44 Comments Add your own

• 1. Dennis  |  July 10th, 2008 at 3:43 am

  Every time Bush wins America loses a little more.

  You are correct on two counts - Congress folded. And Bush never backs down when vital issues are at stake, such as dismantling traditional American principles for the sake of personal and executive aggrandizement.

  Bush has never been determined to do the right (correct) thing. Only to do the in-your-face thing, and to wear down the opposition by pure bovine intransigence.

  That this can work is no credit to anybody at all - only a memorial to the demise of critical thinking and of loyalty to the Constitution our elected representatives are sworn to protect and defend. That you can laud this abject failure is merely a testimony to your own fundamental anti-Americanism.

• 2. TampaBayRayz-4-evah-don't-mess  |  July 10th, 2008 at 5:28 am

  Dennis: I cannot disagree with you. I don’t have a vote being a foreign resident but going in I’d say I ranked them in order of preference: Kucinich, Clinton, Paul, Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, Romney, Obama.

  After April, I saw what Obama was capable of in terms of being a progressive and being an instrumental politician. For me, now there is no choice and I really don’t what he does from here on out because it’s all about sewing it up. At Obama’s worst from a progressive perspective, he’s the least-worst, although I wouldn’t argue against a vote for Barr or McKinney if you lived in an obviously Blue or obviously Red state.

  The truth is that a guy like Kucinich would fit rather nicely in the moderate wing of the main center-right party in most of the world’s capitalist-democratic-republics.

  So, a guy who would be a far superior president in my opinion makes a vote that basically says “yeah, yeah, the troops, USA, family values, whatver, now leave me alone”? What’s the big deal? Was that somehow WORSE than his going on tour with Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Rick Warren at the start of 2007? Was it somehow WORSE than his saying “Democrats need to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior”?

  It was all part of a game to get the media on board against Clinton. This is a game to cut into the media preference for McCain. Obama has trusted his political life to Axelrod and Plouffe. That tells me he’s hardly as authoritarian as this one vote would indicate.

  Not living in the USA, it’s not really my problem, except if McCain gets elected and then I have to worry about wars everywhere else on the globe and a fiscal policy of Military Keynesianism and a monetary policy of the weakest dollar since the Oil Crisis of 1973.

  I don’t care what chess moves Obama makes. I like the guy who’s got Blinder, Mankiw, Soros, Voelcker and Buffett advising him on economic as against the guy who’s got Carlton Fiorina and Tom Coburn.

  I’ll take the guy who doesn’t necessarily think continuous war is any kind of anyswer to anything, even though I expect him to pretty much follow the status quo on Iraq and Afghanistan.

  McCain’s got a non-trivial chance of blowing the world in two. Obama doesn’t. Ideological gamesmanship is irrelevant to me at the this point.

• 3. Magnum Serpentine  |  July 10th, 2008 at 7:12 am

  The Citizens have taken note of the demo-publicans who once again showed that they have no spine and walked lock step with the george administration. Now george can listen in on every word we say, thanks to the yellow, spineless demo-publicans.

  Hurray for the 28 that voted against this disastrous bill. This bill is one more reason we need to impeach george.

• 4. bagni  |  July 10th, 2008 at 7:36 am

  markwin
  planetary proof
  democrats and republicans equally blow

• 5. Tuneup  |  July 10th, 2008 at 7:47 am

  Et tu Brutus. Another erosion of our rights, this erosion of the IV Amendment is one more victory for Bin Laden. Fear of fear has once again ruled the day.

  I don’t care if I am talking to a relative over seas about a peach cobbler recipe; without a court order neither AT%T nor the U.S Government has a right to listen in.

  The repugs whine if one gun is taken off the street, but when Bush says do you mind suspension of habeas corpus for some? Repugs say sure fine. You don’t mind if I as your President without any court intervention can label someone an enemy combatant to be locked away for as long as I see fit? Repugs say sure fine. You don’t mind if I permit AT&T to listen in on your phone calls when you talk to relatives overseas. Repugs say sure fine. Oh and by the way I promise, we learned our lessons from Watergate (wink-wink), neither I nor any future President would abuse these powers to squelch political dissent.

• 6. Bruce Adams  |  July 10th, 2008 at 8:46 am

  Bush wins, America loses. It really is that simple. Hear that flushing sound? Thats our rights going down the drain. How far down the slippery slope are we? What will be next I dread to think! To see him sitting there crowing about his ‘victory’ i.e, his success in letting his cronies off the hook,…AGAIN. Sickening.

