The Cracks are Showing

[Sassy1natl 0]

At first I thought you were talking about butt cracks....

Dang it!!! I was. I forgot! Now I'm getin' edumacated.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

To add the reasons why Bush said he vetoed the bill:

President Bush vetoed the bill on November 2nd, explaining[6]:

“ This bill lacks fiscal discipline. ..."

What does Bush know about fiscal discipline? This is the gut that came into office when the deficit was at 5 trillion dollars and had actually stopped growing. Now that his two terms draw to a close, the federal deficit is almost twice what it was when he came in - a staggering 9.7 trillion dollars with a rising trend. And that even though he had a fully Republican Congress to work with for 6 out of his 8 years. How dare he speak of fiscal responsibility?

Yeah, this pork laden bill even gave Bush heartburn. For a president that likes to spend money this one finally reached the point where the pork was more important than the bill itself. Bush felt he had to veto this one even though he knew the bill was needed and he also knew that he would be painted as someone that didn't care about the issue. You should be so proud of your liberal buddies. They managed to create a false issue by wanting to break the bank. A win - win for them, if he passed it all their rich buddies got their pork, if he vetoed it they had an issue to bash Bush with. I am sure you feel very proud of them. Congratulations.

This is getting better with every post. So tell me, Gary, how the Republicans in Congress manage to work with Bush to boost the the federal deficit to record levels? Why did they not put away with pork when they had both the White House and the Congress to do it? Instead, they gave in to Sen Steven's useless and horribly expensive project to build a massive bridge to nowhere. But yeah, it's always all the liberals fault. Is the weather pleasant in that bubble, Gary?

[Sassy1natl 0]

**be right back. Gonna make a sammich.**

[one...two...tree 2,762]

More reality...

Senate Votes to Deal Bush First Veto Override of Presidency

Washington, DC – Today, Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa) applauded the Senate’s vote to override President Bush’s veto of the Water Resources Development Act (HR 1495), a bill that would authorize $3.7 billion for lock and dam improvements and environmental projects on the Mississippi River. The House voted on Tuesday to override the WRDA veto.

“I applaud the Senate for acting today to pass the much needed Water Resources bill into law,” Braley said. “This is a big victory for Iowa. WRDA will provide $3.7 billion of funding for critical Mississippi River lock and dam modernization and environmental projects. It’ll help boost the Iowa economy by making it easier to ship Iowa agriculture and manufacturing products to the world.

“Despite President Bush’s continued opposition to the Water Resources legislation, Congress joined together in a bipartisan way to pass this important bill into law. Clearly, the President is more willing to invest in his failed Iraq policies than in critical infrastructure improvements here at home.

“This is the first Water Resources bill passed into law in seven years, and I am proud to have helped craft this legislation when it was introduced in the House Transportation Committee.

http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=110105

[GaryC 7]

More reality...

Senate Votes to Deal Bush First Veto Override of Presidency

Washington, DC – Today, Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa) applauded the Senate’s vote to override President Bush’s veto of the Water Resources Development Act (HR 1495), a bill that would authorize $3.7 billion for lock and dam improvements and environmental projects on the Mississippi River. The House voted on Tuesday to override the WRDA veto.

“I applaud the Senate for acting today to pass the much needed Water Resources bill into law,” Braley said. “This is a big victory for Iowa. WRDA will provide $3.7 billion of funding for critical Mississippi River lock and dam modernization and environmental projects. It’ll help boost the Iowa economy by making it easier to ship Iowa agriculture and manufacturing products to the world.

“Despite President Bush’s continued opposition to the Water Resources legislation, Congress joined together in a bipartisan way to pass this important bill into law. Clearly, the President is more willing to invest in his failed Iraq policies than in critical infrastructure improvements here at home.

“This is the first Water Resources bill passed into law in seven years, and I am proud to have helped craft this legislation when it was introduced in the House Transportation Committee.

http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=110105

Your still not understanding that it's the pork and not the bill. To say that Bush didn't want it because of the environmental benefits is just an outright liberal lie. Show me anywhere that supports this. Your stories are all slanted to the liberal side. Arguing with liberals is a total waste of time. Your slant is all you see.

Let me state it one more time. If all the pork were taken out of this bill Bush would have signed it. You are defending the waste.

To add the reasons why Bush said he vetoed the bill:

President Bush vetoed the bill on November 2nd, explaining[6]:

“ This bill lacks fiscal discipline. ..."

What does Bush know about fiscal discipline? This is the gut that came into office when the deficit was at 5 trillion dollars and had actually stopped growing. Now that his two terms draw to a close, the federal deficit is almost twice what it was when he came in - a staggering 9.7 trillion dollars with a rising trend. And that even though he had a fully Republican Congress to work with for 6 out of his 8 years. How dare he speak of fiscal responsibility?

Yeah, this pork laden bill even gave Bush heartburn. For a president that likes to spend money this one finally reached the point where the pork was more important than the bill itself. Bush felt he had to veto this one even though he knew the bill was needed and he also knew that he would be painted as someone that didn't care about the issue. You should be so proud of your liberal buddies. They managed to create a false issue by wanting to break the bank. A win - win for them, if he passed it all their rich buddies got their pork, if he vetoed it they had an issue to bash Bush with. I am sure you feel very proud of them. Congratulations.

This is getting better with every post. So tell me, Gary, how the Republicans in Congress manage to work with Bush to boost the the federal deficit to record levels? Why did they not put away with pork when they had both the White House and the Congress to do it? Instead, they gave in to Sen Steven's useless and horribly expensive project to build a massive bridge to nowhere. But yeah, it's always all the liberals fault. Is the weather pleasant in that bubble, Gary?

The reps were bad but the libs were even worse. Your defending wasteful spending? You want the very thing your damning Bush for? Very nice. Your little bubble must be a wonderful place also.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Your still not understanding that it's the pork and not the bill. To say that Bush didn't want it because of the environmental benefits is just an outright liberal lie. Show me anywhere that supports this. Your stories are all slanted to the liberal side. Arguing with liberals is a total waste of time. Your slant is all you see.

Let me state it one more time. If all the pork were taken out of this bill Bush would have signed it. You are defending the waste.

S. Rep. John Boozman, R-Ark., cast a vote Tuesday to override a presidential veto of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (H. R. 1495 ).

Boozman believes the veto should be overridden, and most of his colleagues in the House agree, James said before the House vote on Tuesday.

"Today, the WRDA bill, the override vote, is going to come up. And the congressman is going to override the president's veto on that. … I understand his concerns. But what it boils down to is, this bill has been seven years in the making. And if you get a bill with seven years worth of projects on it, it's going to be a little expensive. But it's not willy-nilly spending. It's all stuff that people need, that's going to make people safer, by protecting floodplains and all kinds of stuff like that. And there are two major projects in the 3 rd District that we're going to vote to make sure (they ) stand. I think the president understands that." ~ Ryan James, Boozman's communications director.

http://nwanews.com/bcdr/News/55461/

......

and more...

WATERWAYS COUNCIL URGES CONGRESS TO OVERRIDE PRESIDENT'S VETO OF WRDA

WASHINGTON, DC – Waterways Council, Inc. (WCI), and its more than 300 members and supporters nationwide, including those from the environmental and conservation communities, are urging the House and Senate to override the President’s veto on Friday of HR 1495, the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. The long-awaited and delayed WRDA legislation would authorize critically important projects on the inland waterways including the modernization of seven locks along the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers, and projects on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway at Bayou Sorrel and Matagorda Bay. Last August, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the legislation by a vote of 381 to 40; the final Senate vote to approve the WRDA conference report in September was 81 to 12.

An override of the President’s veto and final passage of the WRDA legislation reflects the vital importance of the inland waterways system and its role in keeping the Nation economically competitive and our citizens productively employed. The WRDA bill will also help to improve our ports, flood and hurricane protection systems, and restore critically important ecosystems and marine habitats.

“While we were very disappointed with the President’s veto of this bill, we hope that the House and Senate will move swiftly to override the veto and approve WRDA,” said R. Barry Palmer, Waterways Council’s President and CEO. “Our Nation is dependent on its critical infrastructure, and it is time to provide construction authorization for future investments," Palmer said.

America’s waterways system is an economic generator, attracting significant private and public investment in plants and equipment. This investment creates economic activity and family-wage jobs. The river system is a critical energy supply line, facilitator of exports, and an environmentally superior mode of transport.

Waterways Council, Inc. is the national public policy organization advocating a modern and well-maintained national system of ports and inland waterways. The group is supported by waterways carriers, shippers, port authorities, shipping associations and waterways advocacy groups from all regions of the country.

http://www.mgn.com/news/newsreleasedetails...=6415&type=

Edited June 29, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

To add the reasons why Bush said he vetoed the bill:

President Bush vetoed the bill on November 2nd, explaining[6]:

“ This bill lacks fiscal discipline. ..."

What does Bush know about fiscal discipline? This is the gut that came into office when the deficit was at 5 trillion dollars and had actually stopped growing. Now that his two terms draw to a close, the federal deficit is almost twice what it was when he came in - a staggering 9.7 trillion dollars with a rising trend. And that even though he had a fully Republican Congress to work with for 6 out of his 8 years. How dare he speak of fiscal responsibility?

Yeah, this pork laden bill even gave Bush heartburn. For a president that likes to spend money this one finally reached the point where the pork was more important than the bill itself. Bush felt he had to veto this one even though he knew the bill was needed and he also knew that he would be painted as someone that didn't care about the issue. You should be so proud of your liberal buddies. They managed to create a false issue by wanting to break the bank. A win - win for them, if he passed it all their rich buddies got their pork, if he vetoed it they had an issue to bash Bush with. I am sure you feel very proud of them. Congratulations.

This is getting better with every post. So tell me, Gary, how the Republicans in Congress manage to work with Bush to boost the the federal deficit to record levels? Why did they not put away with pork when they had both the White House and the Congress to do it? Instead, they gave in to Sen Steven's useless and horribly expensive project to build a massive bridge to nowhere. But yeah, it's always all the liberals fault. Is the weather pleasant in that bubble, Gary?

The reps were bad but the libs were even worse. Your defending wasteful spending? You want the very thing your damning Bush for? Very nice. Your little bubble must be a wonderful place also.

When and where have I defended wasteful spending?

[GaryC 7]

To add the reasons why Bush said he vetoed the bill:

President Bush vetoed the bill on November 2nd, explaining[6]:

“ This bill lacks fiscal discipline. ..."

What does Bush know about fiscal discipline? This is the gut that came into office when the deficit was at 5 trillion dollars and had actually stopped growing. Now that his two terms draw to a close, the federal deficit is almost twice what it was when he came in - a staggering 9.7 trillion dollars with a rising trend. And that even though he had a fully Republican Congress to work with for 6 out of his 8 years. How dare he speak of fiscal responsibility?

Yeah, this pork laden bill even gave Bush heartburn. For a president that likes to spend money this one finally reached the point where the pork was more important than the bill itself. Bush felt he had to veto this one even though he knew the bill was needed and he also knew that he would be painted as someone that didn't care about the issue. You should be so proud of your liberal buddies. They managed to create a false issue by wanting to break the bank. A win - win for them, if he passed it all their rich buddies got their pork, if he vetoed it they had an issue to bash Bush with. I am sure you feel very proud of them. Congratulations.

This is getting better with every post. So tell me, Gary, how the Republicans in Congress manage to work with Bush to boost the the federal deficit to record levels? Why did they not put away with pork when they had both the White House and the Congress to do it? Instead, they gave in to Sen Steven's useless and horribly expensive project to build a massive bridge to nowhere. But yeah, it's always all the liberals fault. Is the weather pleasant in that bubble, Gary?

The reps were bad but the libs were even worse. Your defending wasteful spending? You want the very thing your damning Bush for? Very nice. Your little bubble must be a wonderful place also.

When and where have I defended wasteful spending?

By giving Bush hell for vetoing this bill. If you were in favor of reducing wasteful spending you should be saying, I don't like Bush but I agree with this veto. You aren't so you must be in favor of wasteful spending.

[GaryC 7]

Your still not understanding that it's the pork and not the bill. To say that Bush didn't want it because of the environmental benefits is just an outright liberal lie. Show me anywhere that supports this. Your stories are all slanted to the liberal side. Arguing with liberals is a total waste of time. Your slant is all you see.

Let me state it one more time. If all the pork were taken out of this bill Bush would have signed it. You are defending the waste.

S. Rep. John Boozman, R-Ark., cast a vote Tuesday to override a presidential veto of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (H. R. 1495 ).

Boozman believes the veto should be overridden, and most of his colleagues in the House agree, James said before the House vote on Tuesday.

"Today, the WRDA bill, the override vote, is going to come up. And the congressman is going to override the president's veto on that. … I understand his concerns. But what it boils down to is, this bill has been seven years in the making. And if you get a bill with seven years worth of projects on it, it's going to be a little expensive. But it's not willy-nilly spending. It's all stuff that people need, that's going to make people safer, by protecting floodplains and all kinds of stuff like that. And there are two major projects in the 3 rd District that we're going to vote to make sure (they ) stand. I think the president understands that." ~ Ryan James, Boozman's communications director.

http://nwanews.com/bcdr/News/55461/

......

and more...

