|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
pinto (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-19-07 12:39 AM Original message |
DC representation narrowly lost in the Senate today. 57-42 (needed 60) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WCGreen (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-19-07 12:40 AM Response to Original message |
1. YEa, they should get it.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pinto (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-19-07 12:44 AM Response to Reply #1 |
2. Yeah. And two more (R)'s would have sealed the deal. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WCGreen (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-19-07 12:46 AM Response to Reply #2 |
3. That's probably right... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pinto (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-19-07 12:55 AM Response to Reply #3 |
6. There was talk about some feasible compromise, since DC representation would add 2 - |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rusty quoin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-19-07 12:47 AM Response to Original message |
4. I know..that was damn close. (you noticed that I said damn, not God damn, so no censure.) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
liberalmuse (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-19-07 12:53 AM Response to Original message |
5. Why should D.C. have representation? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
JI7 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-19-07 12:56 AM Response to Reply #5 |
7. because DC is mostly Democratic, meaning 2 additional Dem Senate Seats |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hang a left (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-19-07 01:01 AM Response to Reply #7 |
9. I don't think that they would get 2 senators. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pinto (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-19-07 12:59 AM Response to Reply #5 |
8. Well, they're citizens. But, seriously, it isn't about Jim Crow, it's about how the District was |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tritsofme (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-19-07 01:03 AM Response to Original message |
10. The bill seemed unconstitutional to me, we need an amendment if DC residents are to be granted |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheUniverse (954 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-19-07 01:19 AM Response to Reply #10 |
12. Then why not make a constitutional amendment? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tritsofme (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-19-07 01:21 AM Response to Reply #12 |
13. Why not indeed. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheUniverse (954 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Sep-19-07 01:18 AM Response to Original message |
11. Not a burning issue? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Mon May 13th 2024, 11:57 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC