Bush Vetos Our Troops

[Sojourner]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1262086' date='May 1 2007, 08:14 PM']Ripe tomatoes are red, and should be juicy.

However, you can not refuke what I'm saying on this issue.[/quote]
well, yes I can

I can point out, like many others have done, that the bill was vetoed because of the pork and extraneous stuff that was in it, and that no one who voted for it expected it to escape veto.


There are plenty of reasons to dislike Bush. This veto is not one of them.

[BG45]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1262070' date='May 1 2007, 09:52 PM']The Democrats love pork, the Republicans love pork; what a bunch of oinkers. The only one I've heard of who didn't do the pork-barrel thing was Sen. Coburn.

Sadly this is in many ways a win-win for both political parties. The Administration gets to tell its base that it put its foot down and vetoed the bill, and oh how heroic that is! The Democrats get to tell their anti-war base that they tried, but the mean, mean president ruined it all.

It's not too hard to identify the losers in this situation, either [/quote]

Most definitely agreed. Now that everyone has made themselves look good before their main supporters, they can begin negotiations on a compromise neither side likes all the way, but finds tolerable.

[Paladin D]

What in h*** is this pork carp?

Edited May 2, 2007 by Paladin D

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1262091' date='May 1 2007, 10:22 PM']What in h*** is this pork carp?[/quote]

Pork is projects and money that individual congressmen bring back for their home districts. The representatives in Alaska (I believe it was Alaska), for instance, managed to get millions in federal funds for building a bridge to a sparsely populated island just off the state. This was referred to as the "Bridge to Nowhere." Other famous pork barrel projects include millions for potato research or for studies on fruit flies.

Pork is good for the local economies of individual congressmen and it pleases their constituents and gets them re-elected, but it doesn't help the rest of America at all.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1262045' date='May 1 2007, 11:08 PM']Well I hope all ya'll are happy. Bush has sent our troops over there. Yet he vetos a bill that would give the nessecary funds. Also in that bill was the mimium wage increase. How can you people still support that man?[/quote]

"Emotion is not the reasoning rule of debate."

Read "The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life."

Bush did not "veto our troops", rather, democrats set our troops up for failure, as they always have. His veto was not to funding troops, it was because the bill included a time table to pull troops out prematurely. That means devastation in the world of war for the country of Iraq and for the US's future. If our troops win the war, then democrats lose. But if they push a bill that supports death and failure, then they win.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Brother Adam' post='1262107' date='May 1 2007, 08:35 PM']"Emotion is not the reasoning rule of debate."

Read "The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life."[/quote]
Good book!

[ruso]

Yes, but the war of Iraq is ilegal and inmoral, that many democrats do not defend the life, does not mean that they are mistaken in this.

[Socrates]

(Whether you supported going into Iraq or not) does anyone really think a sudden American withdrawal at this time will be best for the people of Iraq?

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1262087' date='May 1 2007, 09:17 PM']well, yes I can

I can point out, like many others have done, that the bill was vetoed because of the pork and extraneous stuff that was in it, and that no one who voted for it expected it to escape veto.
There are plenty of reasons to dislike Bush. This veto is not one of them.[/quote]

Despite this pork carp, we must forget the main goal this bill was to fund our troops. Quit trying to deny that President Bush vetoed the war funding bill.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1262094' date='May 1 2007, 10:27 PM']Pork is projects and money that individual congressmen bring back for their home districts. The representatives in Alaska (I believe it was Alaska), for instance, managed to get millions in federal funds for building a bridge to a sparsely populated island just off the state. This was referred to as the "Bridge to Nowhere." Other famous pork barrel projects include millions for potato research or for studies on fruit flies.

Pork is good for the local economies of individual congressmen and it pleases their constituents and gets them re-elected, but it doesn't help the rest of America at all.[/quote]

Thanks for filling me in.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1262123' date='May 1 2007, 08:54 PM']Despite this pork carp, we must forget the main goal this bill was to fund our troops. Quit trying to deny that President Bush vetoed the war funding bill.[/quote]
No

The main goal of the bill was to put Pres. Bush in a politically awkward situation so that D's came out looking good and he looked like he vetoed funding for troops. However, it also benefits Republicans because by vetoing the bill Bush can look like he's trying to control spending.

In other words, D's (and R's) are both using this as a tool to gain political capital off the men and women fighting and dying overseas.

Our soldiers should not be a political football, for EITHER side. This type of behavior is inexcusable and should not be tolerated coming from either side.

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1262131' date='May 1 2007, 10:12 PM']However, it also benefits Republicans because by vetoing the bill Bush can look like he's trying to control spending.[/quote]

We are in a war. Saving money is not an option.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1262123' date='May 1 2007, 09:54 PM']Despite this pork carp, we must forget the main goal this bill was to fund our troops. Quit trying to deny that President Bush vetoed the war funding bill.[/quote]


[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1262131' date='May 1 2007, 10:12 PM']No

The main goal of the bill was to put Pres. Bush in a politically awkward situation so that D's came out looking good and he looked like he vetoed funding for troops. However, it also benefits Republicans because by vetoing the bill Bush can look like he's trying to control spending.

In other words, D's (and R's) are both using this as a tool to gain political capital off the men and women fighting and dying overseas.

Our soldiers should not be a political football, for EITHER side. This type of behavior is inexcusable and should not be tolerated coming from either side.[/quote]

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1262131' date='May 1 2007, 11:12 PM']No

The main goal of the bill was to put Pres. Bush in a politically awkward situation so that D's came out looking good and he looked like he vetoed funding for troops. However, it also benefits Republicans because by vetoing the bill Bush can look like he's trying to control spending.

In other words, D's (and R's) are both using this as a tool to gain political capital off the men and women fighting and dying overseas.

Our soldiers should not be a political football, for EITHER side. This type of behavior is inexcusable and should not be tolerated coming from either side.[/quote]

Bingo!

[KnightofChrist]

This bill was a waste of time and tax payer money. Congress knew it would fail [b]they did not care[/b]. [b]The troops did not matter.[/b]

[b]It was all a show.[/b]