A Personal Letter to Senator Dodd Regarding His Anti-Angel Investment Bill

#1

Post by walkercorplaw » Wed, Mar 31, 2010, 8:56 PM UTC

A Personal Letter to Senator Dodd Regarding His Anti-Angel Investment Bill
walkercorporatelaw.com

Re: A Personal Letter to Senator Dodd Regarding His Anti-Angel Investment Bill

#2

Post by nfnaaron » Wed, Mar 31, 2010, 9:50 PM UTC

"Over two-thirds, amigo!"

Ah, so he didn't actually want to engage Dodd and persuade him.

"Why are we moving fucking backwards?"

Bailing ... now.

Re: A Personal Letter to Senator Dodd Regarding His Anti-Angel Investment Bill

#3

Post by arvinjoar » Wed, Mar 31, 2010, 10:50 PM UTC

This is what we have to deal with when we elect ordinary politicians. If you live in CT, you should really pay close attention to who gets the old Dodd seat. Look for Peter Schiff, you'll notice that he's not like other politicians, he's actually a successful businessman.

Re: A Personal Letter to Senator Dodd Regarding His Anti-Angel Investment Bill

#4

Post by nkassis » Wed, Mar 31, 2010, 10:55 PM UTC

nfnaaron wrote: post #2

"Over two-thirds, amigo!" Ah, so he didn't actually want to engage Dodd and persuade him. "Why are we moving fucking backwards?" Bailing ... now.

I agree, it would have been much better without the swearing and the sense of self importance of the author.

This just gives a better reason for Dodd's staff to ignore the email altogether and he will never even see it.

Re: A Personal Letter to Senator Dodd Regarding His Anti-Angel Investment Bill

#5

Post by hga » Thu, Apr 01, 2010, 1:43 AM UTC

nkassis wrote: post #4

nfnaaron wrote: post #2

"Over two-thirds, amigo!" Ah, so he didn't actually want to engage Dodd and persuade him. "Why are we moving fucking backwards?" Bailing ... now.

I agree, it would have been much better without the swearing and the sense of self importance of the author. This just gives a better reason for Dodd's staff to ignore the email altogether and he will never even see it.

Dodd would never see it; at best (and this is unlikely, since his political career is over) it would get a tick mark on a sheet of "people against destroying angel investment".

Might as well get some anger out of his system and maybe motivate others to take action (I'm appalled with two 'p's about how disinterested the HN crowd is about this existential threat to what they are about (or so I thought is what they are about)).