Since the NY Times mentions it again I thought I'd see what it said. I haven't throughly digested it yet but it appears that the President is saying part of the act is unconsitutional and another part won't work in todays world (comments on section 8059)
1 posted on
01/15/2006 10:10:32 PM PST by
airedale
To: airedale
Bump
To read later
2 posted on
01/15/2006 10:13:08 PM PST by
Fiddlstix
(Tagline Repair Service. Let us fix those broken Taglines. Inquire within(Presented by TagLines R US))
To: airedale
3 posted on
01/15/2006 10:17:19 PM PST by
skinkinthegrass
(Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you :^)
To: airedale
Since the NY Times mentions it again I thought I'd see what it said. I haven't throughly digested it yet but it appears that the President is saying part of the act is unconsitutional and another part won't work in todays world (comments on section 8059)Why didn't he veto it, then?
6 posted on
01/16/2006 3:26:59 AM PST by
raybbr
(ANWR is a barren, frozen wasteland - like the mind of a democrat!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson