Lmao the Senate overides Obamas veto

[kaz]

Doesnt matter. You can get these guys to eat a turd if you told them Obama was against turd eating.

I'll pass. Obama had some dog, I will likely pass on that as well. Unlike Trump voters Obama voters don't seek to be just like him as if he were some little god like Trump.

If Trump said beat your wives and I'll win the hospitals would be overwhelmed.

Since liberals all have the same position on every issue and you justify them with the same talking points, Obamaettes don't need to strive to be like him. You already are

The liberal position tends to be rather uniform as it's for liberty and it's rational. Unlike you liberals don't base their decisions on emotion and tradition.

You don't base your decisions on emotions?



Now that's funny. That's the only basis for your decisions.

For example, no one pays anyone more than they are worth, yet you insist on putting up a minimum wage as a hurdle to prevent low end workers from getting jobs.

We get virtually zero for the 35% tax on repatriating money because the rate is oppressive and no one is willing to give up over a third of their earnings, yet you refuse to reduce it even though no other western power charges that stupid tax.

You refuse to deal with that our corporate tax rate is the second highest in the industrialized world even though our companies are trying to leave.

Emotion is all you have

Case in point. You rail against the "rate" without bothering to understand that no one pays that much here. Many pay zero or we write them a check, from your taxes paid. You ignore the reality so you can scream like a child, our rate is the highest in the world!, without bothering to figure out who actually pays the highest corporate taxes in the world instead of who has the highest rate?

The rate is the highest might sound bad, if you are emotional instead of rational and forget to ask the next obvious question, does anyone actually pay that?

I see, so corporations are stupid and leaving for taxes they don't even pay?

Democrats just lead you by a nose ring

 

[Frank'sRules]

You saying the GOP in control after 911 put a stop to any such legislation?

You'd have to back that up. My understanding is that it was always blocked. What are you basing the claim they stopped it after 9/11 based on?

You would think that the fever for this would be at its height right after 911.

"revenge is a dish best tasted cold"

Served cold. It means you wait, not served in a passion.

right----your point?

My point is get the damn saying right next time.

 

[SwimExpert]

A prediction from the Oracle at USMB (me --rosie) --the lawsuits against Saudi arabia are going to drag on for decades and end up NOWHERE

I suspect that Saudi Arabia won't even bother to indulge any lawsuits. Why would they? They are a sovereign nation. They are not subject to the laws of the United States.

 

[kaz]

Gay marriage is a good example. A liberal and rational decision that offends your kind to the core even though it's nothing more than equality before the law for two unmarried adults.

My kind? What kind is that?

BTW, while technically I oppose gay government marriage, that's misleading because I oppose all government marriage. Government should treat all its citizens the same. Gay or straight, single or coupled. Government should not discriminate between any of it's citizens as you want to do. Ratchet down the emotions there guy

I said absolutely nothing that was emotional. That is you reacting with emotion because I mentioned gays. And the reality is, marriage licenses come from the state. Adults can accept that and you it seems cannot?

You want something other than what is? I instead deal with what is.

It offends me to my core? You had a tear in your eye when you said that, didn't you? Hanky?

Why would anyone need validation by government of their relationship, gay or straight? I sure never stayed with my wife for 28 years because I had a piece of paper from the government

 

[Frank'sRules]

I'll pass. Obama had some dog, I will likely pass on that as well. Unlike Trump voters Obama voters don't seek to be just like him as if he were some little god like Trump.

If Trump said beat your wives and I'll win the hospitals would be overwhelmed.

Since liberals all have the same position on every issue and you justify them with the same talking points, Obamaettes don't need to strive to be like him. You already are

The liberal position tends to be rather uniform as it's for liberty and it's rational. Unlike you liberals don't base their decisions on emotion and tradition.

You don't base your decisions on emotions?



Now that's funny. That's the only basis for your decisions.

For example, no one pays anyone more than they are worth, yet you insist on putting up a minimum wage as a hurdle to prevent low end workers from getting jobs.

We get virtually zero for the 35% tax on repatriating money because the rate is oppressive and no one is willing to give up over a third of their earnings, yet you refuse to reduce it even though no other western power charges that stupid tax.

You refuse to deal with that our corporate tax rate is the second highest in the industrialized world even though our companies are trying to leave.

Emotion is all you have

Case in point. You rail against the "rate" without bothering to understand that no one pays that much here. Many pay zero or we write them a check, from your taxes paid. You ignore the reality so you can scream like a child, our rate is the highest in the world!, without bothering to figure out who actually pays the highest corporate taxes in the world instead of who has the highest rate?

The rate is the highest might sound bad, if you are emotional instead of rational and forget to ask the next obvious question, does anyone actually pay that?

I see, so corporations are stupid and leaving for taxes they don't even pay?

Democrats just lead you by a nose ring

All emotions instead of hey, that's a good point, in what nation do corporations actually pay not the highest rate but the highest amount in taxes?

Does the U.S. have the highest corporate tax rate in the free world?

 

[irosie91]

You'd have to back that up. My understanding is that it was always blocked. What are you basing the claim they stopped it after 9/11 based on?

You would think that the fever for this would be at its height right after 911.

"revenge is a dish best tasted cold"

Served cold. It means you wait, not served in a passion.

right----your point?

My point is get the damn saying right next time.

I got the damn saying right------there are various permutations and no copyright

 

[Indeependent]

This is one of the few times I have to agree with O'Bama. This is a bad, stupid, thoughtless law. It will subject U.S. citizens, companies, and the U.S. government itself to countless future lawsuits for actions they have taken overseas. Just as important, the DISCOVERY process in those lawsuits will compel the U.S. defendants (including the Government) to produce mountains of documents and records that should never see the light of day, and will tie up resources for decades.

Furthermore, the victims of "9/11" have already received their personal life insurance payouts, their employment-related life insurance payouts, and millions of dollars (EACH ONE OF THEM!) of borrowed money from the U.S. government.

That's more than enough. People die. Live with it. Move on.

No it won't.
It's restricted to nations and nations that have active national leaders that support terrorism.

 

[Indeependent]

What's up with this bill popping up 15 years after 911?

that's ^^^ like asking why the 19th Amendment to the US constitution came about in 1920------144 years AFTER the Declaration of Independence was signed

You saying the GOP in control after 911 put a stop to any such legislation?

Yes.

 

[Indeependent]

This is one of the few times I have to agree with O'Bama. This is a bad, stupid, thoughtless law. It will subject U.S. citizens, companies, and the U.S. government itself to countless future lawsuits for actions they have taken overseas. Just as important, the DISCOVERY process in those lawsuits will compel the U.S. defendants (including the Government) to produce mountains of documents and records that should never see the light of day, and will tie up resources for decades.

Furthermore, the victims of "9/11" have already received their personal life insurance payouts, their employment-related life insurance payouts, and millions of dollars (EACH ONE OF THEM!) of borrowed money from the U.S. government.

That's more than enough. People die. Live with it. Move on.

Doesnt matter. You can get these guys to eat a turd if you told them Obama was against turd eating.

97 Senators are Republican?

there are possible unfortunate ramifications in enacting this law. ----However---what I was told about "law suits" is----
anyone can sue for anything. I do not see how the government of Saudi Arabia can be held liable or how it
can be compelled to cooperate with the discovery process. Does any sane person believe that the Saudi king is going to take responsibility for the actions of Osama and friends?. The people to SUE---are the instigators----the Khutbah Jumaat feces flingers

"anyone can sue for anything"...incorrect.

 

[irosie91]

This is one of the few times I have to agree with O'Bama. This is a bad, stupid, thoughtless law. It will subject U.S. citizens, companies, and the U.S. government itself to countless future lawsuits for actions they have taken overseas. Just as important, the DISCOVERY process in those lawsuits will compel the U.S. defendants (including the Government) to produce mountains of documents and records that should never see the light of day, and will tie up resources for decades.

Furthermore, the victims of "9/11" have already received their personal life insurance payouts, their employment-related life insurance payouts, and millions of dollars (EACH ONE OF THEM!) of borrowed money from the U.S. government.

That's more than enough. People die. Live with it. Move on.

Doesnt matter. You can get these guys to eat a turd if you told them Obama was against turd eating.

97 Senators are Republican?

there are possible unfortunate ramifications in enacting this law. ----However---what I was told about "law suits" is----
anyone can sue for anything. I do not see how the government of Saudi Arabia can be held liable or how it
can be compelled to cooperate with the discovery process. Does any sane person believe that the Saudi king is going to take responsibility for the actions of Osama and friends?. The people to SUE---are the instigators----the Khutbah Jumaat feces flingers

"anyone can sue for anything"...incorrect.

Oh? what sort of restrictions exist? I did not suggest that
"any" law suit would WIN in court------ain't no law against
submitting a petition

 

[Frank'sRules]

Gay marriage is a good example. A liberal and rational decision that offends your kind to the core even though it's nothing more than equality before the law for two unmarried adults.

My kind? What kind is that?

BTW, while technically I oppose gay government marriage, that's misleading because I oppose all government marriage. Government should treat all its citizens the same. Gay or straight, single or coupled. Government should not discriminate between any of it's citizens as you want to do. Ratchet down the emotions there guy

I said absolutely nothing that was emotional. That is you reacting with emotion because I mentioned gays. And the reality is, marriage licenses come from the state. Adults can accept that and you it seems cannot?

You want something other than what is? I instead deal with what is.

It offends me to my core? You had a tear in your eye when you said that, didn't you? Hanky?

Why would anyone need validation by government of their relationship, gay or straight? I sure never stayed with my wife for 28 years because I had a piece of paper from the government

They don't need validation they need legal protections. And a marriage license is a marriage contract.

And can you try even one response without emotions? I bet not.

 

[kaz]

Gay marriage is a good example. A liberal and rational decision that offends your kind to the core even though it's nothing more than equality before the law for two unmarried adults.

My kind? What kind is that?

BTW, while technically I oppose gay government marriage, that's misleading because I oppose all government marriage. Government should treat all its citizens the same. Gay or straight, single or coupled. Government should not discriminate between any of it's citizens as you want to do. Ratchet down the emotions there guy

I said absolutely nothing that was emotional. That is you reacting with emotion because I mentioned gays. And the reality is, marriage licenses come from the state. Adults can accept that and you it seems cannot?

You want something other than what is? I instead deal with what is.

It offends me to my core? You had a tear in your eye when you said that, didn't you? Hanky?

Why would anyone need validation by government of their relationship, gay or straight? I sure never stayed with my wife for 28 years because I had a piece of paper from the government

They don't need validation they need legal protections. And a marriage license is a marriage contract.

And can you try even one response without emotions? I bet not.

Calm down there guy, it's just an internet discussion. Maybe you should go play with your dolls for a while until you can calm down. Ask your mommy for some milk and cookies, that could help.

What's your obsession with emotions there, ballerina? You get along great with the guys in locker rooms talking about all your girl emotional shit, don't you?

And what do gays need protection from that straights don't need protection from?

 

[Frank'sRules]

Gay marriage is a good example. A liberal and rational decision that offends your kind to the core even though it's nothing more than equality before the law for two unmarried adults.

My kind? What kind is that?

BTW, while technically I oppose gay government marriage, that's misleading because I oppose all government marriage. Government should treat all its citizens the same. Gay or straight, single or coupled. Government should not discriminate between any of it's citizens as you want to do. Ratchet down the emotions there guy

I said absolutely nothing that was emotional. That is you reacting with emotion because I mentioned gays. And the reality is, marriage licenses come from the state. Adults can accept that and you it seems cannot?

You want something other than what is? I instead deal with what is.

It offends me to my core? You had a tear in your eye when you said that, didn't you? Hanky?

Why would anyone need validation by government of their relationship, gay or straight? I sure never stayed with my wife for 28 years because I had a piece of paper from the government

They don't need validation they need legal protections. And a marriage license is a marriage contract.

