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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (88470)	8/1/2010 11:28:30 AM
From: lorne	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224748

ken..."Obama is coming to WA State to campaign for Patty Murray.".... Any idea what it costs tax payers for all these campaigning trips all over the country...maybe it's payed for out of the slush fund...oops I mean unspent stimulus money. Unspent voter getter money. Must be expensive flying Air Force One all over the country so many times...no fly zones...secret service...stop public traffic. Good thing tax payers are so generous.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (88470)	8/1/2010 12:45:55 PM
From: lorne	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224748

Ken...Good grief, what is wrong with this dem? don't he know he cant do this. hussein obama may have him fired, lashes, stoned, excommunicated...hey maybe he is trying to keep his job in next election. :-) Democrat Ben Nelson Opposes Kagan July 30, 2010 blogs.abcnews.com PrintRSSShare:EmailMoreFarkTechnoratiGoogleLiveMy SpaceNewsvineRedditDeliciousMixxYahooABC's Matthew Jaffe reports: Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson announced late Friday he would vote against the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. In a statement released this evening, Sen. Nelson said, "I have heard concerns from Nebraskans regarding Ms. Kagan, and her lack of a judicial record makes it difficult for me to discount the concerns raised by Nebraskans, or to reach a level of comfort that these concerns are unfounded. Therefore, I will not vote to confirm Ms. Kagan’s nomination." Nelson is the only Democrat to oppose Kagan at this point. Five Republicans, on the other hand, have said they will support Kagan's nomination, giving her more than enough votes to win confirmation. A vote is expected in the Senate late next week. Nelson has sided with Republicans on a number of votes in the past, most recently the restoration and extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless. Nelson did note that if a procedural vote is held on Kagan, he will not filibuster, since he believes Kagan deserves an up or down vote. But on the final vote, Nelson is a no.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (88470)	8/1/2010 1:52:40 PM
From: MJ	Respond to of 224748

Are you part of the welcoming party?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (88470)	8/1/2010 4:40:04 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 224748

The new calls for Mr. Rangel to resign come after a special four-person committee of House lawmakers on Thursday charged Mr. Rangel with 13 violations of House rules. Most of the charges relate to his attempts to raise funds for a City College of New York center named after him. The congressman also was charged with using a rent-stabilized apartment as a campaign office in New York; with not reporting income from a vacation rental in the Dominican Republic; and with a "pattern of submitting inaccurate and incomplete financial disclosure statements" to Congress. The House ethics committee, which now must approve or reject the charges against Mr. Rangel, has yet to agree to any deal that would settle the case and avoid a public trial. The continuing talks suggest that some ethics committee members believe a reprimand isn't a significant enough punishment for the New York congressman. Rep. Gene Green (D., Texas) told reporters Friday that a four-lawmaker panel charged with investigating Mr. Rangel agreed in a "majority vote'' that a reprimand would be appropriate punishment. But a spokesman for Mr. Green later said the congressman had mis-spoken and the information was incorrect. A reprimand would be more severe than the lightest penalty—a letter of reproval issued by the ethics committee. It would be less severe than expulsion from Congress or censure, in which the lawmaker must stand on the House floor as the violations are read aloud. Reprimand and censure must be approved by a majority vote of the House; expulsion requires approval from two-thirds. Mr. Rangel sought Friday to shore up his support among Democrats. In a closed-door meeting with members of New York's congressional delegation, Mr. Rangel's lawyers urged lawmakers to read the 32-page defense in which Mr. Rangel proclaimed his innocence. The evidence shows that "Congressman Rangel did not dispense any political favors, that he did not intentionally violate any law, rule or regulation, and that he did not misuse his public office for private gain," the statement says. To win approval for a settlement, at least one of the committee's five Republicans would have to cross the aisle and join all five committee Democrats. People close to the ethics committee have said the panel's leaders would prefer a unanimous vote on any settlement. It is unclear if any Republicans on the panel are willing to support the plea arrangement.