Skip to comments.
Fleebagger introduces anti-fleebagging amendment in Wisconsin
hotairpundit.blogspot.com ^
| 3-15-11
| Ed Morrissey
Posted on 03/15/2011 1:23:09 PM PDT by Justaham
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
1
posted on
03/15/2011 1:23:11 PM PDT
by
Justaham
To: Justaham
I think the man has just defined gall.
2
posted on
03/15/2011 1:24:20 PM PDT
by
drbuzzard
(different league)
To: Justaham
I suppose the term “hypocrisy” is lost on them!
3
posted on
03/15/2011 1:25:12 PM PDT
by
Shane
(When Injustice Becomes Law, RESISTANCE Becomes DUTY.----T.Jefferson)
To: Justaham
He’s afraid the Republicans might use the tactic against the Dems in the future.
To: Justaham
Liberals need laws to do the right thing.
5
posted on
03/15/2011 1:27:30 PM PDT
by
NoLibZone
(Impeach Obama, then try him for treason. / Homosexuals reject diversity.)
To: Justaham
Un Flippin’ believable!
6
posted on
03/15/2011 1:27:33 PM PDT
by
ladyvet
( I would rather have Incitatus then the asses that are in congress today.)
To: Justaham
I’m confused... weren’t these democrats feted as heroes just yesterday by 100k adoring fans for what they did? So why make a big show of making a law prohibiting it?
7
posted on
03/15/2011 1:31:13 PM PDT
by
skeeter
To: Justaham
8
posted on
03/15/2011 1:32:33 PM PDT
by
Oldeconomybuyer
(The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
To: Justaham
Democrats must think they will win the next election
9
posted on
03/15/2011 1:35:19 PM PDT
by
blueyon
(The U. S. Constitution - read it and weep)
To: Justaham
We figure we’re going to retake the government soon - so we don’t want you pulling nasty tricks on us.
Have a nice day. :)
10
posted on
03/15/2011 1:35:40 PM PDT
by
Tzimisce
(Never forget that the American Revolution began when the British tried to disarm the colonists.)
To: Justaham
WTH! Hypocrite! Now that they have set the precedent, they are afraid that Republicans can use this tactic in the future (if they are ever in the minority again)!
To: skeeter
No, it's not about leaving town. That's cover. It's about only needing a simple majority for spending bills. Like the US Senate talking about dropping the 60-vote requirement to get cloture, or whatever.
The idea is, while the senate is fired up about them having bailed, snooker them into changing the budgeting rules so when the Dems next get a majority, the spending sky's the limit. Tough luck.
Just exploiting the sentiment against their fleabagging, I'd say.
To: Justaham
KING OEDIPUS DEMANDS END TO INCEST
13
posted on
03/15/2011 1:38:27 PM PDT
by
pogo101
To: blueyon; eCSMaster
Bingo.
Just like the EmoRats in the US Senate are now complaining about Philly Busters. Didn’t seem to bother them too much 2000 to 2006.
14
posted on
03/15/2011 1:39:12 PM PDT
by
Drill Thrawl
(I don't prep for the disaster. I prepare for the rebuilding.)
To: JustSurrounded
The Rs should tell them to stick it. They should point out that the only party to have ever done this is theirs.
To: eCSMaster
*ding....ding....ding* We have a winner!!
This is correct, he wants to ensure the repubs can never pull the same tactic in the future.
16
posted on
03/15/2011 1:43:17 PM PDT
by
ATLDiver
To: Justaham
Let’s also include an amendment that would require retroactive punishment for the flee-baggers. Similarly, we could also provide for an amendment that allows the Republicans to do the same when the Republican find themselves in the majority.
17
posted on
03/15/2011 1:44:56 PM PDT
by
grumpygresh
(Democrats delenda est)
To: ATLDiver
How about something better. Any Senator who refuses to serve has his seat declared vacant and avilable to be replaced by the Governor immediately.
18
posted on
03/15/2011 1:47:52 PM PDT
by
Voltage
To: eCSMaster
That was my thought, too. Which makes me wonder what they might try to pass.
19
posted on
03/15/2011 1:51:00 PM PDT
by
Netizen
To: Voltage
“How about something better. Any Senator who refuses to serve has his seat declared vacant and avilable to be replaced by the Governor immediately.”
Agree! Maybe I am cynical but, if the quorum rule is removed, then they could pass fiscal bills with out the 3/5ths rule. Wouldn’t that remove the reason it was put in place in the first place? To make it harder to increase spending?
20
posted on
03/15/2011 1:51:13 PM PDT
by
DieNarrin
(Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson