Pelosi’s Klan Gets $737 Million DOE Loan

[Meister]

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.

I can't fix stupid. I give up

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

{Bush's Ignite! Inc. has sold 1,700 COWs since 2005, mainly in Texas, where Bush lives and his brother was once governor. In August, Houston's school board authorized expenditures of up to $200,000 for COWs. The company expects 2006 revenue of $5 million. }

Not exactly what you claimed, now is it?

 

[McDowell's]

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

I have to disagree. There is a cost to this kind of thing even if this company does not default. Obviously, they could not get a financially viable loan without the support of the federal government. That means the tax payer is literally paying a cost to support this loan even if this particular company does not default. It may be an opportunity cost but there is a cost nonetheless.

In the aggregate the government will 100% guaranteed lose money on these endeavors. That's just a fact of life based on the risks involved. These loans are risky enough that no reputable entity wants to involve themselves without 100% surety of being repaid. That is what a government guarantee is. Basically, the bank is going to make a killing with no associated risk. Who makes that possible? The tax payer. Is that the obligation of the tax payer? HELL NO. The tax payer is financing both the bank and the company. What happened to all those people complaining about privatizing profits and transfering risk to the public?

 

[signelect]

I think you have it all wrong. Obama is extremely smart, not much of an American but very smart. He saw how stupid we were and capitalized on it. He will leave office in another year extremely wealthy and leave his bro's hi and dry. This man is am embarrassment to his race, his country and America.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Dontbestupid is passing out neg rep like Obama passes out our money.

Good job duche bag. Your just as much a clueless nit wit as our thief n chief.

 

[Care4all]

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.

he didn't borrow money, he was HANDED MONEY....and yes, there is a difference!

actually, both situations are very similar, in that there is potential conflict of interest.

as far as the last claim you made on pelosi, do you have a legitimate link on that? any newspaper would be fine.....but bloggers...i probably won't take it as truth....from either side of the aisle!

 

[DontBeStupid]

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.

I can't fix stupid. I give up

Then what do you want?? You've been crying for 5 pages about a conflict of interest, as if that justifies throwing the Constitution out the window. What would make you happy in this situation?

 

[signelect]

If Obama will give me 5 million dollars I will create 10 new jobs, that is a lot less per job than he is spending now. I won't wind up rich but better off than I am now. How about it Barry, 5,000,000 is a drop in the Polisi bucket.

 

[freedombecki]

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.

Demanding higher behavior from elected officials is NOT I repeat NOT unconstitutional.

Nancy Pelosi used her power of high office to feather her family's nest. She's done it every minute she has been in high office.

She has demanded favors from the military for personal family trips at taxpayer expence, inconvenienced them often by not showing up after they prepared the planes for takeoff with her and her family and friends aboard, ad nauseum.

It's time to show Nancy Pelosi the door.

 

[DontBeStupid]

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.

Demanding higher behavior from elected officials is NOT I repeat NOT unconstitutional.

Nancy Pelosi used her power of high office to feather her family's nest. She's done it every minute she has been in high office.

She has demanded favors from the military for personal family trips at taxpayer expence, inconvenienced them often by not showing up after they prepared the planes for takeoff with her and her family and friends aboard, ad nauseum.

It's time to show Nancy Pelosi the door.

If you don't like how she acts in office, then make sure she doesn't get elected next time. That's how our country works.

 

[freedombecki]

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.

he didn't borrow money, he was HANDED MONEY....and yes, there is a difference!

actually, both situations are very similar, in that there is potential conflict of interest.

as far as the last claim you made on pelosi, do you have a legitimate link on that? any newspaper would be fine.....but bloggers...i probably won't take it as truth....from either side of the aisle!

I picked up the "claim" from another poster on this very thread. If you'd look back to the one that says her brother-in-law's firm, it would be clear to you that's what a sister's husband is to a sibling.

 

[Meister]

/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.

I can't fix stupid. I give up

Then what do you want?? You've been crying for 5 pages about a conflict of interest, as if that justifies throwing the Constitution out the window. What would make you happy in this situation?

You comprehend this:

We can define a conflict of interest as a situation in which a person has a private or personal interest sufficient to appear to influence the objective exercise of his or her official duties as, say, a public official, an employee, or a professional.

