Which ones, just wasted another 10 minutes trying to find out online and can't find anything to do with it. You could at least say who they are. Use loc.thomas.gov -- and you can find all bills and their recent action. <TABLE cellpadding=8 width="95%" align=center bgColor=#FFF394 class="mb-Body
1 7 star Hotel in the world What does that even mean? 24 6 S W M (S F) I'm dying to know this one!
As for shades, well, policing comments isn't any more righteous than policing articles. Whatever passes the time for you. Point well taken, Bakerstreet. And to be fair, had the comment come from you, I'd have ignored it. DJ Bandit gets under my skin--I should have just walked away. Which is what I wi
Funny that stutefish did the same thing I did but I don't see you coming after him Stutefish asked questions. You belittled the author. Yes, the term "lazy" was unnecessary. <TD class="mb-Body-Quote-
And Shades, your personal blog is yours. The forums are moderated and open to debate. DJ has a point. Dr. Guy. I've been around here as long as you (and longer). I'm fully aware of the rules. But I also recognize that it is unnecessary to pounce on someone else (something DJ has been doing of late, so I decided to voice my piece). Unless you'
Do you realize the stupidity coming out of your mouth? Wow. I can hardly believe that you'd have the gumption to call anyone else stupid. Absolutely astounding. Have you ever read what you write? [I rest my case]. I'm not usually horribly mean or nasty on this site, but you seem
Can you please try a little harder and be less lazy when it comes to making articles? Dude. No one is forcing you to read these articles. If you don't like them, click elsewhere. People blog for themsevles. If you want more information, go research it. It is beyond arrogant to go to someone elses
semantics. You don't consider it lobbying unless you are a professional lobbyist. It's not semantics--the rules only applied to registered lobbyists. And if a nonprofit/charity is cited for lobbying, they lose their status. THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO LOBBY. And they are sticky on the definition--there a
Many charities both fundraise, AND lobby. No, actually they don't. It's against the law and the IRS code. If a 501(3)(c) lobbys they will lose their status as a charity.
I see that others beat me to the rest! That was fun. There are still a couple left.
Every time a COngressman goes out to dinner, he's going to have to make sure he isn't sitting next to someone he might regret. Every Congressman's wife is going to have to go alone to all those charity fundraisers, because the Congressman will find himself in the paper the next day, accused of schmoozing. <B
13 S in the U S F 13 stripes in the US Flag 15 P in a R T 15 players in a rugby team Thanks for the brain stimulation! <img src="htt
Nicky--you are a brilliant writer.
Apparently my previous reply jacked the entire thread. My apologies. It basically said: Yes, Gid, I agree. I don't want to hijack. But I do feel the need to point out that the majority of lobbyist don't represent "public" interest or take public money. So this is really a very small slice of the pie. Also, I heard today that they've passed a rule to ban all meal gifts. (Sorry Baker, I have no link, just got the info word of mou
.
Actually, I believe what we need to do in response to lobbyists is to stop allowing public money to support lobbyists. What public money supports lobbyists?
Sushi Japan
Do I "talk" too much? I like how you reply to everyone. That way, I don't feel left out.
Hmm. I sure I learned something today. Let see: 1. I won't make it to work on time if I don't get up until ten to nine (this is a lesson I learn just about every day) 2. Soda makes my stomach hurt, but it doesn't stop me from drinking it. 3. You can make anyone believe anything as long as you put together a nice looking presentation <im
Now Shadesofgrey, you can flame me. I talked about the dead Honestly, Dr. Guy. Stop. I didn't flame you. I made one comment--you directed an entire article at me. Can't you let it die? I said my peace, you said yours. Time to agree to disagree, no?
Interestingly I found out this summer that Kate is a distant relative. Hmm, I'd say that's a point for nurture in the nature v. nurture debate
Ouch. Sorry, I wasn't practicing my diplomacy skills
My first pair of glasses were pink, too! Tell her all the cool kids start out with pink frames! We have to wait a few days (ahhh, the joys of living in small town America), I live in "big town" America and had to
I rarely had a civilian job where all of us who worked the same job got paid the same. Those pay differences are based on merit. The ones we are talking about here are not. As for the thought that employers pay more for health benefits--as far as I know, very few employers are kind enough to p
Just an observation: It seems that on this thread, people who are married with kids think that those who are married with kids should get more, and single folks disagree. Except for Mason. Dropping these benefits will surely lead to far more married service members leaving the service so they can provide for the
JoeUser Forums