Another lie by Harry Reid if this cloture vote is taken before Sen. Scott Brown is seated.
1 posted on
02/01/2010 2:19:02 PM PST by
jazusamo
To: jazusamo
Yet another proponent of “tolerance” and “choice” Democrat style.
To: jazusamo
Have I missed the the protests of the repugnican leadership ?
3 posted on
02/01/2010 2:24:13 PM PST by
kbennkc
(For those who have fought for it , freedom has a flavor the protected will never know F Trp 8th Cav)
To: jazusamo
NO UNANIMOUS CONSENT UNTIL SENATOR BROWN IS SEATED!
GOP = Government's Other Party
We will throw out the Republicans, too, if we must!
No more two-party collusion! Defeat the Washington Party!
4 posted on
02/01/2010 2:24:35 PM PST by
counterpunch
(The Emperor has no Cloture)
To: jazusamo
I thought the guy who was holding the MA seat was supposed to be out as soon as the election was certified. Why is he still allowed to vote? Should we contact our own senators about this?
To: jazusamo
Just as U.S. Citizens cannot opt against having a congressman, workers should not be able to choose against having a union as their monopoly-bargaining agent. You mean other than the fact that congressional representation is constitutionally required and union representation is not?
To: jazusamo
8 posted on
02/01/2010 2:33:52 PM PST by
Cobra64
To: jazusamo
Reid is an ass and if possible,Becker is an even bigger one. No choice? I thought libs were pro choice.
11 posted on
02/01/2010 2:37:08 PM PST by
wiggen
(Never in the history of our great country have the people had less representation than they do today)
To: jazusamo
Just as U.S. Citizens cannot opt against having a congressman, workers should not be able to choose against having a union as their monopoly-bargaining agent.”
First issue spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, second made up in his head. Oh ya.... there’s a balanced argument. NOT.
To: jazusamo
"Just as U.S. Citizens cannot opt against having a congressman, workers should not be able to choose against having a union as their monopoly-bargaining agent.Is this the same line of reasoning which says, "Just as no American should choose to be against being 'Pro-Choice,' women should not be able to choose against having an abortion"?
Must be, with all the objection to Mrs. Tebow's story being told at the Super Bowl.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson