Lmao the Senate overides Obamas veto

[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.

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.

Wrong idiot., Trump isn't my first choice but he is still better than the lying crook hildabeast. You're master is a lying hag.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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.

Wrong idiot., Trump isn't my first choice but he is still better than the lying crook hildabeast. You're master is a lying hag.

Better how? If you have a problem with lying and tell everyone that you're choosing the guy with a 70% lie rate then its you who is the liar

 

[bendog]

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.

Wrong idiot., Trump isn't my first choice but he is still better than the lying crook hildabeast. You're master is a lying hag.

Better how? If you have a problem with lying and tell everyone that you're choosing the guy with a 70% lie rate then its you who is the liar

it's better if you really believe taking a chance on a total cipher beats the status quo of left of center ... which is a little to the right of Obama.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest on Wednesday called the Senate's override vote on legislation that would allow the families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia the "most embarrassing thing" the legislative body has done in decades.

It's "the single most embarrassing thing the United States Senate has done possibly since 1983," he told reportersafter news broke of the Senate's 97-to-1 vote

How dare they go against King Obama.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

If you have a problem with lying and tell everyone that you're choosing the guy with a 70% lie rate then its you who is the liar

Are we talking about Obama? Because that seems rather low.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Look for Saudi Arabia to tighten the spicket on the Oil Supply. Again, too dependent on foreign oil.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The embarrassing thing was a sitting "American" "president" running interference for his fellow islamofascists.

 

[kaz]

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.

OMG, and the tears start flowing again. Maybe you should take a nap, dear. You have no control over your emotions at all. Try breathing into a paper bag

My posts don't contain much emotion and that one contained none at all. Can you not see that you are acting like a child? That's probably a moot point as very few children can. Never mind.

You're the one who keeps talking about emotions, Francine, then you say you're not emotional. So which is it? If you want to be all sensitive and girlie and shit, then cut the crap

Talking of emotions is not being emotional. And if you could post, even one post, that didn't contain emotions I'd be very pleased but you are a childish troll on a playground, screaming *** because at least that gets you attention when you can't make a simple, rational argument.

Marriage protects the rights of a couple. That isn't emotional. See if you can tell us why that wouldn't be a good thing? And try not to go off on a you wear panties rant please?

You started the emotional shit and you haven't written a single message without going there. It's specifically what I'm mocking you for.

And who is us? Don't you have the gonads to have your own opinion? You need your ego propped up by others?

And the only thing you came up with so far to protect in couples is to not testify against each other? Obviously they don't need government in marriage to do accomplish that.

The reason for government marriage is that the best way to divide people is to have government treat us differently. Why should people who couple up have government rights that others don't have? You're supporting a completely discriminatory system

 

[Timmy]

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.

You would. Now answer the question:

"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?"

I was responding to the example of the time lag of the 19th.

I opened with the question on why so long . I didn't profess to say I knew why .

You said Republicans blocked it after 9/11. So you made that up, got it

More like an educated guess . Which was inline wh the analogy .

That being said , "making up " blame is 90% of the threads here.

 

[kaz]

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.

You would. Now answer the question:

"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?"

I was responding to the example of the time lag of the 19th.

I opened with the question on why so long . I didn't profess to say I knew why .

You said Republicans blocked it after 9/11. So you made that up, got it

More like an educated guess . Which was inline wh the analogy .

That being said , "making up " blame is 90% of the threads here.

You think it was an "educated" guess that the Republicans after 9/11 passed legislation preventing victims from suing Saudi Arabia? Seriously? Right after 9/11? What education are we talking about here, nursery school?

 

[Frank'sRules]

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.

OMG, and the tears start flowing again. Maybe you should take a nap, dear. You have no control over your emotions at all. Try breathing into a paper bag

My posts don't contain much emotion and that one contained none at all. Can you not see that you are acting like a child? That's probably a moot point as very few children can. Never mind.

You're the one who keeps talking about emotions, Francine, then you say you're not emotional. So which is it? If you want to be all sensitive and girlie and shit, then cut the crap

Talking of emotions is not being emotional. And if you could post, even one post, that didn't contain emotions I'd be very pleased but you are a childish troll on a playground, screaming *** because at least that gets you attention when you can't make a simple, rational argument.

Marriage protects the rights of a couple. That isn't emotional. See if you can tell us why that wouldn't be a good thing? And try not to go off on a you wear panties rant please?

