This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Obama To Veto H.R. 3808

Tyler Durden's picture





 

As we expected, and suggested last night, Obama would not enact H.R. 3808 for fear of the populist fallout that would follow. Indeed, Dow Jones has just confirmed that Obama will "Pocket Veto" the notarization bill, eliminating the last possible roadblock for a tsunami of legal action against mortgage servicers.

From Dow Jones:

President Barack Obama won't sign into law an overlooked piece of legislation that critics say would make it easier for banks and others to process foreclosure proceedings without human signatures, a person familiar with the matter said.

Obama hasn't yet issued a veto during his presidency. In this instance, he will send the bill back to Congress using a process known as a "pocket veto."

His decision comes amid growing complaints from lawmakers that the administration and regulators haven't done enough to intervene in a scandal tied to thousands of foreclosures that critics argue were processed with improper documentation.

Ally Bank, Bank of America Corp. (BAC), and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM) have halted foreclosures in 23 states in recent weeks to review how many documents tied to these foreclosures might have been filed improperly. A central issue is the practice of "robo" signing, when documents are signed quickly by computers or people who don't review the documents.

The bill in question passed the Senate on Sept. 27 by unanimous consent. The House passed the bill by "voice vote" in April. Many bills that aren't considered controversial pass this way, with members of both parties essentially letting it move through Congress without debate.

The bill is called the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2009 and it was authored by Rep. Robert Aderholt (R., Ala.). A spokesman for Aderholt didn't immediately return a call for comment.

The bill was cosponsored by Reps. Bruce Braley (D., Iowa), Michael Castle (R., Del.), and Artur Davis (D., Ala.).

The bill would require state and federal courts to "recognize any notarization made by a notary public" licensed in any state. This would include electronic signatures. The bill would have been a big win for businesses who complained it was too easy for people to challenge notarized documents in court when notaries were licensed in different states.

"This legislation will help businesses around the nation by eliminating the confusion which arises when states refuse to acknowledge the integrity of documents notarized out-of-state,"
Aderholt said when the bill passed the Senate. "This bill offers a common-sense solution to a problem that is more widespread than is generally recognized."

It is unclear how the bill might have affected the current foreclosure scandal, but liberal groups have insisted in recent days that Obama veto it. A spokesman for Aderholt said: "Contrary to some blogs and reports, there is absolutely no connection whatsoever between Congressman Aderholt's legislation and the recent foreclosure documentation problems."

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner said Tuesday if the bill became law it would make it harder for consumers to challenge foreclosures.

The bill raised difficult policy decisions for government officials. Some argue it should be easier for banks and others to process documents electronically to help reduce the backlog of foreclosures and help the housing market. But there have also been questions about the loan-servicing and foreclosure-processing industry, which is loosely regulated and now faces accusations of fraud.

h/t London Dude Trader

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:29 | Link to Comment LoneStarHog
LoneStarHog's picture

Who sent this F**KING SOB a PAIR?

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:46 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

No-one.  This is the most cowardly thing he could have done.  It just happens to also be the best thing for the market.

This is prima facie evidence that Obama in fact serves no master but himself.  He merely does what is in his own by definition short term interests.  The same goes for any politician.  If there ever was some vast conspiracy to create a one world government or anything like that, it would be doomed to failure the second that it became politically expedient for some powerful politician to veto it.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:58 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

tmosley, obviously nothing he does is good enough for you, is it?

Time to take off the politically slanted tinfoil hat.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:24 | Link to Comment NOTW777
NOTW777's picture

you win - free obama pom poms

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 16:06 | Link to Comment Red Neck Repugnicant
Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

@ tmosley

I agree. You and I think the same way.

Obama is trying to turn America into some sort of perverse one world government (as you stated), that combines African politics with Nazi and Marx influences. 

I've heard from confidential sources that the next Chief of Staff is a real Maasai Chief straight from Kenya - Adolf the Maasai Warrior, or something like that.    

How long before ObamaCare (which is just thinly disguised eugenics) will create a nation full of basketball players? Our grandmothers shouldn't have to hide in our bunkers!  That's bullshit! 

I truly fear for America. Who is Obama?  Why is he black?  Why was he born in Kenya?  Why is his name Obama - that's a fucking weird name. 

We need to return America to its rightful owners...people like you and me.

I want my country back!! 

Palin/Beck 2012

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 16:03 | Link to Comment Ein Stein
Ein Stein's picture

Think--- and think again.

If that does not work, please read this:

http://www.thedailybell.com/1425/IMF-Article-Predicts-New-World-Order.html

It is now official.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 19:59 | Link to Comment hardcleareye
hardcleareye's picture

That was a good read!!!! Your reference article was good but the actual Spiegel article by Brinkbaumer was chilling..........  Is this for real??  Anybody else read this article?

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:01 | Link to Comment svendthrift
svendthrift's picture

I don't trust him.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:30 | Link to Comment Ripped Chunk
Ripped Chunk's picture

This will be back slightly altered for his signature after the elections.

Credit the internet community for exposing this. Our congress and senate work for the banks. I will not capitalize the names out of disrespect.

VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS UNTIL WE HAVE LAWS THAT FORBID LOBBYING AND CORPORATE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ANY SOURCE !!!!!!

THIS WILL TAKE 4 OR 5 ELECTION CYCLES TO ACCOMPLISH. WE ARE TALKING 10 YEARS SO STAY VIGILANT IF YOU WANT A COUNTRY THAT IS FIT TO LIVE IN.

 

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 15:13 | Link to Comment Miss Expectations
Miss Expectations's picture

Here's one you might not have heard about:

S510 Food Safey Bill.  Kiss you local, small farm options GOODBYE.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/s-510-12-reasons-why-the-foo...

 

From Campaign for Liberty:

As I said earlier, our own Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) is still a cosponsor of this bill.  Despite the surge in demands for limited, constitutional government, Senator Burr still can't see how bad this bill is.  That's why he needs to hear from you!

Contact Richard Burr's office today at 202-224-3154 or email his office at chris_joyner@burr.senate.gov.  Tell him to join Senator Coburn's stand against this bill and to vote against it when Congress returns next month.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 15:16 | Link to Comment Ripped Chunk
Ripped Chunk's picture

Like I said, all of these scumbags in the congress and senate need to be gone. That needs to happen for the next ten years until the law changes and these turd sucking fucks understand WHAT THE ELECTORATE DEMANDS !!!

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 20:08 | Link to Comment Bringin It
Bringin It's picture

Dear Ripped - Here I was all happy that Obama finally did something right and then I saw your post.  Unfortunately, you're probably right.

I always appreciate and usually agree with your posts.  However, I think your belief in an electoral solution is uncharacteristically naive.

I mean look at this bill - passed on a voice vote.  Nobody cares about the electorate.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:35 | Link to Comment pyite
pyite's picture

Fix this stupid headline you MORON.

A pocket veto is exactly the same as signing it -- 100% the opposite of a veto.  It is arguably the most asinine term in our political system.

 

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 15:32 | Link to Comment JonNadler
JonNadler's picture

A pocket veto is a legislative maneuver in United States federal lawmaking that allows the President to indirectly veto a bill. The U.S. Constitution requires the President to sign or veto any legislation placed on his desk within ten days (not including Sundays) while the United States Congress is in session. From the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 7 states:

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a Law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a Law.

 

 

 

 

you're dumber than I am

 

You can't eat gold

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 15:34 | Link to Comment nedwardkelly
nedwardkelly's picture

Yeah... I also just assumed 'pocket veto' meant he'd actually veto it... But that only applies if congress adjourns in the next 10 days. Otherwise it is passed into law by default.

FYI for anyone else: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_veto

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 17:28 | Link to Comment RichardP
RichardP's picture

But that only applies if congress adjourns in the next 10 days.

The bill must be returned to the body where the bill originated - in this case, the House of Representatives.  On Sept 29, the House voted to adjourn, pending the clean-up of some last-minute business.  That was a week ago.  If they have not left town, they surely will before the next 10 days is up.  No one left for the President to return it to at the end of 10 days.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 19:37 | Link to Comment Kina
Kina's picture

The more spite and mallice inserted into a comment the greater the chance the poster is totally wrong, as in pyite's silly effort. More polite ways exist.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 15:35 | Link to Comment Zan
Zan's picture

A pair of what -- pink shoes to match his dress?

edit: remove duplicate info; apparenly i am slow today

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 17:32 | Link to Comment pamriallc
pamriallc's picture

as many people who live in a police state would mention (if they were allowed to speak) is that under a dictator, the power of that dictator actually improves by maintaining a system at the ragged edge of chaos.

the idea that this VETO helps people is ridiculous.  importantly for any dictator, it *creates chaos* in which case everyone is so busy protecting themselves from the IRS bogeyman, the SEC bogeyman, the FINRA bogeyman, and these fine organizaitons are adding staff members by the HOUR in service of our great dictator. 

yes under a system in total chaos the *real problems* are swept under the rug as everyone lives in morbid fear of the *authorities* who do nothing more than tax the common people in glorification of themselves.

one need not look further than Venezuela with Chavez to understand that one need not have an organized system in order to achieve one's political means.  one only needs a totally chaotic system in order to loot that very system while everyone worries about themselves vs working "collectively" on real solutions which actually improve peoples lives.

what this action accomplishes is precisely the problem most Americans fear the most:  granting more power to the "Populist State" through whom all things are controlled.

"Bankruptcy of Moral Compass"

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:30 | Link to Comment goldmiddelfinger
goldmiddelfinger's picture

I'm not for the bill but it shows O's got no guts

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:34 | Link to Comment FunkyMonkeyBoy
FunkyMonkeyBoy's picture

The controlled demolision of the U.S. continues...

Inside job i say.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:35 | Link to Comment Clark_Griswold ...
Clark_Griswold Hedge Mnger's picture

Lawyers, sharpen your pencils.......

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:56 | Link to Comment NOTW777
NOTW777's picture

you hear that celebration hollar from the trial lawyers

obama campaign contributions rolling in

free homes for everyone

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:06 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:00 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

That talking point didn't take long to surface... Those evil liberal lawyers.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:05 | Link to Comment NOTW777
NOTW777's picture

now dont spill your koolaid

http://www.campaignmoney.com/trial_lawyer.asp

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:13 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

If the world were fair and everyone acted altruistically we wouldn't need lawyers.  I am sure that in a principaled libertopian universe lawyers are unnecessary, however, in the 'real world' TPTB have created obfuscated laws that require lawyers to navigate.  The reality is, when you make a mistake on this scale, you hurt people, and the lawyers get rich.

I would counter your paranoia with my equally paranoid statement: TPTB make us hate lawyers so we don't litigate and stand up for our rights.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 19:39 | Link to Comment Bringin It
Bringin It's picture

There are too many lawyers.  Most are parasitic scum.

Where I live there really are no lawyers, courts are impossibly clogged and slow by design.  You assume your own risks and if there is a problem, you just work it out on your own, party to party.  People are free-er and happier without the oppressive burden.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:05 | Link to Comment LostWages
LostWages's picture

And on the other side, the banksters are trying to put a Stop Payment on the contributions they made last week to Senators who rushed this thru at the last minute.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:07 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

You've got that completely backward.  Time to step back and read what is going on.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:36 | Link to Comment schoolsout
schoolsout's picture

I guess he figures the populace is, at least, paying attention to this issue...

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:36 | Link to Comment carbonmutant
carbonmutant's picture

It's not likly that our current Teleprompter Puppet had much to do with it...

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:37 | Link to Comment Thunder Dome
Thunder Dome's picture

SHOCKED Obummer didn't bail out the banksters on this!

 

Is the angry mob gowing in strength?

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:44 | Link to Comment Bob
Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:05 | Link to Comment Conrad Murray
Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:32 | Link to Comment Ripped Chunk
Ripped Chunk's picture

Yes

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:36 | Link to Comment LoneStarHog
LoneStarHog's picture

I wonder just how busy the Secret Service will be after reading some of the received comments.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 15:30 | Link to Comment Xedus129
Xedus129's picture

Why is there a white ford van parked on my street?

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:38 | Link to Comment Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

THE AGONIST - And Their Eulogies Sang Me to Sleep (OFFICIAL)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXzIeI0mkFI

And Mike Castle sucks.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:06 | Link to Comment Conrad Murray
Conrad Murray's picture

So does that noise.  Christ.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 20:13 | Link to Comment Bringin It
Bringin It's picture

Wow! Agreed.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:37 | Link to Comment Commander Cody
Commander Cody's picture

There will be other attempts to circumvent current law to aid the criminals.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:39 | Link to Comment unwashedmass
unwashedmass's picture

 

good for O....screw the banks...of course, it will probably mean they bring out the hellfires to take him down, but....at last he's doing something for the people

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:38 | Link to Comment Dr. Richard Head
Dr. Richard Head's picture

Thank you Obama.  I have never said it before, but it is due today.  THANK YOU. 

Let the mele begin.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:39 | Link to Comment LoneStarHog
LoneStarHog's picture

Just a thought:  Obama refuses to support the Bill prior to the elections, then issues an Executive Order right after.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:45 | Link to Comment Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

The lame duck session will epic.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:59 | Link to Comment breezer1
breezer1's picture

as i have felt all along. nothing but damage control until after the elections, that is unless a great distraction is required. we are witnessing collapse.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:14 | Link to Comment cmalbatros
cmalbatros's picture

+1 , Indeed , just a pre election sweetner to calm the masses . Business as usual in 2011.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:41 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

So much for the Obama bashing that went on when the first article was written.

Think we'll see any apologies?  Right.

Go back and read some of the downright nasty comments.  Shameful.

And, no, I didn't vote for him.  It's all about fair chances.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:45 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

You don't believe he's earned the contempt? 

I worked like hell to elect him, but. 

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:54 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

On this bill, or just in general?  Contempt for which action/inaction on his part?

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:00 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

I look at it this way: He clearly needs to have a fire maintained under his presidential rear.  On any and everything.  Giving him the "benefit of the doubt" seems long played out to me.  

But each to his own.  I hear what you're saying.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:14 | Link to Comment Conrad Murray
Conrad Murray's picture

Black Bush is the same as all the other puppets.  Collect a paycheck while doing what told (allow the pillaging of America) or go down like Kennedy and Reagan.  He deserves nothing but disdain.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 15:18 | Link to Comment mojine
mojine's picture

Disdain AND contempt! All of them!

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:49 | Link to Comment Bagbalm
Bagbalm's picture

And being afraid to sign this in the face of overwhelming condemnation is so heroic it makes up for everything else? Not hardly.

If you came home and your kid had burned down the garage I suppose it would be ok if he took the trash out like you told him?

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 15:19 | Link to Comment knukles
knukles's picture

Well, the House of America is burning down and the O sent the Dalai Lama out a back door past the trash.  That qualify?

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:50 | Link to Comment SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

'Fair chances'? Whats that supposed to mean?

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:53 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

He cannot win either way with those who don't like him.  If he had signed the bill he would have hit a shit storm.  Since he hasn't, he is spineless.

How does the guy do the right thing? 

Does something = wrong.

Does nothing = wrong.

It's about giving the guy a fair chance.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 20:20 | Link to Comment Bringin It
Bringin It's picture

Rocky - I hear what you're saying.  Let's see what happens after the elections.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:14 | Link to Comment Eternal Student
Eternal Student's picture

+1 Rocky. I thought this bill was signed, sealed and delivered. I am stunned that it didn't go through. I'll also admit to thinking a lot of bad things about Obama, though I didn't write anything. I will apologize for my bad thoughts though (gosh - just call me Jimmy Carter).

