And Just When You Thought Mr. FantAstic Was Inept...

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Huntn, Sep 28, 2016.

?

What's Your Opinion about the Congressional Overide of Obama's Veto?

Poll closed Nov 28, 2016.
  1. Justice will be served. I approve!

    3 vote(s)
    37.5%
  2. A bad choice to score political points.

    3 vote(s)
    37.5%
  3. No opinion.

    2 vote(s)
    25.0%
  1. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #1
    ...Congress Votes to Override Obama Veto on 9/11 Victims Bill

    WASHINGTON — An overwhelming majority in Congress on Wednesday overturned President Obama’s veto of legislation that would allow families of those killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role in the plot, the first successful override vote of his presidency.

    Have you ever heard the rhyme I'm rubber, your glue, whatever bounces off me sticks to you? A bunch of frick'n idiots. :oops:
     
  2. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
  3. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #3
    Who are the idiots?
     
  4. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #4
    Don't they remember?

    The families of 9/11 were already compensated. Any lawsuit won't get very far.

    Most of the attackers, including Osama Bin Laden, had been exiled. Any frivolous lawsuit won't get very far.

    SMH

    Obama was right. The people voting to override - what are we peanut gallery people missing out on in terms of intel for such a seemingly stupid override to take place? Obama being black isn't an excuse, the GOP has lots of black people already so that can't be it. Obama's compromised (by duress and choice) enough times to show how the GOP is far more out of touch than anyone else...
    --- Post Merged, Sep 28, 2016 ---
    People who support the override can pay for the costs off of issues the rest of us voted NO on. But I suspect people will be quick to blame Obama once this override is used against them.
     
  5. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #5
    The logic of the fake liberals is astounding.

    Gun manufacturers should be held liable for legally selling firearms but Saudi Arabia should not be held liable for being involved in 9/11.
     
  6. Huntn thread starter macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #6
    You do know why Embassy personnel are exempt from foreign persecution, right? Same principle here. Not only that, it could significantly impact our foreign relations and ability to coordinate against terrorism. That's just peachy. :rolleyes: :oops:
     
  7. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #7
    If obama signed the bill originally the liberals would love it. But when mere mortals stand up to thier god they can't stand it.
     
  8. Huntn thread starter macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #8
    Did IQs suddenly drop in PRSI? ;) That's a matter for our State Dept, not the subject of civil lawsuits.
     
  9. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #9
    Some are. Not every embassy employee has diplomatic immunity. "Coordinating against terrorism" with Saudi Arabia does not compute. The best coordination we can with wrt to Saudi is cut them loose.
     
  10. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #10
    What you've just described is blackmail. Saudi Arabia did the same thing regarding a fraud case being pursued here in the UK. Their ambassador said that if the investigation was not dropped, British lives on British streets would be at risk.

    Your policy is one of appeasement. We know the Saudis fund terrorism. You are proposing to submit to their demands by not holding them accountable.
     
  11. CaptMurdock macrumors 6502a

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #11
    A word of advice: don't attempt to make a living at fortune-telling. Not unless starvation and homelessness are on your bucket list.
     
  12. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #12
    It is a matter for the State Department to determine whether or not supporters of terrorism can be held liable? It most certainly is not. It is a matter for the branch of government responsible for creating law. And that branch is the Congress.
     
  13. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #13
    It dropped in Congress. Apparently this bill is a two-way street. Is it still beautiful bipartisanship over the cost of increased legal fees, along with other considerations...?

    Also, VP Candidate Kaine did not vote:
    http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/28/news/override-obama-veto-911-bill/
     
  14. Huntn thread starter macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #14
    IMO, it's the perfect example of a bad choice being made for political cover, not unlike the vote to authorize Dubya to go to war after all other options were expended. We know how that worked out. :oops:
     
  15. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #15
    :rolleyes:
     
  16. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #16
    It's like congress has nothing better to do... This law will literally do nothing good for a single 9/11 victim.
     
  17. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #17
    Found this online:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-veto-911-bill-allowing-saudi-suits/91184976/

    (At the time of viewing, there was a surprising Trump ad as well, don't skip it if you see "you may skip in 5 seconds")

    --Peanut gallery comment found online.
     
  18. citizenzen, Sep 28, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2016

    citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #18
    I honestly don't care one way or another.

    At least the bill went through the proper process, and if that is the will of congress, so be it. Now it will be tested in the courts for constitutionality, which is fine as well.

    If any of the 9/11 family member want to take Saudi Arabia to court, they will spend an awful lot of money in what I assume will be a futile attempt to extract some compensation. I doubt the Saudis would be interested in paying. And I don't know what mechanisms the court could apply to compel them to.

    It will be interesting to see how it all unfolds.
    --- Post Merged, Sep 28, 2016 ---
    I'm afraid I don't understand your logic.

    Do you believe Saudi Arabia should be held liable if the case is proven in court?

    If so, does that likewise mean you believe gun manufacturers should be held to that same standard?

    Please clarify.
    --- Post Merged, Sep 28, 2016 ---
    He was right. You would be better off telling people what YOU believe and ASKING others what they believe.

    When you tell us what we believe it's just a bald-faced, self-serving straw man fantasy.
     
  19. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #19
    Yes, they should. The Saudis had involvement in 9/11.

    No, they shouldn't. You can't and shouldn't attempt to hold a manufacturer liable for a legal sale.

    Surely you see the odd standard of wanting to hold manufacturers liable for doing nothing wrong versus not wanting to hold the Saudis liable for doing everything wrong.
     
  20. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #20
    Interesting. When you complained about "liberal logic" it appeared as if your were attacking them for being inconsistent with the two arguments. However, you maintain the inconsistency. You just flipped it 180º.

    And as for manufacturers being held liable for selling legal products, that is something the courts see regularly. So it would seem to me the question is why gun manufacturers would be exempt from consequences every other industry potentially faces.
     
  21. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #21
    It is certainly not something they see regularly in the context of suing a gun manufacturer.

    Baseball bat manufacturers do not get sued over beatings. Knife manufacturers do not get sued over stabbings. Automobile manufacturers do not get sued for vehicular homicides.

    However, perpetrators of violent crime do get sued for wrongful death or injury. The manufacturer cannot be the perpetrator just because they happened to make the (legal) sale.
     
  22. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #22
    I just looked it up and you are correct.
    Thanks for helping me learn something today.
     
  23. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #23
    I don't care.
     
  24. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #24
    Obviously.

    There's a word for it.
     

Share This Page