To: hchutch
This is not a big loss, no matter how much you wish to stick your nose in the air and sniff for a sellout.
Whoops, you accidentally tip-toed near the truth.
Weren't you spinning this as a win, earlier?
![](http://members.shaw.ca/brightstar1/Sabertooth.jpg)
To: Sabertooth
It is not a loss. Especially when we look at what was gained - the gavels and the committee seats.
We won. We didn't win pretty, but we won.
Or would you rather hold out until they gave the next seven percent and not get jack-crap. All-or-nothing hitters have many more outs than homers.
118 posted on
01/15/2003 8:06:13 PM PST by
hchutch
("Last suckers crossed, Syndicate shot'em up" - Ice-T, "I'm Your Pusher")
To: Sabertooth
I wouldn't call it a win or a loss, I would call it a compromise and a compromise that would have never had to happen if Trent Lott had a spine.
My hope is that they come up with a standard ratio and take ratio's off the table. With just a one seat advantage to the majority on the Committee's a 60/40 split would be fine with me. I hope they illeminate this process by passing a bill that requires the Presidents signature and becomes law
122 posted on
01/15/2003 8:12:28 PM PST by
MJY1288
(Hillary is a threat to National Security)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson