your level I’d teach preschool. So Jason just because you embarassed yourself by proving you don’t even know what state Stanford is in after you said you graduated from there doesn’t mean you have to change your name. You could just go away and make everybody happy. That goes for your mother and your girlfriend too. Oh wasn’t that you all tingly about the 3,900 dead American troops yesterday that rendered you dead to us all Jason?
December 28th, 2007 at 4:48 pmIf you were debating, that would be fine. You are positing ridiculous shit regarding the Constitutionality of a veto, instead of the merits of the legislation in question.
That’s why you get scorn heaped on you. Figure it out.
Comment by RUCerious — December 28, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
Sorry but the argument as posed from the beginning is that because the bill made it to Bush’s desk in the first place, it shouldn’t be vetoed.
Bush obviously feels that one part of the bill does not have merit and therefore is in favor of a veto. That you would disagree with him is obvious, but that alone doesn’t make you right.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:49 pmA poor athlete blames his opponents, so judge for yourself the quality of their argument and their intellect.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
You say this as though this couldn’t be a possibility. All of things you posted counter an argument no one has made and we’re wondering if you’re insane.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:49 pmSo in other words you don’t want to admit that you misread my post? I can accept that.
Comment by Lobishomen
Nope. A gentleman always allows his opponent to fall back and re-group. That is what I am doing for you. Take a deep breath and begin again.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:49 pmYes, please go on. Please find a single post where I used any of those terms.
It is your brethren who are doing the insulting here without any provocation whatsoever.
Comment by Lobishomen
Sorry Jason, but you have given all of us plenty of provocation along with SM and goon_golly, JK, Exley and the rest of your brethern.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:49 pmWhile we are at it can Jason give me that neutral source that supports the claim that CA emissions proposals will make a new car cost 5 grand more.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:50 pmknow you hurt his fragile ego. Great posts Lobishomen, very informative and well written, and without insult.
Comment by Southern Man — December 28, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
Southern Man takes his head out of his ass and sticks it right in Lobishomen’s lap. You two sound like Mr. P and CT. Still posting naked on your laptops at Motel 6 I’ll bet.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:52 pmBilbo, you manage to find any posts where I used the term “moonbat” or “leftard” or are you still looking?
December 28th, 2007 at 4:52 pmSo in other words you don’t want to admit that you misread my post? I can accept that.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
Congress is the only entity that stops the legislative process.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:53 pmComment by Shayne — December 28, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
Like I said, bilbo, stock in trade.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:53 pmNope. A gentleman always allows his opponent to fall back and re-group. That is what I am doing for you. Take a deep breath and begin again.
Comment by StratRat — December 28, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
Heh hehe…oh is that what it is? LOL, you get funnier each time you post.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:55 pmIf Rudy gets elected the US will have a stark choice.
Genocide or capitulation.
Greg Sargent just interviewed the guy. He is John Deady, the co-chair of Veterans for Rudy in New Hampshire, and he is not backing off his original comments, telling Greg: “I don’t subscribe to the principle that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims. They’re all Muslims.”
-GSD
December 28th, 2007 at 4:55 pmLobishoman, do you drink your blood with or without a salt lick chaser?
December 28th, 2007 at 4:55 pmSorry but the argument as posed from the beginning is that because the bill made it to Bush’s desk in the first place, it shouldn’t be vetoed.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
What’s your problem with this.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:56 pmThanks, though I actually found a few people here earlier who decided they wanted to actually debate without insulting me. The offhand slur seems to be the stock in trade for most the dems here, though I’m not exactly sure why that is.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
Oh you were dishing it out pretty good lollipop until you got handed your lunch. Nobody was debating you over anything because you haven’t offered one valid bit of information that is anything other than a ballwashing for W. You are so dumb you don’t even know you are parroting the party line and not debating. What a tool.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:56 pmCircle this day on your calendar. It’s the first time Arn has posted something with which I agree.
Comment by good_golly — December 28, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
He was also very sincere about it. You can tell from the bold type.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:56 pmHey Lobishomen…are you going to provide Bilbo with the list of all the names you’ve posted under or is he supposed to base his search on the new name you adopted as of this week?
December 28th, 2007 at 4:58 pmHeh hehe…oh is that what it is? LOL, you get funnier each time you post.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
Funny or not it seems StratRat’s thoughts require only one name.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:58 pmComment by Shayne — December 28, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
Like I said, bilbo, stock in trade.
I will invite shayne here to join you in your quest to find where I called someone “moonbat”, “lefturd” or shayne’s favorite, “tool”.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:58 pmHeh hehe…oh is that what it is? LOL, you get funnier each time you post.
Comment by Lobishomen
I thought you needed a break to collect the pieces of your broken down arguments. That’s the kind of guy I am, always helping out the unfortunate among us.
BTW, I will say you address your points in a very polite and respectful fashion. That does says something about you. no snark.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:00 pmAnd as you can see, southern man, after just one post you are now fair game too.
A poor athlete blames his opponents, so judge for yourself the quality of their argument and their intellect.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
Southern Man has a long history of stupidity. Your name is new but you’re making it to the top of the charts with a bullet with your level of dumb.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:00 pmFunny or not it seems StratRat’s thoughts require only one name.
Comment by dbadass — December 28, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
I know, I have seen the occasional posts which seem to accuse me of being someone else. I would think a intelligent guy like yourself would exercise the option of contacting the admin and finding out if your thesis is correct.
Maybe that is just too much work. I understand, you need to keep such a fragile conspiracy afloat.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:00 pmIt is your brethren who are doing the insulting here without any provocation whatsoever.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
Oh wait, I’ll go get my violin.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:01 pmComment by Shayne — December 28, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
Mmmmm, your posts get smarter and smarter every time. Like a bullet, well, maybe just a .177 pellet but you’re getting there.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:02 pmComment by Shayne — December 28, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
No please, continue on in the best “progressive” mold of insulting, vilifying and denigrating at every turn. I wouldn’t want you to lose your edge.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:03 pmComment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
You say this as though this couldn’t be a possibility. All of things you posted counter an argument no one has made and we’re wondering if you’re insane.
Comment by Nat — December 28, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
I’m not wondering any more Nat, I’ve reached a verdict, unanimous. Guilty by reason of insanity.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:03 pmImpeach Bush! Fill the office of the president with someone from Illinois!
December 28th, 2007 at 5:04 pmLobes, why would you take the name of a vampire for your handle?
Just curious…
December 28th, 2007 at 5:05 pmLike I said, bilbo, stock in trade.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
Here at a progressive site we thing you should be proud of being gay. You’re putting a negative spin on what I said about your monogamous relationship because you’re used to the negativity you encounter at neocon sites.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:06 pmI understand, you need to keep such a fragile conspiracy afloat.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
No need for me to keep anything afloat except my seagoing soul. Odd that someone who appears this day enters with such boorish and ill mannered tendencies right after similar folk disappear. You must see why inquiring minds might think this. I myself could care less. Under any name the way you have chosen to present yourself marks you as an arrogant fool. While you ask others to search for evidence of you using certain taglines and phrases, I propose you show a post were you did not come off as condescending at the least and intentionally antagonistic.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:07 pmComment by ry81
Oh, my, my, my…
Didn’t you just say yesterday that commenting on TP was beneath you?
I guess your standards have fallen since then.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:07 pmI thought you needed a break to collect the pieces of your broken down arguments. That’s the kind of guy I am, always helping out the unfortunate among us.
BTW, I will say you address your points in a very polite and respectful fashion. That does says something about you. no snark.
Comment by StratRat — December 28, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
You are a kind soul and I appreciate the respite from your devastating rejoinders.
I will try to remember your kindly personality next time you indirectly refer to me as an “idiot”.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:07 pmComment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
You’re right on one count, troll. Real progressives shouldn’t spend their time relating to arrogance and dishing out personal insults. They should spend more making short work of neocons like you.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:08 pmLobes, why would you take the name of a vampire for your handle?
Just curious…
Comment by RUCerious — December 28, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
Hey, RU, it’s not just a vampire. It’s a vampire that bites women to turn them into nymphomaniacs. Maybe that clarifies things.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:08 pmI propose you show a post were you did not come off as condescending at the least and intentionally antagonistic.
Comment by dbadass — December 28, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
Ask and ye shall receive:
-No concern about why this particular bit was ensconced in a defense bill?
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
Responses to me from your side pretty much went downhill from there, with lefty patriot leading the pack.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:11 pmI will invite shayne here to join you in your quest to find where I called someone “moonbatâ€, “lefturd†or shayne’s favorite, “toolâ€.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Delusions of grandeur lead you to believe you are important enough to start a quest over. These delusions can be a symptom of many psychoses but in your case I’d say it’s paranoid schizophrenia. Try some thorazine and call me in the morning. Toodles.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:12 pmComment by gummitch — December 28, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
Definately can’t be Mr. Hendler then. He is afraid of girls it seems. Well at least the ones who aren’t from the village of Stepford.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:12 pmComment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
Add Karma Recommend (1) | Report Abuse
Oh, how cute. It looks like Southern Man gave you a recommendation.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:13 pmI would think a intelligent guy like yourself would exercise the option of contacting the admin and finding out if your thesis is correct.
Maybe that is just too much work. I understand, you need to keep such a fragile conspiracy afloat.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
Now you’re sounding just like Mr. President which confirms my diagnosis of parnoid schizophrenia. Take your meds.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:13 pmI will try to remember your kindly personality next time you indirectly refer to me as an “idiotâ€.
Comment by Lobishomen
You are right, I was insulting and I apologize to you and SM. Getting caught up in the debate is never an excuse, but sometimes it happens to the best of us.
Keeping it civil is always my goal. Cheers to you.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:13 pmLobes, why would you take the name of a vampire for your handle?
Just curious…
Comment by RUCerious — December 28, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
HT to gummitch for being the first to seek out and post the answer.
One name is as good as the next, I suppose, and you have to admit that being able to turn women into nymphos has a certain appeal.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:14 pmMmmmm, your posts get smarter and smarter every time. Like a bullet, well, maybe just a .177 pellet but you’re getting there.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
That’s great because when I want somebody to judge my intelligence I’ll come right to the chief knuckle dragger, you.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:15 pmI seem to remember Pres Bush stating that he was going to use his power to veto in order to make sure he remained relevant.
So, here you have it: This is Pres Bush’s version of relevancy.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:15 pmComment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
Taken a bit out of context don’t you think. Try reviewing your comments both before and after 3:16. I will give you credit for the task however disengenuous as I did leave it a bit open ended.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:15 pmKeeping it civil is always my goal. Cheers to you.
Comment by StratRat — December 28, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
Then I will defer to southern man’s opinion that you are not one of those who feel it necessary to pull a lefty-patriot schtick on me.
Cheers right back, though having said that someone might declare that it is time for us to get a room in 3…2…1…
December 28th, 2007 at 5:16 pmNo please, continue on in the best “progressive†mold of insulting, vilifying and denigrating at every turn. I wouldn’t want you to lose your edge.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
I could take you out with a butter knife if I wanted to. No edge required. Please check those delusions at the door, lollipop.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:16 pmComment by ‘Lobishomen’ — December 28, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
‘Lobishomen’
I wonder if that’s a close anagram of ‘Bush’s Lobster’ ?
December 28th, 2007 at 5:18 pmThat’s great because when I want somebody to judge my intelligence I’ll come right to the chief knuckle dragger, you.
Comment by Shayne — December 28, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
Perhaps if I wore a brick-wall costume you might forgo the insults and we could have a rational dialogue?
December 28th, 2007 at 5:18 pmCheers right back, though having said that someone might declare that it is time for us to get a room in 3…2…1…
Comment by Lobishomen
Probably not. I am not that fun anyway :)
December 28th, 2007 at 5:18 pmLobish. Your posts are refreshingly intelligent for TP. Unfortunately, as you have learned (or already knew), most of the far left wing fringe that like to call themselves “progressive†are severely limited in their debating skills and do little more than sling juvenile insults, usually coupled with a conspiracy theory. Some are better than that. Missmolly usually puts up a good argument without too many unprovoked insults. The rest should follow your lead and that of Missmolly in this regard.
Comment by good_golly — December 28, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
Stop whining and just debate.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:19 pmI wonder if that’s a close anagram of ‘Bush’s Lobster’ ?
Comment by Briggers — December 28, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
Is there such a thing as a “close” anagram or was that just an attempt to land a nasty?
December 28th, 2007 at 5:20 pmOne name is as good as the next, I suppose, and you have to admit that being able to turn women into nymphos has a certain appeal.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
For a man who couldn’t get lucky in a women’s prison with a fistful of pardons I guess you have to believe in some kind of miracle. It won’t help though you’ll still be going it alone, wanker.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:21 pmI haven’t run into Molly yet (at least I don’t remember doing so) but I will keep that in mind.
Stratrat seems to be cool but he is unfortunately balanced (no insult intended toward strat) by the one known as lefty patriot. I can’t say as I will give that one much time; I have a feeling it won’t take much for him to launch the attack.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:23 pmpropose you show a post were you did not come off as condescending at the least and intentionally antagonistic.
Comment by dbadass — December 28, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
A nice troll comes in here and the first thing you do is get offended by his superior intelect to yours. Your first thought was “This guys not an idiot like SM. He can actually hold an argument and he is well written. I must damage him. But how? “Did you just watch Jail House Rock man?â€
That was so transparent it was almostâ€Gay†like Shayne.
Comment by Southern Man — December 28, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
What the hell are you talking about? Since I didn’t say anything of the sort, how might you have devined a thought I did not state nor have. I am sorry but I do not rank anyone against you as you are as insignificant to me as I you. I am also curious by which diagognostic you are attempting to compare intelligences. I was the one that said the fellow seems pompous and boorish. I never questioned intelligences. Are you an idiot? There now I questioned intelligences.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:23 pmwhat.a.doofus.
Comment by justasking — December 28, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
Yep next to doofus in the dictionary is Lobishomen’s picture. Like he could handle one woman with a minimal sex drive. He exhibits even more symptoms than I thought.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:24 pmSigh, I guess I will have to add shayne to that list too; he is on lefty’s level.
His 5:21 post was an award winner. What that award might be I will let you determine.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:25 pmThat was so transparent it was almostâ€Gay†like Shayne.
Comment by Southern Man — December 28, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
Lobishomen, superior intellect? This is a put on right SM, even you’re not dumb enough to believe this guy presented an intelligent argument are you?
December 28th, 2007 at 5:27 pmIs it possible to sue Bush and Cheney for murdering 100’s of thousands of Iraqi civilians based on all the lies they told about WMDs in Iraq? What’s the best way to hold mass murderers like Bush and Cheney accountable for crimes against humanity?
December 28th, 2007 at 5:27 pmComment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
That’s right, he wasn’t talking to you.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:28 pmwhat.a.doofus.
Comment by justasking — December 28, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
I see that even answering a simple question will get a person skewered.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:29 pmPerhaps if I wore a brick-wall costume you might forgo the insults and we could have a rational dialogue?
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
Well I believe it would improve your looks but I don’t think it would help you appear intelligent, you can beat a dead horse but you can’t make him run, if you know what I mean.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:29 pmDo you use your handle because of Mr. Fender?
I had a ‘57 Fender Strat that I lost in Katrina. Put it in storage for safe keeping and, damn. Red and white with the one piece neck.
Comment by Southern Man
Yes, I do…I am sorry about your ‘57. That was a classic year for Strats. Are you planning on getting another one?
December 28th, 2007 at 5:29 pmStratrat seems to be cool but he is unfortunately balanced (no insult intended toward strat) by the one known as lefty patriot. I can’t say as I will give that one much time; I have a feeling it won’t take much for him to launch the attack.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
I wasn’t talking to you.
Comment by justasking — December 28, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
Uh ohhhhh, seems someone forgot to change their screen name back to the correct personae. I never mentioned you, justasking, I mentioned lefty patriot.
Hmmm.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:32 pmBush’s Lobster is a chowderhead.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:33 pmWell I believe it would improve your looks but I don’t think it would help you appear intelligent, you can beat a dead horse but you can’t make him run, if you know what I mean.
Comment by Shayne — December 28, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
No I don’t, please explain.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:33 pmI’m not exactly sure why that is.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
Ummmm……astounding stupidity in your own words?
December 28th, 2007 at 5:34 pmI see that even answering a simple question will get a person skewered.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
Do you see your name at the top of the thread you megalomaniac. This site isn’t about you or who you feel is a good or bad poster. Get over yourself and pay attention to the subject or get booted out of here. Enough is enough.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:34 pmHeh, I think what it is is that the trolls get bent out of shape when they don’t get the benefit of the doubt.
When EACH and EVERY so-called ‘right-wing debater’ comes in with a condescending attitude and a total disdain for every last one of our opinions, we lose our desire to be accomodating. I know, for the hypothetical respectful commenter who just happens to be conservative in opinion, this is unfair, but in defense of all the regulars, in all my time being on the blogs (1.5yrs now) and on all the blogs I visit (ABlog and TP), I have not run into a single Conservative commenter who is respectful of Liberal commenters.
Forgive us if we come down hard on you, Libishomen. And please take this hint: If you really want to be treated with respect, how you’re acting now is not the way to get it. IF you are really a new guy with no history of being here before (hint: I don’t believe you), then you need to take time out and read comment threads from the past, before you charge here in the present and commit the same trollish acts all the previous conservative commenters have done, and you need to have skin thick enough to shrug off being accused of being a troll, and try to be sympathetic to the posters who give you flack. Otherwise, save yourself the agrivation and move elsewhere.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:34 pmhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22420862/
“Sovereign nations are normally immune from lawsuits in U.S. courts. An exception is made for state sponsors of terrorism and Iraq was designated such a nation in 1990. After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, however, Congress passed a law and Bush issued a decree stating that Iraq was exempt from such lawsuits.”
December 28th, 2007 at 5:34 pmand this:
“Unless Bush vetoes the legislation, the Iraqis have threatened to withdraw all of their money from the U.S. financial system to protect it from the lawsuits, Democrats said.”
What irony!! Pelosi and Reid say that Bush should have told them of his objections earlier. What? So they could have bent over and given Bush what he wanted earlier also? As much as I detest Cindy Sheehan I detest Pelosi more and hope that Sheehan somehow kicks Pelosi’s rich little ass out of office in November. And Reid? He’s just a cuckold looking for a father figure to help guide his abysmal life.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:34 pmComment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
Go away Jason
Go away Frank
Go away Jake.
There, three birds with one stone.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:34 pmHere is the answer.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/bush.veto/index.html
“At issue is a provision of the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act that could let people with legal claims alleging brutality from Saddam Hussein and his forces recover damages from the current Iraqi government. That element of the bill prompted the Iraqi government to threaten to withdraw $25 billion of Iraqi assets from U.S. banks, White House officials told CNN.”
The Iraqies said they were going to take their 25B ball and go home. Takeing 25B out of the US now is not a good thing since the housing market tanked and the economy is on the verge of tanking next. He is just making sure these problems are left for the next pres.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:35 pmComment by Ben Dover — December 28, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
I suggest Durbin for Senate Leader and Wexler for Speaker. I want these changes implemented NOW.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:37 pmDo you see your name at the top of the thread you megalomaniac. This site isn’t about you or who you feel is a good or bad poster. Get over yourself and pay attention to the subject or get booted out of here. Enough is enough.
Comment by Shayne — December 28, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
RUcerious asked me, politely I might add, why I decided on my particular screen name. Are you intending to boot him for also failing to adhere to the subject or is your haughtiness reserved only for those whose beliefs don’t align with yours?
Enough is enough is right on target, maybe you will take your own advice and cease from the constant slurs against me. Wishful thinking, I know.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:38 pmReturn to oblivion, Pelosi. We need AGRESSIVENESS in the House to really drain the swap of Repub damage. Same to you, Reid.
It will be OVER for you, Republicans.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:40 pmComment by Shayne — December 28, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
To be fair, you’re off topic as well with your constant insults. Progressives aren’t for one-sided enforcement.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:44 pmWEXLER for SPEAKER
December 28th, 2007 at 5:46 pmis your haughtiness reserved only for those whose beliefs don’t align with yours?
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
So now you are going with the poorly veiled passive aggressive angle? Here is an idea. If your claim of a sincere search for meaningful dialogue is so rooted in reality along with your pretense that you have never posted here under a different name, why not recognize that you may have rubbed some folks the wrong way and attempt to make that crass introduction a thing of the past. I think you will find these folks very receptive to alternative views when they are delivered in an intellectually stimulating, sincere, and thoughtful manner. Sarcasm and humor are encouraged. pomposity and self aggrandizement less so
December 28th, 2007 at 5:46 pmEnough is enough is right on target, maybe you will take your own advice and cease from the constant slurs against me. Wishful thinking, I know.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
I’m not here to grant your wishes, you’re the guy who showed up here acting like a pompous ass and implying you understood the veto better than anybody here. What you don’t understand is that we don’t agree with your interpretation of what would be the proper thing to do. Next time you show up with another name try a little humility, it will make you appear less loathesome.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:48 pmComment by Jeremy in Denver — December 28, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
I see, so I am supposed to conform to your ideals, which in effect would mean that if I somehow stray from the path which you have decided upon, then I am fair game for insulting behavior? Is that the sort of blog this is because all you have created is an echo-chamber.
I present my opinion and get what for it, slurs and recriminations? Yay, nice place you have here. Have I used ANY of the language used against me, have I referred to anyone here in terms akin to “tool, republiscum, nazi”, etc. etc.? Nope, not once though I have had plenty of cause to do so.
Before you decide that I might want to study-up on the TP protocols, perhaps you need to have a word with those here who start threads with terms like “Joe Lieberchimp” and figure out if the protocols are far more fluid than you think.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:48 pmMaybe Pelosi, even with her rich husband, doesn’t want to give up her fatter congressional salary and return to rank-and-file status, because SHE ENJOYS BEING A LEGISLATIVE OBSTRUCTIONIST!
December 28th, 2007 at 5:48 pmTo be fair, you’re off topic as well with your constant insults. Progressives aren’t for one-sided enforcement.
Comment by Briggers — December 28, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Well Briggers you’re new around her too. And generally I’d agree with you except I find concern trolls particularly annoying. If you had read the top of the thread through you would see that I didn’t start it, the troll did. But don’t strain yourself looking for the facts.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:49 pmMaybe Pelosi, even with her rich husband, doesn’t want to give up her fatter congressional salary and return to rank-and-file status, because SHE ENJOYS BEING A LEGISLATIVE OBSTRUCTIONIST!
Comment by Briggers — December 28, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
Yep you’re looking more like a run of the mill concern troll with every post.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:52 pmWhat you don’t understand is that we don’t agree with your interpretation of what would be the proper thing to do.
And that is where you lost the debate, waaaaay back up top. It isn’t about proper, it is about ‘legal’, precisely because you might have a problem defining the term “proper” in a way that everyone will agree with.
Pissing and moaning about Bush using the veto is just that, pissing and moaning. Is there anything more substantive to your argument or does it really rest on the simplistic cliche of “Bush is a nazi”?
December 28th, 2007 at 5:52 pmComment by Shayne — December 28, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
Concern troll my ass. I’m not threatning to report anybody for being off-topic while doing the same. Getting everyone “thrown out” to delightfully boost egos isn’t on the progressive agenda.
Bush’s Lobster can easily be ignored regardless of who started what. It’ll go away on its own.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:55 pmComment by Shayne — December 28, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
Disappointment with Pelosi’s leadership is a now-common progressive view. Thanks for outing yourself as an RNC shill. I was about to make the call anyway.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:58 pmComment by dbadass — December 28, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
Eye of the beholder I guess, though you are just making excuses for the abhorrent language of those like shayne and lefty patriot.
See shaynes first post toward me (my screen says #27) and ask yourself what I did to gain that enmity and whether it was justified. Then reference his next response (#36) and ask the same question.
If making statements about cause and effect and proper course of action is all it takes to get such a response, then TP will become one of ‘those’ sites.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:58 pmI wish I could, but she was irreplaceable. My grandfather bought it and passed it down to me. It was in great condition and I only played it on special occasions. You playing this weekend.
Comment by Southern Man
Again, sorry for your loss. It makes it very tough knowing it came from Grand Dad. My ‘54 Strat was from a relative – who has since passed so when I play it, it takes me back to a special place.
My band – Mental Note – is going to be in LA (Los Angeles) playing for a bunch of American Express executives on Saturday night. It should be fun because they always have too much food and too much beer. We open for a band you might have heard of: Grand Funk Railroad.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:01 pmLobishomen, had you taken my advise and read the past, you might have learned that indeed, I have taken people to task over things like Betrayus and so on. I agree. When addressing a person directly, it is the height of immaturity to insult their name in an attempt to belittle them.
As for your high and mighty attitude, honestly, Lobish, I don’t give a flip over whether or not you take my advise. You and your buddy Southern Man were going on about how you were catching flak, I told you how to reduce that flak. You don’t like that advise, then by all means, don’t take it. I won’t feel sorry for you when you continue to catch the consequences, and believe me, Lobish, actions have consequences, and your actions are bringing these consequences, no matter how much you don’t like them.
And no, they’re not my ‘ideals’ you must conform to. They’re the ‘Terms of Use’ below the window you’ll type your reply in. You don’t like them, then feel free not post. As for other people not following them, then do the right thing by clicking report abuse and citing the Terms of Use article(s) they’re in violation of.
After all, you’re a Conservative, right? And Conservatives value law and order, right? There are the laws right there, in the Terms of Use link below, which I have helpfully linked to in this message. Follow them.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:02 pmReid and Pelosi are ineffective. Dubya doesn’t support the troops.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:04 pmThey’ve all made a lot of money off our soldier’s backs…and deaths…
Hey strat, ask GFR to do a little old school in my honor and sing “Queen Bee”.
I had to sneak into the theater to catch “Heavy Metal” and it was well worth the effort. Awesome tunes.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:05 pmDisappointment with Pelosi’s leadership is a now-common progressive view. Thanks for outing yourself as an RNC shill. I was about to make the call anyway.
Comment by Briggers — December 28, 2007 @ 5:58 pm
Thanks for telling me what the “progressive view” is, who knew? And nobody threatened to have anybody kicked out of here. You and lobster boy want to get this thread up to 500 post on nothing knock yourself out. Nobody is paying any attention any more anyway.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:05 pmGeorge w. Bush said the US will “NEVER NEED A PERMISSION SLIP FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY”.
More empty words from a hapless tyrant.
-GSD
December 28th, 2007 at 6:06 pmIn the six years before Dems took over congress, how many bills did Bush veto?
December 28th, 2007 at 6:08 pmWhy veto when he can make a signing statement?
December 28th, 2007 at 6:09 pmgood_golly, I actually HAVE flagged and warned arn. Even the progressives need their kooks, and he’s ours.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:09 pmOh, yeah, good_golly. Does ARN violating the ToU make it OK for anyone else to?
December 28th, 2007 at 6:10 pmBriggers: “Disappointment with Pelosi’s leadership is a now-common progressive view.”
I think that if you check into it you will find that progressives are almost always dissatisfied with whomever is the Speaker. The reason for this is that the Speaker’s main function in the House is to make deals and marshal coalitions to get legislation through to the Senate. The position demands a deal-maker, not an ideologue. This is not to say I’m completely satisfied with Pelosi’s leadership, but we should try to understand the basic reality of the situation and how the House works.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:12 pmI had to sneak into the theater to catch “Heavy Metal†and it was well worth the effort. Awesome tunes.
Comment by Lobishomen
Someone said they were going to record/film the show. If I get a copy I’ll You Tube it. I don’t know who they are getting to play guitar for them. Last time I heard it was going to be Waddy Wachtel. Should be fun…
December 28th, 2007 at 6:12 pmShayne is surely happy to see Pelosi preventing Bush’s impeachment.
Somebody should let her in that being covert-RNC is not progressive.
I’m glad to remind you of the commonly held progressive view: Pelosi must go. Reid must go.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:15 pmNext on the docket: WEXLER for Speaker
December 28th, 2007 at 6:18 pmHere’s one reason…
Ugh, old lady Hill’reh is breathing like Darth Vader into the microphone. That must be the sound that Bubba enjoys, if / when he ever rides her.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 27, 2007 @ 11:01 am
Here’s another.