• 7. Sunny  |  July 10th, 2008 at 8:54 am

  Just remember, if Barack Obama is elected president he will then have the right to ask AT&T and other large communication providers to listen in on your phone conversations. No whining when this happens from the “conservative right”.

• 8. neocon  |  July 10th, 2008 at 9:04 am

  Another great morning in America. Cheney can now continue to listen in on Vicodins 1-900 sex calls and Bush is that much closer to his authoritarian theocracy, if only for the next six months.

  It’s imperative that we elect McCain so that we can initiate the wars we so desperately want on the other continents. A world of unending wars absent habeus corpus would just be ideal.

  And if this is a “game” to cut into the medias preference for McCain, could you please identify all of those media outlets? I must be watching the wrong channels.

  have a paranoid day
  peace, neocon

• 9. hermie  |  July 10th, 2008 at 9:08 am

  Ah, how the trolls can’t own up to the fact that their messiah has stabbed them in the back.

  Remember how he said he would vote against it? Remember how he said he would filibuster it?
  Remember how he said that he would make sure the telecom immunity would be stripped from it?

  Yet what did he do? What he usually does: He sticks his finger in the air to see which way he should vote, or finds some way to avoid voting.

  Typical Chicago politician.. Likely he is in the pockets of the telecom companies, right Lefties?

• 10. Bruce Adams  |  July 10th, 2008 at 9:27 am

  Ah ha the silence of the righties is broken at last. I was having a good laugh that none of them was commenting on this. And, as is typical, Bush’s blatant lawbreaking, constitution-eschewing smugness is ignored. You rather attack Obama. Im NOT happy with his support of this bill by any means but perhaps you should look at this as a warning of whats to come. A fascist state is on the horizon. Clearly, they have no intention to stop. Will you be ignoring/deflecting attention from the congressional vote that puts us all under surveillance? That restricts free speech? or worse?

• 11. neocon  |  July 10th, 2008 at 9:41 am

  “A fascist state is on the horizon.” - Bruce

  Clearly it is. I don’t know how any paranoid liberal could deny that.

  Speaking of fascism, the following from the UK suggests that a liberal fascist state is already in place:

  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/education/2261307/Toddlers-who-dislike-spicy-food-racist,-say-report.html

  But let’s be paranoid about the perceived rather than the actual……..ok?

  have a delusional day
  peace, neocon

• 12. William Teach  |  July 10th, 2008 at 9:52 am

  Just remember, if Barack Obama is elected president he will then have the right to ask AT&T and other large communication providers to listen in on your phone conversations. No whining when this happens from the “conservative right”.

  No problem, Sunny, as long as it is done the same way Bush did it: listening to people have overseas calls with potential jihadis.

  If Obama does it like Clinton, against political enemies and whoever the hell he wants, nope, wrong.

  Say, Bruce, which party is it that wants to institute the “fairness doctrine,” a blatant violation of 1st Amendment freedoms? Which party pushes for hate speech? Which one pushes PC speech? Which one wants to limit our 2nd Amendment rights? Etc and so on.

• 13. Retired Spook  |  July 10th, 2008 at 10:53 am

  Talk about paranoid and delusional; the Leftist team of Dennis, TBR, Tuneup, Sunny & Bruce have really gone round he bend on this thread. I couldn’t have pointed out the hypocrisy better than William did in his last paragraph.

• 14. arcman46  |  July 10th, 2008 at 11:02 am

  Barack Obama filibustering anything. ROFLMAO. I can hear it now. Hours and hours of ” ummm, I think, ummm, that, ummm, you know, that, you know, ummm, I can’t hear myself think, thank you, ummm, for being, you know, ummm, so enthusiastic, ummm, you know. ” What an idiot.

• 15. Retired Spook  |  July 10th, 2008 at 12:39 pm

  arcman, there’s a video out there showing Obama trying to answer a question at a Townhall meeting or some type of campaign event in which he hems and haws just as you’ve said. Interestingly, if you Google Awkward Obama video, you get a McCain campaign video that, while admittedly read from a teleprompter, is ten times as articulate as most of Obama’s off-the-cuff rhetoric.

  My favorite is still this one.

