|
|
Post by VICTORCHARLIE on Jan 20, 2010 7:08:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mtephraimneighbor on Jan 20, 2010 8:23:43 GMT -5
clap clap clap
|
|
dfc
Newbie
Posts: 19
|
Post by dfc on Jan 20, 2010 12:08:41 GMT -5
yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
|
|
|
|
Post by VICTORCHARLIE on Jan 20, 2010 13:06:36 GMT -5
Where is the PUNK left is fascist. |
|
|
|
Post by vincegatto on Jan 20, 2010 13:56:13 GMT -5
This is actually good for the Democrats. Now instead of having legislation held up (like health care reform) by members of their own party - they can blame the Republicans, the party of "no".
Even with a "super majority", the Dems could not unite to pass legislation - so it does not matter whether they have 59 or 60 votes in the Senate.
The American people will only stand for so much filibustering and the more the Democrats make the Republicans do it, the worse they'll look.
|
|
|
|
Post by VICTORCHARLIE on Jan 20, 2010 14:43:33 GMT -5
Only in your world it's good to lose. |
|
|
|
Post by vincegatto on Jan 20, 2010 16:49:40 GMT -5
Only in your world it's good to lose. It's not about winning or losing. It is about the public perception of "change". The President ran on change, it did not happen. Brown is the agent of change in Mass. "It's the economy, stupid", people are upset about the economy. If the Republicans gain seats in 2010 because of public dissatisfaction - they are going to need to be agents of change. When that does not happen - the economy does not pick up, the pendulum will swing back in 2012. Voters like to "throw the bums out". Corzine got thrown out, Christi needs to lower your property taxes - when that does not happen in four years, we'll get rid of that "bum" too. There are no winners or loses, only "bums" to throw out. It would be nice if people were for someone or something once in a while. |
|
|
|
Post by stevemcgarrett on Jan 20, 2010 20:45:19 GMT -5
Only in your world it's good to lose. It's not about winning or losing. It is about the public perception of "change". The President ran on change, it did not happen. Brown is the agent of change in Mass. "It's the economy, stupid", people are upset about the economy. If the Republicans gain seats in 2010 because of public dissatisfaction - they are going to need to be agents of change. When that does not happen - the economy does not pick up, the pendulum will swing back in 2012. Voters like to "throw the bums out". Corzine got thrown out, Christi needs to lower your property taxes - when that does not happen in four years, we'll get rid of that "bum" too. There are no winners or loses, only "bums" to throw out. It would be nice if people were for someone or something once in a while. Hey, they could be like you ROBIN HOOD, robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Weeeeee!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by vincegatto on Jan 20, 2010 21:05:02 GMT -5
It's not about winning or losing. It is about the public perception of "change". The President ran on change, it did not happen. Brown is the agent of change in Mass. "It's the economy, stupid", people are upset about the economy. If the Republicans gain seats in 2010 because of public dissatisfaction - they are going to need to be agents of change. When that does not happen - the economy does not pick up, the pendulum will swing back in 2012. Voters like to "throw the bums out". Corzine got thrown out, Christi needs to lower your property taxes - when that does not happen in four years, we'll get rid of that "bum" too. There are no winners or loses, only "bums" to throw out. It would be nice if people were for someone or something once in a while. Hey, they could be like you ROBIN HOOD, robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Weeeeee!!!!!!!!! Or they could just be robbing the taxpayers and keeping the money: www.courierpostonline.com/article/20100120/NEWS01/100120049/State-revokes-disgraced-senator-s-pension |
|
|
|
Post by stevemcgarrett on Jan 21, 2010 7:36:46 GMT -5
Whats your point? There are a lot of criminals in politics...maybe thats why people have that 'throw the bum out' mentality. You just made the point you were arguing against Vince. |
|
