Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (136105)	9/12/2008 1:54:18 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

<she ultimately did the right thing. > She had too, it got uncovered and was all over the press... so yea, that's good. The point again is she got up in front of 10s of millions and used it as a PLUS! She implied SHE told congress 'we don't need that bridge'... naw... not till after shit hit fan. Again, if she hadn't touted it it would be different... the whole point of all this is the hypocracy... SHE WANTED THE BRIDGE. <Then when I see Democratic Senators criticizing her for once being accepting of earmarks THEY personally voted for, gee, I see some hypocrisy there too.> Gimme, a break, you know how this works... ALASKA asks for it... get's in into a bill with all sorts of other stuff. There is a certain amount of trust... need that bridge? I need one too, let's put em both in and vote for 'em. Why would anyone from N. Carolina know where of what the bridge is? Common, really. I don't fully understand "earmarks" and tend to agree with you that maybe we shouldn't have 'em... at least the way they seem to work. But again, it's the hypocracy....... they're spouting BS! If Obama did that.... oh jeeeez faagetabout it. DAK