Pelosi’s Klan Gets $737 Million DOE Loan

[DontBeStupid]

There shouldn't have been a loan or a guarantee to a loan in the first place.

Why? Because if a family member is in any way involved these shouldn't be allowed?

YES because a family member WAS involved, please ignore this again for all of us, hack!!!

So you want no student loan guarantees to family members of elected officials? No VA loan guarantees of any kind to vets who are related. No small business loan guarantees to relatives.

That's not only terrible for the economy, but it's unconstitutional. Oh, that's a big word. Let me help you with that.

Unconstitutional - adjective. not constitutional; unauthorized by or inconsistent with the constitution, as of a country.

 

[Meister]

Why? Because if a family member is in any way involved these shouldn't be allowed?

YES because a family member WAS involved, please ignore this again for all of us, hack!!!

So you want no student loan guarantees to family members of elected officials? No VA loan guarantees of any kind to vets who are related. No small business loan guarantees to relatives.

That's not only terrible for the economy, but it's unconstitutional. Oh, that's a big word. Let me help you with that.

Unconstitutional - adjective. not constitutional; unauthorized by or inconsistent with the constitution, as of a country.

Your a moron, did you know that????????

Spin it whatever way you want, hack....you know your stupid ass attempt to justify it falls short of the mark.
Conflict of interest is conflict of interest....embrace it.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Why? Because if a family member is in any way involved these shouldn't be allowed?

YES because a family member WAS involved, please ignore this again for all of us, hack!!!

So you want no student loan guarantees to family members of elected officials? No VA loan guarantees of any kind to vets who are related. No small business loan guarantees to relatives.

That's not only terrible for the economy, but it's unconstitutional. Oh, that's a big word. Let me help you with that.

Unconstitutional - adjective. not constitutional; unauthorized by or inconsistent with the constitution, as of a country.

Those loans are targeted at the public at large not individuals who just happen to be large doners or their friends.

Stick your head back in the sand stupid.

 

[Meister]

YES because a family member WAS involved, please ignore this again for all of us, hack!!!

So you want no student loan guarantees to family members of elected officials? No VA loan guarantees of any kind to vets who are related. No small business loan guarantees to relatives.

That's not only terrible for the economy, but it's unconstitutional. Oh, that's a big word. Let me help you with that.

Unconstitutional - adjective. not constitutional; unauthorized by or inconsistent with the constitution, as of a country.

Those loans are targeted at the public at large not individuals who just happen to be large doners or their friends.

Stick your head back in the sand stupid.

Not to mention that they just don't give out 737 million dollars to most businesses who apply.

 

[DontBeStupid]

So you want no student loan guarantees to family members of elected officials? No VA loan guarantees of any kind to vets who are related. No small business loan guarantees to relatives.

That's not only terrible for the economy, but it's unconstitutional. Oh, that's a big word. Let me help you with that.

Unconstitutional - adjective. not constitutional; unauthorized by or inconsistent with the constitution, as of a country.

Those loans are targeted at the public at large not individuals who just happen to be large doners or their friends.

Stick your head back in the sand stupid.

Not to mention that they just don't give out 737 million dollars to most businesses who apply.

Oh! So, if it's a big amount, THEN you want us to ignore the Constitution. Ok. So, what dollar amount should we use in the future as a benchmark for ignoring the Constitution?

 

[Meister]

Those loans are targeted at the public at large not individuals who just happen to be large doners or their friends.

Stick your head back in the sand stupid.

Not to mention that they just don't give out 737 million dollars to most businesses who apply.

Oh! So, if it's a big amount, THEN you want us to ignore the Constitution. Ok. So, what dollar amount should we use in the future as a benchmark for ignoring the Constitution?

The kid needs to stay in school, or he should have never quit school. I'm not sure which one applies.

Conflict of interest IS NOT unconstitutional, son.

 

[DontBeStupid]

You can predict the future now?

I predict that if you hit your finger as hard as you can with a hammer, it's going to hurt.

I predict that Obama and Pelosi raiding the public treasury to give three-quarters of a billion dollars to her brother-in-law is 100% about corruption, and will yield zero productive results.

It ain't that hard, stupid.

heh heh You call me stupid yet you're the one who thinks the Federal Government has given money to these companies.

That's funny.

The Infidel down ranked my post above, asking, "where did the money come from" ?

You could have just asked. I would have told you.

With a loan guarantee, which is what this is, the money comes from private banks and lending institution. The government is merely saying that if the person/business that is doing the borrowing were to ever default, the bank wouldn't lose money, because the government would cover the debt. This lowers the risk for the bank which makes it easier for them to lend.

So as of now, zero taxpayer dollars have been sent to these companies that everyone is crying about. In fact, even if they go under, zero taxpayer dollars will be sent to these companies. In that case, the money would be sent to the bank to cover losses.

But, hey, don't let reality stop you. Everyone, feel free to keep complaining about "all" the taxpayer money that has been sent directly to these companies.

 

[Mr. H.]

Did he do anything illegal?

Doesn't have to be illegal, look up the term "conflict of interest".

I'm somewhat familiar with State of Illinois' ethics laws- to the point of having a working knowlege as a state appointed board member. I'm not sure there's a conflict of interest. I mean- Pelosi's B/I/L? Does she serve on a committee that would have been responsible for awarding this money?

 

[freedombecki]

Can Congress Impeach Nancy Pelosi for crony capitalism?

She's pulled stuff like this off in favor of her family in the past, how many times can she keep doing this self-enrichment against other American taxpayers and not get the bitch-slap she deserves?

 

[DontBeStupid]

Not to mention that they just don't give out 737 million dollars to most businesses who apply.

Oh! So, if it's a big amount, THEN you want us to ignore the Constitution. Ok. So, what dollar amount should we use in the future as a benchmark for ignoring the Constitution?

The kid needs to stay in school, or he should have never quit school. I'm not sure which one applies.

Conflict of interest IS NOT unconstitutional, son.

Ah, so if you decide there is a "conflict of interest" then the government can ignore the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

(for those playing at home Bolling v. Sharpe is the case you want to read here)

 

[Meister]

Did he do anything illegal?

Doesn't have to be illegal, look up the term "conflict of interest".

I'm somewhat familiar with State of Illinois' ethics laws- to the point of having a working knowlege as a state appointed board member. I'm not sure there's a conflict of interest. I mean- Pelosi's B/I/L? Does she serve on a committee that would have been responsible for awarding this money?

Do you feel with her position as House Democrat leader that she wouldn't have influence on the loan? I feel with her power and influence the standards for "conflict of interest" has been met.

My cousin was a CPA for an accounting firm and he had to recuse himself from auditing the company I worked for at the time because they saw it as a conflict of interest.

 

[Immanuel]

I am with DBS and SFC Ollie on this. This is nothing until and unless SolarReserve defaults on their loan.

That being said, I don't like the fact that this guarantee has been given. My question is would SolarResource have been given this guarantee if Pelosi's brother-in-law were not in the position he is in? I don't think it would have been and that is the problem.

For the record, I was pissed at Bush's awarding of the no bid contracts to Halliburton as well.

Immie

 

[Uncensored2008]

heh heh You call me stupid yet you're the one who thinks the Federal Government has given money to these companies.

That's funny.

The federal government has said they will pay back bad loans by these crooks.

Don't be so fucking stupid.

 

[Care4all]

Did he do anything illegal?

Stealing tax payer money and giving it to well connect party looters?

Do you applaud that?

Obama 2012: Handing out billions to my buddies, One Solyndra at a time!

Obama 2012: From your pocket to my cronies.


Obama 2012: Not just crooked, Chicago crooked!

But... but... but... CONTRACTS WENT TO HALIBURTON!!!!



Oh yeah... that was Bush.. (well really Bush, Clinton, etc... but they don't want to hear that either).. it's ok for them to bitch when it is against their hyper-partisan agenda

nahhhhh, if we were to mention bush, it would be for his brother and other cronies getting billions in federal monies, for the ''no child left behind '' tests....

they jokingly called it:

No Bush, left behind!

No Bush Left Behind

 

[Meister]

Oh! So, if it's a big amount, THEN you want us to ignore the Constitution. Ok. So, what dollar amount should we use in the future as a benchmark for ignoring the Constitution?

The kid needs to stay in school, or he should have never quit school. I'm not sure which one applies.

Conflict of interest IS NOT unconstitutional, son.

Ah, so if you decide there is a "conflict of interest" then the government can ignore the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

(for those playing at home Bolling v. Sharpe is the case you want to read here)

Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case which deals with civil rights, specifically, segregation in the District of Columbia's public schools.
Bolling v. Sharpe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah...that sure cleared things up with this thread.

 

[McDowell's]

Doesn't have to be illegal, look up the term "conflict of interest".

I'm somewhat familiar with State of Illinois' ethics laws- to the point of having a working knowlege as a state appointed board member. I'm not sure there's a conflict of interest. I mean- Pelosi's B/I/L? Does she serve on a committee that would have been responsible for awarding this money?

Do you feel with her position as House Democrat leader that she wouldn't have influence on the loan? I feel with her power and influence the standards for "conflict of interest" has been met.

My cousin was a CPA for an accounting firm and he had to recuse himself from auditing the company I worked for at the time because they saw it as a conflict of interest.

Exactly. This is why I will never consider politics an honorable profession. Any professional caught in a situation like this would not only be fired but have their license revoked. Not to mention there could be potential legal consequences. This stuff is ethical sewage, but our elected officials are apparently above the rules the rest of society finds acceptable. Pathetic.

 

[Lovebears65]

Just like her district has the highest waivers of the healthcare law. If its such a great law then why the waivers PELOSI!

 

[freedombecki]

Stealing tax payer money and giving it to well connect party looters?

Do you applaud that?

Obama 2012: Handing out billions to my buddies, One Solyndra at a time!

Obama 2012: From your pocket to my cronies.


Obama 2012: Not just crooked, Chicago crooked!

But... but... but... CONTRACTS WENT TO HALIBURTON!!!!



Oh yeah... that was Bush.. (well really Bush, Clinton, etc... but they don't want to hear that either).. it's ok for them to bitch when it is against their hyper-partisan agenda

nahhhhh, if we were to mention bush, it would be for his brother and other cronies getting billions in federal monies, for the ''no child left behind '' tests....

they jokingly called it:

No Bush, left behind!

No Bush Left Behind

The only trouble is, he (Niel Bush) didn't borrow money from the American taxpayer to fund his enterprise.

Nancy Pelosi is putting the taxpayer on the block for paying back the loan if her sister's husband's business does poorly, as Solyndra did. There's links all over to Nancy Pelosi forcing unwilling taxpayers to feather her family's already-wealthy nest.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Those loans are targeted at the public at large not individuals who just happen to be large doners or their friends.

Stick your head back in the sand stupid.

Not to mention that they just don't give out 737 million dollars to most businesses who apply.

Oh! So, if it's a big amount, THEN you want us to ignore the Constitution. Ok. So, what dollar amount should we use in the future as a benchmark for ignoring the Constitution?

I do hope you understand that you are making yourself look dumber with every post....

 

[DontBeStupid]

The kid needs to stay in school, or he should have never quit school. I'm not sure which one applies.

Conflict of interest IS NOT unconstitutional, son.

Ah, so if you decide there is a "conflict of interest" then the government can ignore the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

(for those playing at home Bolling v. Sharpe is the case you want to read here)

Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case which deals with civil rights, specifically, segregation in the District of Columbia's public schools.
Bolling v. Sharpe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah...that sure cleared things up with this thread.

/sigh

Bolling v Sharpe was the case that allowed the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause to be recognized via the 5th Amendment on a Federal level. Which means, if there is a Federal law it must apply equally to all citizens. To do otherwise is unconstitutional.

This applies to this topic, because YOU want the laws to NOT apply equally to relatives of Pelosi. You want them treated differently due solely to her being an elected official. That's unconstitutional.