- This topic has 330 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 8 months ago by
Aecetia.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 1, 2010 at 11:43 AM #17130March 1, 2010 at 12:59 PM #519399
briansd1
GuestIf the Republicans would vote with Democrats, then we would have health care and change.
It looks to me like the Republicans are stalling to preserve the status quo and PREVENT change.
Zeit, your post implies that the Democrats are continuing the corrupt practices of the Republicans. Hence no change.
The Democrats are better in that, without the deadlock tactics of the Republicans, there would be change. So, as I’ve argued before, we are making incremental progress in the right direction.
*
What the does Rangel have anything to do with ending the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Obama is committed to ending the wars as soon as possible.
March 1, 2010 at 12:59 PM #519540GuestIf the Republicans would vote with Democrats, then we would have health care and change.
It looks to me like the Republicans are stalling to preserve the status quo and PREVENT change.
Zeit, your post implies that the Democrats are continuing the corrupt practices of the Republicans. Hence no change.
The Democrats are better in that, without the deadlock tactics of the Republicans, there would be change. So, as I’ve argued before, we are making incremental progress in the right direction.
*
What the does Rangel have anything to do with ending the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Obama is committed to ending the wars as soon as possible.
March 1, 2010 at 12:59 PM #519973GuestIf the Republicans would vote with Democrats, then we would have health care and change.
It looks to me like the Republicans are stalling to preserve the status quo and PREVENT change.
Zeit, your post implies that the Democrats are continuing the corrupt practices of the Republicans. Hence no change.
The Democrats are better in that, without the deadlock tactics of the Republicans, there would be change. So, as I’ve argued before, we are making incremental progress in the right direction.
*
What the does Rangel have anything to do with ending the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Obama is committed to ending the wars as soon as possible.
March 1, 2010 at 12:59 PM #520064GuestIf the Republicans would vote with Democrats, then we would have health care and change.
It looks to me like the Republicans are stalling to preserve the status quo and PREVENT change.
Zeit, your post implies that the Democrats are continuing the corrupt practices of the Republicans. Hence no change.
The Democrats are better in that, without the deadlock tactics of the Republicans, there would be change. So, as I’ve argued before, we are making incremental progress in the right direction.
*
What the does Rangel have anything to do with ending the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Obama is committed to ending the wars as soon as possible.
March 1, 2010 at 12:59 PM #520321GuestIf the Republicans would vote with Democrats, then we would have health care and change.
It looks to me like the Republicans are stalling to preserve the status quo and PREVENT change.
Zeit, your post implies that the Democrats are continuing the corrupt practices of the Republicans. Hence no change.
The Democrats are better in that, without the deadlock tactics of the Republicans, there would be change. So, as I’ve argued before, we are making incremental progress in the right direction.
*
What the does Rangel have anything to do with ending the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Obama is committed to ending the wars as soon as possible.
March 1, 2010 at 5:23 PM #519499danielwis
ParticipantWe won’t see real change until next congressional sessions, where the Senate rules are voted on starting day one. Look for a change in the filibuster rules. With Republican abuse of the filibuster, its hard to get anything done in that body. The House has nearly two hundred bills already approved and waiting for Senate action.
March 1, 2010 at 5:23 PM #519640ParticipantWe won’t see real change until next congressional sessions, where the Senate rules are voted on starting day one. Look for a change in the filibuster rules. With Republican abuse of the filibuster, its hard to get anything done in that body. The House has nearly two hundred bills already approved and waiting for Senate action.
March 1, 2010 at 5:23 PM #520073ParticipantWe won’t see real change until next congressional sessions, where the Senate rules are voted on starting day one. Look for a change in the filibuster rules. With Republican abuse of the filibuster, its hard to get anything done in that body. The House has nearly two hundred bills already approved and waiting for Senate action.
March 1, 2010 at 5:23 PM #520164ParticipantWe won’t see real change until next congressional sessions, where the Senate rules are voted on starting day one. Look for a change in the filibuster rules. With Republican abuse of the filibuster, its hard to get anything done in that body. The House has nearly two hundred bills already approved and waiting for Senate action.
March 1, 2010 at 5:23 PM #520420ParticipantWe won’t see real change until next congressional sessions, where the Senate rules are voted on starting day one. Look for a change in the filibuster rules. With Republican abuse of the filibuster, its hard to get anything done in that body. The House has nearly two hundred bills already approved and waiting for Senate action.
March 1, 2010 at 6:17 PM #519514GuestSo what we have today is a party that wants to implement change; and we have the other party blocking any kind of change.
March 1, 2010 at 6:17 PM #519655GuestSo what we have today is a party that wants to implement change; and we have the other party blocking any kind of change.
March 1, 2010 at 6:17 PM #520088GuestSo what we have today is a party that wants to implement change; and we have the other party blocking any kind of change.
March 1, 2010 at 6:17 PM #520179GuestSo what we have today is a party that wants to implement change; and we have the other party blocking any kind of change.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.