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.
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 pmMURDERER Bush the COXUCKER punk TRAITOR to the USA is a piece of scum/trash who needs to be in Gitmo for his WAR CRIMES.
He needs to be in Iraq and DIE for the ILLEGAL WAR he started.
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
December 28th, 2007 at 3:13 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 pmIt 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
Yeah, shades of Arlen Specter and the bill that had a provision slipped in by his “staffer” that allowed Gonzales to politicize the DoJ.
“Mistakes were made”, remember?
So, FVKC TRAITOR Bush and YOU.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
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 pmAgain, how about Arlen Specter, whose “staffer”, STILL UNKNOWN, inserted a provision in a bill, allowing TRAITOR Bush to bypass the
Senate confirmation for US attorneys, and thus POLITICIZING the DoJ?
THAT was all right?
According to TRAITOR Gonzo, “mistakes were made”.
But he NEVER said WHO made them.
TRAITOR Bush, of course.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:52 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”.
The 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
Yup. Tell TRAITOR Bush to “go fvkc himself” is the NEXT step.
That is what God and Jesus will surely tell this MURDERER, who might have gotten into Yale and Harvard by Daddy, but Daddy will be
BURNING IN HELL with TRAITOR Ronnie Reagan.
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
December 28th, 2007 at 3:55 pmYou forgot to BOLD your last post. Please resubmit with the proper text.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
You are RIGHT.
MURDERER Bush the COXUCKER punk TRAITOR to the USA can go fvkc himself, and BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY with TRAITOR Reagan.
And Daddy.
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
December 28th, 2007 at 3:56 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?
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.
Don’t hate the system, because one day it may work in your favor.
Comment by Lobishomen — December 28, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
I AGREE.
MURDERER Bush the COXUCKER punk TRAITOR to the USA should DIE in PRISON for his WAR CRIMES.
And then go to hell with his new MASTER Satan, and TRAITOR and MORON Ronnie Reagan and Poppy Bush.
The last part is God’s “system”, JUDGEMENT DAY.
Yea, system!!
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
December 28th, 2007 at 4:01 pm84, 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 pmYour 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.
Comment by StratRat — December 28, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
One that has brought the spectre of ETERNAL DAMNATION upon himself and his azslicking followers.
Better REPENT, Lobish, or be in hell with TRAITORS Bush I, II, and MORON Reagan.
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
December 28th, 2007 at 4:10 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 pmWhy not just make the PAY RAISE a separate bill?
Then the TROOPS get what they need.
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
December 28th, 2007 at 4:19 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 pmBush has the right to veto.
Congress has the right to override the veto or just send back the bill.
But the ONLY bills Bush has EVER vetoed are ones that are GOOD for the people of the US (health care for kids) or Iraq (right to sue).
The ones he SIGNED are the “patriot” act, Military Commissions Act, etc., ALL of which are BAD for the people of the USA.
So, we KNOW the track record of TRAITOR Bush and his vetoes.
Sincerely,
NRA Gun Nutes
December 28th, 2007 at 4:26 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 pmWhen he DROPS DEAD, TRAITOR Bush’s MASTER Satan will SMASH HIS FACE every second FOR ETERNITY.
SHAM! SPLAT!
SHAM! SPLAT!
SHAM! SPLAT!
SHAM! SPLAT!
SHAM! SPLAT!
SHAM! SPLAT!
SHAM! SPLAT!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
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