Headlines Bush Threatens to Veto Body Armor Legis.

msalyss85

Banned - What an Asshat!
277
0
0
Ok...Bush plans to veto a Body Armor Legislation because, along with the body armor for Iraq (obviously something out troops need), because the legislation gave new federal employees union rights. This is ridiculous. And this isn't about body armor, it's about union rights. What's worse is that the administration attacks Kerry on it, even though Kerry voted for the legislation (Bush admin. says that Kerry doesn't support the legistlation). WTF? Why are these political attacks so ludicrous? If Bush sends over our troops, and over 1000 US soldiers are dead, several thousand injured, and God knows how many civilians injured, why then is it not important to send over body armor, so that maybe our casualties can be cut down?

here is a link of the info: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100777,00.html;

take note of this sentence (in website above): [T]he Administration strongly opposes the Senate provision that would convert a portion of this assistance to a loan mechanism. If this provision is not removed, the President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Also if you want the list of senators who voted against the legislation here you go (even one of the maine senators, Susan Collins, who's on the Armed Forces Committee, voted against it.) This just proves that she's more concerned over the money, and the additional things added in (union's rights) than actually providing for our troops. It's all contradictory. :





whatever. :mfinger: :mfinger: :mfinger:
 

DanGeo23

Resident Conservative
1,218
0
0
yeah.. its fucked up when legislators undermine our troops by adding provisions to perfectly good legislation to try and get one past the Prez...
 

tzedek

Original Member
2,515
4
38
DanGeo23 said:
yeah.. its fucked up when legislators undermine our troops by adding provisions to perfectly good legislation to try and get one past the Prez...

so you would rather have no body armor and no union rights than protect our troops and give employees rights?? :confused:
 

DanGeo23

Resident Conservative
1,218
0
0
TZ said:
so you would rather have no body armor and no union rights than protect our troops and give employees rights??
no... I would rather have a bill for the body armor.. and a bill for whatever the union issue is... I'd rather riders that aren't related to the main focus of the bill be left off...
although I am not fond of the current state of Unions here in the US... I think they have moved away from thier original intent..

BTW I am a Teamster... local 580.....
 

dustinzgirl

Banned - What an Asshat!
26,094
183
0
tzedek said:
so you would rather have no body armor and no union rights than protect our troops and give employees rights?? :confused:
Welcome to Corporate America, where YOUR vote counts, but only if it agrees with OURS
 

tzedek

Original Member
2,515
4
38
DanGeo23 said:
no... I would rather have a bill for the body armor.. and a bill for whatever the union issue is... I'd rather riders that aren't related to the main focus of the bill be left off...
yes, but do you support the president vetoing this bill or not? that was my question.
 

DanGeo23

Resident Conservative
1,218
0
0
yes veto... or line Item veto the bs... ohh wait... LI Vetos are "unconstitutional"... so yeah... veto.. and propose a new body armor bill... with out the extra bs...