And no, I didn't vote for him either. I do have to give him credit here. I'll take any change that I can get.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:28 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

Having earlier emailed Barry and now having been "centered" by RR, I've sent a follow-up thank-you to the Oreo-In-Chief. 

Sorry, RR, I just couldn't help that!

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 16:41 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

I'm a sucker for humor, Bob.  I like it.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:34 | Link to Comment SRV - ES339
SRV - ES339's picture

+1

Too bad you are the proverbial "outlier" on this one Rocky... he's black (Junk away), and the T Party gang will never stop playing that card (it's just too easy) until he's gone (or more to the point, until the big business interests behind them are back in control). Could you imagine Michael Vick being welcomed back like a conquering hero if he had been responsible for Ben Roethlisberger's indiscretions? Of course not... America has come a very long way... but there is so much more to do.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 15:47 | Link to Comment FortyTwoIsTheAnswer
FortyTwoIsTheAnswer's picture

I'm not one of the bashers but can understand why people are upset. Don't expect a pocket veto - essentially not taking action - to change the opinion of people upset with Obama. Now, if he had outright vetoed it, then I think your point would be valid.

(BTW, not a basher and I did not junk you)

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 17:40 | Link to Comment RichardP
RichardP's picture

If you carefully read the reports, you will see statements to the effect that Obama is sending this back to the originators so that it can be re-written to make certain that the banks don't profit from this bill on the back of fraudulent paperwork.  The White House expects that the bill will be back with those safeguards placed into the bill, and then they will sign it.  This is a procedural maneuver to get rid of the potential problem with the bill re. the current foreclosure problem.  The White House is not vetoing the bill so much as they are returning it and asking that it be tightened up before they sign it.  Absent the issue of the bill maybe giving the fraudsters an out, the bill makes a great deal of sense.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 20:25 | Link to Comment Bringin It
Bringin It's picture

RichardP - the bankster appologist arriving on que to say - the bill makes a great deal of sense

What a surprise. 

Hello Richard.

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 00:43 | Link to Comment RichardP
RichardP's picture

Bringin It - you are not even close.  I will re-word my last sentence for you:  If you re-word the bill's language to make certain that the banks cannot use the bill to escape liability for fraud, the bill makes a great deal of sense.

There are plenty of non bank-related uses of notary publics that would benefit from the bill's passage.  Here is only one example out of many:  Allowing a notarized power of attorney for health care to be valid in a state other than the one in which it was signed is a good idea, assuming the notary was a valid notary.

But the main point of my comment was Obama was not vetoing the bill so much as he was returning it for the originators to tighten up the language.  When the wording of the bill ensures that banks can't use the bill's language to escape liability for fraud, the White House has stated that Obama will sign it.  That point was in response to the comment directly above mine.

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 09:37 | Link to Comment Bringin It
Bringin It's picture

Richard - No surprise at all on your part?  I think a bill to expand the geographic acceptance of notary signings at a time just before an enormous scandal centered on robo-signing abuses of notary and other signatures looks like a hand caught in the cookie jar to me.

The bill would make the process even more obtuse and easier to scam with robo-notaries from out-fo-state.

Yes? / No? / Maybe?

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 18:14 | Link to Comment Dburn
Dburn's picture

I agree with you RR.

Nice, the guy finally does something right and out comes the venom. Good solid fact based reasoning and plenty of fact sourcing to support  wild claims like a Kenya born sec of defense. JHC. Does it hurt when you fuckers think?

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 20:06 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Some of those who complain about kool-aid drinkers are in the kitchen mixing up a batch of their own brew -- and are pissed that some won't drink it.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:40 | Link to Comment Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Obama To Veto H.R. 3808

And then implement it with an executive order.

Besides, this was just a straw man, a red herring. I think we all need to look at what else was passed in the Congressional rush to exit stage right. This was way too easy. Something else stinks in the Ponzi wood pile.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:42 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Your tin-foil hat is slipping there, CD.  You are implying conspiracy where none is apparent.  You are better than this.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:56 | Link to Comment Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

RR

I simply don't trust the Ponzi nor any institutional, corporate or individual supporter of the Ponzi. It has nothing to do with Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, whatever.

My experience shows me that when the mainstream is speaking in one voice, and this story was remarkable with regard to how quickly it made headlines across the MSM universe, it's a plant, a conditioning of the public mind, a straw man or red herring.

The MSM does what it's told. When it begins to speak together using pretty much the same script, I look in the opposite direction I'm being pointed towards.

BTW I understand this bill wasn't as bad as it was promoted by many to be. That alone means it was a strawman.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:03 | Link to Comment aheady
aheady's picture

Indeed.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:13 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Trusting the Ponzi is a separate issue.  Political parties is a separate issue.

You're smelling ulterior motives based on what?  The MSM reaction?  Both sides of an issue can't be motivated simultaneously.  Straw man or stalking horse?

None of this was proposed at the original ZH article, now it smells?

Is HR3808 The Equivalent Of TARP 2 And Obama's "Get Out Of Bail" Gift Card For The High Frequency Signing Scandal?