As you all cheer for America’s enemies and root for our defeat, I’d like to take a moment and wish you all a lovely and meaningful Christmas.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:20 pmComment by Charles James Napier — December 21, 2007 @ 11:32 am
Comment by Jeremy in Denver — December 28, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
I appreciate the advice, and I mean that sincerely, though I must agree that you seem to have either a slanted sense of responsibility or you only go out of your way to admonish those whom you consider “conservatives”.
Let me point to the following of the TOU:
“You may not: Post any content to the Blog that is unlawful, racist, hateful, libelous, defamatory, obscene, or that intentionally discriminates against or harasses particular individuals or groups.”
Now shall I print the names of those here who have referred to me and others as “tool, idiot, racist, ass, doofus, wanker” etc. etc. ?
In other words, now that you have admonished me for somehow causing the reaction against me, I believe it is time for you similarly admonish others for partaking in behavior that caused me to act “high and mighty” toward them. Then again, they are not “conservatives” and therefore don’t deserve a lecture.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:20 pm#262
I’ll bet you $10 that “Lobsterboy” is related to Joe Lieberman. He’s still ranting about the Joe Lieberman messages from yesterday.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:22 pmand you have to admit that being able to turn women into nymphos has a certain appeal.
Yeah, if you’re a loser who has to fantasize about shit like that.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:22 pmBriggers, how can you call a politician that favors universal healthcare, getting out of Iraq, union rights, protection of the environment, stem-cell funding, a woman’s right to choose, more funding for education and more regulation of corporations “covert-RNC?” Don’t you think that’s a little over the top? If you want to call her a moderate Dem, I agree, but “covert-RNC?” Please get some perspective.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:23 pmGood_golly, perhaps it’s because the powers that be don’t think Arn’s bad enough to get a ban. Note that I’d love to see you gone. I’ve flagged you several times. You’re still here. I wonder why?
We don’t get what we want all the time. That’s not an excuse to violate the ToS, though. I also notice that since your accusation of hypocracy against the commenters of this site didn’t fly, you shifted it to the owners of the site. I won’t defend them, but I will call you on your bs, and ask again: Does the fact that Arn violates the ToU excuse you from violating the ToU?
December 28th, 2007 at 6:25 pmSomeone said they were going to record/film the show. If I get a copy I’ll You Tube it. I don’t know who they are getting to play guitar for them. Last time I heard it was going to be Waddy Wachtel. Should be fun…
Comment by StratRat — December 28, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
I don’t know what YT’s rules are for posting material, you can’t get in trouble for posting a live show, can you? Those old bands often depend on DVD’s and CD’s from their shows for revenue.
Still, it would be cool to see them going again. A few months ago I caught a live Moody Blues concert on the HD channel and it was incredible. Those guys are getting on in years and they still sounded great. When they played “Story in your Eyes” I was jumping around the room. :-)
December 28th, 2007 at 6:26 pmHell, I applaud them for their restraint. Too bad I can’t send gifts, or buy them a couple of drinks. I personally think you should go back to your Charles James Napier moniker.
It fit.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:26 pmHave I missed something or is our government putting the interests of rights of Iraq ahead of the rights of our own citizens? There are Americans who were taken hostage in Iraq. Some of them were beaten and held at gunpoint. Others were used as human shields by the government to protect them from US air attack. Since when does out government care more about Iraqi interests than those of their own people. The amount of money needed to compensate the hostages is a faction of the 5 billion dollars the government of Iraq has on deposit in US Banks. The White House wouldnt have to deal with this bill if it had kept its promise to the hostage families in the first place.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:28 pmDoes the fact that Arn violates the ToU excuse you from violating the ToU?
Comment by Jeremy in Denver — December 28, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
It must be quid pro quo for everybody.
It seems that if I violate the TOU then a similar violation against me is justified. That is unless you plan on preaching to shayne and lefty patriot.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:30 pmI don’t know what YT’s rules are for posting material, you can’t get in trouble for posting a live show, can you? Those old bands often depend on DVD’s and CD’s from their shows for revenue.
Comment by Lobishomen
To get around that, they usually chop the show up a little bit. That is, only a few songs are posted – or maybe a portion of the set is posted. Also, GFR is not filming it for distribution, just for kicks – so they should be ok with it.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:31 pmBilbo, you manage to find any posts where I used the term “moonbat†or “leftard†or are you still looking?
Comment by Lobishomen
I wasn’t talking about you Jason, I was talking about many other trolls here. We tend to put you all in one basket since you all speak with one voice anyway. You have all earned our scorn and will continue to receive it as long as you hang around polluting this blog.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:31 pmYeah, if you’re a loser who has to fantasize about shit like that.
Comment by RUCerious — December 28, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
Fantasizing about being with a nymphomaniac chick? Guilty as charged.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:32 pmThen again, they are not “conservatives†and therefore don’t deserve a lecture.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
Oops, forgot one: whiny-ass crybaby. Typical “conservative” coward.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:32 pm105. Why not just make the PAY RAISE a separate bill?
Then the TROOPS get what they need.
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
Circle this day on your calendar. It’s the first time Arn has posted something with which I agree.
Comment by good_golly — December 28, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
They have already tried that. The Republiscums threatened a filibuster and Bush threatened a veto.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:34 pmComment by bilbobaggins — December 28, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
Sigh, contact site admin about me and tell me what you find. It is a slow night here, they should be able to quickly ascertain my identity.
Nice to see you have decided to lump everyone together, I suppose that makes it easier to show everyone how open you are to opinions which don’t parallel your own.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:34 pmThe main point Speaker Pelosi was trying to make, was that the negotiation of the clause that the president finds so distateful should have been brought up during the normal discourse that occurs between Executive and Legislative staff while the bill was being crafted.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:35 pmThis bill funds the Wounded Warriors Act, which goes a long way towards addressing the piss poor care our wounded vets are and have been getting.
Why can’t this president have his people talk to their people in a timely fashion? Why is this administration incompetent in this regard?
Lobes, your reply is requested.
No, no. He means you fantasize about a chick wanting to be with you.
Comment by justasking — December 28, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
Ohhhhhh. Guilty as charged again.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:36 pmOops, forgot one: whiny-ass crybaby. Typical “conservative†coward.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — December 28, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
Jeremy (from Denver, not the other Jeremy) is going to give you a stern lecture for breaking the TPTOC, or TiPTock as we like to call it.
Now you’re in trouble!
December 28th, 2007 at 6:38 pmAw, was that a heartfelt sigh, Napier? Lose the victim card, Chuck.
Few people feel sorry for arrogant gas bags like yourself.
Great post, HostageFamily.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:38 pm“You may not: Post any content to the Blog that is unlawful, racist, hateful, libelous, defamatory, obscene, or that intentionally discriminates against or harasses particular individuals or groups.â€
Now shall I print the names of those here who have referred to me and others as “tool, idiot, racist, ass, doofus, wanker†etc. etc. ?
In other words, now that you have admonished me for somehow causing the reaction against me, I believe it is time for you similarly admonish others for partaking in behavior that caused me to act “high and mighty†toward them. Then again, they are not “conservatives†and therefore don’t deserve a lecture.
Comment by Lobishomen
So what part of the TOS have those name-callers violated? The only one I can see they are close to is “hateful”, and you know, if your skin is so thin that you can’t take a little name-calling, then perhaps you should go over to Redstate where they will kiss your ass.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:39 pmshow everyone how open you are to opinions which don’t parallel your own.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
Or reality.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:40 pmComment by justasking — December 28, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
LOL, really?
