1. Standard memberSleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    Dustbin of history
    Joined
    13 Apr '07
    Moves
    12835
    09 Nov '10 20:28
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Why a "suspension"? If the practice is so objectionable, why not an "abolition"?
    Works for me.
  2. Joined
    07 Mar '09
    Moves
    27933
    10 Nov '10 22:57
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Why a "suspension"? If the practice is so objectionable, why not an "abolition"?
    Because the politicians promising to abolish earmarks are fundamentally dishonest and only used it as a gimmick to get elected. They will try to pretend to do something about it just to buy off the rubes who backed them but in truth they never cared about earmarks or the deficit. Time will show that that they were never serious about any of these things. (And fools will still back their rhetoric and get weak at knees contemplating the glorious future when somebody will do something.)
  3. Subscriberkmax87
    Blade Runner
    Republicants
    Joined
    09 Oct '04
    Moves
    105302
    14 Nov '10 15:39
    Originally posted by TerrierJack
    Because the politicians promising to abolish earmarks are fundamentally dishonest and only used it as a gimmick to get elected. They will try to pretend to do something about it just to buy off the rubes who backed them but in truth they never cared about earmarks or the deficit. Time will show that that they were never serious about any of these things ...[text shortened]... etoric and get weak at knees contemplating the glorious future when somebody will do something.)
    ...enough cynicism. if everyone just started believing again....
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree