See other Immigration Articles
Title: President Threatening to VETO $3 Billion Extra Border Funding Passed by Senate
Source:
numbersusa.com
URL Source: http://www.numbersusa.com
Published: Aug 7, 2007
Author: numbersusa.com
Post Date: 2007-08-07 15:48:39 by freepatriot32
Ping List: *libertarians* Subscribe to *libertarians*
Keywords: immigration, border fence, president bush veto
Views: 333
Comments: 21
Thursday, the U.S. Senate voted to Increase Enforcement Spending for the U.S.-Mexican Border by $3 Billion. However, the White House is now threatening to VETO this critically-needed funding boost as too expensive! If America needs to increase spending on ANYTHING, it is Border Enforcement. Do you agree? Cast Your Vote In our INSTANT POLL
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
right now its 92 percent against the veto 7 percent for the veto so I fully excpect whorge to veto it as a middle finger to the american people
Why settle for the lesser of two evils, vote Cthulhu!
Why is it whenever it's something the elites want, it's only "pennies per taxpayer", and when it's something the proles want, it's "Too Expensive". EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. Man, what a pathetic charade.
#2. To: freepatriot32 (#0)
 | Capitalism is NOT an economic system, it's a RELIGION for ASSHOLES! |
#3. To: Elliott Jackalope (#2)
Same thing here at the house: If I want it, it's an extravagent expense that we don't need now and can wait til later (even if it's only a new water pump for the car) If the Other Half wants it, it is only 'petty cash' and we can't live without it. Basic laws of economics, I guess.
#4. To: Sodie Pop (#3)
Same thing at my house and I'm the female. Yelled at me for spending $7 on a new purse but then turned around and spent over $100 on a new motorcycle jacket.
If the Other Half wants it, it is only 'petty cash' and we can't live without it.
#5. To: freepatriot32 (#1)
I think it would be his first veto too.
I fully excpect whorge to veto it as a middle finger to the american people
#6. To: Elliott Jackalope (#2)
Perfect observation - thank you.
Why is it whenever it's something the elites want, it's only "pennies per taxpayer", and when it's something the proles want, it's "Too Expensive". EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. Man, what a pathetic charade.
#7. To: freepatriot32 (#0)
27 bills now under a veto threat by Bush: I was a teenage Bush veto death march.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
#8. To: farmfriend (#5) (Edited)
Bush has so far vetoed three bills: two stem cell research bills, and the Iraq funding bill that would have imposed a date for withdrawal from Iraq. Two of those three vetoes were this year. During the six years when he was president and the Republicans dominated Congress, Bush only vetoed one bill: the first stem cell bill. Hastert was on record as saying that he regarded it as part of his job to make sure that no bill passed that was unacceptable to Bush.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
#9. To: aristeides, FF, all (#8)
And those that were not vetoed, he jammed signing statements on. I am so sick of this dim-witted tool.
#10. To: lodwick (#9)
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
#11. To: ghostdogtxn (#10)
Burn lots of candles for this scenario - but then we'd have Pres Pelos - shiite. What a massive pile of cow-dung that we have sent to deecee.
If he'd just have a massive debilitating stroke upon hearing of Cheney's fatal heart attack, we'd all be so much better off.
#12. To: aristeides (#8)
Which is stupid. Make Bush veto it and take the heat for doing so.
Hastert was on record as saying that he regarded it as part of his job to make sure that no bill passed that was unacceptable to Bush.
#13. To: lodwick (#9)
Yeah, that's pretty lame. If you don't like the bill veto it and make Congress over ride if they can.
And those that were not vetoed, he jammed signing statements on.
#14. To: Elliott Jackalope (#2)
Because we let them. They never have to pay a price. Think about it. All these clowns so worried about the Hispanic vote but they never give a worry about losing our vote.
#15. To: farmfriend (#4)
Well, now I can understand that. What the hell you need a new purse for? If you got so damn much money just stick in the pocket of HIS new motorcycle jacket. ;)
Yelled at me for spending $7 on a new purse but then turned around and spent over $100 on a new motorcycle jacket.
#16. To: lodwick (#11)
Hello? What do you mean "we"? "We the people" ONLY get to choose from pre-approved corporate shill "A" or pre-approved corporate shill "B". That's it. Don't blame "the people", because "the people" have ZERO power in this equation. Blame the elites. THEY are the one who choose who gets to go to D.C.
What a massive pile of cow-dung that we have sent to deecee.
| Capitalism is NOT an economic system, it's a RELIGION for ASSHOLES! |
#17. To: Elliott Jackalope (#2)
exactly. thank you.
Why is it whenever it's something the elites want, it's only "pennies per taxpayer", and when it's something the proles want, it's "Too Expensive". EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. Man, what a pathetic charade.
#18. To: aristeides (#8)
denny's still working on that whole checks & balances concept
Hastert was on record as saying that he regarded it as part of his job to make sure that no bill passed that was unacceptable to Bush.
#19. To: freepatriot32 (#0)
Somebody better point out to the DoofusinChief that what's good for Israel is good for America. We paid for Israel's damn fence without Bush making so much as a whimper, so how dare he whine and stomp his feet that a fence is too expensive for American taxpayers.
However, the White House is now threatening to VETO this critically-needed funding boost as too expensive!
#20. To: scrapper2 (#19)
If Israel demanded solid gold paving stones and diamond studded street lights, our government would happily shell out for it. If our citizens were starving to death in the streets and were begging for food and shelter, "our" government would deem it "Too Expensive".
| Capitalism is NOT an economic system, it's a RELIGION for ASSHOLES! |
#21. To: Sodie Pop (#15)
What the hell you need a new purse for?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest