Wrapper

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
news:rRYIh.722$S06.677@trndny08...[color=blue]
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 11:56:54 -0700, mack wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote in message
>> news:A2TIh.797$vV3.659@trndny09...[color=darkred]
>>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 00:05:02 -0500, badgolferman wrote: I agree with
>>> Glenn Beck. If Congress (Democrats) have their way, this will turn into
>>> another Vietnam, with the biggest expenditure being Body Bags.[/color]
>>
>> If my house is cold, I can save dough by simply turning on Glenn Beck's
>> alleged show. The hot air rushing out of the tv will warm it up in no
>> time.
>>
>> I don't understand his statement "...will turn into another Vietnam..."
>> If
>> he doesn't realize that it's already another Vietnam, he's asleep. But
>> if our troops are not there, there'll be no need for body bags for them,
>> only for Iraqis, and they can pay for them. Our troops will no longer be
>> caught in the crossfire between the warring elements.[/color]
>
>
> Well, the Dems have attached a 'rider' onto the budget bill that analysts
> feel sure will cause Bush to veto it.
>
> This is absolute bullshit. Riders should be disallowed. If you have a
> bill, the bill stands alone.
>
> So, although the Democrats aren't *SAYING* they want to cut funding for
> the troops, their actions say a lot more than words.
>
> So, with less funding, troops will be ill-equipped, and unable to do the
> job they were sent there to do.
>
> And, why don't you ask the TROOPS what they think?! I talk to plenty, and
> they say they are doing a necessary job there. This is from people who
> have been on the FRONT LINE, not sitting in a chair typing at a keyboard.
> Of all the people I've talked to, I'd say about 85% say the job they are
> doing there is needed, and about 40% were looking FORWARD to going back!
>[/color]

And how do you feel about Presidential "signing statements" if you have
problems with "riders"?