kallend 2,106 #76 September 30, 2008 Quote Just because politicians act stupid...Does not mean you or I should act stupid? You never answered this one. Yes and no. You are on record as supporting Bush and I'm not. 'Nuff said. And the answer to my question, which you avoided, is ZERO. Congress didn't have to override a Bush spending veto while record deficits were being run up by the GOP controlled Congress, because Bush didn't veto anything until July 2006 (and that wasn't a spending bill.)SO your comment about veto overrides was irrelevant and meaningless.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #77 September 30, 2008 QuoteYes and no. You are on record as supporting Bush and I'm not. 'Nuff said. I am also on the record for not supporting Bush. So, no not "Nuff said". You are using fallacies, and you can do much better than that. QuoteSO your comment about veto overrides was irrelevant and meaningless. No, it is relevant. You seem to think only one person is responsible for every wrong doing in the world. Again, not very logical and you can do better than that."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #78 September 30, 2008 Quote Quote Yes and no. You are on record as supporting Bush and I'm not. 'Nuff said. I am also on the record for not supporting Bush. Funny how the devout Bush supporters from 2004 are now distancing themselves from him. Quote So, no not "Nuff said". You are using fallacies, and you can do much better than that. Quote SO your comment about veto overrides was irrelevant and meaningless. No, it is relevant. You seem to think only one person is responsible for every wrong doing in the world. Again, not very logical and you can do better than that. Why snip the following bit - we can all back up and read it. It shows your point is moot in the case of Bush's spending. He didn't veto ANYTHING. He could have, he had a veto-proof majority in Congress, and he didn't do it. Congress didn't have to override a Bush spending veto while record deficits were being run up by the GOP controlled Congress, because Bush didn't veto anything until July 2006 (and that wasn't a spending bill.) ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #79 September 30, 2008 QuoteFunny how the devout Bush supporters from 2004 are now distancing themselves from him. He was still a better choice than Kerry, IMO. But that does not mean I agree with everything he said and did. You are using the fallacy of Composition. You should know better than that. The world is not as black and white as you wish it to be. QuoteWhy snip the following bit - we can all back up and read it. It shows your point is moot in the case of Bush's spending. He didn't veto ANYTHING. He could have, he had a veto-proof majority in Congress, and he didn't do it. Again, you can try to blame it all on one man. But that is nothing but your hatred of him showing. Congress sent him bills....He didn't pen them. And you will notice that the financial issues were not a crisis till after the Dems took Congress. And McCain had tried to bring this up in 2005, but it was killed by Dodd and others. Again, it is not as simple as you wish to claim it is."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #80 September 30, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Yes and no. You are on record as supporting Bush and I'm not. 'Nuff said. I am also on the record for not supporting Bush. Funny how the devout Bush supporters from 2004 are now distancing themselves from him. Quote So, no not "Nuff said". You are using fallacies, and you can do much better than that. Quote SO your comment about veto overrides was irrelevant and meaningless. No, it is relevant. You seem to think only one person is responsible for every wrong doing in the world. Again, not very logical and you can do better than that. Why snip the following bit - we can all back up and read it. It shows your point is moot in the case of Bush's spending. He didn't veto ANYTHING. He could have, he had a veto-proof majority in Congress, and he didn't do it. Congress didn't have to override a Bush spending veto while record deficits were being run up by the GOP controlled Congress, because Bush didn't veto anything until July 2006 (and that wasn't a spending bill.) Why didn't dem's stop any of this spending in the senate? seems to me that they let this happen also. the blame is on both sides. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