You started the emotional shit and you haven't written a single message without going there. It's specifically what I'm mocking you for.

And who is us? Don't you have the gonads to have your own opinion? You need your ego propped up by others?

And the only thing you came up with so far to protect in couples is to not testify against each other? Obviously they don't need government in marriage to do accomplish that.

The reason for government marriage is that the best way to divide people is to have government treat us differently. Why should people who couple up have government rights that others don't have? You're supporting a completely discriminatory system

Well, I tried, and as usual you went off on a childish and emotional rant. No one can help you and I'm not about to try.

 

[Timmy]

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

You would. Now answer the question:

"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?"

I was responding to the example of the time lag of the 19th.

I opened with the question on why so long . I didn't profess to say I knew why .

You said Republicans blocked it after 9/11. So you made that up, got it

More like an educated guess . Which was inline wh the analogy .

That being said , "making up " blame is 90% of the threads here.

You think it was an "educated" guess that the Republicans after 9/11 passed legislation preventing victims from suing Saudi Arabia? Seriously? Right after 9/11? What education are we talking about here, nursery school?

They didn't pass legislation protecting but they didn't pass legislation allowing lawsuits. Which is odd considering right after 9/11 the country would be all for it.
Never mind the Bush White House protecting Saudis the days right after nine.

 

[kaz]

OMG, and the tears start flowing again. Maybe you should take a nap, dear. You have no control over your emotions at all. Try breathing into a paper bag

My posts don't contain much emotion and that one contained none at all. Can you not see that you are acting like a child? That's probably a moot point as very few children can. Never mind.

You're the one who keeps talking about emotions, Francine, then you say you're not emotional. So which is it? If you want to be all sensitive and girlie and shit, then cut the crap

Talking of emotions is not being emotional. And if you could post, even one post, that didn't contain emotions I'd be very pleased but you are a childish troll on a playground, screaming *** because at least that gets you attention when you can't make a simple, rational argument.

Marriage protects the rights of a couple. That isn't emotional. See if you can tell us why that wouldn't be a good thing? And try not to go off on a you wear panties rant please?

You started the emotional shit and you haven't written a single message without going there. It's specifically what I'm mocking you for.

And who is us? Don't you have the gonads to have your own opinion? You need your ego propped up by others?

And the only thing you came up with so far to protect in couples is to not testify against each other? Obviously they don't need government in marriage to do accomplish that.

The reason for government marriage is that the best way to divide people is to have government treat us differently. Why should people who couple up have government rights that others don't have? You're supporting a completely discriminatory system

Well, I tried, and as usual you went off on a childish and emotional rant. No one can help you and I'm not about to try.

Are you capable of writing one post without emotions? I said zero about emotions until you started that ad hominem crap. You're continuing to write these whiny posts trying to force me to back down. Just cut the crap, drama queen

 

[kaz]

You would. Now answer the question:

"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?"

I was responding to the example of the time lag of the 19th.

I opened with the question on why so long . I didn't profess to say I knew why .

You said Republicans blocked it after 9/11. So you made that up, got it

More like an educated guess . Which was inline wh the analogy .

That being said , "making up " blame is 90% of the threads here.

You think it was an "educated" guess that the Republicans after 9/11 passed legislation preventing victims from suing Saudi Arabia? Seriously? Right after 9/11? What education are we talking about here, nursery school?

They didn't pass legislation protecting but they didn't pass legislation allowing lawsuits. Which is odd considering right after 9/11 the country would be all for it.
Never mind the Bush White House protecting Saudis the days right after nine.

You're using 20/20 hindsight, it was over time the Saudi connection became known. I hate the Saudis and don't consider them our allies but our enemies. But I wasn't aware of their more direct involvement in 9/11, at least the funding of it, until later

 

[Frank'sRules]

My posts don't contain much emotion and that one contained none at all. Can you not see that you are acting like a child? That's probably a moot point as very few children can. Never mind.

You're the one who keeps talking about emotions, Francine, then you say you're not emotional. So which is it? If you want to be all sensitive and girlie and shit, then cut the crap

Talking of emotions is not being emotional. And if you could post, even one post, that didn't contain emotions I'd be very pleased but you are a childish troll on a playground, screaming *** because at least that gets you attention when you can't make a simple, rational argument.

Marriage protects the rights of a couple. That isn't emotional. See if you can tell us why that wouldn't be a good thing? And try not to go off on a you wear panties rant please?

You started the emotional shit and you haven't written a single message without going there. It's specifically what I'm mocking you for.

And who is us? Don't you have the gonads to have your own opinion? You need your ego propped up by others?

And the only thing you came up with so far to protect in couples is to not testify against each other? Obviously they don't need government in marriage to do accomplish that.

The reason for government marriage is that the best way to divide people is to have government treat us differently. Why should people who couple up have government rights that others don't have? You're supporting a completely discriminatory system

Well, I tried, and as usual you went off on a childish and emotional rant. No one can help you and I'm not about to try.

Are you capable of writing one post without emotions? I said zero about emotions until you started that ad hominem crap. You're continuing to write these whiny posts trying to force me to back down. Just cut the crap, drama queen

My posts don't have emotions, yours do.

And back down? What part of explaining why it's a bad thing to have government endorsed relationships requires you to back down? We have many and they are all based on the idea of protecting the relationship and the confidentiality of said relationship. Marriage is only one of them. I gave you three other examples but all you can do it rant, like a child.

 

[bendog]

Mitch (aka the Turtle) McConnell's already watering it down.

 

[kaz]

You're the one who keeps talking about emotions, Francine, then you say you're not emotional. So which is it? If you want to be all sensitive and girlie and shit, then cut the crap

Talking of emotions is not being emotional. And if you could post, even one post, that didn't contain emotions I'd be very pleased but you are a childish troll on a playground, screaming *** because at least that gets you attention when you can't make a simple, rational argument.

Marriage protects the rights of a couple. That isn't emotional. See if you can tell us why that wouldn't be a good thing? And try not to go off on a you wear panties rant please?

You started the emotional shit and you haven't written a single message without going there. It's specifically what I'm mocking you for.

And who is us? Don't you have the gonads to have your own opinion? You need your ego propped up by others?

And the only thing you came up with so far to protect in couples is to not testify against each other? Obviously they don't need government in marriage to do accomplish that.

The reason for government marriage is that the best way to divide people is to have government treat us differently. Why should people who couple up have government rights that others don't have? You're supporting a completely discriminatory system

Well, I tried, and as usual you went off on a childish and emotional rant. No one can help you and I'm not about to try.

Are you capable of writing one post without emotions? I said zero about emotions until you started that ad hominem crap. You're continuing to write these whiny posts trying to force me to back down. Just cut the crap, drama queen

My posts don't have emotions, yours do.

And back down? What part of explaining why it's a bad thing to have government endorsed relationships requires you to back down? We have many and they are all based on the idea of protecting the relationship and the confidentiality of said relationship. Marriage is only one of them. I gave you three other examples but all you can do it rant, like a child.

Every one of your posts talks about emotions, the second paragraph is a strawman.

You keep repeating that couples need some sort of protections provided by government, but the only specific one you came up with so far is the right not to testify against your partner, which clearly doesn't require government marriage and applies to such a tiny percent of couples.

Government should treat all it's citizens the same. Why specifically does any couple need government marriage to accomplish that? Stop being so emotional about gay couples and get specific. Note I want gays to be treated exactly like straights. Government marriage isn't necessary for anyone.

 

[Frank'sRules]

Talking of emotions is not being emotional. And if you could post, even one post, that didn't contain emotions I'd be very pleased but you are a childish troll on a playground, screaming *** because at least that gets you attention when you can't make a simple, rational argument.

Marriage protects the rights of a couple. That isn't emotional. See if you can tell us why that wouldn't be a good thing? And try not to go off on a you wear panties rant please?

You started the emotional shit and you haven't written a single message without going there. It's specifically what I'm mocking you for.

And who is us? Don't you have the gonads to have your own opinion? You need your ego propped up by others?

And the only thing you came up with so far to protect in couples is to not testify against each other? Obviously they don't need government in marriage to do accomplish that.

The reason for government marriage is that the best way to divide people is to have government treat us differently. Why should people who couple up have government rights that others don't have? You're supporting a completely discriminatory system

Well, I tried, and as usual you went off on a childish and emotional rant. No one can help you and I'm not about to try.

Are you capable of writing one post without emotions? I said zero about emotions until you started that ad hominem crap. You're continuing to write these whiny posts trying to force me to back down. Just cut the crap, drama queen

My posts don't have emotions, yours do.

And back down? What part of explaining why it's a bad thing to have government endorsed relationships requires you to back down? We have many and they are all based on the idea of protecting the relationship and the confidentiality of said relationship. Marriage is only one of them. I gave you three other examples but all you can do it rant, like a child.

Every one of your posts talks about emotions, the second paragraph is a strawman.

You keep repeating that couples need some sort of protections provided by government, but the only specific one you came up with so far is the right not to testify against your partner, which clearly doesn't require government marriage and applies to such a tiny percent of couples.

Government should treat all it's citizens the same. Why specifically does any couple need government marriage to accomplish that? Stop being so emotional about gay couples and get specific. Note I want gays to be treated exactly like straights. Government marriage isn't necessary for anyone.

Gays are treated, now, exactly likes straights when it comes to marriage. And whether you think the government should be involved in that doesn't matter, they are. That ends that.

As for couples needed protection, that is obvious. That's why we have laws that way. You can argue against them but good luck, you'll need it and try to do so without sounding like a whiny child?

 

[Frank'sRules]

I was responding to the example of the time lag of the 19th.

I opened with the question on why so long . I didn't profess to say I knew why .

You said Republicans blocked it after 9/11. So you made that up, got it

More like an educated guess . Which was inline wh the analogy .

That being said , "making up " blame is 90% of the threads here.

You think it was an "educated" guess that the Republicans after 9/11 passed legislation preventing victims from suing Saudi Arabia? Seriously? Right after 9/11? What education are we talking about here, nursery school?

They didn't pass legislation protecting but they didn't pass legislation allowing lawsuits. Which is odd considering right after 9/11 the country would be all for it.
Never mind the Bush White House protecting Saudis the days right after nine.

You're using 20/20 hindsight, it was over time the Saudi connection became known. I hate the Saudis and don't consider them our allies but our enemies. But I wasn't aware of their more direct involvement in 9/11, at least the funding of it, until later

We have no real friends. And don't use Israel since they spy on us and would sell us out in a heartbeat to survive.

 

[kaz]

You started the emotional shit and you haven't written a single message without going there. It's specifically what I'm mocking you for.

And who is us? Don't you have the gonads to have your own opinion? You need your ego propped up by others?

And the only thing you came up with so far to protect in couples is to not testify against each other? Obviously they don't need government in marriage to do accomplish that.

The reason for government marriage is that the best way to divide people is to have government treat us differently. Why should people who couple up have government rights that others don't have? You're supporting a completely discriminatory system

Well, I tried, and as usual you went off on a childish and emotional rant. No one can help you and I'm not about to try.

Are you capable of writing one post without emotions? I said zero about emotions until you started that ad hominem crap. You're continuing to write these whiny posts trying to force me to back down. Just cut the crap, drama queen

My posts don't have emotions, yours do.

And back down? What part of explaining why it's a bad thing to have government endorsed relationships requires you to back down? We have many and they are all based on the idea of protecting the relationship and the confidentiality of said relationship. Marriage is only one of them. I gave you three other examples but all you can do it rant, like a child.

Every one of your posts talks about emotions, the second paragraph is a strawman.

You keep repeating that couples need some sort of protections provided by government, but the only specific one you came up with so far is the right not to testify against your partner, which clearly doesn't require government marriage and applies to such a tiny percent of couples.

Government should treat all it's citizens the same. Why specifically does any couple need government marriage to accomplish that? Stop being so emotional about gay couples and get specific. Note I want gays to be treated exactly like straights. Government marriage isn't necessary for anyone.

Gays are treated, now, exactly likes straights when it comes to marriage. And whether you think the government should be involved in that doesn't matter, they are. That ends that.

As for couples needed protection, that is obvious. That's why we have laws that way. You can argue against them but good luck, you'll need it and try to do so without sounding like a whiny child?

Oh, boo hoo, the tears never stop from you, do they? I'm running out of hankies to give you, from here it's toilet paper.

Funny how of all this important protection couples need from government, still all you can think of is the right to not testify against each other, which clearly doesn't require government marriage.

And you're completely discriminating between couples and singles. No citizen should be treated by government differently than any other citizen. There is no reason for government marriage, which is why you can't think of anything that requires it