Must have been what I meant when I said guilty as charged “again”. LOL!
December 28th, 2007 at 6:40 pmDoes anyone suppose this 25 Billion bucks came from anywhere other than US taxpayers?
December 28th, 2007 at 6:41 pmAnyone?
Lobes? #294? If you please…
December 28th, 2007 at 6:43 pmSo what part of the TOS have those name-callers violated? The only one I can see they are close to is “hatefulâ€, and you know, if your skin is so thin that you can’t take a little name-calling, then perhaps you should go over to Redstate where they will kiss your ass.
Comment by bilbobaggins — December 28, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
Not at all, I just want to make sure that Jeremy delivers his well-meaning lectures too all applicable parties. You know, since he claims that any insults are gained from my breaking of the TPTOU tenets.
He seems awfully concerned about the TPTOU rules, which are being broken on a regular basis. Oh the humanity!
December 28th, 2007 at 6:44 pmLobes? #294? If you please…
Comment by RUCerious — December 28, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
Sorry, I missed the serious question coming hard on the heels of “yeah if you’re a loser who likes sh!t like that”.
You must expect me to just turn around and have a good convo with you?
December 28th, 2007 at 6:47 pmNice to see you have decided to lump everyone together, I suppose that makes it easier to show everyone how open you are to opinions which don’t parallel your own.
Comment by Lobishomen
I am perfectly fine with opinions that don’t parallel my own. But only if they are backed up by facts and are not just feces being thrown at the wall to see if you can rile the troops. I like nothing better than debating a Republican. I have five friends who are former Republicans and part of the reason why they are no longer Republicans is because of our lively debates. Unfortunately you and most other trolls come here and spout RNC talking points and throw insults at everyone here. When you are asked to prove your point or are asked a question, most of you just high tail it out of here only to return another day to fling your feces.
I have to say that I was very insulted, Jason, when yesterday you made light of the 3,900 of our brave men and women who have died for Bush’s folly. Many other things you have said I find equally insulting. I have no patience with people with black hearts who only care about themselves and the rest of us be damned. That’s pretty much the Republican mindset and I am sick and tired of all of you and what you have done to this once great country.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:48 pmWell…I’m principled. I admit it and I stick by my “doofus†insult.
Comment by justasking — December 28, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
Yet you use two different names, and on the same thread no less.
Principled? Hmm.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:48 pmYou must expect me to just turn around and have a good convo with you?
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 6:47 pm
You were the one joking around about it.
What’s the matter, you don’t feel like answering the issue?
December 28th, 2007 at 6:50 pmJeremy took the high ground and remained polite. This is what you do with decorum. You spit it back into his face. Before or after the sucker punch is my question.
You just can’t help showing your true colors.
Sniveler.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:50 pmYou must expect me to just turn around and have a good convo with you?
Comment by Lobishomen
Nope, we expect you to do what you do so well Jason. You prevaricate and bloviate. That’s pretty much it.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:51 pmHow about #304? Lobes, got any thoughts for us on that?
December 28th, 2007 at 6:51 pmUnfortunately you and most other trolls come here and spout RNC talking points and throw insults at everyone here.
Show em if you got em. I will refer to various posts by ’shayne’, ‘lefty’ and his other personae, ‘just asking’ to refute your claim about insult throwing.
Do I need to contact admin myself to prove my identity or are you able to accomplish such a simple feat by yourself?
December 28th, 2007 at 6:51 pmIt seems that if I violate the TOU then a similar violation against me is justified. That is unless you plan on preaching to shayne and lefty patriot.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
Still talking about yourself and what was done to you. Bucking up the number of post, you get a bonus for that?
December 28th, 2007 at 6:52 pmHow about #304? Lobes, got any thoughts for us on that?
Comment by RUCerious — December 28, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
Yes, I do.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:52 pmRead my post to Good_golly, Lobish. I do flag, and I do ask people to tone it down (and people have told me to take a hike, too). The reason I cut some slack to the liberal side is that they aren’t going out of their way to detract from the conversation. Note: I’m not saying you do, though again, I have my suspicions that you’re not as new to this as you say you are.
I do agree that there are better ways to refer to Lieberman and get across that we feel he’s a sellout to Israeli, Corporate, and Republican interests, but honestly, we’ve used all those up and it’s getting old. I don’t have any more problem with ‘Hill’reh’ or ‘Slick Willy’ than I do with ‘LIEberman’ and ‘Chimpy’. That comes with the territory of being a public figure. As for being called a tool, I’d call you a tool…a useful tool at that. Insult? No. Statement of (at least perceived) fact. Your personal needs don’t align with the Republicans unless you are very rich, and yet you support them. This makes you a tool — I.E. a means to an end. It’s even more troubling if they used your fear of other races ways of living (Hispanics, Muslims, Gays, etc) to get you to vote against your interests (consumer protections, public services, etc) in favor of theirs (less tax on the rich, less public services including public transit and middle-class support programs, pro-corporate support at the expense of consumer protections, erosion of personal freedoms). Yes, tool implies that you have little or no self-determination, but that’s what it’s supposed to imply — after all, why would you support someone who supports making you less important as an individual in favor of fattening some CEO’s pocket while spying on you because you might be a terrorist? Likewise with being called an ass…
Post #2 from you:
No concern about why this particular bit was ensconced in a defense bill?
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
I’ll say it. You’re an ass. Only an ass throws a tempertantrum because he doesn’t get exactly what he wants. Bush is an ass. He got his defense spending bill. He’s pissy because the Dems put strings on it he doesn’t like. You’re an ass. You’re pissy because Bush didn’t get his no-strings-attached bill. Therefor, you’re an ass. Plain and simple. Your follow-up posts echo the reasons I call you an ass, so definitely, I’m gonna call you an ass. Sorry if that offends you. Frankly, I’m not all that concerned about offending you. It gets to be a problem though when you and yours (a term I use to mean all trolls — benefit of the doubt here) start trying to _disrupt_ the conversation. If you’re truely not one of the regulars here after being banned for doing the Same old $***, take my advice and read back some, and see what behavior you must avoid. Otherwise, you’ll share the fate of those you get compared to.
Anyway, the short of this is you’re off on a bad foot, regardless of whether you think it’s fair or not, Lobish. You’ve got a choice. Descend in the madness of those you’re replacing, or learn from their mistakes and change your path. The choice is yours.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:53 pmFor someone who chooses a name from a brood of vampires, you have some lofty expectations of us.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:54 pmNot stepping up to the plate when asked to specifically respond to a debate topic makes you look even weaker.
Yes, I do.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
the very essence of Lobi’s emptiness. A lie in three words.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:54 pmDo I need to contact admin myself to prove my identity or are you able to accomplish such a simple feat by yourself?
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
sharpening up that stick, aye?
December 28th, 2007 at 6:54 pmYou were the one joking around about it.
What’s the matter, you don’t feel like answering the issue?
Comment by RUCerious — December 28, 2007 @ 6:50 pm
Exactly, it is just a name, admittedly joked about, and you actually felt compelled to make an insulting moral statement about it.
