I find it amazing that the executive branch would not stand up for those impacted by the terror and allow the courts to stand for justice. Oh wait the fact that the FBI found no wrong doing with the private server is kind of along the same line of thought.
The list of things that this administration has done to stop justice being served is appalling.
Please point me to a post where you complained about the Bush administration starting an illegal war in Iraq, or lying about having anthrax that could have only been made in Iraq, but turned out to be from the US, or lied about intelligence, and then outed a CIA agent when they said they had evidence the Bush info they were pushing about yellowcake uranium was false, or when they leaked information to the press to incorrectly discredit this source, or when they pardoned the person who was convicted of obstructing justice in this case.
Just one will do, and since you are so into “justice” related to 9/11 I am sure you will have plenty of examples. Thanks.
Of course, the server line is absolute BS, and a total idiotic conspiracy theory, pushed by idiots, for idiots, and repeated by idiots.
“Please point me to a post where you complained about the Bush administration starting an illegal war in Iraq, or lying about having anthrax that could have only been made in Iraq, but turned out to be from the US, or lied about intelligence, and then outed a CIA agent when they said they had evidence the Bush info they were pushing about yellowcake uranium was false, or when they leaked information to the press to incorrectly discredit this source, or when they pardoned the person who was convicted of obstructing justice in this case. ”
Please point me to a post about “lying” about anthrax. Misinformation does not count.
Please also point me to the “illegal” basis of the Iraq War.
There were sanctions on Iraq imposed by Clinton which many considered to be “war crimes” due to the amount of deaths caused by those sanctions, as an example, but they were not “illegal” sanctions. Iraq would probably have called them as such.
The UN worked up aspects of the report that Bush used when we went to war with Iraq in regards to the WMD’s, Bush only presented evidence, and that evidence at the time was unanimous, which is why democrats supported the war. Revisionists are now trying to state that it was not. It was clearly in error but Bush W was not the source of it. As to the morality of helping Iraq, I still believe we had an obligation.
A lot of the other things you yourself need to source quote. You cannot just say these things.
There was plenty of evidence that Saddam had restarted his programs.
New York Times coincidentally I source quote a lot, because they are the same people, in which the same writer, accused Bush W of the largest over haul and regulation of the housing industry since FDR, and then later accused Bush W of encouraging lax loans by his speeches (not his policy) and that his speeches encouraged low income earners to buy outside of their means.
You believe you have spotted hypocrisy and you have not. I’ll give more links in a moment.
Nicely done, but you’re wasting your time, Bob. UW isn’t going to read anything that might actually shed light on the truth. She is just going to continue to spout the liberal buzz words and tag lines. Despite the FBI’s report that clearly and unambiguously shows that Hillary broke official US government protocol and did use a private email server, opening our country’s books for the world to see, idiots (her favorite word) like UW continue to angrily defend the Wicked Witch and her every action. And people like UW are allowed to vote…..smh. Our Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they could see what the liberals have done to this once great country. If we could just change back to being a Republic again.
They would be ticked off at a lot of things. I do believe the republicans are not what they are supposed to be either.
UW speaks as if there is this crazed double standard that republicans get away with things. The answer is they don’t. Republicans abandoned Bush W. Republicans abandon anyone they don’t like, and the reason Trump might not win is that the republicans don’t like him more than democrats don’t like Hillary. He has flipped bias on it’s head, as well as corruption.
I don’t like everything about Trump, but I know with Trump as president we will not get to the point of an over bearing government.
Our founding fathers would likely be quite perturbed by Trump as well.
This election bluntly sucks, but the democrats are arguing on this high ground since Trump came into play of which they do not have one.
Clinton is quite possibly the worst nominee we have had since Walter Mondale. John Kerry wasn’t worse, Al Gore wasn’t worse, and if we are talking people elected, not even Carter was worse.
These guys were simply wrong politically. None of them were as connected or corrupt as Hillary.
Don’t know what you’re waiting for and don’t care.
You are out of line. Can’t handle being told to stop trolling agent still?
I’m still waiting for you to debate ethically and honestly.
I guess we will both be waiting holding our breath until we both die.
I’m not going to play your little game. It seems to upset you that I have stopped allowing these games, as you seem dead set on restarting these issues based on even small comments.
Prove me wrong. Drop it.
September 15, 2016 at 2:17 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
4
4
Do you know why you are linking that by each comment saying still waiting Bob?
I think you do. I think you would be dishonest to deny the following:
You think you have your aha, that I’m a hypocrite. Something to go after my character with.
But what you don’t realize is: As soon as that conversation began to increase based on a one line comment telling you to comment on the topic and not Agent’s bigotry randomly, you lost all moral high ground.
Source quote the page all you want. And I’ll reply with what set you off each time.
Wait until the end of time. You will still be wrong then for what you did, as you are now.
And the fact that you are source quoting the article again and again as if you have poo to stick in my face shows how much poo you actually have on your own.
What do you believe you’re accomplishing?
That comment to agent what was your goal?
Do you know mine?
It is often that flamboyant republicans still should have a voice. It is often that republicans fight for things you probably aren’t aware of. It is often to show that the fight for “gay rights” is not framed the way you think it is. The battle in WA state certainly wasn’t.
It is often to show the dishonesty that most people are not aware of in the democrat party.
Tell me you knew what I said about the gun laws that Obama tried to pass. These same requirements happened in Australia before their gun control laws. The first law that passed said you had to have a reason to own a gun. Obama’s had two: You have to prove you were trust worthy, and you had to have a reason to own a gun, and then it dealt with background checks. Then he told public the republicans were against the background checks. He did the same thing with feminist equal pay laws. Republicans were not ok with being able to sue someone that had nothing to do with the discrimination, if say a firm bought another firm and the prior firm was the one guilty of the crime. It left an opening to sue the new owner rather than the old. Then he said republicans were against equal pay. The gay laws in WA the republicans here said they would vote in favor of the law if it was put out to vote, and if there was a law that made people able to post religious beliefs about gay behavior and it not be called “criminal” liability.
These are several examples that most people here don’t know. I listed the amendments and the bills months ago for people to review, as well as evidence of the republican names who supported this, and democrats who blocked it. I listed the bill for Obama’s bills, I source quoted 2 of the several. I listed the bills and sections of the Lilly Ledbetter act.
I listed how charter laws work, how CRA ratings work, and how you have to have a CRA rating to change your charter status, or merge, or sell, or go outside of normal debt to net capital ratios. These were all regulations. I pointed out that there are regulations for CRA separate from CRA loans. CRA loans may not have caused the collapse, and might not have collapsed in large measure, but CRA regulations forced what happened.
I showed the .gov sites, I gave links to how bank charter laws work, etc.
I am the only person here who has done stuff like this regarding laws.
I showed how Obama resigned the most sensitive sections of the patriot act.
Each of these things the democrats here did not know. Libby assumed until I gave the links showing what re-passed that they were low issue areas.
And each and every time I get met with some ad hominem attack. My goal is to spread new information and clear up what is clearly not true about republicans, and bigotry against them. Your goal is to prove republicans are bigoted or hypocrites, it appears, as that is what you try to prove with Agent.
This appears to be Ron’s goal as well.
That is not a form of debate. Saying we are all the same is zero sum. It does not add any facts to the debate.
You say how Trump cannot be reliable on positions.
Hillary was for the war, now against. We had every piece of intelligence to attack…But we didn’t.
And she repeated that. She in her recent interviews has finally said she was wrong regarding her emails. Finally. But this isn’t the first time for her to do something like this. Iraq is something she supported when it benefited her, and dropped when it benefited her.
Bush W stayed with his convictions. The other players clearly worked the political field with regards to Iraq. You can believe he was wrong, but he did not milk that or use it for his public career. He took a beating for it against public opinion.
“Please point me to a post where you complained about the Bush administration”
I’m going to cut it off there, because those were your entry lines.
I’m going to ask for you to please point me to a post where you complained about the Bush administration.
“Of course, the server line is absolute BS, and a total idiotic conspiracy theory, pushed by idiots, for idiots, and repeated by idiots.”
Of course. Clearly.
Of course The server line is not absolute BS. How is my statement different from yours? Care to actually make an argument on it? Neither of these statements are arguments. Neither of them contain facts.
I do not know what you’re waiting for, because I left that conversation as soon as it was clear you wouldn’t own up to trolling agent.
You had no defense, and I don’t care what you said after my comments.
You’re not getting any more replies from me on it. You can try to hold all future conversations hostage based on your trolling of agent or you can just grow up and not troll agent.
You know. Either or. I will not feed into your guys’s games anymore. I decided after this became serious I’m not partaking in this any longer. You guys antagonize and then people crack, myself included. Well, no longer.
I check out when things are not progressive, so that I myself don’t become regressive.
If you’re still hooked on my commenting about your trolling agent then perhaps you need to look inward Confused.
September 15, 2016 at 2:01 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
5
5
And I have to emphasize to you, what you are so butt hurt over is that I said one line to you. One.
I dared to question you with one line and now you’re still waiting how long later for my reply based on it? I don’t have time to direct each of your little petty complaints and squabbles that I had the nerve to tell you in one line to comment on the topic at hand instead of using it to troll agent’s supposed bigotry against millennial drivers. Do you really think that flew over my head what you meant by that comment? And by doing that all you did was act like a disrespectful jerk.
“Stop literally trolling agent and just make comments.
My comment here is:
Interesting. I want to see more on this over time.”
These are my comments you will not let go of? I have to question what is wrong with the way you are wired that you cannot simply hear that simple of a comment and say, ok, that makes sense. Sorry.
What has me upset is you attacking me then running away from the conversation when I defend myself, only to attack me on the same matter again then run away from the conversation again when I defend myself.
Either attack me and defend your actions/beliefs or don’t attack me at all. Cease the “attack then refuse to discuss what bob brought up in the first place” tactic.
September 15, 2016 at 4:38 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
5
4
I’ll explain quickly what has me upset.
In 1 article, you attack me for posting off-topic. I calmly and rationally explained why I disagreed and cited specifics. You then never replied. (link removed as post didn’t take – ask & you shall receive)
What happens next? In a 2nd article, you attack me again for posting off-topic. I calmly and rationally explained why I disagreed and cited specifics again. You then never replied again.
(link removed as post didn’t take – ask & you shall receive)
What has me upset is you attacking me then running away from the conversation when I defend myself, only to attack me on the same matter again then run away from the conversation again when I defend myself.
Either attack me and defend your actions/beliefs or don’t attack me at all. Cease the “attack then refuse to discuss what bob brought up in the first place” tactic.
September 15, 2016 at 5:00 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
4
3
I wrote a big comment but it got deleted.
I’ll have to make this shorter:
You are derailing. You are linking your perceived similar events to create a perceived hypocrisy and injustice, rather than dealing with each item on their own. This creates a zero sum scenario. I have one question:
Was what you did to agent in that article ok?
Everyone insults. Not everyone, and never myself, goes in constantly implying someone is bigoted who has not yet even commented. That was what your post did. Not everyone says they find someone’s opinion to be likely wrong because of perceived past in-corrections, instead of dealing with the topic at hand.
Ridicule of ideas is not the same as an assault. Calling an idea stupid, or idiotic, or saying someone is acting as an insult will always happen.
Where you differ is you use this to attack someone’s credibility, and you seldom debate facts.
I leave when you reach the point of either:
1. Lying
2. Manipulating
3. Triggering and claim I am leaving the argument solely because I’m a coward or I insulted and then left
4. The argument cannot be had based on facts.
I do not have all day to argue with you based on ONE line on a page.
You do this, and then you use it to create a social justice scenario. But I attack you and leave, right? It’s not fair!
Instead, you could admit you were wrong. What you did on that page was not ok.
Instead you have created your defense based on your perceived unfairness by my leaving conversations and ridiculing your past debates.
If you perceive the majority of my commentary an attack instead of ridicule, and you do not understand the difference, that is perhaps the issue, and that may be due to your age and maturity level.
September 15, 2016 at 5:13 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
4
3
I’m literally tired of this. I cannot have a debate with a millennial. They all do this.
This is why I hate the PC culture.
Here is the revelation of my age at long last:
I AM A MILLENNIAL. I am an older millennial. I am still a millennial.
