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 (96013)	11/28/2010 3:53:37 PM
From: chartseer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224720

I had no idea there were real bans and phoney bans. I guess that is why there may be a need for ambulance chasers. comrade chartseer

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (96013)	11/28/2010 5:15:09 PM
From: tonto	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224720

The Republicans are copying the democrats playbook which is idiotic and dishonest. If they say they are going to do something we should not accept anything less...yet partisans do...unfortunately.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (96013)	11/29/2010 8:24:37 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224720

Real ban like Pelosi promised because Dems were in corruption up to their eyeballs due to their excessive earmarks. From Politico, Mar 2010: >For Pelosi, it clearly seemed to be a bid to simultaneously rehabilitate her party’s image and that of the Appropriations Committee, several of whose members were cleared in a wide-ranging ethics probe last month. .. Practically, many understand this rule means very little. Defense insiders say the proposal, especially without the help of the Senate, is an empty stab at reform. But optically, the move was important for Democrats. The committee in recent years had come under increased scrutiny. The late Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), who chaired the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, was long a defender of earmarks, including those to private corporations. Several members of that panel were mired in a scandal with the PMA Group, a once highflying lobbying firm that allegedly tried to curry favor with appropriators by donating to their campaign accounts.<