And can you try even one response without emotions? I bet not.

Calm down there guy, it's just an internet discussion. Maybe you should go play with your dolls for a while until you can calm down. Ask your mommy for some milk and cookies, that could help.

What's your obsession with emotions there, ballerina? You get along great with the guys in locker rooms talking about all your girl emotional shit, don't you?

And what do gays need protection from that straights don't need protection from?

Yet another case in point. I am completely calm, no rational adult would think that I wasn't, yet you are jumping all over the place being childish.

And the protections are for the married couple, like the fact that they cannot be compelled to testify against each other. It doesn't "validate" their relationship it instead protects them from the state intruding where it doesn't belong, in the marriage bed. It's the same as attorney-client, doctor-patient, and minister-parishioner protections. Those don't validate the relationship, they protect it.

 

[kaz]

My kind? What kind is that?

BTW, while technically I oppose gay government marriage, that's misleading because I oppose all government marriage. Government should treat all its citizens the same. Gay or straight, single or coupled. Government should not discriminate between any of it's citizens as you want to do. Ratchet down the emotions there guy

I said absolutely nothing that was emotional. That is you reacting with emotion because I mentioned gays. And the reality is, marriage licenses come from the state. Adults can accept that and you it seems cannot?

You want something other than what is? I instead deal with what is.

It offends me to my core? You had a tear in your eye when you said that, didn't you? Hanky?

Why would anyone need validation by government of their relationship, gay or straight? I sure never stayed with my wife for 28 years because I had a piece of paper from the government

They don't need validation they need legal protections. And a marriage license is a marriage contract.

And can you try even one response without emotions? I bet not.

Calm down there guy, it's just an internet discussion. Maybe you should go play with your dolls for a while until you can calm down. Ask your mommy for some milk and cookies, that could help.

What's your obsession with emotions there, ballerina? You get along great with the guys in locker rooms talking about all your girl emotional shit, don't you?

And what do gays need protection from that straights don't need protection from?

Yet another case in point. I am completely calm, no rational adult would think that I wasn't, yet you are jumping all over the place being childish.

And the protections are for the married couple, like the fact that they cannot be compelled to testify against each other. It doesn't "validate" their relationship it instead protects them from the state intruding where it doesn't belong, in the marriage bed. It's the same as attorney-client, doctor-patient, and minister-parishioner protections. Those don't validate the relationship, they protect it.

You're the one talking about emotions in every post then say I'm being childish. Buy a mirror. It's frankly tired at this, gay boy. Drop the emotions crap. It's hilarious that you see my point and yet you miss my point.

So all you can think of is testifying against each other? Why is government marriage required for that?

You're saying it's this big thing, we need government marriage. Yet you came up with one thing that applies to what, a hundredth of a percent of couples and could be done without government marriage. Just say couples can't be forced to testify against each other. Problem solved. Now let's be done with it.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

This is one of the few times I have to agree with O'Bama. This is a bad, stupid, thoughtless law. It will subject U.S. citizens, companies, and the U.S. government itself to countless future lawsuits for actions they have taken overseas. Just as important, the DISCOVERY process in those lawsuits will compel the U.S. defendants (including the Government) to produce mountains of documents and records that should never see the light of day, and will tie up resources for decades.

Furthermore, the victims of "9/11" have already received their personal life insurance payouts, their employment-related life insurance payouts, and millions of dollars (EACH ONE OF THEM!) of borrowed money from the U.S. government.

That's more than enough. People die. Live with it. Move on.

Doesnt matter. You can get these guys to eat a turd if you told them Obama was against turd eating.

I'll pass. Obama had some dog and I will likely pass on that as well. Unlike Trump voters Obama voters don't seek to be just like him as if he were some little god like Trump.

If Trump said beat your wives and I'll win the hospitals would be overwhelmed.

You are backwards like most retarded libs.

 

[Frank'sRules]

You would think that the fever for this would be at its height right after 911.

"revenge is a dish best tasted cold"

Served cold. It means you wait, not served in a passion.

right----your point?

My point is get the damn saying right next time.

I got the damn saying right------there are various permutations and no copyright

You got it dead wrong. It doesn't even make fucking sense to say eaten. "Revenge is a dish best served cold". That is the only version.

 

[Frank'sRules]

I said absolutely nothing that was emotional. That is you reacting with emotion because I mentioned gays. And the reality is, marriage licenses come from the state. Adults can accept that and you it seems cannot?

You want something other than what is? I instead deal with what is.

It offends me to my core? You had a tear in your eye when you said that, didn't you? Hanky?

Why would anyone need validation by government of their relationship, gay or straight? I sure never stayed with my wife for 28 years because I had a piece of paper from the government

They don't need validation they need legal protections. And a marriage license is a marriage contract.

And can you try even one response without emotions? I bet not.

Calm down there guy, it's just an internet discussion. Maybe you should go play with your dolls for a while until you can calm down. Ask your mommy for some milk and cookies, that could help.

What's your obsession with emotions there, ballerina? You get along great with the guys in locker rooms talking about all your girl emotional shit, don't you?

And what do gays need protection from that straights don't need protection from?

Yet another case in point. I am completely calm, no rational adult would think that I wasn't, yet you are jumping all over the place being childish.

And the protections are for the married couple, like the fact that they cannot be compelled to testify against each other. It doesn't "validate" their relationship it instead protects them from the state intruding where it doesn't belong, in the marriage bed. It's the same as attorney-client, doctor-patient, and minister-parishioner protections. Those don't validate the relationship, they protect it.

You're the one talking about emotions in every post then say I'm being childish. Buy a mirror. It's frankly tired at this, gay boy. Drop the emotions crap. It's hilarious that you see my point and yet you miss my point.

So all you can think of is testifying against each other? Why is government marriage required for that?

You're saying it's this big thing, we need government marriage. Yet you came up with one thing that applies to what, a hundredth of a percent of couples and could be done without government marriage. Just say couples can't be forced to testify against each other. Problem solved. Now let's be done with it.

Your posts are simply too emotional and therefore too childish, to really deal with.

And we say that couples cannot be forced to testify against each other, if they are married that is. Just another benefit of the law because one is married. It would be difficult to enforce without the marriage license.

 

[Frank'sRules]

This is one of the few times I have to agree with O'Bama. This is a bad, stupid, thoughtless law. It will subject U.S. citizens, companies, and the U.S. government itself to countless future lawsuits for actions they have taken overseas. Just as important, the DISCOVERY process in those lawsuits will compel the U.S. defendants (including the Government) to produce mountains of documents and records that should never see the light of day, and will tie up resources for decades.

Furthermore, the victims of "9/11" have already received their personal life insurance payouts, their employment-related life insurance payouts, and millions of dollars (EACH ONE OF THEM!) of borrowed money from the U.S. government.

That's more than enough. People die. Live with it. Move on.

Doesnt matter. You can get these guys to eat a turd if you told them Obama was against turd eating.

I'll pass. Obama had some dog and I will likely pass on that as well. Unlike Trump voters Obama voters don't seek to be just like him as if he were some little god like Trump.

If Trump said beat your wives and I'll win the hospitals would be overwhelmed.

You are backwards like most retarded libs.

Drones never believe themselves to be drones. It's why you cannot see you are a drone for Trump.

Clinton is a pain in the butt but she's qualified. You can't say neither about Trump. Drones never can as they always have a master, Trump is yours.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- Another victory for bs GOP hate propaganda, cowardly pols, and ignorant brainwashed gotcha. The CIA says they've been looking for 15 years and found no connection to Saudi gov't officials.

 

[Frank'sRules]

OP- Another victory for bs GOP hate propaganda, cowardly pols, and ignorant brainwashed gotcha. The CIA says they've been looking for 15 years and found no connection to Saudi gov't officials.

I'm sure there is some enemy of my enemy is my friend but wait until the world starts suing us for all the shit we've pulled, all the innocents we killed or let be killed. This is a win for the lawyers, everyone else loses.