General Discussion

kath

(10,565 posts)

6. Thanks for this, woo. Hadn't seen that article before.

Reply to woo me with science (Reply #3)

Tue Sep 3, 2013, 10:14 AM

Sep 2013

Sickening, but not really surprising I guess...

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

38 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Syria Strike Whip Count - No/Lean No: 124 Yes/Lean Yes: 35 Undecided: 63 [View all] bigtree Sep 2013 OP

That's good news. Now, let's just hope they don't change their LuvNewcastle Sep 2013 #1

1 bulk order of pork, comin' right up! Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #13

Keynes said it was better for a government to pay people to dig holes and fill HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #14

King Canute, is that you? dawg Sep 2013 #18

LMFAO - great pic! - nt HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #19

Good! I hope the no column grows. But would that stop Obama? morningfog Sep 2013 #2

The fix is in. woo me with science Sep 2013 #24

Just as many Democrats will vote "yes" as will be needed woo me with science Sep 2013 #3

You're right, of course. Villain Rotation is a ploy that has worked. No need to give it up. AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2013 #5

Thanks for this, woo. Hadn't seen that article before. kath Sep 2013 #6

How'd that work for Cameron? LOL! KittyWampus Sep 2013 #11

Are all those "likely to" support and will "definitely" back the use of force chicken-hawks? AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2013 #4

The politically correct term for Chicken Hawks is "Soaring Eagles" please use the correct term Dragonfli Sep 2013 #34

Point taken. AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2013 #37

Republicans far more likely to oppose military action, while Democrats were likely to support it progressoid Sep 2013 #7

There are a few in each party who try to follow their conscience, LuvNewcastle Sep 2013 #8

Is there an estimate for the most liberal Democrats? David Krout Sep 2013 #17

So far 35 members of the Progressive Caucus were among those included in the OP link. pampango Sep 2013 #21

My figures are so far: Progressive Caucus-18 no, 10 yes, undecided 7; tea party caucus-20 no, 1 yes, pampango Sep 2013 #9

related bookmark bigtree Sep 2013 #23

What about the other 210, though? (Two vacancies, AL and MA) MADem Sep 2013 #10

How do you think the House will vote? nt David Krout Sep 2013 #15

When most Democrats supported the Amash amendment on the NSA, did you think it was interesting? David Krout Sep 2013 #16

I don't have "goals" and even if I did, they don't make a damn bit of difference when it comes to MADem Sep 2013 #20

Likely the deals regarding who's to get rich from the New War DirkGently Sep 2013 #12

This Congress knows where their bread is buttered. woo me with science Sep 2013 #22

so we have to lay our hopes on the repukes to do the right thing backwoodsbob Sep 2013 #25

Yup. We need Rand Paul :(. Pelosi and Feinstein are hacks when it comes to Natl Sec. . dkf Sep 2013 #28

Fortunately (?), Paul and the tea party caucus are not "hacks"? pampango Sep 2013 #32

I'm not talking about the progressive caucus, I'm speaking of Dem leadership. dkf Sep 2013 #33

"We need Rand Paul?" For what, precisely? nt msanthrope Sep 2013 #36

And the only reason you'll get the "right thing" out of the GOP CakeGrrl Sep 2013 #30

You can bet that AIPAC and MIC lobbyists.... HooptieWagon Sep 2013 #26

Where people are depends on the question karynnj Sep 2013 #29

Democrats are going to be called on to save Obama's credibility. Disgusting. dkf Sep 2013 #27

Thank Goodness for Barbara Lee. JRLeft Sep 2013 #31

This article is in error about the Iraq War Resolution vote. A majority of Democrats opposed. stevenleser Sep 2013 #35

It seems to correctly indicate in 2002 "Democrats in the House provided 'the bulk of the opposition' AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2013 #38