Bush veto denies funding for the troops!

[DEMON CUNT]

Biden had some interesting comments a few days ago.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QB2tcKt-Pgk"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QB2tcKt-Pgk" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[FORD]

Well, if Chimpy isn't funding the war, I guess that means it's over, right?

Is the (non-existent) mission over NOW, asshole???

Hey, 4 years late is better than never, I guess

[Hardrock69]

Well, witholding fundage from our troops is minor compared to what he is already doing.

TRYING TO MURDER THEM BY KEEPING THEM OVER THERE TO FIGHT A USELESS 'WAR' THAT CANNOT BE 'WON'.

themonkey keeps yammering "Failure is not an option".

Note to themonkey: YOU FUCKING COCKSUCKER!!! IT HAS BEEN A FAILURE SINCE BEFORE IT BEGAN!!!

Vietnam all over again.

More goddamned checkers games while using our American soldiers as expendable playing pieces on the World Game Board.


Will somebody please get themonkey out of office and into prison????

[sadaist]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT

Bush veto denies funding for the troops!

I thought he used the veto due to the withdrawal timeframe that was placed into the funding bill. Oh well, if it truly is the will of the people, congress shouldn't have a problem getting a measly 2/3 to override it.

[Big Train]

It's primarily about the timeline, but wasn't there all kinds of pork the Dems attached to it as well?

[sadaist]

Originally posted by Big Train
It's primarily about the timeline, but wasn't there all kinds of pork the Dems attached to it as well?

Both parties attach pork to bills. Although I haven't heard much about this particular bill other than the funding and withdrawal timeline. The whole idea is to get the President to veto it due to the withdrawal timeline, which they knew he would do, then accuse him of not funding the troops. Democrats knew full well that the President would veto it, he said so several times. The Democrats are preventing the funding of the troops by adding in something they knew would get the veto. Make two seperate bills, one for funding and one for the withdrawal timeline. Since basically the entire country is behind them (according to them), it shouldn't be a problem getting it passed...even with a Presidential veto. 2/3 is only 66%. That's only a D grade...barely passing, below average (fail in many cases). Surely they can get that.

[Hardrock69]

No. The Democrats are listening to The People Of The United States Of America.

themonkey does not care about anyone other than himself and his power-mad, genocidal cronies.

[Big Train]

If it were so easy to get passed, it wouldn't be as pork laden as it is.

Bribery is unacceptable in private life, so why should be allowed in public life?

I've long maintained that bills should be voted on based on a straight up procedure. 1 bill, 1 vote, no add-ons.

It will never happen, it's too lucrative, but I'm sure it's not what the founding fathers intended.

[scamper]

Originally posted by sadaist
The whole idea is to get the President to veto it due to the withdrawal timeline, which they knew he would do, then accuse him of not funding the troops. Democrats knew full well that the President would veto it, he said so several times. The Democrats are preventing the funding of the troops by adding in something they knew would get the veto.

Exactly...Bush sucks but the dems are no better.

[Lqskdiver]

You know, I'm actually greatful most of you get to rant on these boards.

It's a lot healthier than holding it in while collecting issues of Merc magazine and pasting your basement walls of Bush W. with a bullseye on him.

[Ellyllions]

Everyone should be pissed off as HELL over the fact that they've all turned the lives of the troops into a political war.

Cause that's all they're doing. They're "staying the course" but putting a on an entertaining show.

[Ellyllions]

Originally posted by sadaist
Both parties attach pork to bills. Although I haven't heard much about this particular bill other than the funding and withdrawal timeline. The whole idea is to get the President to veto it due to the withdrawal timeline, which they knew he would do, then accuse him of not funding the troops. Democrats knew full well that the President would veto it, he said so several times. The Democrats are preventing the funding of the troops by adding in something they knew would get the veto. Make two seperate bills, one for funding and one for the withdrawal timeline. Since basically the entire country is behind them (according to them), it shouldn't be a problem getting it passed...even with a Presidential veto. 2/3 is only 66%. That's only a D grade...barely passing, below average (fail in many cases). Surely they can get that.

Can I kiss you?

[Steve Savicki]

I can't imagine anyone voting for a Repub pres. or a business owning rich one ever again.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
If it were so easy to get passed, it wouldn't be as pork laden as it is.

Bribery is unacceptable in private life, so why should be allowed in public life?

I've long maintained that bills should be voted on based on a straight up procedure. 1 bill, 1 vote, no add-ons.

It will never happen, it's too lucrative, but I'm sure it's not what the founding fathers intended.

Yeah, I mean we all know how much George Dumb'ya Bush and the previous Republican held Congress hate pork!

[DLR'sCock]

How are the dems turning the "lives" of the troops into a political war?

If anything the dems are the only ones who want to SAVE THE LIVES of the troops and save them from being permanantly injured by getting them out of being caught in the middle of a civil war.



THe Repukes and Bush have endangered the lives of the troops, and could give a shit about them.