You ask a question, I answer, you make a snide crack and then expect it to be all well and good. Sorry, but no.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:55 pmLobes, you are pathetic.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:56 pmAny other trolls out there care to take a crack at either #294 or #304?
You ask a question, I answer, you make a snide crack and then expect it to be all well and good. Sorry, but no.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
hankie, lobi? you’re sniveling. it’s very unattractive. no wonder you have nothing but fantasies about women.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:57 pmFor someone who chooses a name from a brood of vampires, you have some lofty expectations of us.
Sadly, not yet proven out. Lefty is still running around like a rabbit and shayne is, well, shayne.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:57 pmfoot meet mouth.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:58 pmBush announced he would scuttle the bill with a “pocket veto” — essentially, letting the bill die without his signature 10 days after he received it, or the end of Dec. 31. His objection was based on grounds that the bill includes a provision that would derail Iraq’s rebuilding effort.
But that can happen only when Congress is not in session; otherwise, the bill becomes law without a formal veto in 10 days. And the Senate maintains it is in session by holding brief — sometimes only seconds long — meetings every two or three days with only one senator present.
OK, trolls, is it Constitutional for a pocket veto to be used while Congress is in session?
December 28th, 2007 at 6:58 pmSHAYNE! He just said you was me. Like we’re twins! I know you don’t like that sh!t! Go get ‘em.
Comment by justasking — December 28, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
I don’t know but the first time you came around you were all excited about getting a lot of posts on a thread. Are you two tag teaming or something, because I think he thinks you’re lefty patriot.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:59 pmSadly, not yet proven out. Lefty is still running around like a rabbit and shayne is, well, shayne.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
Got nothing, hey, lobi? What a surprise: a brainwashed tool with nothing to say, just another repuke.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:00 pmI’m sure Pelosi will issue a strong statement.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:00 pmYep. I see that Lobish is guilty as charged.
And yes, I’ve tried to keep it polite. No more, the gloves are off.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:00 pmSHAYNE! He just said you was me. Like we’re twins! I know you don’t like that sh!t! Go get ‘em.
Comment by justasking — December 28, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
Uhh, did you even bother to read the post. Hint: look for the location of the comma after shayne:
“Show em if you got em. I will refer to various posts by ’shayne’, ‘lefty’ and his other personae, ‘just asking’ to refute your claim about insult throwing.”
December 28th, 2007 at 7:00 pmbecause I think he thinks you’re lefty patriot.
Comment by Shayne — December 28, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
Lack of imagination marks these Young Republican useful idiots like lobi. Facts lean left, and they can’t stand it.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:01 pmFor someone who chooses a name from a brood of vampires, you have some lofty expectations of us.
Sadly, not yet proven out. Lefty is still running around like a rabbit and shayne is, well, shayne.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
What are you talking about now? Do you have any clue how boring the subject of you is.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:01 pmC’mon, trolls, take a crack at #294, #304, or hey, what about #335?
You all want to debate issues, let’s go! C’mon! Whazza matta??
December 28th, 2007 at 7:01 pmYep. I see that Lobish is guilty as charged.
And yes, I’ve tried to keep it polite. No more, the gloves are off.
Comment by Jeremy in Denver — December 28, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
Oh oh, now I’ve done it.
Do you plan on lecturing to the mirror or will you record your own sermon and listen to on the Hi-Fi?
December 28th, 2007 at 7:01 pmThat’s the only issue you can argue, lobi? Who’s nym is who’s? You’re hardly earning your penny a word.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:02 pmComment by Shayne — December 28, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
Seemingly not the case as you have reached hysterical new heights in attacking me and Jeremy has..ahem..”taken the gloves off”.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:02 pmLobi has no interest in debating the issues, he’s already very tired of being a loser.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:03 pmLack of imagination marks these Young Republican useful idiots like lobi. Facts lean left, and they can’t stand it.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — December 28, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
I think lollipop thinks the best defense is a good offense. He’s calling us name changers. What a putz.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:03 pmThis is the weakest new troll the RNC has sent over for a while.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:04 pmCome now, bunny man, quit that hoppin’.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:04 pmOK, gotta go, must pick up wife and daughter, go home and make a delicious dinner for three.
If any trolls respond, would Shayne, Lefty, please take up the debate?
Thanks in advance.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:05 pmRagnar Ulysses Cerious.
I think lollipop thinks the best defense is a good offense. He’s calling us name changers. What a putz.
Comment by Shayne — December 28, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
Not you, just lefty.
Kudos for trying though.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:05 pmSeemingly not the case as you have reached hysterical new heights in attacking me and Jeremy has..ahem..â€taken the gloves offâ€.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 7:02 pm
When I’m hysterical you’ll know loserman.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:05 pmWhen I’m hysterical you’ll know loserman.
Comment by Shayne — December 28, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
Too late. I know. And now so do you.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:06 pmOK, gotta go, must pick up wife and daughter, go home and make a delicious dinner for three.
If any trolls respond, would Shayne, Lefty, please take up the debate?
Thanks in advance.
Ragnar Ulysses Cerious.
I’m cooking dinner myself RUC. There’s not debating with this loser he’s just cranking out whiny posts.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:07 pmLobi the moron can’t discern writing styles or vocabulary usage. No wonder he’s a Repig, he’s far too stupid for the left.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:08 pmlobi is P. #356 is classic P, the schoolyard taunt of the 5-year-old.
gotcha, P.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:09 pmLefty, RUCerious, Shayne, just flag Lobi. I’ve already flagged him once, and as he keeps it up, I’ll keep flagging him. One good idea: “Suspected Banned Commenter” would be a nice thing to put in the ‘Report Abuse’ field. They probably won’t be able to pin it down exactly without digging deep, between IP spoofing and TP using E-Mail based registration, but hopefully patterns in his current posts will match up to patterns in previous posts and they’ll ban him again.
Eventually, TP may have to go to a fully moderated posting setup, which is alot of work, but I’m seeing places like Consumerist doing that now. Keeps down some of the trolling at least.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:09 pmWell huh. I just talked to Cheney and he agreed I can leave my post early. Tomorrow I have to troll through KOS and those guys are even more far out than the crew I have encountered here.
With just shayne and the rabbit man left, there just isn’t any point in staying.
Ahdeechous lemigros.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:11 pmOK, trolls, is it Constitutional for a pocket veto to be used while Congress is in session?
Comment by RUCerious — December 28, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
One of the great things about being old is that I don’t feel dumb taking a nap when I’m tired. So I did, and when I woke up, this damn thread was over 300 comments mostly about one troll. Sheesh.
RUCerious is my hero.
Very nice catch, RU, and I wonder if anyone in Congress is paying attention. I’m surprised to hear that King George is relying on a pocket veto because he’s all about grandiose gestures and a pocket veto is kind of weak. But it certainly seems clear that as long as people like Sen. Webb are keeping the fires banked, Congress is still in session and a pocket veto is not valid. It would be funny if he inadvertently allowed the bill to become law because all of his lawyers are either incompetent or have fled the building.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:13 pmAnd then they all buggered off while I was writing my comment. Damn.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:16 pmSorry, Gummitch. That’s what happens when I try to give someone the benefit of the doubt. But that’s over with…flagging that ass on every transgression he does, with glee. Here’s hoping he gets booted again….
Anyway, yes, I’d love to see that. Though the Supreme Court would have to make that finding, and I could see them saying that “Oh, Congress has to be in session for a full 8 hours with a quorem” to scuttle that idea, as well as let Bush recess appoint through the latest block Reid managed to throw his way.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:17 pmI for one am sick and tired of Jews running around in Nazi uni’s and murdering people.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
This is the kind of crap this passive aggressive twit was posting on the Lieberman thread. My suspicion is it’s Mr. P.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:22 pmI suspect Mr. P and his friends are back; they always make the threads about *them*, regardless of the topic, and they always whine of the same things they are guilty of -like insulting, harassing, and posting off-topic comments.
Flag the twits.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:28 pmI dunno, Mr. Pee had an obsession with historical and medieval christianists for screen names, I googled “lobishomen and came up with a general reference to hybrid vampire/werewolf entities…..
Do you think he could have gone over to the dark side?
December 28th, 2007 at 7:28 pmNevar! Pee did have a sort of bogeyman quality about him. He may simply have overdosed on Red Bull and left us with new and equally self-centered trolls. Difficult to know, absent the 10″-long comments of repetition and the margin-destroying vowels.
Something to be grateful for.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:31 pmEventually, TP may have to go to a fully moderated posting setup, which is alot of work, but I’m seeing places like Consumerist doing that now. Keeps down some of the trolling at least.
Comment by Jeremy in Denver
It’s not that much work to ban someone based on an IP address than it is to ban them based on an e-mail address. And spoofing an IP address is a lot more technical than getting a new e-mail address is.
If TP were to ban people based on IP address, they would not be popping up the next day with a new moniker.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:35 pmDifficult to know, absent the 10″-long comments of repetition and the margin-destroying vowels.
Something to be grateful for.
Comment by gummitch — December 28, 2007
(Shhhhhhhhhhh……………………….)
December 28th, 2007 at 7:40 pmIf TP were to ban people based on IP address, they would not be popping up the next day with a new moniker.
Comment by bilbobaggins — December 28, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
Maybe it’s a limitation of the blogging provider’s software. The staff at TP certainly made it sound like they were writing serious code. Ha.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:41 pmThe trolls are just as rampant as they were before registration, with nearly as many new screen names…….. while I’m stuck with playing fair and just have one now…… waaaaah waaaaaaah waaaaaahh…..
December 28th, 2007 at 7:46 pmMaybe it’s a limitation of the blogging provider’s software. The staff at TP certainly made it sound like they were writing serious code. Ha.
Comment by gummitch
I doubt it. It’s pretty easy to pick up an incoming IP address and compare it against a banned IP address. Then write code to delete that registration and send the person trying to re-register a nasty gram telling them that they are permanently banned and to not try to come back again.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:56 pmI am convinced our new troll today is Jason in a new dress. The verbiage is the same, the issues are the same and it’s rather convenient that Jason disappeared yesterday and this turd shows up today.
December 28th, 2007 at 7:57 pmMy,my. Our trolls sure are “brave” when the mods have a day off. Typical behavior for cowardly vandals. I suppose they take candy from babies, spray-paint abandoned buildings, speed on deserted roads, and peep through windows too.
December 28th, 2007 at 8:48 pmDamn. I thought I’d found a thread with a great conversation about whatever this thread was about…
But all I found is a bunch of crap about a moron named Lobishomen.
December 28th, 2007 at 9:31 pmease up there, Zoo. You are no stranger to spewing the angst against the trolls.
December 28th, 2007 at 10:41 pmease up there, Zoo. You are no stranger to spewing the angst against the trolls.
Comment by alpuz3 — December 28, 2007 @ 10:41 pm
Oh dear me, I guess I better just hush up.
December 28th, 2007 at 10:58 pmWelcome to the fray, Mistress Z. Not one of my three challenges went answered. Poor damn trolls.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:17 pmNo. Please don’t hush up. If you found crap about a moron, when you were expecting more, just don’t condemn those who were exposing the moron for being moronic as a bunch of crap.
Once again. Yell it from the rooftops. I like your style.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:20 pmI totally think the lobed troll was mr p’s new incarnation.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:29 pmPlease let’s not forget Russ Feingold when we heap praise. Him, Durbin, Wexler, Webb…too few amongst too many. Pelosi sucks as SOTH. Reid is no better. And the rest of them, I hope they all get their a$$es handed to them next election. New dems needed all around. Ones with balls (proverbial or otherwise).
And why you guys engage with some of these morons…I don’t get it. An exercise in futility….and a frustrating one at that. Lobishman reminds me of Mitt Romney trying to explain “seeing” the walk with MLK…what was the tense of that verb? Depends on what IS means. Please. Spare me the morons; far too many live in our country and engaging them in further stupidity, well other than for sport, is, to me, pointless.
Happy holidays all!
December 28th, 2007 at 11:36 pmAwesome! Happy Holidays Ms_Joanne. Feingold, Obey and Baldwin.
Forward!
December 28th, 2007 at 11:45 pm“I totally think the lobed troll was mr p’s new incarnation.”
I agree with that. It was definitely him.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:37 am“Awesome! Happy Holidays Ms_Joanne. Feingold, Obey and Baldwin.
Forward!”
You must be a Wisconsinite as well :)
December 29th, 2007 at 1:38 amGreat read on the law surrounding the “pocket veto” at:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30909.pdf
Basically, if the branch of congress which originated the bill (the House in this case, I believe) is not in session, the rather returning the bill with a veto, the President simply by taking no action prevent the bill from becoming law. This is an outdated, archaic mechanism, but it has been used by Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton.
December 29th, 2007 at 4:56 amWhy is it every new troll is accused of being Mr P?
December 29th, 2007 at 8:27 amYou should be thankful if they really are because they’ve been a tamer breed than he.
He really has become a boogeyman to many people here.
You know how Press Secretary Dana Perino likes to pooh-pooh the use of anonymous sources in articles?
I’m starting a file of the administration’s use of anonymous sources. Here’s today’s:
12-29-07: New York Times – A senior administration official said, “The Iraqis certainly did raise very serious and strong concerns about this, which were confirmed as we really dived into this and gamed out the consequences.†The White House allowed the official to speak only if not identified.
I could keep very busy dating back before the Valerie Plame Wilson nonsense — maybe I’ll just be like the administration and “move forward. We’re forward moving. We’re looking forward to moving forward…”
… cause looking back points out all your shortcomings.
December 29th, 2007 at 9:50 amDamn greedy trial lawyers ruining the whole world again. The Democratic Party is just FILTHY, filthy I say, with trial lawyers like Hil’reh, John Edwards and other slimy ambulance chasers.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:35 pmDo others feel themselves physically ill and angry whenever they hear Bush speak?
I am a relatively tolerant person who doesn’t hold a grudge, but over the years, I find myself nearly unable to watch/hear Dubya.
JMH tries to provoke us similarly here at TP, but mostly he is just too stupid to evoke any gut reaction.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:19 pmWhy is it every new troll is accused of being Mr P?
You should be thankful if they really are because they’ve been a tamer breed than he.
He really has become a boogeyman to many people here.
Comment by Wilco
More like a joke than a boogeyman.
December 29th, 2007 at 2:11 pm