|
|
#21
10-25-2007, 03:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Senate quashes grant for Woodstock museum
[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure he would define a change from Republican control of congress to Democratic control as no change. [/ QUOTE ] It's not just that. Almost everyone who ran got re-elected, just like every other year. The bulk of change happens in open seats. 
|
|
#23
10-25-2007, 06:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Senate quashes grant for Woodstock museum
Fair enough. But if all the Democrats lost next time, and the congress was 100% Republican, would it be any different for the country if all the Republicans lost and the congress was 100% Democrat?
|
|
#24
10-25-2007, 06:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Senate quashes grant for Woodstock museum
Hippies should not get a museum
|
|
#25
10-25-2007, 07:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Senate quashes grant for Woodstock museum
[ QUOTE ]
Senate quashes grant for Woodstock museum McCain is good publicity for blasting this. Hillary and Schumer of course want it funded: Clinton and her New York colleague, Sen. Charles Schumer, had the funding inserted into the $604 billion education and health spending bill. The Woodstock project's main backer, Alan Gerry, is a registered Republican who recently became a major contributor to the Schumer-led Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Nine days after the "earmark" was placed in the bill in June, Gerry and his wife contributed the maximum of $9,200 to Clinton's primary and general election campaign funds. The Gerry family contributed an additional $20,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, USA TODAY reported Wednesday. You give me a $1,000,000, I'll give you ~$30,000. It appears that a Hillary presidency will be a presidency that is available to those special interests that cough up the bucks. [/ QUOTE ] Wow, totally unlike the Republicans from 2000-2006. More hypocritical outrage. If right wing wants to rail against this, please join us in the libertarian camp so you at least have a clear conscience and don't come off like a political hack.
|
|
#26
10-25-2007, 07:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Senate quashes grant for Woodstock museum
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] and this differs from every other politician whose last name is Clinton ever how? [/ QUOTE ] FYP [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] LOL. Denial is fun, eh? Want to have a discussion of pork barrel spending under an all-GOP govt?
|
|
#27
10-25-2007, 10:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Senate quashes grant for Woodstock museum
[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. But if all the Democrats lost next time, and the congress was 100% Republican, would it be any different for the country if all the Republicans lost and the congress was 100% Democrat? [/ QUOTE ] superficially. Regardless, the point remains, people say they're shocked by this behavior, but nobody gets voted out. Seats changing hands when someone dies or retires is not "throwing the bums out."
|
|
#29
10-25-2007, 11:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Senate quashes grant for Woodstock museum
[ QUOTE ]
So the presidential front-runner is risking the highest office in the land for 9k? Yeah you're right, it probably is that simple. [/ QUOTE ] By risking you mean performing business as usual?
|
|
#30
10-25-2007, 11:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Senate quashes grant for Woodstock museum
People aren't shocked by this behavior. The "shocked" here was a play on the famous line from Casablanca when the police chief, bullied by the Nazis, closes up the casino saying he is "shocked, shocked" to find gambling going on. Just then, a cainso employee comes by, hands him a wad of money, and says, "Here are your winnings, sir." Just like him, nobody is really shocked. People understand that power and money go hand in hand.
Besides, if governance would only change superficially if a new batch of bums was voted in, what differenc edoes it make what percentage of incumbents is reelected?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