And why you see me so pissed off at people like you, Ron, and others is a couple of things:
My age group refuses to debate without the PC style assaults. Racism, bigotry, is always thrown in. I do this myself, but where I differ is I am reactionary, retaliatory, this is not my go to argument. Like Ben Shapiro I throw it back in the faces of my generation to stop it from being done. Go watch his college debates. Racism comes up or hecklers nearly all times. He is about my age.
My age group is easy to identify. You are also probably a millennial. Am I wrong?
How do I know these things, Confused?
You aren’t yet aware of how much the millennials differ from outside age groups. My age group has a substantial identity crises, and an inability to understand outside groups because unlike older generations we do not banter or debate properly. Every debate becomes like yours and mine just did. Cliche lines, catch phrases, then accusations of abuse, harassment, racism, bigotry, and focus on the insults and the way someone talks instead of the topic at hand.
Do our age group a favor and show that we can banter, argue, and change. If this cannot be done our generation will be the most arrogant, the least progressive, and will never debate issues.
If character assault based triggering takes hold we empower people who will abuse it.
September 15, 2016 at 6:06 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
Mine is the generation of open minded liberalism, we believe that our parents were extremely conservative and over bearing on issues of morality…
And yet here we are, with the biggest issue we have is that our generation cannot have a debate due to turning the attitudes, the slightest of comments of discontent, as a reason to say someone should not have the ability to debate and use it to discredit them.
How are we an open minded generation if someone cannot speak without it going like it has with you and I?
What you don’t understand is by doing this our generation actually increases the force, increases the nature to correct people, increases the nature to disregard people, increases the strict behavior we thought our parents had, and then words, free speech, debate, banter, all vanish in the name of not offending people with the slightest of comments.
This is how our generation became ignorant on politics.
This is how our generation is controlling free speech with trigger warnings and refuses to listen to ideas they have labeled as racist (such as UW). Ben Shapiro is the type who will boldly continue thought. He looks at the disproportionate blacks being pulled over and realizes that disparity of outcome is not the same as racism. This is because in the example of speeding that he quoted, black drivers made up more of those ticketed and arrested for speeding, but they also made up exactly the amount of people speeding on the road as per the increase. In other words: Black people were more likely to speed in the area. It was not racist cops. Our generation is becoming triggered before they get that far in thought. It is suddenly considered racist to conclude that cultural differences have impact, while simultaneously our generation crowns ourselves as the champions of cultural acknowledgement and freedom.
He points out that the biggest indicator of poverty is whether someone has a child at a young age, and whether the family stays together. In the black community, it so happens this is where we see the issue of poverty. It matches the proportion of blacks having children and fathers leaving. Instead of coming back to morals, and focusing on personal responsibility society says there must be some injustice to blacks, and we promote more programs that support this type of behavior from the government.
This is THE issue with the millennials, and it must be corrected.
This is THE issue with why our society is crumbling. If we cannot hear the facts without saying “racist” how will we solve the issues Confused?
September 15, 2016 at 6:19 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
And confused:
Each of the areas I showed above show that Obama is fully aware of this cultural difference of millennials.
With religion he triggers people based on their fear of judgemental religious folk. He is intentionally using the PC nature of millennials. When republicans commented about the gay exclusion, he stated that bigotry against gays was a huge issue, and many media outlets supported this narrative stating that republicans were anti gay rights. This is not true. And he won with it. Due to millennials.
With regards to gun rights, most people agree with disallowing people with mental health problems to have guns. So do republicans. Obama instead intentionally passed laws moving toward gun control, and then stated that republicans wouldn’t pass even reasonable gun laws. Then he pointed to the fervor of republicans and how they talked. Tell me that millennials don’t look down on gun owners. I know the majority does. The PC crowd source attack again.
With regards to the Lilly Ledbetter act: He again said they didn’t support equal pay. The millennials got triggered yet again.
This has become a winning strategy because of our generation becoming easy to trigger, easy to manipulate on a pc basis.
We have got to wake up confused! I am one of the few who sees this. Most don’t.
The battle going on right now is for the millennials. This may sound crazy but it started in college.
Look at De Paul, Irvine, the actions they have taken to stop conservative debate by talking about hate speech. look at the riots which people aren’t reporting about at these schools. Liberals are attacking conservatives and are against free speech. A poll at one of them showed 40% of the college was only ok with free speech if it didn’t offend someone. Again, Obama is fully aware of this.
The members of these teams are often found openly taking horrible actions, or supporting known lies, such as the 1/4 1/5 1/6 rape statistic. These are taught in college class rooms.
Ben Shapiro focuses on schools because until that disparity is fixed, we risk the control getting worse.
I know I went to issues I haven’t talked much about here, and that you will consider paranoid.
Do more research on what I just said. Pay attention to the fights here. Pay attention to the methods to control speech or viewpoints taken by UW and Ron especially.
Pay attention to my arguments when I try to stay on point.
Let’s stop this. Let’s be a progressive generation.
September 15, 2016 at 6:23 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
And think about your reaction to what I said on rape just now. You and I were taught these numbers in school.
You will undoubtedly think woah, rape numbers are bad.
I did too.
But then consider this from Christina Hoff Somers, a known feminist and democrat who has been at these college debates trying to end that lie:
That number, is higher than the war torn Kongo, where they use rape as a means of power.
Do you believe we have as much rape as those societies?
People who have tried to debate this statistic have been banned from Irvine and De Paul for debates, as well as universities in Illinois, Texas, Massachusetts, and others.
This number is being taught in schools to scare girls, and then to trigger them later on. After all, republicans hate women don’t they?
Watch me while I say the goal here is the utter destruction of republicans, free speech, and the transfer to socialism.
What classes did you take in college? How could you possibly have missed the lack of conservative diversity in debate on campus?
September 15, 2016 at 6:27 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Go google Ben Shapiro and others like him, find libertarians and republicans in the 30’s range of age.
These are the best people to listen to right now.
Louder with Crowder is a good one.
Heck, even listen to the libertarians who lean liberal. There are plenty out there. Just find some on youtube who debate at colleges. Even they get attacked by this PC crowd.
I believe the guy’s name is Dave Rubin? He’s just out of his thirties but he has good things to say, though he is a liberal.
September 16, 2016 at 2:58 pm
Deplorables says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Bob, please give the class a definition of a Liberal Libertarian. The ones I have heard are pretty much Conservative on fiscal policy and weird on many other subjects like foreign policy. I believe you are the first on this blog who even used the term Liberal Libertarian.
September 16, 2016 at 3:17 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Before I do what you said, I’m going to give an example of what I’m talking about, power through PC shut downs.
The original reporting on this only included part of it. This guy then resigned. This is what our generation is responsible for. When you say anything out of line they go after you. This is liberal? This is happening with colleges all around. I can give more examples.
On to your name: Deplorables? Is this sarcasm or reference to Hillary intentionally because you buy into it?
On to libertarians:
There are scales of libertarians. When you say libertarians support conservative economics you would only be correct on the basis that they tend to not like government regulation.
But this goes also in the area of not wanting the government to touch gay rights.
A liberal libertarian would be one who focuses on the emphasis on typical liberal issues, and doesn’t find themselves to fit into the democrat party.
Technically social justice issues, but where it differs is they tend to want a lack of social justice. They tend to dislike black live matters, the feminist movement, etc.
A conservative one focuses on the economic areas of libertarians, but doesn’t find themselves to fit into the republican party.
Economic issues, nationalist issues. This would be like Brexit, NAFTA, things like this.
There is a lot of crossover, which is why Bernie was able to win over a good deal of people who would normally consider voting republican.
This is also why Trump tends to do surprisingly well among moderates (considering his overall numbers)
September 14, 2016 at 8:49 am
Jax Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
6
1
I guess that Bryan Pagliano is lucky to be alive………lol ! He needs to go into the Federal protection program, witness or not !!
Bob, deplorables is a slam against Hillary who said half of Trump supporters are just a basket of deplorables. Guess what, that serial liar is far more than deplorable. She is as nasty as they come.
Thanks for your explanation of Liberal Libertarians. Where do they fit in with moral issues? Some are in favor of lifting the ban on marijuana everywhere and let the country go up in dope smoke. They sound “Confused”.
I know the phrase, but someone who posts as deplorables could be sarcastic either way. They could be mocking Hillary or mocking the deplorable behavior of Trump fans. Millennials genuinely believe that Trump supporters are deplorable. Hillary is trying to trigger the millennials and use that fact.
I am unsure which deplorables is on this site. That is why I am talking on the defensive to him and am asking many questions.
mrbob, I like your comments better than our now famous Bob who writes a book on every comment. I will say that he overwhelms poor Confused and UW when he gets into it. Short and sweet like your comments get the point across without chapter and verse.
Any in depth thought or long posts that explain multitude of aspects with a multitude of sources and a multitude of examples, is considered to be ignorant?
This is why people can’t learn these days. They demand one liners.
I used specific examples. If you want to debate those examples you are free to, or debate the concept.
Removing it due to the label of being too long is basically very much the same as what I said millennials do.
What is amazing is that the same President vetoing this bill to aid affected Americans with absolute proof of involvement of Saudis
in 9/11 just paid Iran. A 40 year lawsuit over a down payment for arms that was not delivered because the people who are suing overthrew the government. This President paid back the money plus compounded interested–and was proud of it. But we can’t rock the boat with Saudi Arabia and they were complicit with killing thousands of Americans. Unbelievable.
I have been very much involved with the millennial movement that is seeking to stop this. I will give millennials some credit: Those that have been engaged and have made a point of combating what is happening to our generation are highly intellectual. They are well researched. If you think my facts are well researched my mentors know far more than I do. I know about a tenth what they do.
Bob, Hilary was part of the hippie movement of the 60’s/70’s and look what America got. Gary Johnson is an idiot and didn’t even know Aleppo. Good thing he is not going to be on the debate stage or he would make a fool of himself.
I don’t understand. This is why I believe longer explanations are usually better.
Are you trying to say that the new millennial generation is similar to the 60’s movement with the youth?
You believe Gary Johnson is a result of that movement? Why do you believe he is an idiot?
It’s a good thing he doesn’t debate on stage or he would make a fool of himself? I think any free speech is a good thing. I thing any angle is a good thing. There is no person who should not go on a debate stage. It might even refine his own beliefs. You seem to be operating with the same mentality I am attempting to fight. The “flamboyancy is inaccuracy” movement. That is not always true, and I know plenty of flamboyant conservatives or non political identifiers who make very good points in what would otherwise be a bad over all concept. Some people make good concepts with bad points, some make bad points with good concepts.
You need to explain much more of what you are saying here.
Bob, I implore you to use some common sense instead of trying to pull up links all the time. If you were paying attention to events going on in this country, you would overwhelmingly reject the Progressive Democrat party. They are bad for the country, bad for the future, are bankrupting it with entitlements, bad for foreign policy. Add in that they are mostly Atheists and you have a very bad situation. Time for a major change.
September 30, 2016 at 5:55 pm
Deplorables says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Need more evidence Bob on Johnson? How about him not being able to name one foreign leader when asked. He said he went into brain freeze. Is that the guy we want answering the phone at 3:00 AM? Hilliary didn’t answer, Obama didn’t answer and Johnson won’t answer.
September 16, 2016 at 5:29 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And if Gary Johnson made a fool out of himself I would say that’s good.
Have you ever had an idea that came to light that you just thought, gah! That’s awful!
Well, some people had never thought about it before it was put out in the light.
It can awaken some people, get people involved, etc.
Heck, I’m all for people like Hillary debating. It has me thinking. People who are over the top at least get people talking. This election has had me realize and look up more than any other, and most of us agree the options are “deplorable” ;-)
It is because I distrust both candidates.
Maybe some good will come of this long run, as long as people are willing to engage in open and constructive debate.
They did override. Good for them. The only loyal troop voting against the override was our wonderful retiring Harry Reid, the thug of the Senate for the past 8+ years.
I find it amazing that the executive branch would not stand up for those impacted by the terror and allow the courts to stand for justice. Oh wait the fact that the FBI found no wrong doing with the private server is kind of along the same line of thought.
The list of things that this administration has done to stop justice being served is appalling.
Please point me to a post where you complained about the Bush administration starting an illegal war in Iraq, or lying about having anthrax that could have only been made in Iraq, but turned out to be from the US, or lied about intelligence, and then outed a CIA agent when they said they had evidence the Bush info they were pushing about yellowcake uranium was false, or when they leaked information to the press to incorrectly discredit this source, or when they pardoned the person who was convicted of obstructing justice in this case.
Just one will do, and since you are so into “justice” related to 9/11 I am sure you will have plenty of examples. Thanks.
Of course, the server line is absolute BS, and a total idiotic conspiracy theory, pushed by idiots, for idiots, and repeated by idiots.
“Please point me to a post where you complained about the Bush administration starting an illegal war in Iraq, or lying about having anthrax that could have only been made in Iraq, but turned out to be from the US, or lied about intelligence, and then outed a CIA agent when they said they had evidence the Bush info they were pushing about yellowcake uranium was false, or when they leaked information to the press to incorrectly discredit this source, or when they pardoned the person who was convicted of obstructing justice in this case. ”
Please point me to a post about “lying” about anthrax. Misinformation does not count.
Please also point me to the “illegal” basis of the Iraq War.
There were sanctions on Iraq imposed by Clinton which many considered to be “war crimes” due to the amount of deaths caused by those sanctions, as an example, but they were not “illegal” sanctions. Iraq would probably have called them as such.
The UN worked up aspects of the report that Bush used when we went to war with Iraq in regards to the WMD’s, Bush only presented evidence, and that evidence at the time was unanimous, which is why democrats supported the war. Revisionists are now trying to state that it was not. It was clearly in error but Bush W was not the source of it. As to the morality of helping Iraq, I still believe we had an obligation.
A lot of the other things you yourself need to source quote. You cannot just say these things.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/20/world/nation-challenged-secret-sites-iraqi-tells-renovations-sites-for-chemical.html
There was plenty of evidence that Saddam had restarted his programs.
New York Times coincidentally I source quote a lot, because they are the same people, in which the same writer, accused Bush W of the largest over haul and regulation of the housing industry since FDR, and then later accused Bush W of encouraging lax loans by his speeches (not his policy) and that his speeches encouraged low income earners to buy outside of their means.
You believe you have spotted hypocrisy and you have not. I’ll give more links in a moment.
Nicely done, but you’re wasting your time, Bob. UW isn’t going to read anything that might actually shed light on the truth. She is just going to continue to spout the liberal buzz words and tag lines. Despite the FBI’s report that clearly and unambiguously shows that Hillary broke official US government protocol and did use a private email server, opening our country’s books for the world to see, idiots (her favorite word) like UW continue to angrily defend the Wicked Witch and her every action. And people like UW are allowed to vote…..smh. Our Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they could see what the liberals have done to this once great country. If we could just change back to being a Republic again.
They would be ticked off at a lot of things. I do believe the republicans are not what they are supposed to be either.
UW speaks as if there is this crazed double standard that republicans get away with things. The answer is they don’t. Republicans abandoned Bush W. Republicans abandon anyone they don’t like, and the reason Trump might not win is that the republicans don’t like him more than democrats don’t like Hillary. He has flipped bias on it’s head, as well as corruption.
I don’t like everything about Trump, but I know with Trump as president we will not get to the point of an over bearing government.
Our founding fathers would likely be quite perturbed by Trump as well.
This election bluntly sucks, but the democrats are arguing on this high ground since Trump came into play of which they do not have one.
Clinton is quite possibly the worst nominee we have had since Walter Mondale. John Kerry wasn’t worse, Al Gore wasn’t worse, and if we are talking people elected, not even Carter was worse.
These guys were simply wrong politically. None of them were as connected or corrupt as Hillary.
still waiting, bob
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/09/12/425980.htm/?comments
Don’t know what you’re waiting for and don’t care.
You are out of line. Can’t handle being told to stop trolling agent still?
I’m still waiting for you to debate ethically and honestly.
I guess we will both be waiting holding our breath until we both die.
I’m not going to play your little game. It seems to upset you that I have stopped allowing these games, as you seem dead set on restarting these issues based on even small comments.
Prove me wrong. Drop it.
Do you know why you are linking that by each comment saying still waiting Bob?
I think you do. I think you would be dishonest to deny the following:
You think you have your aha, that I’m a hypocrite. Something to go after my character with.
But what you don’t realize is: As soon as that conversation began to increase based on a one line comment telling you to comment on the topic and not Agent’s bigotry randomly, you lost all moral high ground.
Source quote the page all you want. And I’ll reply with what set you off each time.
Wait until the end of time. You will still be wrong then for what you did, as you are now.
And the fact that you are source quoting the article again and again as if you have poo to stick in my face shows how much poo you actually have on your own.
What do you believe you’re accomplishing?
That comment to agent what was your goal?
Do you know mine?
It is often that flamboyant republicans still should have a voice. It is often that republicans fight for things you probably aren’t aware of. It is often to show that the fight for “gay rights” is not framed the way you think it is. The battle in WA state certainly wasn’t.
It is often to show the dishonesty that most people are not aware of in the democrat party.
Tell me you knew what I said about the gun laws that Obama tried to pass. These same requirements happened in Australia before their gun control laws. The first law that passed said you had to have a reason to own a gun. Obama’s had two: You have to prove you were trust worthy, and you had to have a reason to own a gun, and then it dealt with background checks. Then he told public the republicans were against the background checks. He did the same thing with feminist equal pay laws. Republicans were not ok with being able to sue someone that had nothing to do with the discrimination, if say a firm bought another firm and the prior firm was the one guilty of the crime. It left an opening to sue the new owner rather than the old. Then he said republicans were against equal pay. The gay laws in WA the republicans here said they would vote in favor of the law if it was put out to vote, and if there was a law that made people able to post religious beliefs about gay behavior and it not be called “criminal” liability.
These are several examples that most people here don’t know. I listed the amendments and the bills months ago for people to review, as well as evidence of the republican names who supported this, and democrats who blocked it. I listed the bill for Obama’s bills, I source quoted 2 of the several. I listed the bills and sections of the Lilly Ledbetter act.
I listed how charter laws work, how CRA ratings work, and how you have to have a CRA rating to change your charter status, or merge, or sell, or go outside of normal debt to net capital ratios. These were all regulations. I pointed out that there are regulations for CRA separate from CRA loans. CRA loans may not have caused the collapse, and might not have collapsed in large measure, but CRA regulations forced what happened.
I showed the .gov sites, I gave links to how bank charter laws work, etc.
I am the only person here who has done stuff like this regarding laws.
I showed how Obama resigned the most sensitive sections of the patriot act.
Each of these things the democrats here did not know. Libby assumed until I gave the links showing what re-passed that they were low issue areas.
And each and every time I get met with some ad hominem attack. My goal is to spread new information and clear up what is clearly not true about republicans, and bigotry against them. Your goal is to prove republicans are bigoted or hypocrites, it appears, as that is what you try to prove with Agent.
This appears to be Ron’s goal as well.
That is not a form of debate. Saying we are all the same is zero sum. It does not add any facts to the debate.
It’s time to debate proper.
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/iraq_oct_2002_files
You must have also missed this. This is available online, this is a report with all their findings in Iraq in 2002.
The CIA just must be in Bush W’s pocket right?
Ah, here we go.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html
I misquoted him. He called it the largest in a decade in terms of regulations.
Then he co authored this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html
You say how Trump cannot be reliable on positions.
Hillary was for the war, now against. We had every piece of intelligence to attack…But we didn’t.
And she repeated that. She in her recent interviews has finally said she was wrong regarding her emails. Finally. But this isn’t the first time for her to do something like this. Iraq is something she supported when it benefited her, and dropped when it benefited her.
Bush W stayed with his convictions. The other players clearly worked the political field with regards to Iraq. You can believe he was wrong, but he did not milk that or use it for his public career. He took a beating for it against public opinion.
I have to make one more comment:
“Please point me to a post where you complained about the Bush administration”
I’m going to cut it off there, because those were your entry lines.
I’m going to ask for you to please point me to a post where you complained about the Bush administration.
“Of course, the server line is absolute BS, and a total idiotic conspiracy theory, pushed by idiots, for idiots, and repeated by idiots.”
Of course. Clearly.
Of course The server line is not absolute BS. How is my statement different from yours? Care to actually make an argument on it? Neither of these statements are arguments. Neither of them contain facts.
UW you have serious issues. Work on it.
Or I could just ask you to point me to a place where you complained about Hillary or the Obama administration.
still waiting….
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/09/12/425980.htm/?comments
I do not know what you’re waiting for, because I left that conversation as soon as it was clear you wouldn’t own up to trolling agent.
You had no defense, and I don’t care what you said after my comments.
You’re not getting any more replies from me on it. You can try to hold all future conversations hostage based on your trolling of agent or you can just grow up and not troll agent.
You know. Either or. I will not feed into your guys’s games anymore. I decided after this became serious I’m not partaking in this any longer. You guys antagonize and then people crack, myself included. Well, no longer.
I check out when things are not progressive, so that I myself don’t become regressive.
If you’re still hooked on my commenting about your trolling agent then perhaps you need to look inward Confused.
And I have to emphasize to you, what you are so butt hurt over is that I said one line to you. One.
I dared to question you with one line and now you’re still waiting how long later for my reply based on it? I don’t have time to direct each of your little petty complaints and squabbles that I had the nerve to tell you in one line to comment on the topic at hand instead of using it to troll agent’s supposed bigotry against millennial drivers. Do you really think that flew over my head what you meant by that comment? And by doing that all you did was act like a disrespectful jerk.
“Stop literally trolling agent and just make comments.
My comment here is:
Interesting. I want to see more on this over time.”
These are my comments you will not let go of? I have to question what is wrong with the way you are wired that you cannot simply hear that simple of a comment and say, ok, that makes sense. Sorry.
I’ll explain quickly what has me upset.
In 1 article, you attack me for posting off-topic. I calmly and rationally explained why I disagreed and cited specifics. You then never replied. http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/08/31/424977.htm/?comments
What happens next? In a 2nd article, you attack me again for posting off-topic. I calmly and rationally explained why I disagreed and cited specifics again. You then never replied again.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/09/12/425980.htm/?comments
What has me upset is you attacking me then running away from the conversation when I defend myself, only to attack me on the same matter again then run away from the conversation again when I defend myself.
Either attack me and defend your actions/beliefs or don’t attack me at all. Cease the “attack then refuse to discuss what bob brought up in the first place” tactic.
I’ll explain quickly what has me upset.
In 1 article, you attack me for posting off-topic. I calmly and rationally explained why I disagreed and cited specifics. You then never replied. (link removed as post didn’t take – ask & you shall receive)
What happens next? In a 2nd article, you attack me again for posting off-topic. I calmly and rationally explained why I disagreed and cited specifics again. You then never replied again.
(link removed as post didn’t take – ask & you shall receive)
What has me upset is you attacking me then running away from the conversation when I defend myself, only to attack me on the same matter again then run away from the conversation again when I defend myself.
Either attack me and defend your actions/beliefs or don’t attack me at all. Cease the “attack then refuse to discuss what bob brought up in the first place” tactic.
I wrote a big comment but it got deleted.
I’ll have to make this shorter:
You are derailing. You are linking your perceived similar events to create a perceived hypocrisy and injustice, rather than dealing with each item on their own. This creates a zero sum scenario. I have one question:
Was what you did to agent in that article ok?
Everyone insults. Not everyone, and never myself, goes in constantly implying someone is bigoted who has not yet even commented. That was what your post did. Not everyone says they find someone’s opinion to be likely wrong because of perceived past in-corrections, instead of dealing with the topic at hand.
Ridicule of ideas is not the same as an assault. Calling an idea stupid, or idiotic, or saying someone is acting as an insult will always happen.
Where you differ is you use this to attack someone’s credibility, and you seldom debate facts.
I leave when you reach the point of either:
1. Lying
2. Manipulating
3. Triggering and claim I am leaving the argument solely because I’m a coward or I insulted and then left
4. The argument cannot be had based on facts.
I do not have all day to argue with you based on ONE line on a page.
You do this, and then you use it to create a social justice scenario. But I attack you and leave, right? It’s not fair!
Instead, you could admit you were wrong. What you did on that page was not ok.
Instead you have created your defense based on your perceived unfairness by my leaving conversations and ridiculing your past debates.
If you perceive the majority of my commentary an attack instead of ridicule, and you do not understand the difference, that is perhaps the issue, and that may be due to your age and maturity level.
I’m literally tired of this. I cannot have a debate with a millennial. They all do this.
This is why I hate the PC culture.
Here is the revelation of my age at long last:
I AM A MILLENNIAL. I am an older millennial. I am still a millennial.
And why you see me so pissed off at people like you, Ron, and others is a couple of things:
My age group refuses to debate without the PC style assaults. Racism, bigotry, is always thrown in. I do this myself, but where I differ is I am reactionary, retaliatory, this is not my go to argument. Like Ben Shapiro I throw it back in the faces of my generation to stop it from being done. Go watch his college debates. Racism comes up or hecklers nearly all times. He is about my age.
My age group is easy to identify. You are also probably a millennial. Am I wrong?
How do I know these things, Confused?
You aren’t yet aware of how much the millennials differ from outside age groups. My age group has a substantial identity crises, and an inability to understand outside groups because unlike older generations we do not banter or debate properly. Every debate becomes like yours and mine just did. Cliche lines, catch phrases, then accusations of abuse, harassment, racism, bigotry, and focus on the insults and the way someone talks instead of the topic at hand.
Do our age group a favor and show that we can banter, argue, and change. If this cannot be done our generation will be the most arrogant, the least progressive, and will never debate issues.
If character assault based triggering takes hold we empower people who will abuse it.
Mine is the generation of open minded liberalism, we believe that our parents were extremely conservative and over bearing on issues of morality…
And yet here we are, with the biggest issue we have is that our generation cannot have a debate due to turning the attitudes, the slightest of comments of discontent, as a reason to say someone should not have the ability to debate and use it to discredit them.
How are we an open minded generation if someone cannot speak without it going like it has with you and I?
What you don’t understand is by doing this our generation actually increases the force, increases the nature to correct people, increases the nature to disregard people, increases the strict behavior we thought our parents had, and then words, free speech, debate, banter, all vanish in the name of not offending people with the slightest of comments.
This is how our generation became ignorant on politics.
This is how our generation is controlling free speech with trigger warnings and refuses to listen to ideas they have labeled as racist (such as UW). Ben Shapiro is the type who will boldly continue thought. He looks at the disproportionate blacks being pulled over and realizes that disparity of outcome is not the same as racism. This is because in the example of speeding that he quoted, black drivers made up more of those ticketed and arrested for speeding, but they also made up exactly the amount of people speeding on the road as per the increase. In other words: Black people were more likely to speed in the area. It was not racist cops. Our generation is becoming triggered before they get that far in thought. It is suddenly considered racist to conclude that cultural differences have impact, while simultaneously our generation crowns ourselves as the champions of cultural acknowledgement and freedom.
He points out that the biggest indicator of poverty is whether someone has a child at a young age, and whether the family stays together. In the black community, it so happens this is where we see the issue of poverty. It matches the proportion of blacks having children and fathers leaving. Instead of coming back to morals, and focusing on personal responsibility society says there must be some injustice to blacks, and we promote more programs that support this type of behavior from the government.
This is THE issue with the millennials, and it must be corrected.
This is THE issue with why our society is crumbling. If we cannot hear the facts without saying “racist” how will we solve the issues Confused?
And confused:
Each of the areas I showed above show that Obama is fully aware of this cultural difference of millennials.
With religion he triggers people based on their fear of judgemental religious folk. He is intentionally using the PC nature of millennials. When republicans commented about the gay exclusion, he stated that bigotry against gays was a huge issue, and many media outlets supported this narrative stating that republicans were anti gay rights. This is not true. And he won with it. Due to millennials.
With regards to gun rights, most people agree with disallowing people with mental health problems to have guns. So do republicans. Obama instead intentionally passed laws moving toward gun control, and then stated that republicans wouldn’t pass even reasonable gun laws. Then he pointed to the fervor of republicans and how they talked. Tell me that millennials don’t look down on gun owners. I know the majority does. The PC crowd source attack again.
With regards to the Lilly Ledbetter act: He again said they didn’t support equal pay. The millennials got triggered yet again.
This has become a winning strategy because of our generation becoming easy to trigger, easy to manipulate on a pc basis.
We have got to wake up confused! I am one of the few who sees this. Most don’t.
The battle going on right now is for the millennials. This may sound crazy but it started in college.
Look at De Paul, Irvine, the actions they have taken to stop conservative debate by talking about hate speech. look at the riots which people aren’t reporting about at these schools. Liberals are attacking conservatives and are against free speech. A poll at one of them showed 40% of the college was only ok with free speech if it didn’t offend someone. Again, Obama is fully aware of this.
The members of these teams are often found openly taking horrible actions, or supporting known lies, such as the 1/4 1/5 1/6 rape statistic. These are taught in college class rooms.
Ben Shapiro focuses on schools because until that disparity is fixed, we risk the control getting worse.
I know I went to issues I haven’t talked much about here, and that you will consider paranoid.
Do more research on what I just said. Pay attention to the fights here. Pay attention to the methods to control speech or viewpoints taken by UW and Ron especially.
Pay attention to my arguments when I try to stay on point.
Let’s stop this. Let’s be a progressive generation.
And think about your reaction to what I said on rape just now. You and I were taught these numbers in school.
You will undoubtedly think woah, rape numbers are bad.
I did too.
But then consider this from Christina Hoff Somers, a known feminist and democrat who has been at these college debates trying to end that lie:
That number, is higher than the war torn Kongo, where they use rape as a means of power.
Do you believe we have as much rape as those societies?
People who have tried to debate this statistic have been banned from Irvine and De Paul for debates, as well as universities in Illinois, Texas, Massachusetts, and others.
This number is being taught in schools to scare girls, and then to trigger them later on. After all, republicans hate women don’t they?
Watch me while I say the goal here is the utter destruction of republicans, free speech, and the transfer to socialism.
What classes did you take in college? How could you possibly have missed the lack of conservative diversity in debate on campus?
Go google Ben Shapiro and others like him, find libertarians and republicans in the 30’s range of age.
These are the best people to listen to right now.
Louder with Crowder is a good one.
Heck, even listen to the libertarians who lean liberal. There are plenty out there. Just find some on youtube who debate at colleges. Even they get attacked by this PC crowd.
I believe the guy’s name is Dave Rubin? He’s just out of his thirties but he has good things to say, though he is a liberal.
Bob, please give the class a definition of a Liberal Libertarian. The ones I have heard are pretty much Conservative on fiscal policy and weird on many other subjects like foreign policy. I believe you are the first on this blog who even used the term Liberal Libertarian.
Before I do what you said, I’m going to give an example of what I’m talking about, power through PC shut downs.
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/21/sir-tim-hunt-didnt-leave-britain-in-defeat-after-feminist-fibs-he-won/
The original reporting on this only included part of it. This guy then resigned. This is what our generation is responsible for. When you say anything out of line they go after you. This is liberal? This is happening with colleges all around. I can give more examples.
On to your name: Deplorables? Is this sarcasm or reference to Hillary intentionally because you buy into it?
On to libertarians:
There are scales of libertarians. When you say libertarians support conservative economics you would only be correct on the basis that they tend to not like government regulation.
But this goes also in the area of not wanting the government to touch gay rights.
A liberal libertarian would be one who focuses on the emphasis on typical liberal issues, and doesn’t find themselves to fit into the democrat party.
Technically social justice issues, but where it differs is they tend to want a lack of social justice. They tend to dislike black live matters, the feminist movement, etc.
A conservative one focuses on the economic areas of libertarians, but doesn’t find themselves to fit into the republican party.
Economic issues, nationalist issues. This would be like Brexit, NAFTA, things like this.
There is a lot of crossover, which is why Bernie was able to win over a good deal of people who would normally consider voting republican.
This is also why Trump tends to do surprisingly well among moderates (considering his overall numbers)
I guess that Bryan Pagliano is lucky to be alive………lol ! He needs to go into the Federal protection program, witness or not !!
Bob, deplorables is a slam against Hillary who said half of Trump supporters are just a basket of deplorables. Guess what, that serial liar is far more than deplorable. She is as nasty as they come.
Thanks for your explanation of Liberal Libertarians. Where do they fit in with moral issues? Some are in favor of lifting the ban on marijuana everywhere and let the country go up in dope smoke. They sound “Confused”.
I know the phrase, but someone who posts as deplorables could be sarcastic either way. They could be mocking Hillary or mocking the deplorable behavior of Trump fans. Millennials genuinely believe that Trump supporters are deplorable. Hillary is trying to trigger the millennials and use that fact.
I am unsure which deplorables is on this site. That is why I am talking on the defensive to him and am asking many questions.
I forgot to answer your question:
It varies a bit, you’ll have to ask the liberal libertarian. There are even some that would call themselves conservative who are against pot lots.
It comes with the age group. I would say the majority liberal or conservative in the millennial age group are probably against pot laws.
mrbob, I like your comments better than our now famous Bob who writes a book on every comment. I will say that he overwhelms poor Confused and UW when he gets into it. Short and sweet like your comments get the point across without chapter and verse.
Thanks
This shows a lot about your character.
Any in depth thought or long posts that explain multitude of aspects with a multitude of sources and a multitude of examples, is considered to be ignorant?
This is why people can’t learn these days. They demand one liners.
I used specific examples. If you want to debate those examples you are free to, or debate the concept.
Removing it due to the label of being too long is basically very much the same as what I said millennials do.
Can you debate? Do you have the ability?
Show me.
What is amazing is that the same President vetoing this bill to aid affected Americans with absolute proof of involvement of Saudis
in 9/11 just paid Iran. A 40 year lawsuit over a down payment for arms that was not delivered because the people who are suing overthrew the government. This President paid back the money plus compounded interested–and was proud of it. But we can’t rock the boat with Saudi Arabia and they were complicit with killing thousands of Americans. Unbelievable.
Sherinae, 11-8-16 cannot come soon enough.
I’m voting BOB for President in 2016! Spot on. Well played. Good job. Make Sherinae your VP
I have been very much involved with the millennial movement that is seeking to stop this. I will give millennials some credit: Those that have been engaged and have made a point of combating what is happening to our generation are highly intellectual. They are well researched. If you think my facts are well researched my mentors know far more than I do. I know about a tenth what they do.
I hope some of them run for office.
Bob, Hilary was part of the hippie movement of the 60’s/70’s and look what America got. Gary Johnson is an idiot and didn’t even know Aleppo. Good thing he is not going to be on the debate stage or he would make a fool of himself.
I don’t understand. This is why I believe longer explanations are usually better.
Are you trying to say that the new millennial generation is similar to the 60’s movement with the youth?
You believe Gary Johnson is a result of that movement? Why do you believe he is an idiot?
It’s a good thing he doesn’t debate on stage or he would make a fool of himself? I think any free speech is a good thing. I thing any angle is a good thing. There is no person who should not go on a debate stage. It might even refine his own beliefs. You seem to be operating with the same mentality I am attempting to fight. The “flamboyancy is inaccuracy” movement. That is not always true, and I know plenty of flamboyant conservatives or non political identifiers who make very good points in what would otherwise be a bad over all concept. Some people make good concepts with bad points, some make bad points with good concepts.
You need to explain much more of what you are saying here.
Bob, I implore you to use some common sense instead of trying to pull up links all the time. If you were paying attention to events going on in this country, you would overwhelmingly reject the Progressive Democrat party. They are bad for the country, bad for the future, are bankrupting it with entitlements, bad for foreign policy. Add in that they are mostly Atheists and you have a very bad situation. Time for a major change.
Need more evidence Bob on Johnson? How about him not being able to name one foreign leader when asked. He said he went into brain freeze. Is that the guy we want answering the phone at 3:00 AM? Hilliary didn’t answer, Obama didn’t answer and Johnson won’t answer.
And if Gary Johnson made a fool out of himself I would say that’s good.
Have you ever had an idea that came to light that you just thought, gah! That’s awful!
Well, some people had never thought about it before it was put out in the light.
It can awaken some people, get people involved, etc.
Heck, I’m all for people like Hillary debating. It has me thinking. People who are over the top at least get people talking. This election has had me realize and look up more than any other, and most of us agree the options are “deplorable” ;-)
It is because I distrust both candidates.
Maybe some good will come of this long run, as long as people are willing to engage in open and constructive debate.
So, the Bill passed unanimously in both the House and Senate. That’s telling!!
The real question is, will the Dems show the courage of their convictions and override the veto or was that just a “show vote”?
They did override. Good for them. The only loyal troop voting against the override was our wonderful retiring Harry Reid, the thug of the Senate for the past 8+ years.