While you guys sit around here and enjoy this friendly forumn I'm on [View All]

the front lines here dammit.

Hey just doing my part to take the fight to the bush supporters themselves. Although this forumn is fun, I like a good argument instead of having everyone just nod their head in agreement.

On this conservative board I write this concerning my position that Bush refused to fund the $87 billion through any way other than a handout at our expense:

Bush and a host of administration officials had repeatedly expressed their opposition to loans in recent weeks, but had not issued a veto threat before. A letter written Tuesday reiterated White House arguments, but contained the first such veto warning.


And then they respond with this:


Ummm...riddle me this. How can you accuse Bush of refusing to support the $87 billion when he is the one that had requested it from congress in the first place????


Okay denial, a typical sympton of being a typical knee jerk right winger. I mean demanding a handout or no funding at all is the same as refusing to properly fund an entity in my book.

This one guy (who I suspect maybe didn't get too far in school says this:

Again, No one threatened to veto anything. The article says advisers would recommend a veto. Bush is the most non-vetoing president in my lifetime. (so far)

Well I think my previous statement addresses this one. Source btw was CNN,

So then to their denial that Bush wanted to fund the $87 billion on the deficit I say this


point out how Bush wanted the $87 billion, as you pointed out, however he refused to fund it any other way than on the deficit.


Then he says

what spin!!!!!  Thanks for the great laugh this morning, that was a good one!



besides, what it comes down to is: kerry playing political games with the troops lives, really. think about it. kerry: we'll do it this way with repealing the tax cuts or not at all, so screw the troops, they're not getting their funds!



So I said this:


Once again if this $87 billion was so important for the troops and their livelyhood then why did Bush threaten to veto any other motion to get the $87 billion other than by tacking it onto the deficit?

If Bush truly believed in this bill and it was the right thing then why threaten to veto the notion of having this bill funded on loans thereby on the tax repeal as opposed to demanding a handout?

Kerry demanded a better solution for the troops which is why he voted against the bush administration's version.


To which they all blamed Clinton for.

Then I was called dumb and stupid and I was accused of dodging their points.

Ahh just another day of wading through conservative bs.

You guys outta try this sometime it's a really dark journey. (I'm sure alot of you do though)