• 16. Eric T  |  July 10th, 2008 at 12:47 pm

  It is starting to look like Barack (George Bush) Hussein Obama.
  You see Obama calling for more economic stimulus packages, more faith based programs. You see Obama growing a pair of nuts and moving to the right on issues like guns, ect..

  If you heard the news about Jesse Jackson today. You see that Jesse noticed Obama growing a pair and not going along with the no-testosterone leftist gun ban democrat standard, gay marriage, abortion, cut and run and many of many other unmanly plans the left has in store for us . So Jesse called to have Obama casturated!!!

• 17. \'08ama  |  July 10th, 2008 at 12:49 pm

  if Obama is such a clumsy speaker, then what does that make Bush ?

  I do not believe the English language has a word to describe such a train-wreck.

• 18. Joel  |  July 10th, 2008 at 12:51 pm

  Hey Bush Bad Libs, Obama voted for it, that means it is a good thing.

• 19. Retired Spook  |  July 10th, 2008 at 12:57 pm

  if Obama is such a clumsy speaker, then what does that make Bush ?

  And George Bush has often made fun of himself for murdering the English language, but I’ll bet he knows how many states there are, and I’ll bet he thinks that Hawaii and Alaska count as states.

  Being articulate without a teleprompter is not what bothers me about Obama. The guy is just a total ignoramus when it comes to foreign policy and economics.

• 20. Retired Spook  |  July 10th, 2008 at 2:31 pm

  Apparently being an ignoramus is what you look for when picking a presidential candidate.

  No; if that were true I’d be voting for Obama.

  History has yet to rule on whether or not Iraq is the worst foreign policy blunder in modern history. If stability there continues to improve, I think there’s an excellent chance that Iraq may well end up being a positive foreign policy achievement of monumental proportions, perhaps rivaling Reagan’s ending of the Cold War. Time will tell. I’m sure there were people of your ilk who were saying the same thing about our occupations of Japan and Germany in the late 1940’s.

  Bush’s predecessor, even though he presided over some worthy accomplishments, will forever be remembered for defiling the office of the Presidency by sodomizing an intern with a cigar and ejaculating on her dress in the Oval Office. You may not like it, but that is HIS legacy, and there’s not a damn thing you or any of the other mentally challenged moonbats who visit this site can do about it. And, yes, that’s all you Leftist pieces of crap are here is visitors, and uncommonly rude visitors at that.

• 21. arcman46  |  July 10th, 2008 at 3:07 pm

  Apparently being an ignoramus is what you look for when picking a presidential candidate.

  Let’s take a look at the Dem nominees:

  1972 George McGovern
  1976 Jimmy Carter
  1980 Jimmy Carter
  1984 Walter Mondale
  1988 Michael Dukakis
  1992 Bubba
  1996 Bubba (unfortunately 8 years of Bubba)
  2000 Al (the Goracle; I invented the internet Gore
  2004 John Kerry
  2008 Barack Hussain Obama

  Now that is a distinguished group of intellectuals! ROFLMAO

• 22. FmrMarine  |  July 10th, 2008 at 6:24 pm

  08 obmanation;

  >>>if Obama is such a clumsy speaker, then what does that make Bush>>>

  Next to tee quintessential EMPTY SUIT….BRILLIANT!

• 23. FmrMarine  |  July 10th, 2008 at 6:32 pm

  n-hack

  >>>I bring up worst foreign policy blunder and a horrible economy.>>>

  You still talking about klintoon??.

  It seems under W 50,000,000 = MILLION freed.
  5% unemployment
  7 years expanding economy….still, even though the rat takeover of congress has led to a congressional 9% approval and $4.00 gas prices, we still are NOT in a recession…..
  So tell us WHAT the rat led congress which is lower than whale $#it in ratings has done?

  except attempting to follow the WORST president ever (well maybe ole dildobill) jimmah kartah

• 24. JustAnotherTaxpayer  |  July 10th, 2008 at 6:53 pm

  Bush wins, congress can’t stand up to a Jimmy Carter, and still McCain loses because if Obama says people are bitter, Phil Gramm says we’re a nation of whiners. The voice of compassionate conservatism. Isn’t it great?
  Have a nice day!
  Foreclosures went up 50% over June a year ago. But the dow went up 86 pts.
  Maybe that’s what’s wrong. We just don’t appreciate all the work that goes into those forclosures. If people who lost their homes only understood, they wouldn’t be so ungrateful.
  Yep! Bush wins again!

• 25. FmrMarine  |  July 10th, 2008 at 7:09 pm

  JAT;

  >>>If people who lost their homes only understood, they wouldn’t be so ungrateful.>>

  THERE is NO such THING as a FREE LUNCH!
  If it LOOKS to GOOD to be TRUE it IS.

  Only COMPLETE fools, or UNEDUCATED MORONS would lock themselves into a “sub prime”, “arm”,
  or “negative amortization” loans.
  There seems to have been NO shortage of both.

  Oh yeah W and the eviiiillll rovecheneyhaliburton - snuck in at night and beguiled them in their sleep.

• 26. Stretchrun  |  July 10th, 2008 at 9:53 pm

  12. William Teach | July 10th, 2008 at 9:52 am

  ” potential jihadis.”

  Exactly how do you do this; have picture phones and jihadis are those with towels on their heads caring stinger missiles Ollie North sold them.

  You deserve a fascist state, because you are doing nothing to protect this democracy.

• 27. Kahn  |  July 10th, 2008 at 11:32 pm

  Under the liberal view, an enemy agent talking to an amphibious fleet off the coast of California could do so with impunity unless warrants were in place.

  Its not about law enforcement, its not the Justice Department doing the intelligence gathering - it’s the Defense Department.

• 28. Kahn  |  July 10th, 2008 at 11:35 pm

  Meanwhile, I think the decedents of Confederates killed by the government or imprisoned under horrible conditions at Fort Meade and elsewhere should file for compensation using the latest Supreme Court decision as justification. There was no “war” declared.

• 29. Thomas Jefferson  |  July 11th, 2008 at 7:32 am

  The terrorists have won. The US has discarded the Constitution and our American ideals by passing FISA. I believe the shredding of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution was worse than the terrorist act of 9/11. The hijackers took American lives; but this Congress took the very soul of the country.

• 30. Some Assembly Required  |  July 11th, 2008 at 9:23 am

  If you place a frog in boiling water, the frog immediately jumps out.

  Now take this same frog, put it in a pot of nice warm water. Then place this pot over the stove and heat it until it boils. The frog will not jump out, it stays and you end up with a nice frog stew.

• 31. Retired Spook  |  July 11th, 2008 at 9:35 am

  SAR, incrementalism is something that the American Left has refined to an artform.

• 32. Some Assembly Required  |  July 11th, 2008 at 9:52 am

  RS, though I largely agree, ‘They did it too’ does not justify what has happened.

  I love watching freedoms fall to nothing while democrats do nothing about it. It makes me wonder when people are going to wake up. Maybe it will be when Obama takes over for Bush and some finally realize all the extra power and ‘Executive Privledge’ he has. Everything in baby steps hey?

• 33. Retired Spook  |  July 11th, 2008 at 10:30 am

  They did it too’ does not justify what has happened

  SAR, I know that’s the Left’s stock response, but in no way was I trying to justify anything. “What has happened” doesn’t need justifying. If our government were not going to all legitimate means to protect us; then that would need some justifying. Some legislators just take the “protect and defend” part of their oath of office more seriously than others. Some only take it into consideration if it means scoring political points. That’s a rather sad commentary on our Republican form of government.

  Personally, I’m more concerned with losing the freedom to live where I want, drive the kind of car I want, use my property the way I want (within legal confines), praise God in the public square if I want, have my grandchildren go to the school of their choice (and walk there if they choose), just to name a few. The fact that the government is listening to phone conversations of our enemies and Telcom companies are cooperating, in no way threatens my freedom. If anything, it enhances it. Fortunately, by a 2:1 margin, that’s the way the U.S. Senate saw it.

  You Libs often accuse Conservatives of being so afraid of terrorists that we’re willing to give up basic freedoms in exchange for security. I would say the opposite is true. Liberals are willing to protest the lost of a perceived freedom that, in reality, will affect few, if any, law abiding American citizens, and, in so doing, give an advantage to those whose sole goal is to destroy us. That is a convoluted logic that I have never been able to grasp.

• 34. Retired Spook  |  July 11th, 2008 at 11:45 am

  nhak,

  If our government were randomly targeting ordinary citizens in the hope of finding terrorists among us, I’d tend to agree with you. I have seen no evidence to suggest that that’s the case. I was a Navy signals intelligence officer for over 2 decades, and have an excellent understanding of what this law is all about. You, OTOH, apparently don’t. I would suggest that it’s you who doesn’t have the slightest clue about the “basic principles of this country”.

• 35. Some Assembly Required  |  July 11th, 2008 at 12:36 pm

  RS,

  What of American’s outside the US. If they wish to phone home their phone calls are recorded because it’s an international phone call. How about Intellectual Property?

  Throw this with the patriot acts lose definition of what a ‘terrorist’ is and you have the makings of a law to squash dissent.

  Also, your definition of legitimate means of protection and my definition are obviously very very different. Personally, if protection means you should be gagged, confined and watched I want no part of it. I’d rather fear death with freedom then feel safe but restricted.

  I agree completely with this following;

  Personally, I’m more concerned with losing the freedom to live where I want, drive the kind of car I want, use my property the way I want (within legal confines), praise God in the public square if I want, have my grandchildren go to the school of their choice (and walk there if they choose), just to name a few…..

  but I think you maybe over looking the notion that this all hinges on free speech, expression and privacy. Which is something the FISA bill encroaches on. I’m all for intelligence gathering and understand that sometimes innocent people get caught in the mix. But Such a bill allowing immunity to such companies eliminates accountability. With accountability gone, what protects innocent people from the cross hairs of the most powerful government in the world? The goal is to fight terrorism with freedom.

• 36. Retired Spook  |  July 11th, 2008 at 12:55 pm

  What of American’s outside the US. If they wish to phone home their phone calls are recorded because it’s an international phone call.

  SAR, other than data mining, I’m not aware that ALL international calls are recorded. Do you have some credible evidence that this is being done? It’s my understanding, from connections I still have in the spook world, that the only international calls being targeted for actual intercept are those from (or to) known or suspected terrorists.

  But Such a bill allowing immunity to such companies eliminates accountability.

  On the contrary, I’d say getting the fact that they’re cooperating out in the open (vs. doing it under a shroud of secrecy) enhances accountability.

  The goal is to fight terrorism with freedom.

  I couldn’t agree more, and no other nation has exemplified this more than America.

• 37. Some Assembly Required  |  July 11th, 2008 at 1:35 pm

  RS, no, I do not have any evidence supporting my claim. Though, neither do you considering you could make up what you do / did. (as I can, or anything else who posts here). My opinion was just based on corruption and what the law allows. Sure you say now calls with suspected ties to terrorism are intercepted. Now, what prevents them from listening to the average joe blow? They will not be prosecuted for it.

  “On the contrary, I’d say getting the fact that they’re cooperating out in the open (vs. doing it under a shroud of secrecy) enhances accountability.”

  Makes sense, except for the fact that they are immune from prosecution. Unlike government officials, the public cannot call for the resignation of CEO’s or elect someone else in a couple of years.

  I couldn’t agree more, and no other nation has exemplified this more than America

  In the past I agree. in the last couple of decades, I’d say no nation has exemplified more blatant hypocrisy and ‘moral superiority’ then America.

• 38. Retired Spook  |  July 11th, 2008 at 2:02 pm

  RS, no, I do not have any evidence supporting my claim. Though, neither do you considering you could make up what you do / did.

  I’m not sure exactly what you think I “made up”. Please elaborate.

  Now, what prevents them from listening to the average joe blow?

  Why would an organization tasked with national security matters want to listen to the average joe blow (sic)? Of what possible value could such monitoring possibly be to their mission?

  Makes sense, except for the fact that they are immune from prosecution

  If they’re lawfully cooperating in a national security matter, why should they be subject to prosecution? And, actually, it’s immunity from civil lawsuits, not prosecution. If you witness a crime and report it to the police, should you be subject to a civil lawsuit? If you allow the police, as part of a stakeout or sting operation to use your house or park in your driveway, should you be subject to a civil lawsuit?

  in the last couple of decades, I’d say no nation has exemplified more blatant hypocrisy and ‘moral superiority’ then America.

  I prefer to think of it as American exceptionalism. I suspect we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this issue. Actually, I agree that, as a nation, America is morally superior to the vast majority of countries on the planet.

• 39. Some Assembly Required  |  July 11th, 2008 at 2:24 pm

  “I’m not sure exactly what you think I “made up”. Please elaborate.”

  Just to clarify, I’m not calling you a liar. Just speaking to the paradox of taking a poster at their word over the internet without any personal knowledge of said person. I was refering to your background as a Navy signals intelligence officer. You could have been, you could be making it up and I wouldn’t expect you to provide proof of your profession. Just as if you asked me to provide proof I wouldn’t.

  Why would an organization tasked with national security matters want to listen to the average joe blow (sic)? Of what possible value could such monitoring possibly be to their mission?

  People talk about all kinds of things over the phone. So in monitoring the average person or lets say 13 year old teenage girl (target market) they will essentially get free marketing re-search. Never the less, you answering the problem with the ‘Why would they?” question is evidence in itself of denial. I mean thats like saying wealthy people should not be arrested for stealing. Why would they steal?

  “If they’re lawfully cooperating in a national security matter, why should they be subject to prosecution….”

  Immunity from civil lawsuits against those innocent people that sometimes get caught in the cross hairs. So lets protect these companies from the American people. This is stripping the beauty that is America IMO. If the government messes with you or your lively hood you can take them to court and receive a huge settlement. This law prevents that. The government can invade your privacy if they ’suspect’ terrorist activities and theres not a damn thing you can do about it because it’s covered under law.

  I prefer to think of it as American exceptionalism…

  You know, from a civilized standpoint I guess I’d agree that America as a nation has been paving the way. But I’ll agree to disagree with the moral and hypocritical aspects of this beautiful nation.

  Anyway RS, it’s Friday and the lumber for my new deck just arrived. Have a good weekend.

• 40. Retired Spook  |  July 11th, 2008 at 5:24 pm

  it’s Friday and the lumber for my new deck just arrived

  Been there, done that, got the T-shirt — twice (upper and lower deck). A word to the wise: you can’t make it TOO sturdy. And if you put your deck planks on the diagonal, put your joists on 12″ centers instead of 16.

  Just one additional thought:

  I mean thats like saying wealthy people should not be arrested for stealing. Why would they steal?

  That’s not a good analogy. Economic circumstances shouldn’t dictate how the law is enforced — at least in a perfect world. Monitoring, with limited resources and a specific mission, OTOH, is a completely different animal. If you were a police officer tasked with locating crack houses, would you cruise inner city neighborhoods or gated communities? I’m not saying you might not find some rich kid selling drugs out of his parents’ garage in a gated community, but that’s not the place you’d generally look for such activity.

  What you may actually be thinking of is data mining, where a computer algorithm looks for calling patterns. It doesn’t distinguish between Joe Blow and a potential terrorist, but it’s also not a collection of SIGINT in the traditional sense. Your phone number might be in such a database, but no name or location would be associated with it unless there was a pattern of specific calls to or from a number or numbers on a terrorist watch list. I see such actions by the government more as safe guarding your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness than I do an infringement on your right to privacy. You obviously don’t seen it that way, but, unfortunately for you, neither Presidential candidate agrees with you.

  Good luck on the deck.

• 41. Some Assembly Required  |  July 14th, 2008 at 10:29 am

  RS, as I understand it, data mining has been going on for quite some time. Usually centering around various key words or as you have mentioned, calling patterns. I really do not object to this considering it really doesn’t infringe upon the privacy of the individual. (Unless your dumb enough to keep saying ‘bomb’ over the phone over and over again.) What I object to is the extra protection the companies obtain. If they can link it to national security matters they can effectively spy on anyone they see fit. This is the slippery slope I see, similar to Regan’s work on anti-trust laws combined with Clintion’s NAFTA (whole other matters). Sadly, you are right that neither presidential candidate agrees with my views on this matter. In all fairness, it’s not really up there on my list regarding the issues in this election. I’m weary of what Obama is proposing, but IMO I feel I cannot trust anything a republican says because of the current Bush administration.

  As for the deck, leveling was a pain in the rear. But I took my time with it. I extended off the nook on my existing patio down to the ground. I used 3 beams spanning roughly 6 feet each with 2 x 6 joists at 12″. I doubled them up in the corner to ensure extra support for the hot tub which should arrive sometime next week. It’s easy going when you have all the right toys.

• 42. Electronica&hellip  |  August 16th, 2008 at 8:00 am

  greatings

  super!

• 43. richardson foreclosures&hellip  |  August 19th, 2008 at 2:42 am

  richardson foreclosures

  Interesting info.

• 44. Applications&hellip  |  August 30th, 2008 at 6:44 am

  hi

  thanks

Leave a Comment

Please report any inappropriate or abusive comments to abuse@blogsforvictory.com. Please include the blog entry title and the comment number.

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Matt Margolis on Twitter