|
12 Nov 03 - 07:12 PM (#1052776) Subject: BS: Congressional Slumber Party From: Bobert Oh, those wacky, Republicans... Yep, at a time when they should be passing a budget, they've called for an all-nighter, hoping to find a Dem asleep at the wheel. The issue: judges. Seems that when the Repubs were busy "doing their duty" in blocking dozens and dozens Clinton's appointments, when the Dems try to block 3 of Bush's they cry "Obstruction!"... These guys are a bunch of cry babies. They want what they want when they want it... Bobert |
|
12 Nov 03 - 07:19 PM (#1052781) Subject: RE: BS: Congressional Slumber Party From: kendall And they don't mention the 168 appointees the Dems DID support! |
|
13 Nov 03 - 06:05 PM (#1053363) Subject: RE: BS: Congressional Slumber Party From: Charlie Baum It's a wonder that such a boring kvetchathon gets news coverage. --Charlie Baum |
|
13 Nov 03 - 06:49 PM (#1053392) Subject: RE: BS: Congressional Slumber Party From: artbrooks Congress Slumber Why do these words seem to go so well together? |
|
13 Nov 03 - 10:04 PM (#1053500) Subject: RE: BS: Congressional Slumber Party From: NicoleC Because the second usually follows the first. *wink* *wink* |
|
13 Nov 03 - 10:53 PM (#1053525) Subject: RE: BS: Congressional Slumber Party From: Bee-dubya-ell I love it 'cause the whole thing's gotta backfire in their faces. Before the Republicans pulled this little stunt, how many folks were aware that the Dems have blocked 4 Bush nominees while the Reps blocked something like 63 Clinton nominees? Hardly anyone. I didn't know it. Guess what? I know it now and so do a lot of other people. Lotsa people gotta be askin', "63 to 4 and you're bitchin' about it?" Bruce |