irateplatypus

oh my, we're really grasping for straws now.

if that's true (and i'm really not certain that it is) then i hope for the relevance of the post that the senator was somehow acting on behalf of the governor of texas. The first contention in this thread was that Kerry never made those types of cuts... then it switched to Kerry have an unverifiable good reason for those cuts, an idea that stands in opposition to the actual text of the bill... now the argument is that an unnamed senator, representing an unknown number of other senators, was going to make steeper cuts but Kerry made a compromise? I'm open to new factual information, but I'm not buying any of it right now.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill