Scott Brown (R-MA) Introduces legislation to prohibit congress from insider trading

[L.K.Eder]

Scott Brown takes credit for work of others? Why am I surprised. This legislation has been bouncing around the halls of congress a long time before Scott came in. And how long was he in before he proposed piggy backing on this?

What a fraud

Go Senator Brown! This bill...

This bill is old


and it took the Main Stream Media (liberals?) to highlight this for the American people.

LOL
______

yeah, the lame stream media cbs.

wooop woop, there are the wagon hoppers. and now the house bill has 232 co sponsors.

before the 60 minutes airing it had one co-sponsor.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Scott Brown is a fraud and a half-term Senator.

Bank on it.

mani, what happened to your support for Scott?

 

[Valerie]

^^ Mani's a fraud.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

^^ Mani's a fraud.

and your point is?

 

[Vast LWC]

From what I've read, some seem to think that there are loopholes in the current version of the bill. Seeing how the board poll shows that we are all in favor of restricting the politicians insider trading habits, let's get it right....no loopholes. I don't care who takes credit on a good bipartisan bill. Of course, that's just me....

As long as he's not playing the old "the bill's not strong enough, so we'll have no bill instead" game, I'm all for any "loopholes" that people may want closed.

But I've seen this game played before, and it looks suspicious. Hopefully I'm wrong.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Ummm, I'm very much behind this piece of legislation.

However, how are you calling it "Scott Brown's Bill"?

As per the WSJ:

The legislation taken up in the Senate is a combination of similar bills written by Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.) and Sen. Scott Brown (R., Mass.).

Are you just conveniently deleting the efforts of my Senator from the equation because she's a Democrat? She's been working hard on that bill since day 1.

Also, there was already a House version of the bill that was even more restrictive in many ways. What about credit for them? The author of that particular piece of proposed legislation was Louise Slaughter (D., NY).

Scott Brown has been quite helpful in drafting the legislation, and that is laudable, to be sure. But it is far from "Scott Brown's Bill".

When I made the thread a while back I did so after reading about it in the local paper. If you click the link in my thread you will see I was supporting the bill and stating the information that the article at the time provided.

If you then look to discussions as recent as today and links I posted as recent as today you will see us discussing the co-authoredness of the bill. If I could edit the first post I would put the more current link in there but I cant.

I just re-read my entire first post and don't see any instance of me typing "Scott Brown's Bill" by the way....would you care to just be more direct with your intentions?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Ummm, I'm very much behind this piece of legislation.

However, how are you calling it "Scott Brown's Bill"?

As per the WSJ:

The legislation taken up in the Senate is a combination of similar bills written by Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.) and Sen. Scott Brown (R., Mass.).

Are you just conveniently deleting the efforts of my Senator from the equation because she's a Democrat? She's been working hard on that bill since day 1.

Also, there was already a House version of the bill that was even more restrictive in many ways. What about credit for them? The author of that particular piece of proposed legislation was Louise Slaughter (D., NY).

Scott Brown has been quite helpful in drafting the legislation, and that is laudable, to be sure. But it is far from "Scott Brown's Bill".

yep.

and it is stopped in the house, by cantor and co.

and pilgrim whines about reid.

OH I complain about both sides....the repubs are by no means good....its just they don't have all the power right now

 

[Vast LWC]

When I made the thread a while back I did so after reading about it in the local paper. If you click the link in my thread you will see I was supporting the bill and stating the information that the article at the time provided.

If you then look to discussions as recent as today and links I posted as recent as today you will see us discussing the co-authoredness of the bill. If I could edit the first post I would put the more current link in there but I cant.

I just re-read my entire first post and don't see any instance of me typing "Scott Brown's Bill" by the way....would you care to just be more direct with your intentions?

Ahh, yes, I do see that. Both that it's from the Boston Herald, and that it's a few months old, which would explain it.

I just assumed this was a relatively new thread.

As to where I got that terminology, it was the Poll that accompanies the thread, which is entitled:

"Do You Support Scott Brown's (R-MA) Bill?"

Which I would have answered yes to, if it was phrased a different way.

 

[Meister]

From what I've read, some seem to think that there are loopholes in the current version of the bill. Seeing how the board poll shows that we are all in favor of restricting the politicians insider trading habits, let's get it right....no loopholes. I don't care who takes credit on a good bipartisan bill. Of course, that's just me....

As long as he's not playing the old "the bill's not strong enough, so we'll have no bill instead" game, I'm all for any "loopholes" that people may want closed.

But I've seen this game played before, and it looks suspicious. Hopefully I'm wrong.

Yes, any bill restricting the insider trading practice is better than no bill.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Red Alert: Meister Is On Record Supporting Compromise Legislation!

From what I've read, some seem to think that there are loopholes in the current version of the bill. Seeing how the board poll shows that we are all in favor of restricting the politicians insider trading habits, let's get it right....no loopholes. I don't care who takes credit on a good bipartisan bill. Of course, that's just me....

As long as he's not playing the old "the bill's not strong enough, so we'll have no bill instead" game, I'm all for any "loopholes" that people may want closed.

But I've seen this game played before, and it looks suspicious. Hopefully I'm wrong.

Yes, any bill restricting the insider trading practice is better than no bill.

 

[Meister]

Red Alert: Meister Supports Compromise Legislation!

As long as he's not playing the old "the bill's not strong enough, so we'll have no bill instead" game, I'm all for any "loopholes" that people may want closed.

But I've seen this game played before, and it looks suspicious. Hopefully I'm wrong.

Yes, any bill restricting the insider trading practice is better than no bill.

I've never been against "good legislation", Dante.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

When I made the thread a while back I did so after reading about it in the local paper. If you click the link in my thread you will see I was supporting the bill and stating the information that the article at the time provided.

If you then look to discussions as recent as today and links I posted as recent as today you will see us discussing the co-authoredness of the bill. If I could edit the first post I would put the more current link in there but I cant.

I just re-read my entire first post and don't see any instance of me typing "Scott Brown's Bill" by the way....would you care to just be more direct with your intentions?

Ahh, yes, I do see that. Both that it's from the Boston Herald, and that it's a few months old, which would explain it.

I just assumed this was a relatively new thread.

As to where I got that terminology, it was the Poll that accompanies the thread, which is entitled:

"Do You Support Scott Brown's (R-MA) Bill?"

Which I would have answered yes to, if it was phrased a different way.

Thought you might like to know, not many people take PLYMCO_PILGRIM too seriously,

 

[Vast LWC]

Thought you might like to know, not many people take PLYMCO_PILGRIM too seriously,

Actually, I don't mind PP at all.

I've seen many examples of posters on the right that are much worse than he is.

Muuuch worse.

 

[manifold]

Scott Brown is a fraud and a half-term Senator.

Bank on it.

mani, what happened to your support for Scott?

He let me down.

wgd?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

From what I've read, some seem to think that there are loopholes in the current version of the bill. Seeing how the board poll shows that we are all in favor of restricting the politicians insider trading habits, let's get it right....no loopholes. I don't care who takes credit on a good bipartisan bill. Of course, that's just me....

As long as he's not playing the old "the bill's not strong enough, so we'll have no bill instead" game, I'm all for any "loopholes" that people may want closed.

But I've seen this game played before, and it looks suspicious. Hopefully I'm wrong.

Yes, any bill restricting the insider trading practice is better than no bill.

I agree, as long as there aren't hidden little things taking away other liberties/giving govt expanded powers sneaking inside it

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

When I made the thread a while back I did so after reading about it in the local paper. If you click the link in my thread you will see I was supporting the bill and stating the information that the article at the time provided.

If you then look to discussions as recent as today and links I posted as recent as today you will see us discussing the co-authoredness of the bill. If I could edit the first post I would put the more current link in there but I cant.

I just re-read my entire first post and don't see any instance of me typing "Scott Brown's Bill" by the way....would you care to just be more direct with your intentions?

Ahh, yes, I do see that. Both that it's from the Boston Herald, and that it's a few months old, which would explain it.

I just assumed this was a relatively new thread.

As to where I got that terminology, it was the Poll that accompanies the thread, which is entitled:

"Do You Support Scott Brown's (R-MA) Bill?"

Which I would have answered yes to, if it was phrased a different way.

Thought you might like to know, not many people take PLYMCO_PILGRIM too seriously,

you are STILL upset at me from the thrashing I gave you over a year ago? Dude just let it go man!

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Scott Brown is a fraud and a half-term Senator.

Bank on it.

mani, what happened to your support for Scott?

He let me down.

wgd?

Yeah he made a few choices I haven't been on board with either.

What stuff let you down specificially? I'm curious if its the same as me .

 

[Vast LWC]

OK, since I've expressed my conditions for agreeing in the thread, I'm just going to answer "yes" to the poll, in a show of solidarity for insider trading reform.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

OK, since I've expressed my conditions for agreeing in the thread, I'm just going to answer "yes" to the poll, in a show of solidarity for insider trading reform.

You are right with your comments about the poll by the way....i would have worded it differently with all the information I have now.

Just didn't want to forget to tell you

 

[saveliberty]

What a telling bill. Our Congress has a lower standard than all the rest of us Americans.