Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Infringer Tries To Shut Down Reporting On Her Infringement
An anonymous reader writes "Further to the previous story on Slashdot where attorney Candice Schwager threw threats to sue a photographer who reported a DMCA violation against her for infringing use of his photography: Candice has now made a DMCA threat of her own against Petapixel, a photography site that reported on her infringement. The kicker? She's sent the DMCA notice an apparent six times not to Petapixel's registrar or their hosting service, but to Godaddy, her own registrar."
This story makes no sense at all. And "threw threats"?
She is!
how the fuck did that happen?
oh, wait.. she's from texas. never mind.
Can a person fail the turing test for being too dumb to create a description that most people on slashdot can understand?
Roll on, Streisand effect, roll on.
petapixel's registrar appear to also be GoDaddy. Of course that may not be their host...in fact probably is not. Her takedown notice still makes her sound like a lunatic though.
http://houstonattorneysocialmedia.com/law-firms-are-embracing-social-medis-for-top-seo-rankings-in-texas/
Apparently she's an expert in social media.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
That's an unusual and quite unexpected number of tagged categories.
She needs to look up "fair use". In case she's reading, I refer her to 17 USC 107
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
So, how long before the Texas bar pulls the Jack Thompson trigger on Ms. Schwager for conduct unbecoming?
They need a complaint first:
Contact a CDC Regional Office
If you have questions about the grievance process or the status of a grievance, or if you need to request a grievance form, please call the office located nearest you.
Austin, Texas
Phone: (512) 427-1350, or
(877) 953-5535
Fax: (512) 427-4169
Chief Disciplinary Counsel
1414 Colorado St.
Austin, Texas 78701
Dallas, Texas
Phone: (972) 383-2900
Fax: (972) 383-2935
Chief Disciplinary Counsel
14651 Dallas Parkway, Ste 925
Dallas, Texas 75254
Houston, Texas
Phone: (713) 758-8200
Fax: (713) 758-8292
Chief Disciplinary Counsel
600 Jefferson, Ste. 1000
Houston, Tx 77002
San Antonio, Texas
Phone: (210) 208-6600
Fax: (210) 208-6625
Chief Disciplinary Counsel
Federal Reserve Building
126 E. Nueva, Suite 200
San Antonio, Texas 78204
How to file a complaint:
http://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Filing_a_Complaint&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=15451
Grievance Form:
http://www.texasbar.com/Content/NavigationMenu/ForThePublic/TheGrievanceProcess/HowtoFileaGrievance/GrievanceFormEnglish.pdf
Excellent! Now off to complain away....
Om, nomnomnom...
Petapixel is reporting on her copyright infringement. As such they have a thumbnail screen shot of her site as proof. That thumbnail includes her logo, just barely readable. This woman needs to go back to law school and look up "fair use" and the difference between copyrights and trademarks. Next thing you know, she will be claiming copyright infringement for publishing her DMCA letter. If she really is practicing law then she ought to be disbarred for her behavior.
It says:
Sorry right clicking is disabled, please respect copyright.
WTF? really lady? You didn't with that photo and go on some crazy rant. I can't even read some of what she writes without just rolling my eyes.
Make no mistake -- Texas is indeed full of dumbasses. It's not a unique condition. I have lived here ALL my life and the one thing I have come to understand about dumbasses, is not all of them are malicious assholes. We didn't all vote for Bush (or Perry for that matter) but WAY too many of us did.
Then Karl Rove put his thumb on the scale and nothing else mattered.
Does anyone else find it ironic that the actual infringer's sites [ http://chicksandpolitics.com/ , http://atty4kids.org/ ] have an anti-right-click script that produces a smarmy message about respecting copyrights?
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
A clear example, if only a recent one, this is.
She needs to hear the other point-of-view from someone she trusts and respects. Someone she will listen to and actually take it onboard when they tell her she's being pretty stupid and wasting her own time. Probably someone she works for at one of the sites she maintains. And if you locate someone, be nice. Real nice. I shouldn't need to say it, but distingush between Ms Schwager and her actions and also between her actions and these organisations. Point out how her idiocy is making them look bad.
Wade.
It looks like someone took her site down.. Nothing but 404 pages
http://www.schwagerconsulting.com/
Although her Linkedin profile states that she has worked as an attorney in the past, the Texas bar website does not show her as a current member. She claims to have made a voluntary career change and left the practice of law to become an attorney marketing guru. That's somewhat plausible, except that NO attorney who has been admitted to the bar would allow their admission to lapse voluntarily except in VERY unusual circumstances. Even those who leave the practice of law almost always maintain their bar memberships. I would bet she was disbarred or suspended for an extended time.
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
Why or how was that rant worth posting? Slashdot has been an effective avenue for wasting time for its whole existence (in addition to having some worthwhile articles). The trick is to read the headline, maybe part of the summary, and decide if you want to read further.
After reading some of her posts, I'm not all that surprised she has special needs children.
Lest you forget, and I'm sure you have all forgotten, one of the universally-despised Righthaven's early major defeats in court occurred when a judge decided that a non-profit could use a news article IN ITS ENTIRETY as fair use http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/03/copyright-troll-righthaven-achieves-spectacular-fair-use-loss/ . Can this woman lose a similar defense over a single image (not that the photographer has yet sued)? Perhaps she can, if only through her own incompetence. Odds have shifted in her favor, and in the favor of 1000s other organizations you may consider undeserving. Yes, that's the taste of victory turning to ash in your mouth. Remember to vote Pirate Party!
We could use Jack Thompson's cock. I think he has photos of it somewhere in the docket...
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Oh wait. You said flaming, not flamingos. It doesn't make any more sense now though.
PetaPixel Michael Zhang Exploits Disabled Kids Non-Profit
Couldn't this qualify as libel? And isn't she perjuring herself by claiming that this individual is violating her copyrights even though it's a clear cut case of fair use? Not to mention the crazy claims she made about the other individual.
This series of events have been so awkward and strange that I'm seriously starting to wonder if everyone is in it together to troll the internet. How is this crazy lunatic woman a lawyer, really, without even seemingly a basic understanding of the law?
Someone needs to put this hag in her place.
The judge didn't rule that any non-profit can take anything they want. You have to read the ruling to understand why he thought that particular non-profit using that particular article was fair use.
Teabaggers had nothing to do with the current economic crisis; they were a response to the crisis, not its cause. It was caused by decades of progressive erosion of banking regulations, and the culprits were a series of Republicans; mainly Senators and regulatory agency appointees put in by Republican presidents, from Reagan onwards. Of course, there were exacerbating additional insults, like the Dubya tax cuts, but the root cause was the evisceration of the regulations put into place to prevent just this sort of thing from happening.
And it's fair to say that Obama broke a lot of promises; he did. He has failed on so many levels; continuing and extending the unpopular TARP program, failing to take advantage of the brief period of Democratic control of Congress by getting his health care plan passed (and instead trying to play fair with the GOP, a party which makes no bones about its policy of doing everything it can to harm the country when the other party holds the White House in order to make the President look bad), and by knuckling under to the Republicans at every turn, getting a watered-down health care bill passed that ends up accomplishing nothing. It's not his fault; he's naive and inexperienced, and never should have been put up as a nominee -- but the brain trust at the national democratic party decided that anyone who could give one good speech was the democratic version of Reagan, so he was rushed in.
Waste of time? Maybe.
Absolutely unbelievably funny how stupid some people can be? Yes
Worth reading just for the giggles? Definitely.
[The Universe] has gone offline.
The problem I see is we've got 2 evils... and no clear "lesser" to be found!
Obama is the evil we already know, except likely to be amplified by the fact he'll be a lame duck if re-elected. (He can go full speed ahead with those "Green initiatives" he wanted so badly, but backed off on a bit, etc.)
Romney is the evil we don't yet know (though we're getting an increasingly good idea of just how evil the guy will be in the office of president).
Screw it .... I'm supporting Ron Paul until the end, just because the man offered people a pretty compelling alternative to the status-quo duopoly they're trying to shove down our collective throats. If I have to write his name in on a ballot, so be it.
I honestly don't consider you "part of the problem" if you truly think you're voting for a lesser of the 2 evils expected to be among the only 2 electable people for the position. The problem is the Republicrats who have a monopoly on power/money/influence and are just as concerned with hanging onto that control, long-term, as they are getting one of their factions elected over the other one in a given election.
But as I say ... This is one of those cases where I'm finding it really difficult to say Obama is "less of an evil" than Romney would be, or vice-versa. Both of them will "stay the course" of taking us right off the cliff.
GoDaddy IS Petapixel's registrar.
Did you read the original story? How she threatened to sue the owner of a photo that sent a DMCA? This is just a followup story.
According to Rmoney, 500000 a month would be successful.
Of course, Obama is a recipreversexclusion - had the economy created half a million jobs last month, they'd be saying it should create 2 million. No matter what he did or was (allegedly) responsible for, it's wrong.
Much like Libya, when before Obama and NATO intervened the Republicans were screaming that something had to be done. And while the intervention was occurring, they suddenly cared deeply about undeclared wars and demanded he stop. And afterwards, when we were done (in a month, for under a billion dollars, and with none of the men sent to do it suffering so much as a purple nurple) they continued whinging that we never should've intervened in the first place.
And their base believed each of these things in turn, and never saw how ridiculous that is. This exact kind of pattern repeats again, and again, and again. It's been going on for decades. The lack of retrospection and introspection in the Republican party and right-wingers in general never ceases to amaze and/or horrify me. I just don't understand how anyone can listen to someone like Hannity or Glenn Beck and not eventually realize "This person's claims have no relation to what actually happens. This person is never right about anything. I should stop listening to them." Seriously! How the hell does that not happen?
Is there any way you can mod the submission itself as "Funny"?
Seriously - for an alleged lawyer, not knowing what the DMCA is, how to use it, and doing so in a manner that simply boils over the ol' cauldron full of dumbass?
Umm, yeah. At this point, forget counter-suing. If I were the guy who inadvertently opened this particular can of crazy, I'd start loudly and openly asking the Texas State Bar to consider distancing themselves from Ms Schwager as quickly as possible, and with unabashed prejudice.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Reddit has consumed 4chan.
http://www.reddit.com/r/4chan
From a post on her batshit insane rambling website.
Jay is a hacker and tech expert and knows everything imaginable about computers. He would certainly know how to take down 14 of Atty4kids’ websites with a single accusation. He would also know that images can be purchased through licensing, if he did not truly own the image motivating him to slice her jugular. He undoubtedly knows how to kill a server with a Trojan virus, though I’m not suggesting he did this to a mom of three little boys, one with special needs.
And SHE is suing HIM for libel. Holy shit.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
It appears from other comments that she was already disbarred some time ago. So that may not be as great an idea as it sounds.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Because lawyers think they have some God given right to be above the law.
This crazy woman thinks that just because she is involved in programs supporting disabled children, she should get a free pass at violating the law? It's entirely HER FAULT that she put these multiple sites together under one in which she infringed on someone else's copyright. If she wants them to go back online, then it's simple. Remove the infringing content (or agree to by a specified date). Or split the sites apart. But instead, she wants to use her law background to do the things that get lawyers hated by the public, and to even further extend her own misery on the internet.
Candice: just get a clue. Here's a free one (and feel free to copy it, too). Put your web sites back up elsewhere under other domain names. Just leave out the copyright infringements when you do.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Folks, you're too quick to conclude that Republican voters are stupid. I know quite a few old white guys who are actually smart people, and who vote Republican. What they think does make sense, if the premises they believe are true. They are stuck in the 1950's, stuck on the American ideal of the rugged individualist, and the march of progress. They still believe in getting ahead through hard work, in pushing their children to strike out on their own, and they've seen well-meaning social aid enable dependency. They know it's a hard world, and they believe tough love is the best way to help others. Most of all, they still have a charming sort of optimism that society is largely in control of honest people who will reward others for a job well done, and that the world is a stable place that is not going to get warmer, and there is no call for panic and massive spending over what seems to them fantastical and most unlikely. Much more pressing matters are foreign enemies, which in those days were of course the Commies. In all this, there is none of the lunatic social conservative. These guys remember the times when Democrats were a collection of hippies, artists, impractical dreamers, morons, and slackers sponging off the hard work of our engineers and scientists, and hiding behind the shield of our military. 1969 really reinforced that. Woodstock looks shabby, pointless, and downright irresponsible next to the moon landing. Yes, it was a Democratic president, Kennedy, who proposed it, but the Republicans were quick to see the military potential of space. They simply do not see that today, the Republican party has completely flip flopped on science. Note also that Vietnam was pushed by the Democrats as much as or more than the Republicans. Neither party seemed capable or willing to stop that war. Ford was the president who finally ended Vietnam, not a peace loving Democrat.
There are cracks. They haven't given up on the Republican party, but they are wavering. The anti-science, anti-fact craziness is harder than ever to overlook, and is bothering them. The fraud and corruption of recent years that lead to the Great Recession also bothers them, but on that front the Democrats are indistinguishable-- all politicians and liars and crooks. It doesn't help that Obama has basically done at best nothing to curb the excesses and crimes of the financial sector. Only Madoff has been imprisoned. We are in peril of another financial meltdown. The PIIGS, particularly Greece, will undoubtedly be blamed for much of it. But there's plenty we can do in the US whatever happens with Europe. The sad fact is like with the Vietnam War in the 60's, neither party seems willing to take steps to do so. We need to bolster honesty and transparency in the markets and politics. Got to police the markets, get tough on white collar crime. Who are you supposed to vote for if you feel Wall Street fraud and campaign finance is our biggest problem? Whoever is not currently in power?
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Wrong.
Current Member Status: Eligible To Practice In Texas
http://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Find_A_Lawyer&template=/Customsource/MemberDirectory/MemberDirectoryDetail.cfm&ContactID=198610
In her complaint:
He may contact me by mail at 1417 Ramada Dr. Houston Texas 77062 and is ill advised to call me after this bottomfeeder exploitation. I have more than a good faith belief that Michael Zhang knows he is infringing upon my rights because his entire article falsely accuses me of infringing upon Jay Lee, the Houston Hacker’s rights, when Lee dropped this claim with Go Daddy without prompting from me. He voluntarily (scared) ran. Zhang clearly knows and I believe without a doubt he does that his use of my work on his site is illegal, unauthorized and objectionable under federal law.
WRONG! He withdrew because of your threat. It has no bearing on the issue of whether or not you originally violated his copyright. It is obvious that Jay Lee had no intent for his complaint to do no more than take down ONLY the copyright infringement. It was GO DADDY that chose to screw over all the rest of your sites. So sue Go Daddy!
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Under her maiden name no less...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
For repeated demonstrated incompetence?
Seriously, this woman's supposed to be a lawyer?
It probably made more sense with the flamingos.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Jay Lee needs to pick this up again, just to get a conviction against her. That would make it easier to get het disbarred. Lawyers should learn when to sue and when not to and that sueing people can have consequences to themselves as well.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
"What's your IP address?"
"Uh, 192.168.1.2"
Soon to be changing her name to "Candice Streisand"...
No sig today...
Seriously - for an alleged lawyer, not knowing what the DMCA is, how to use it
What's weird about that? The people who drafted the law didn't know much about it and the people who voted to pass it knew even less.
No sig today...
Since this, like a lot of stories here at /. has gone political, let me weigh in...
President Obama's biggest mistake was trying to rescue the Republicans when they were at an all time low thinking he needed "bipartisanship" to get things passed. He had 3/4ths of the power (lacking only the Supreme Court) and he treated the opposition like they were equal partners. Like my dad always said, leave it to the Democrats to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. Instead of using the Tea Party lunacy like a knife twisting it in the belly of the beast, they allowed the Republicans to set not only the tone of the argument but the agenda as if they were still in power.
Anyway, to try and bring this back around, this attorney is just about as batty as any Tea Party Patriot. I guess it is a sign of the times.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
I copyrighted ur copyright so you can infringe while you're infringing.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
This presumes that Obama wanted single payer or financial reform or peace. That's a big presumption.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Once again, Lawyers are not the smartest cookies in the jar. "He who serves as their own lawyer has a fool for a client." Sounds like a counter claim for harassment, filing a frivolous lawsuit and abusive litigation. See CASE COMMENT: Yost v. Torok and Abusive Litigation: A New Tort to Solve an Old Problem https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=21+Ga.+L.+Rev.+429&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=d376f4fa7d7435dfcf58647c4b43a54c
Respectfully,
Candice Leonard Schwager
Zzzzzzz... huh? Oh, it ended already? Okay, that wasn't so bad. Oh wait, the entry has tags...
... Michael-Zhang-libels-Atty4kids-lies-libel-Bottomfeeder, ...
Oh, so "Bottomfeeder" is still a respectful term? As I understand it, lawyers are no longer allowed to call other people "scumbags", because that technical and accurate term is no longer considered politically correct. "Bottomfeeder" is still okay, though?
Mark (the Rugby player)? Julianne (the musician)?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
failing to take advantage of the brief period of Democratic control of Congress by getting his health care plan passed
It's not his fault; he's naive and inexperienced, and never should have been put up as a nominee
I have a somewhat different view of this. It seems that Obama actually got the health care that he wanted. Sure he paid lip-service to a public option for political reasons, but maybe you don't remember or didn't know that he negotiated away the public option in private meetings with the insurance companies early on [1] [2]. There's also the fact that Obama decided to personally scold Kucinich for trying to stick up for the public option. So I don't really buy the argument that Obama has good intentions but is just too powerless, inexperienced, good-natured, etc. to stand up to the Republicans.
[Lybian war] in a month, for under a billion dollars
Sounds like you are quoting the figures that were given before the war and didn't bother to check if that's how things actually played out. The war in Lybia lasted from March 31 to October 31, so it was more like 7 months. And wikipedia says 1.3 Billion spent just by the US. And now that Gaddafi is dead, everything is great there right? Not quite. There is still plenty of murder, torture, rape, etc. going on, probably worse that what was occurring under Gaddafi.
As far at the Republican criticisms being inconsistent, I won't argue with you there, but Obama has been at least as inconsistent as them on this issue given that during his candidacy he specifically said the president does not have the power to do what he did in Libya.
Remember Phil Hartman's "Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer" character on Saturday Night Live? He wasn't a lawyer who specialzed in services to or for unfrozen cavemen - he was a lawyer who also happened to be an unfrozen caveman.
This woman appears to be a "special needs attorney" in the same sense.
The people that voted to pass it never even read it.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
That is the entire problem with a political system that favors a 2 party system because there is no realistic alternative to the 2 established parties and they will as time goes become less and less distinguishable.
Compare with most of Europe and the rise of the Pirate Party in several nations, it is much easier to start a political party and gain seats in parliament(and thus potential ability to influence law and policy making). The downside is of course that when the politicians piss off the people enough radical(right or left wing) parties will typically gain a surge of voters simply because they are different from current ruling coalition(an excellent example of this happening is the recent election in Greece).
No, a presumption would be that he lied when he said those things. It is more likely he thought the Republicans in Congress would, you know, actually CARE if the country goes down the tubes. He is now actually betting that people will remember that he tried to get along and play nice. The problem is the American public has the attention span of a retarded gnat.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
That explains why prior to his election and campaign promises, he either voted every for full funding of the Iraq war or did not vote (not the same as coming out against, especially when the votes came closer to the presidential election) and of course voted to extend the PATRIOT act.
I voted third party for the first time last election because I believed his campaign was a lie based on his record. Turns out I was right and made the correct presumption.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
"What's your IP address?"
"127.0.0.1"
That joke is so old it could vote.
Wait, I like that. I'll use that one next time. But flaming nacho pants is a little less abrasive, though.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Actually, "Obamacare" was more ambitious than the administration wanted -- they were cognizant of what happened to Clinton when he tried this. It was Nancy Pelosi who pushed for what Republicans call "Obamacare", which ironically was based on Romney's Massachusetts system, which in turn was based on Bob Dole's Republican counter-proposal to Clinton's plan.
It's not that Obama would be against a more radical single payer in principle, it's that he'd have been satisfied to fix enough specific problems (like pre-existing conditions and the "doughnut hole") without getting too politically exposed. I
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It doesn't help that Obama has basically done at best nothing to curb the excesses and crimes of the financial sector. Only Madoff has been imprisoned.
While I appreciate the rest of your point, this claim bugs me. It's not accurate, but it gets self-reinforcing echo chamber treatment. Compare the # of successful DOJ financial fraud prosecutions during W's administration with those of O's. http://www.stopfraud.gov/news-index.html While a fairly recent report points out that the raw number of financial fraud prosecutions has continued to decrease over the past 20 years, that study fails to distinguish between a $15,000 credit card scam and a $60 million dollar conspiracy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raj_Rajaratnam#Conviction_and_imprisonment_for_insider_trading (Can you name one big financial fraud or insider trading prosecution from 2000-2008?)
From what I've seen, high-profile financial fraud prosecutions --going after the big players-- has increased. The most recent big-fish on trial is Rajat Gupta, ex-Goldman Sachs guy. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/05/22/a-guide-to-the-gupta-trial/
And that joke pointing out old jokes is so old it died a long time ago :/
"That's right...I said it."
And it's fair to say that Obama broke a lot of promises ... It's not his fault; he's naive and inexperienced
I am not sure I would use naive and inexperienced as words to describe the first president in history who has (openly) supported the murder of US citizens abroad with no process (due or otherwise) whatsoever. Obama is about as bad fiscally as GWB was, but when it comes to the US constitution, Obama has trampled on that more than GWB did, and I didn't think that was possible. Obama is a huge disappointment, and all alternatives are equally bad.
when Lee dropped this claim with Go Daddy without prompting from me. He voluntarily (scared) ran.
This is why you never give an inch, especially so to crazy women.
They take your good grace as you running away from a fight, rather than you being considerate and making a gesture of goodwill.
Much like Libya, when before Obama and NATO intervened the Republicans were screaming that something had to be done. And while the intervention was occurring, they suddenly cared deeply about undeclared wars and demanded he stop. And afterwards, when we were done (in a month, for under a billion dollars, and with none of the men sent to do it suffering so much as a purple nurple) they continued whinging that we never should've intervened in the first place.
Now that's just ridiculous. That would be like them spending all of their time legislating contraception, abortion, and marriage, and then complaining that the president hasn't done enough to help the economy.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
You fail at H2G2.
For future reference, a recipreversexclusion is a number that can only defined as being anything other than itself. An example is the time at which people will arrive at a restaurant - people will arrive at different times, but the only time at which it is absolutely impossible for anyone to show up is the specified one.
Well, they had to pass it to find out what's in it after all.
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
Please upgrade.
Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
i read the original story the other day, as it was listed in someone's sig here at slashdot - i followed the trail, and after she had taken down Jay's picture, she replaced it with an Anne Geddes picture. that made me chuckle.
Republicans were screaming that something had to be done. And while the intervention was occurring, they suddenly cared deeply about undeclared wars and demanded he stop.
Doing something about an oppressive regime is not equivalent to an undeclared war flying in the face of a Congress that is demanding the President at least address the War Powers Act before continuing.
under a billion dollars... none of the men sent to do it suffering so much as a purple nurple
Preventing injury to our troops and keeping war cheap is not the purpose of the War Powers Act despite what Obama seemed to think.
Gees, think much?
Teabaggers had nothing to do with the current economic crisis; they were a response to the crisis, not its cause.
They didn't happen until Obama was sworn in to office. The economy had crashed six months earleier. The Tea Party was the Koch brothers' effortd to have his 1%er agenda pushed forward. Notice it's the "tea (taxed enough already) party" rather than the "deficit is toobig" party? The tea party is for lower taxes and a balanced budget. Odd, federal taxes are lower than any time in 60 years. Also odd that Bush spent like a drunken sailor, where was the tea party when he took Clinton's balanced budget and had history's highest defecit when his first term ended?
Free Martian Whores!
You could say about almost any law that gets passed.
Go check your sources. Obama's problem with the PPACA wasn't the Republicans which, you're correct, he could have easily steam-rolled. It was his own Democratic party that balked at passing the PPACA. Google 'Cornhusker kickback' if you're looking for a place to start.
No, Obama's problem was that, like all politicians, he got greedy and arrogant. He stopped listening to people outside his own echo chamber. He failed to show leadership: when he should have been reigning in his allies in Congress he instead let them indulge in their own worst tendencies. He, and his closest allies, still don't seem to understand that the bill they passed was and is deeply unpopular.
What I think will ultimately cost him his office though is the fact that he wasted his political capital fighting a fight that most American's didn't care about (Health Care Reform) instead of trying to solve the problem they DO care about which is the economy.
Haven't you checked the voting records for the formal acceptance of standards for IP version 6? It did vote. For it's own extinction, even!
Turkey, meet Christmas ; Hog meet Hogswatch.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"