Congress Now Blaming Obama For Its Embarrassing Override Of His Veto

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Explain.

For one thing, suing maximum amount of money over injury and damages is a good thing, but suing for death is plain stupid -- no amount of money is going to bring the dead person back alive or healthy or wealthy. In some cases, I can see suing for the cost of fees associated with dealing with a dead relative, but they aren't that expensive. A funeral is optional, and the family members already have the estate of the dead relative to pay for that and much more. Suing over death is stupid -- it just makes dead people's relatives rich as if some "compensatory award" for the death of their relative. Absolutely re ed.

For a second thing, suing one of our largest trading partners can't be good for our economy and overall relations with Saudi, and in addition they are one of the most stable nations left in the most volatile part of the world with a family of monarchs that have traditionally been capitalistic and open to Western relations while putting their religious implications aside. The human rights issue in Saudi is another matter, but that goes for most of the Middle East. While terror attacks such as 9/11 and jihadi groups have certainly been funded by tycoons with ties to Saudi (every Hajji Sunni Muslim in the world has "ties" there, technically) there is no evidence or reason to believe that the Saudi government is in any way responsible for such evil.

[Winehole23]

That's one thing. Turning around after you voted to override the veto and saying Obama (even though he VETOED THE BILL) didn't educate you enough about the risks is an absolute joke that even you should be able to put your pom poms down to admit.

Darrin never puts down the pom poms, and he never speaks ill of Republicans.

[ElNono]

For one thing, suing maximum amount of money over injury and damages is a good thing, but suing for death is plain stupid -- no amount of money is going to bring the dead person back alive or healthy or wealthy. In some cases, I can see suing for the cost of fees associated with dealing with a dead relative, but they aren't that expensive. A funeral is optional, and the family members already have the estate of the dead relative to pay for that and much more. Suing over death is stupid -- it just makes dead people's relatives rich as if some "compensatory award" for the death of their relative. Absolutely re ed.

For a second thing, suing one of our largest trading partners can't be good for our economy and overall relations with Saudi, and in addition they are one of the most stable nations left in the most volatile part of the world with a family of monarchs that have traditionally been capitalistic and open to Western relations while putting their religious implications aside. The human rights issue in Saudi is another matter, but that goes for most of the Middle East. While terror attacks such as 9/11 and jihadi groups have certainly been funded by tycoons with ties to Saudi (every Hajji Sunni Muslim in the world has "ties" there, technically) there is no evidence or reason to believe that the Saudi government is in any way responsible for such evil.

Actually, the major issue has nothing to do with that. It has to do with reciprocity agreements, where the US grants immunity to certain sovereign states in order for those states to grant the US immunity. This works out such that if another country asks the US for military or humanitarian aid, and the US accidentally (or not) causes certain deaths or damages, they're immune from lawsuits. The only way the US can get that kind of agreements is if there's reciprocity.

Now, some people will say those agreements are bad and dangerous, and that's certainly a valid opinion on it's own merits, but then when the US gets sued on an international court, peeps can't just pump a fist and claim "we're 'Murica, we dun get orders from nobody"...