My original comment here was just about this bill and Obama's failure to sign.  It was a no-win for him either way and nobody that I can find has changed an opinion, good or bad.  Nothing accomplished except another implement with which to do some bashing.  It's not going to get better folks.  We have to stop or we all go down together, poking out each other's eyes on the way down.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:25 | Link to Comment Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Sorry RR. It's all intertwined. I agree that we shouldn't let "issues" divide us in our opposition against the Ponzi. You have my full support on that front.

It sounds like you and I are talking past each other. I'm talking bigger picture here.

Don't conflate my posts with what others are saying nor with other ZH articles from yesterday on this subject. I'm very clear in my point of view. I trust no one, regardless of their affiliation, affliction or past allegiance, if they are distracting or dividing the population or they are enabling the distraction of the population. I will call foul and give zero trust. Even if it's innocent, being a innocent tool doesn't mean they get a pass.

And that includes a major portion of the population BTW.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 15:07 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

At some point we reason ourselves into circles and have to take a thing at face value lest we lose our grip on reality.

In the long view the actual reason for his signing doesn't matter:  He cannot survive politically by signing it, so he cannot sign it.

It is really no more complicated than that.

An informed populous with pitchforks and torches can give the president an out.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 16:36 | Link to Comment Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

I understand your point. Being cautious or leery doesn't mean I don't work from a basis of knowledge or understanding. I'm not floating off in some never never land with no real grasp of reality. I simply don't step off the lilly pad I'm currently on without knowing where and why I'm stepping.

Obama signing or not signing is the straw man. Why was this old piece of legislation given the push in the last days of Congress and dropped onto Obama's desk as, for all intents and purposes, an orphan. If signed it would not have started up the foreclosure process that is being dragged down by fraud, though that's what we were told it would do if signed.

So why was this straw man served up on a platter for Obama to easily reject. I understand it was a simple political choice. Obama couldn't sign it politically. So why was it given to him to be signed or not signed? This is what I want to know.

 

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 17:00 | Link to Comment bingaling
bingaling's picture

I think you are absolutely right CD . What wasn't reported in the press will probably be more important . These things don't happen by accident and I don't believe the press would report this bill as a bad thing if it wasn't meant to get the veto . The press could have just as easily spun it to make it sound like the bill was a good thing . Like the consumer protection one or healthcare or the 700billion bailout . Honestly people are being naive .

Who owns reuters and who owns the AP? in other words who owns the source?

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 17:05 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Obama signing or not signing is the straw man.

It is not a straw man.  It is an act, or a non-action.  I was addressing the venom and the hatred that was hurled at the man for either doing or not doing what he has to do.  Motives are a secondary issue!  I was focused merely on the treatment of elected officials in derogatory ways.  It's not necessary for civil discourse.  You are making the issue more broad than that -- I was staying on the topic of the article.  We agree completely on the nature of the political, banking, and social beasts.   I had just had enough after reading the vitriol just above my first comment.  What would have been the difference had he signed the bill?  Not much apparently.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 17:28 | Link to Comment cossack55
cossack55's picture

I would advise you to join the Anarchist Party but it doesn't exist, or maybe it is like a party of one.  Nonetheless, to believe in politics is to ignore evil incarnate.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:20 | Link to Comment Edmon Plume
Edmon Plume's picture

I can appreciate and relate to your cynicism.  I wasn't like that until I started learning about the history of central banking.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:25 | Link to Comment Assetman
Assetman's picture

Hey, Rocky... some of the best conspiracies are not apparent.  Otherwise the Fed would have ended as an institution in 1963.

And yes... I should be better than this myself.  But, alas, I am not.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 16:46 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

I guess if conspiracies were all that apparent they wouldn't be successful (or real conspiracies?).  Most folks just went off the rails on my comment because I was willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt.  That wasn't good enough.  It was incumbent upon me to swig the kool-aid and bash the guy.  I was not willing to do that.  It's too goddam easy, requiring little thought.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:45 | Link to Comment willien1derland
willien1derland's picture

CD-->TOTALLY AGREE - My thoughts fixate on the old magician's adage 'Nothing up my sleeve...' - folowed by distraction - followed by applause (pocket veto) - followed by shock when we find out the really happened - great insight as always!

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:48 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

Agreed that we should remain vigilant in these times.  Who would ever have imagined we would be where we are today . . . I mean, really believed it?

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 20:31 | Link to Comment Bringin It
Bringin It's picture

Who would ever have imagined we would be where we are today . . . I mean, really believed it?

Me.  And let me tell you, it gets worse.  Much much worse.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:48 | Link to Comment A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

No no no. Sister Elizabeth will just conjure a new law out of thin air using her new regulatory super powers.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:57 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

You are referring to Ms. Warren I presume.  Yeah, that could be the case.  At least it won't be some warmed over bill a few years old that passed surreptitiously.  Somehow that, too, will be Obama's fault. 

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 15:03 | Link to Comment Screwball
Screwball's picture

It wasn't covered much, and I can't find it right now, but E. Warren was replaced last week sometime.  Ted Kauffman, the senator was named her replacement.  Not sure of the details, nor why it happened.

Unless of course, that was also changed.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 16:51 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Kinda like the revisions by the BLS, post the headline and change it later.

It appears she is still in place, can't find info to the contrary.

http://www.google.com/search?q=elizabeth+warren&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&r...

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 22:10 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

Senator Ted Kaufman was selected on Monday as chairman of the Congressional panel overseeing the $700 billion financial sector bailout program — a day after the program officially expired, Reuters reported.

Last week, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, picked Mr. Kaufman, a critic of Wall Street, to fill the seat vacated by Elizabeth Warren, who left the panel to become a special adviser to President Obama charged with helping set up the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

 

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/kaufman-to-replace-warren-o...

Sat, 10/09/2010 - 13:34 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

I see -- I thought everyone was saying she had been replaced as head ofConsumer Financial Protection Bureau.  I was too far ahead of an old curve.  

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:49 | Link to Comment SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

Sure he will CD, Im sure the Blackberry email went out to the banksters telling them to just sit tight, nothing to worry about. Just have to placate the insolent peasantry a bit with this transparent BS move, but it will be back in place shortly, protecting the pigs hind quarters.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:03 | Link to Comment centerline
centerline's picture

Whomever is junking these can go ahead and pass me one.

 

This current legislation got past most everyone for nearly a week with the only unanimous vote I know of in quite some time.  Complete MSM blackout on the subject as well - along with so little coverage to date on the whole mortage debacle.  I think CD is right on here.  Something is rotten.  This was too clean... and too quiet.  Like I said before, this whole mortgage mess is likely the next "tank in the streets" thing.  And the O-ministration cannot afford any more public anger when it comes to banker bailouts.  This issue is going to be handled in some double-secret manner that will unfold for us prols later.  

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:11 | Link to Comment centerline
centerline's picture

Ahhhh... there's the junk.  I feel better now.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:31 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

If you say so--there ya go! 8>)

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:17 | Link to Comment Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

This mortgage disaster (for the banks and their bond holders [screw the bank stock holders, the bond holders are the interested parties here]) will eventually be handled politically, not legally. Or should I say, well before the legal case(s) makes it (their) way to the highest court of the land, it will be decided politically. Exactly how that will be handled is immaterial. It will be a political decision that makes it go away.

So this little "issue" was timed to give the public a reason to "believe" that maybe, just maybe, (and just in time for the off year elections BTW) Obama and company can be trusted to side with "we the people". If the Republicans were in the White House, the same thing would have gone down.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:24 | Link to Comment centerline
centerline's picture

Agreed.  To let the legal system have it would akin to tossing it to the wolves.  Would hate to bring the Constitution and other silly legal thingies to bear on this.  The rub here is that whatever is done politically will be very challenging for the administration to spin.  Hard to see this as anything more than some sort of banker bailout.  A particular angle I can think of though is the divide between the middle class by demonizing those who "elect" not to pay thier mortgage... the strategic defaulters... on the premise that no one should live for free or get a house for free while other hard working people continue to do "the right thing."

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:34 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

Divide and conquer will be tremendous down that fault.  You can hear the screeching here all day, every day . . .

Why is it so much easier to hate your neighbor?

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 17:09 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Because my neighbors are stupid, apathetic voters who think that by empowering the criminals who hold a gun to my head, while dis-empowering themselves somehow makes the world a better place?

What did I win?

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:27 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

You're saying the Republicans in Congress voted for this with the Democrats in preparation for the upcoming election to help Obama? 

Sorry to be so dense, what did I miss?

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 20:39 | Link to Comment Bringin It
Bringin It's picture

Sorry to be so dense, what did I miss?

Rocky - You missed the Heglian dialectic.  Why are you so slow on the draw today?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nucSvl7VXVM

Or better yet, what have you done with the real Rocky?

Come back real Rocky.  Where are you?

Full disclosure - I'm happy Obummer did not sign the bill.

Sat, 10/09/2010 - 13:41 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Look.  I'm a simple coon.  I don't know Hegelian dialect from Southern drawl.  I just see weirdness when someone proposes that Repubs and Dems vote together on something so that Obama looks good?  That's just faulty logic.  Don't attribute a larger, more sophisticated motive to Congressional action.  Gimme a break.  If there ain't a pocket full of money involved there is no way these cretins will "agree" on anything.

Thank you very much for your reasoned and patient comment.  I do appreciate that.  And thanks for the link to my theme song as well.  

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 15:17 | Link to Comment Trifecta Man
Trifecta Man's picture

Maybe it just needs some more loopholes. /sarcasm

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:36 | Link to Comment cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

I think they felt that congress was not the right place to resolve this -- at least not so near elections. It will quietly slip back into the courts where some kind of dark magic will fix it all.

But it will be useful as a cat's paw for QE2. That was probably baked into the cake a week ago. Watch for it, either right around elections as a "proposal" or shortly after as actual legislation. Then, $1T to the banks.

It's an end-game. No other justification required.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 16:44 | Link to Comment Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

The purpose, function and likely outcome of this bill (if this bill was signed) was completely misrepresented by the mouth piece of the powers that be, meaning the mainstream media.

Why? This is what I want to know. Why take an old and broken down piece of legislation and push it through by voice vote, then have the MSM call it something it's not? Was it simply a way of bolstering Obama's street cred. "I'm a populist. I protect "We the People" before the banksters."

It was too easy, there are too many unanswered questions, the main stream press was pushing a false story and I smell something coming from the wood pile.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 16:49 | Link to Comment cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

At that level of game, you are probably onto something. They needed a story? Or they needed something to easily shoot down?

I've gotten to where I almost never trust reports at first blush. And forget about skimming headlines; today I saw one over an op-ed piece that was 100% the opposite of the content under it. I read the piece twice just to see if I got it backwards. Nope.

See? You've infected me.

Bastard

 ;)

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 17:12 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Above all costs, they need to protect their facade of integrity, otherwise the sheeple might wise up and stay home on election day.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:41 | Link to Comment assumptionblindness
assumptionblindness's picture

Dear Congress,

WTF?!  All changes to the law must not be explicitly stated!  Jamie is really pissed about this and wants to know which junior staffer neglected to include the loophole language that was submitted by JPM legal?  This delay is going to F-up all of our plans for the next round of MBS purchases by the Fed. Heads are gonna' roll!

Regards,

Barry

 

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:43 | Link to Comment virgilcaine
virgilcaine's picture

Must have got my email..  'it would undermine what little faith was left in the system 

and no 2nd term'.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:45 | Link to Comment A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Pocket Veto...or Pocket Pool?

All the cloak and dagger over this bill up until now is dubious at best.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:43 | Link to Comment 101 years and c...
101 years and counting's picture

And, immediately after vetoing it, he sent a letter to Congress to start working on TARP 2, with the requested amount of $3-4 trillion.

So, the deadbeats get to keep their homes.  The banks will get bailed out.  And the people that pay their taxes AND mortgages get it up the ass again.

 

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:47 | Link to Comment Edmon Plume
Edmon Plume's picture

Renters get hosed, too, and doubly so because they don't have any interest to write off, even if they are paying a mortgage equivalent.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:45 | Link to Comment Edmon Plume
Edmon Plume's picture

They'll just create a new bill called the "Foreclosure Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2010", and stuff it into that.  How else will they get the people to swallow it?

Anyone with half a brain can see that the problem with the bill was merely titular.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:46 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

That would be better.  At least it could be debated and rated on its own merit rather than rammed thru in the middle of the night with a unanimous vote.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:52 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

Congress freaks have already openly admitted that they "don't have time to read" the crap they vote for.  Now that we tolerate that, they're arguably free to do anything. 

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:01 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

This you can be sure they read.  In it's entirety:

An Act

To require any Federal or State court to recognize any notarization made by a notary public licensed by a State other than the State where the court is located when such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010’.

SEC. 2. RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS IN FEDERAL COURTS.

Each Federal court shall recognize any lawful notarization made by a notary public licensed or commissioned under the laws of a State other than the State where the Federal court is located if--

(1) such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce; and

(2)(A) a seal of office, as symbol of the notary public’s authority, is used in the notarization; or

(B) in the case of an electronic record, the seal information is securely attached to, or logically associated with, the electronic record so as to render the record tamper-resistant.

SEC. 3. RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS IN STATE COURTS.

Each court that operates under the jurisdiction of a State shall recognize any lawful notarization made by a notary public licensed or commissioned under the laws of a State other than the State where the court is located if--

(1) such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce; and

(2)(A) a seal of office, as symbol of the notary public’s authority, is used in the notarization; or

(B) in the case of an electronic record, the seal information is securely attached to, or logically associated with, the electronic record so as to render the record tamper-resistant.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) ELECTRONIC RECORD- The term ‘electronic record’ has the meaning given that term in section 106 of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (15 U.S.C. 7006).

(2) LOGICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH- Seal information is ‘logically associated with’ an electronic record if the seal information is securely bound to the electronic record in such a manner as to make it impracticable to falsify or alter, without detection, either the record or

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:12 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

I give you credit, RR: You're hanging in there with logic against the mob.  Good luck with that.

I'm going back to the email link to send my thanks.  There's nothing wrong with that, either.   

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:10 | Link to Comment reading
reading's picture

I liked the part in the CNBC article when they asked some of the Congress-people about it...oh, that well we didn't really think it could be used to help the banks.  Really, the first fucking piece of legislation BOTH parties agree on and they want us to believe it wasn't politically motivated?  How fucking stupid do they really think people are.  All of sudden we were just all "happy-clappy" on the same side of a bill...

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:44 | Link to Comment OutLookingIn
OutLookingIn's picture

Too bad the "Yeas" or "Nays" for this bill were not recorded in the house or the senate? No way to truly know who voted for it now. The simple fact that it got a passing grade in both chambers goes to show how pervasive Wall Street is in Washington. The latest count for bank lobbyists has them out numbering all Congressmen by 5 to 1 and with lots of 'loot' to spread around!

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:50 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Read the original post:

Is HR3808 The Equivalent Of TARP 2 And Obama's "Get Out Of Bail" Gift Card For The High Frequency Signing Scandal?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3808

Votes:Apr 27, 2010: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote.

A record of each representative’s position was not kept.Sep 27, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator’s position was not kept.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:08 | Link to Comment centerline
centerline's picture

Seems that plausible deniability remains intact.  Just needed a quorum.  I suppose there no way for the average person to connect the dots here as to who was in the room to form the quorum.

 

 If plausible deniability is in fact possible here - then the answer is easy... this was theater.  Pure theater.  The real action taking place in the parking lot while everyone is watching the show.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:52 | Link to Comment Bagbalm
Bagbalm's picture

An incumbent passed it. All you need to know to fix that problem.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:03 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Vote every single one of them OUT -- even if you have to hold your nose.

Is that what you had in mind?  I'm on board.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:14 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

Ummm, that doesn't sound fair, does it?  8>)

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:30 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

I get the humor, Bob.   A little of my own medicine to be sure.

Not any less fair than they have been with us.

So, you're in?

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:39 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

No, I'm not in.  The better angels of my nature responded to your halcion calls in this case, but I still feel unforgivably betrayed by the Oreo-In-Chief. 

I did email my follow-up thanks, however.

Kudos on fighting the good fight. 

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:34 | Link to Comment Ripped Chunk
Ripped Chunk's picture

Fair to who Bob?

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:41 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

Follow poor Rocky's battering from the top of the thread and you'll understand.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:54 | Link to Comment Ripped Chunk
Ripped Chunk's picture

Gracias

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:47 | Link to Comment SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

'Populist fallout'? Obamas latest poll numbers sit at 40% approval, the worst ever after 2 years. Hell he may as well enact the thing, he's done and the insolent peasantry are collecting up rotted vegetables to throw in his face.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:19 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Worst ever?  You might want to take a look at this:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:47 | Link to Comment Fearless Rick
Fearless Rick's picture

Somebody - shit, I think it was me - might have mentioned last night that sending this bill up was a political ploy, it being the height of silly season, after all.

Get wit da program, ZHers.

Pocketed all your notaries be.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:48 | Link to Comment John McCloy
John McCloy's picture

This was a softball brownie points for the President. The administration needs all the populist points it can score at this point. Unfortunately he still sided with bankers heavily during fin reg.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:22 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Let's use the WABAC machine here.  What would you have written had Obama signed the bill?

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:48 | Link to Comment Id fight Gandhi
Id fight Gandhi's picture

Don't the congressional votes override any veto. 2/3rd votes? So just a delay.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:55 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

Sounds right--how's that gonna play??

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:58 | Link to Comment Id fight Gandhi
Id fight Gandhi's picture

Obama looks strong for now. Elections pass, then they pass it then.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 19:28 | Link to Comment RichardP
RichardP's picture

Read the press on Obama's decision.  He is, in effect, just returning the bill to the originating House so that they can tighten up the bill, then Obama will sign it.  Obama wants language inserted into the bill that ensures the banks can't use the bill to benefit from any fraud they have perpetrated.

Again - Obama's intent is not to kill the bill, but to tighten it up.  It will come back to him.  If sufficiently tightened up, he will sign it.  As he should.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:49 | Link to Comment williambanzai7
williambanzai7's picture

It's his party that controls both houses. The horse's asses passed this law without giving it any thought at all. Unanimous consent and roll call.

I can tell you that it is a good idea to standardize notarial protocol in all 50 States. But to pass a half assed law without considering all the implications...and to conveniently do it just when the foreclosure snafu hits the fan?

They all got caught with their hands in the cookie jar 30 days before election day.

 

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:41 | Link to Comment Assetman
Assetman's picture

That's exactly it, Bonzai.

And it's in Obama's best interests to tell a corrupted Congress to "put those cookies back", rather than to try to keep the cookies-- but lose the constituency.  It's not like they're going to go to jail or anything.

There will be plenty of opportunity to sneak something else in that accomplishes the same thing after the midterms.  I foresee something around Christmas, when the masses are drowsy on egg nog.  You know, like what Timmay did with Fannie and Freddie on unlimited bailout support.

Wasn't that last year?

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 15:29 | Link to Comment Blano
Blano's picture

It sure was.  The evening of December 24th, I believe.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 19:49 | Link to Comment iDealMeat
iDealMeat's picture

Yup.. HeliBen and Timmay will threaten Pelosi in a panic and tell her she needs to call congress back real quick to deal with an un-related non issue. Then they'll quietly accept back this unsigned legislation so it becomes law.. done..

either way.. now, or just after elections.. blows up all the same.. might as well trade up Oct..

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 20:52 | Link to Comment Bringin It
Bringin It's picture

The Federal Reserve itself came into being one Christmas Eve long ago in 1913, when most congress critters had already gone home and only a few were in attendance.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:56 | Link to Comment Dr. No
Dr. No's picture

A bill passed with a voice vote only to be vetoed by not signing.  Lol.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:05 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Makes ya wonder don't it?  Should have just sent the whole session out to do some yard work.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:29 | Link to Comment cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

+1 LOL

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 14:58 | Link to Comment Ripped Chunk
Ripped Chunk's picture

Just goes to show what a lame assed, chickenshit, assfucked group of individuals our "legislature" is.

Every one of these fucks needs to be voted out over the next ten years. Every single last one of them.

So pay attention folks. Make lists so you don't forget. Fuck all of these scumbags.

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:57 | Link to Comment UnRealized Reality
UnRealized Reality's picture

This is a complete bunch of BULLSHIT!! The

only way that citizens get anything is

before elections. These people are nothing

but a bunch of scumbags.

PS - CD I apologize for insisting that

somebody should come forward, I now

realize I experienced a "SENIOR MOMENT".

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!