WATERWAYS COUNCIL URGES CONGRESS TO OVERRIDE PRESIDENT'S VETO OF WRDA

WASHINGTON, DC – Waterways Council, Inc. (WCI), and its more than 300 members and supporters nationwide, including those from the environmental and conservation communities, are urging the House and Senate to override the President’s veto on Friday of HR 1495, the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. The long-awaited and delayed WRDA legislation would authorize critically important projects on the inland waterways including the modernization of seven locks along the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers, and projects on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway at Bayou Sorrel and Matagorda Bay. Last August, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the legislation by a vote of 381 to 40; the final Senate vote to approve the WRDA conference report in September was 81 to 12.

An override of the President’s veto and final passage of the WRDA legislation reflects the vital importance of the inland waterways system and its role in keeping the Nation economically competitive and our citizens productively employed. The WRDA bill will also help to improve our ports, flood and hurricane protection systems, and restore critically important ecosystems and marine habitats.

“While we were very disappointed with the President’s veto of this bill, we hope that the House and Senate will move swiftly to override the veto and approve WRDA,” said R. Barry Palmer, Waterways Council’s President and CEO. “Our Nation is dependent on its critical infrastructure, and it is time to provide construction authorization for future investments," Palmer said.

America’s waterways system is an economic generator, attracting significant private and public investment in plants and equipment. This investment creates economic activity and family-wage jobs. The river system is a critical energy supply line, facilitator of exports, and an environmentally superior mode of transport.

Waterways Council, Inc. is the national public policy organization advocating a modern and well-maintained national system of ports and inland waterways. The group is supported by waterways carriers, shippers, port authorities, shipping associations and waterways advocacy groups from all regions of the country.

http://www.mgn.com/news/newsreleasedetails...=6415&type=

The point is still sailing a mile over your head Steven, the water bill had supporters. The water bill was a good measure. The massive amounts of pork made it something that had to be killed. Don't you get it? You can post a thousand stories of people and groups that support the water bill but the fact there is massive amounts of pork in it is why it got vetoed. Wake up man!!!!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

To add the reasons why Bush said he vetoed the bill:

President Bush vetoed the bill on November 2nd, explaining[6]:

“ This bill lacks fiscal discipline. ..."

What does Bush know about fiscal discipline? This is the gut that came into office when the deficit was at 5 trillion dollars and had actually stopped growing. Now that his two terms draw to a close, the federal deficit is almost twice what it was when he came in - a staggering 9.7 trillion dollars with a rising trend. And that even though he had a fully Republican Congress to work with for 6 out of his 8 years. How dare he speak of fiscal responsibility?

Yeah, this pork laden bill even gave Bush heartburn. For a president that likes to spend money this one finally reached the point where the pork was more important than the bill itself. Bush felt he had to veto this one even though he knew the bill was needed and he also knew that he would be painted as someone that didn't care about the issue. You should be so proud of your liberal buddies. They managed to create a false issue by wanting to break the bank. A win - win for them, if he passed it all their rich buddies got their pork, if he vetoed it they had an issue to bash Bush with. I am sure you feel very proud of them. Congratulations.

This is getting better with every post. So tell me, Gary, how the Republicans in Congress manage to work with Bush to boost the the federal deficit to record levels? Why did they not put away with pork when they had both the White House and the Congress to do it? Instead, they gave in to Sen Steven's useless and horribly expensive project to build a massive bridge to nowhere. But yeah, it's always all the liberals fault. Is the weather pleasant in that bubble, Gary?

The reps were bad but the libs were even worse. Your defending wasteful spending? You want the very thing your damning Bush for? Very nice. Your little bubble must be a wonderful place also.

When and where have I defended wasteful spending?

By giving Bush hell for vetoing this bill. If you were in favor of reducing wasteful spending you should be saying, I don't like Bush but I agree with this veto. You aren't so you must be in favor of wasteful spending.

No, Gary. That would only be so if I would take the president by his word. I don't do that. Bush signed off the bridge to nowhere and squandered what will amount to a couple trillion dollars on a needless war, so don't tell me he vetoed this bill because it contained wasteful spending.

[GaryC 7]

To add the reasons why Bush said he vetoed the bill:

President Bush vetoed the bill on November 2nd, explaining[6]:

“ This bill lacks fiscal discipline. ..."

What does Bush know about fiscal discipline? This is the gut that came into office when the deficit was at 5 trillion dollars and had actually stopped growing. Now that his two terms draw to a close, the federal deficit is almost twice what it was when he came in - a staggering 9.7 trillion dollars with a rising trend. And that even though he had a fully Republican Congress to work with for 6 out of his 8 years. How dare he speak of fiscal responsibility?

Yeah, this pork laden bill even gave Bush heartburn. For a president that likes to spend money this one finally reached the point where the pork was more important than the bill itself. Bush felt he had to veto this one even though he knew the bill was needed and he also knew that he would be painted as someone that didn't care about the issue. You should be so proud of your liberal buddies. They managed to create a false issue by wanting to break the bank. A win - win for them, if he passed it all their rich buddies got their pork, if he vetoed it they had an issue to bash Bush with. I am sure you feel very proud of them. Congratulations.

This is getting better with every post. So tell me, Gary, how the Republicans in Congress manage to work with Bush to boost the the federal deficit to record levels? Why did they not put away with pork when they had both the White House and the Congress to do it? Instead, they gave in to Sen Steven's useless and horribly expensive project to build a massive bridge to nowhere. But yeah, it's always all the liberals fault. Is the weather pleasant in that bubble, Gary?

The reps were bad but the libs were even worse. Your defending wasteful spending? You want the very thing your damning Bush for? Very nice. Your little bubble must be a wonderful place also.

When and where have I defended wasteful spending?

By giving Bush hell for vetoing this bill. If you were in favor of reducing wasteful spending you should be saying, I don't like Bush but I agree with this veto. You aren't so you must be in favor of wasteful spending.

No, Gary. That would only be so if I would take the president by his word. I don't do that. Bush signed off the bridge to nowhere and squandered what will amount to a couple trillion dollars on a needless war, so don't tell me he vetoed this bill because it contained wasteful spending.

You tell me then, why do you think he vetoed this?

[Sassy1natl 0]

Tension breaker!! LOL

[Sassy1natl 0]

Sorry. Once I start, it's hard to stop. Last one, I promise.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

To add the reasons why Bush said he vetoed the bill:

President Bush vetoed the bill on November 2nd, explaining[6]:

“ This bill lacks fiscal discipline. ..."

What does Bush know about fiscal discipline? This is the gut that came into office when the deficit was at 5 trillion dollars and had actually stopped growing. Now that his two terms draw to a close, the federal deficit is almost twice what it was when he came in - a staggering 9.7 trillion dollars with a rising trend. And that even though he had a fully Republican Congress to work with for 6 out of his 8 years. How dare he speak of fiscal responsibility?

Yeah, this pork laden bill even gave Bush heartburn. For a president that likes to spend money this one finally reached the point where the pork was more important than the bill itself. Bush felt he had to veto this one even though he knew the bill was needed and he also knew that he would be painted as someone that didn't care about the issue. You should be so proud of your liberal buddies. They managed to create a false issue by wanting to break the bank. A win - win for them, if he passed it all their rich buddies got their pork, if he vetoed it they had an issue to bash Bush with. I am sure you feel very proud of them. Congratulations.

This is getting better with every post. So tell me, Gary, how the Republicans in Congress manage to work with Bush to boost the the federal deficit to record levels? Why did they not put away with pork when they had both the White House and the Congress to do it? Instead, they gave in to Sen Steven's useless and horribly expensive project to build a massive bridge to nowhere. But yeah, it's always all the liberals fault. Is the weather pleasant in that bubble, Gary?

The reps were bad but the libs were even worse. Your defending wasteful spending? You want the very thing your damning Bush for? Very nice. Your little bubble must be a wonderful place also.

When and where have I defended wasteful spending?

By giving Bush hell for vetoing this bill. If you were in favor of reducing wasteful spending you should be saying, I don't like Bush but I agree with this veto. You aren't so you must be in favor of wasteful spending.

No, Gary. That would only be so if I would take the president by his word. I don't do that. Bush signed off the bridge to nowhere and squandered what will amount to a couple trillion dollars on a needless war, so don't tell me he vetoed this bill because it contained wasteful spending.

You tell me then, why do you think he vetoed this?

Beats the hell outta me. He did a lot of things that don't make any sense.

[GaryC 7]

Beats the hell outta me. He did a lot of things that don't make any sense.

Anything but what he says huh? Your BDS is getting terminal. If McCain wins we will have to put a suicide watch on you.