Skip to comments.
Senate Defies Bush, Approves Highway Bill
AP ^
| 5/17/2005
| JIM ABRAMS,
Posted on 05/17/2005 12:36:07 PM PDT by katieanna
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-92 next last
To: misterrob
"See Big Dig in Massachusetts..... See Universal Health Care for Illegal Immigrants in USA...
To: katieanna
This is far from a done deal. The bill must be worked out with the House. I am sure the admin. will lean on members there to see that it gets under the spending limit W wants.
This will take time and the judges should be passed by then and so this should not be an issue half-hearted conservatives in the Senate can use to give them an excuse to vote against rule change on judges.
I believe President Bush will veto this bill if it comes to him over the spending limit he set. Yes, he has spent a whole pile of money, so that is not really the issue. But he also puts a lot of weight on his trustworthiness. IMHO.
The Democrat Party delenda est.
To: ctlpdad
>Those of us in the heavy/highway construction industry are cheering
Those of us who drive
on highways are cheering, too,
if it's spent wisely!
To: ctlpdad
A lot of Freepers don't want to compromise their location.
24
posted on
05/17/2005 12:53:08 PM PDT
by
slowpipe
(" I'll go to school if you want me to, Dad. But I won't take Symbolic Logic.")
To: Diddle E. Squat
Sorry, but one way or another there has to be a highways bill. Bicycles are a good alternative to automobile congestion, and so is public transit in large urban areas.
I guess it's okay with everyone here to spend countless billions on building up muslim nations while we suffer potholes.
If you believe in fiscal conservatism, then you must be opposed to all of Bush43's budgets from day one.
25
posted on
05/17/2005 12:54:09 PM PDT
by
La Enchiladita
(Truth is a rare commodity. Seek it, know it and cherish it.)
To: katieanna
arguing that massive spending on bigger and better roads was necessary to fight congestion and unsafe roadways. The President should veto and say that he agrees, so they should send back a bill that cuts out all the stuff that has nothing to do with roads.
26
posted on
05/17/2005 12:55:06 PM PDT
by
Rodney King
(No, we can't all just get along.)
To: katieanna
The senate republicans spend like a bunch of drunken democrats
27
posted on
05/17/2005 12:55:26 PM PDT
by
paul51
(11 September 2001 - Never forget)
To: ctlpdad
Those of us in the heavy/highway construction industry are cheering. I think this and defense are about the only ways our government should be spending money. I'm only for cash payments to cotton farm owners and, if they had them, subsidies to financial consultants.
28
posted on
05/17/2005 12:56:45 PM PDT
by
Rodney King
(No, we can't all just get along.)
To: slowpipe
Good job, you have learned a lot in the last 2 days. Welcome to FR.
29
posted on
05/17/2005 12:56:49 PM PDT
by
ctlpdad
To: mattdono
I have this fear that he won't veto the bill unless he's secure that Congress can override his veto and make it purely symbolic.
To: theFIRMbss
I'd be cheering much more loudly if the FAA would loosen up on personal VTOL aircraft like the Moller M400. Then y'all could have to friggin' roadways all to yourselves. I'd be up about a thousand feet during my commute.
31
posted on
05/17/2005 12:57:27 PM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(Never underestimate the will of the downtrodden to lie flatter.)
To: dead
>expecting some of Paris Hiltons wisdom to rub off on Nichole Ritchie
I'm not gonna throw
a flag on this this time, but
you are on the edge . . .
To: katieanna
I like what George Will called this sort of thing:
Aid to Politicians with Dependent Subcontractors.
33
posted on
05/17/2005 12:59:13 PM PDT
by
inquest
(FTAA delenda est)
To: lnbchip
always remember:
V-E-T-O is a four letter word.
34
posted on
05/17/2005 12:59:26 PM PDT
by
Robert_Paulson2
(The minutemen are 'vigilantes' doncha know?)
To: theFIRMbss
I understand there are plans in the very early planning stages for a project similar to the big dig slated for Chicago. The geology there should make it easier to construct.
35
posted on
05/17/2005 12:59:39 PM PDT
by
ctlpdad
To: rhombus
Those sound like make-work for the union mob.
36
posted on
05/17/2005 1:00:11 PM PDT
by
monkeywrench
(http://ciudadano.presidencia.gob.mx/peticion/peticion.htm -Tell Vicente)
To: Dead Corpse
>I'd be up about a thousand feet during my commute
Yeah, right, getting your
feet shredded by some woman
who was ascending
while sipping coffee,
putting on eye shadow and
talking on her cell . . .
To: Dead Corpse
I like the concept, but the price might make the Mrs shit a biscuit.
38
posted on
05/17/2005 1:03:37 PM PDT
by
ctlpdad
To: theFIRMbss
Better than getting accordioned by the same Beyotch on the ground in her Sucker-mom SUV. At least in the air I've got more space and extra directions to go to avoid a collision.
39
posted on
05/17/2005 1:04:27 PM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(Never underestimate the will of the downtrodden to lie flatter.)
To: ctlpdad
>I understand there are plans in the very early planning stages for a project similar to the big dig slated for Chicago.
The geology there . . .
I was consulting
downtown when the tunnels burst
under the river
and flooded downtown.
Our building's lowest floor had
carp flopping around!
The combination
of our geology and
our politicians
will make a project
that will repay citizens
as entertainment!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-92 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson