Originally posted by no1marauder
Why a "suspension"? If the practice is so objectionable, why not an "abolition"?

Works for me.

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.)

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....