dagblog - Comments for "Yes, He Can Veto!"

I couldn't let this pass .

oldenGoldenDecoy — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 20:08:59 +0000

I couldn't let this pass . . .

I know I'm late to the thread but great post here Destor. And the following caught the ol' Duck's eye...

"...an unnamed Senate staffer as saying that 'constituent calls' prodded the Senate into action on this..."

Yeah ... I bet they got calls along with bundles of unmarked bills showing up mysteriously in reelections coffers.

Also of note: Speaking of using the veto pen in addition to other avenues of getting the people's agenda working... the following is from an article in Wednesday's LA Times:

As President Obama remakes his senior staff, he is also shaping a new approach for the second half of his term: to advance his agenda through executive actions he can take on his own, rather than pushing plans through an increasingly hostile Congress.

He knows there's a tsunami on the horizon and is getting ready to flip 'em the fickled f**kin' finger of fate at those who are the detractors on the hill.

There's a whole passle of alligators in that swamp there in DC.

Thanks again Destor.

~OGD~

.

Seconded! Thank you so much,

anna am — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 02:13:45 +0000

In reply to Well, thank you! Clink!

Seconded! Thank you so much, Destor. It is good news, and you're on top of it.

Well, thank you! Clink!

LisB — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 01:58:22 +0000

In reply to So embarassed about typo-ing

Well, thank you! Clink!

Foreclosure fraud, among

Anonymous — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 01:54:38 +0000

In reply to Yes, He Can Veto!

Foreclosure fraud, among other things causes people to become harmed for not cooperating with unlawful property confiscation. Foreclosure fraud enables things like repetitive, illegal property flipping; illegitimate homelessness, underhanded evictions; it enables unscrupulous foreclosure mill lawyers (especially when judges abet deceit) to deceptively hold auctions and make insider bids to acquire properties, and causes blighted neighborhoods.

I paid my NON-SUBPRIME mortgage for 7 years prior to abusive marriage. When a foreclosure mill lawyer fraudulently foreclosed via a defunct lender’s identity, the courts castigated me for opposing the foreclosure mill lawyer’s red flag use of the defunct lender’s identity, and Bankruptcy “lift stay” motions and “proof of claim” documents under Wells Fargo’s name.

Years later, the foreclosure lawyer used the non-existent lender’s identity, to carry out a ‘simulated’ auction (in my absence), and an inside bid was made on my home. The foreclosure lawyer had the property deed recorded into the name of the non-existent lender, and 3 months later, the local newspaper showed Freddie Mac as paying the non-existent lender over $86,000. At the end of the year, I discovered that Wells Fargo had gotten in on the foreclosure sham by filing a false IRS form 1099-A for my property when I received an IRS tax bill.

It's not simply loss of my home that ‘eats my lunch’, it's such things as horrible, horrible YEARS of judicial abuses, privacy invasions, danger for my safety, blackballed from LAW employment, and other reprisals to which I am yet subjected, due to APPALLING LAND GRAB racketeering (AKA) foreclosure. And, it is similar appalling injustices of which I know have happened to other people, merely because they also lawfully sought their rights to DUE PROCESS OF LAW. I will not cease speaking out / I’m not an Internet troll. I am doing every lawful thing I know, because I simply want MY LIFE BACK. *http://www.lawgrace.org/2010/09/30/important-facts-about-foreclosure-and...

Well done using poker to blow

Michael Maiello — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 01:54:07 +0000

In reply to Not to belabor a subject--as

Well done using poker to blow 20 dimensional chess out of the water.

Oh, you sunk my battleship.

So embarassed about typo-ing

Michael Maiello — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 01:51:47 +0000

In reply to I'd like to know more about

So embarassed about typo-ing DF!

You get a shot of WIllet's Family Reserve (to sip, as a fine bourbon should be).

I'd like to know more about

LisB — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 00:12:44 +0000

In reply to Yes, He Can Veto!

I'd like to know more about the Jack Daniels incident. Also, it's DF, not DH. And yes, excellent post, as I would never have known about it other than by reading Dag. Thanks, Destor.

Oh, and also...it's the signature, not the document. So do I get a shot of Jack?

Not to belabor a subject--as

Richard Day — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 23:38:20 +0000

In reply to Stuff rushed through on the

Not to belabor a subject--as if I do not belabor all the time...

In poker you can get caught in this cycle...i have trips but he thinks I have trips but he really thinks I have trips and he will bluff me into thinking that he has a straight but he knows I will think that he is bluffing me into thinking he has a straight because he really has a straight....

I f Leahy really thought thus, screw Leahy...he is attempting to look good no matter what he does. And I like Leahy.

Nice to know the Senate and

NCD — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 22:39:40 +0000

In reply to Yes, He Can Veto!

Nice to know the Senate and House can act fast, and in unity when the needs and well being of Americans are at stake, or at least big banks trying to kick people out of their homes.

Unanimous consent means NOT ONE member objected to the Bill HR 3808. Leahy put it through the Senate but is now claiming Obama did the 'right thing'.

Good article at link

...Max Gardner, a foreclosure defense attorney, said the timing of the bill was suspicious, considering fraudulent notarization of bogus foreclosure affidavits is at the heart of a scandal that has prompted the nation's largest banks to pause foreclosures in 23 states....

Stuff rushed through on the

acanuck — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 22:38:31 +0000

In reply to Yes, He Can Veto!

Stuff rushed through on the last day of a session is normally non-controversial stuff backed by the leadership of both parties. If I understand correctly, the "unanimous consent" this bill got simply means no one forced an actual vote by raising any objection.

The Democrats who pushed this bill were Bob Casey and Patrick Leahy. Leahy is a bit of a surprise. Unless the idea was to stealthily give the president something unpopular to use his first veto on! Nah, the Dems aren't that clever.