It deals with everyday business practice in the real world....and isn't considered unconstitutional....what it does is level the playing field for everyone else.
I know you won't be able to grasp this, but I tried and I won't go any further with you.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I can't fix stupid. I give up

Then what do you want?? You've been crying for 5 pages about a conflict of interest, as if that justifies throwing the Constitution out the window. What would make you happy in this situation?

You comprehend this:

We can define a conflict of interest as a situation in which a person has a private or personal interest sufficient to appear to influence the objective exercise of his or her official duties as, say, a public official, an employee, or a professional.

It deals with everyday business practice in the real world....and isn't considered unconstitutional....what it does is level the playing field for everyone else.
I know you won't be able to grasp this, but I tried and I won't go any further with you.

Good, because you're fixating on one, and only one, aspect of this issue. As has been mentioned multiple times, a conflict of interest is not illegal. There was no law broken because of Pelosi and her relative. None. Zero. Now, you don't like how it looks, fine, but we can't drop the Constitution because YOU don't like how a situation looks.

Either bring proof of someone breaking the law, or shut the hell up and quit your whining.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

he didn't borrow money, he was HANDED MONEY....and yes, there is a difference!

actually, both situations are very similar, in that there is potential conflict of interest.

as far as the last claim you made on pelosi, do you have a legitimate link on that? any newspaper would be fine.....but bloggers...i probably won't take it as truth....from either side of the aisle!

I picked up the "claim" from another poster on this very thread. If you'd look back to the one that says her brother-in-law's firm, it would be clear to you that's what a sister's husband is to a sibling.

How do you know it is not her husband's brother?

Immie

 

[Meister]

Then what do you want?? You've been crying for 5 pages about a conflict of interest, as if that justifies throwing the Constitution out the window. What would make you happy in this situation?

You comprehend this:

We can define a conflict of interest as a situation in which a person has a private or personal interest sufficient to appear to influence the objective exercise of his or her official duties as, say, a public official, an employee, or a professional.

It deals with everyday business practice in the real world....and isn't considered unconstitutional....what it does is level the playing field for everyone else.
I know you won't be able to grasp this, but I tried and I won't go any further with you.

Good, because you're fixating on one, and only one, aspect of this issue. As has been mentioned multiple times, a conflict of interest is not illegal. There was no law broken because of Pelosi and her relative. None. Zero. Now, you don't like how it looks, fine, but we can't drop the Constitution because YOU don't like how a situation looks.

Either bring proof of someone breaking the law, or shut the hell up and quit your whining.

Really...you have been an epic fail with this thread and your telling me that I should shut the hell up? You are a moron, stupid.

 

[Care4all]

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.

he didn't borrow money, he was HANDED MONEY....and yes, there is a difference!

actually, both situations are very similar, in that there is potential conflict of interest.

as far as the last claim you made on pelosi, do you have a legitimate link on that? any newspaper would be fine.....but bloggers...i probably won't take it as truth....from either side of the aisle!

I picked up the "claim" from another poster on this very thread. If you'd look back to the one that says her brother-in-law's firm, it would be clear to you that's what a sister's husband is to a sibling.

There's links all over to Nancy Pelosi forcing unwilling taxpayers to feather her family's already-wealthy nest

this was what i was asking you about..... pelosi FORCING taxpayers to feather her family nest....

was this comment about this thread topic....her brother in law's company getting a loan? Or were you referring to something else she had done?

 

[DontBeStupid]

Really...you have been an epic fail with this thread and your telling me that I should shut the hell up? You are a moron, stupid.

You want Pelosi and her relatives to be treated differently under the law.

You complain about a "conflict of interest" yet provide zero evidence to show anything wrong was done.

And you accuse me of an epic fail?

Wow.

 

[freedombecki]

New documents uncovered by Judicial Watch show Pelosi took 85 trips on military aircraft


By: Mark Tapscott | 10/14/10 12:00 AM
Editorial Page Editor

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and members of her family and staff took 85 tax-paid trips on military aircraft between March 2, 2009, and June 7, 2010, according to new documents uncovered by Judicial Watch.
Pelosi's travel "cost the United States Air Force $2,100,744.59 over a two-year period — $101,429.14 of which was for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol," according to Judicial Watch. “Pelosi’s abusive use of military aircraft demonstrates a shocking lack of regard for the American taxpayer and the men and women who serve in the U.S. Air Force. Speaker Pelosi may have a frequent flyer record for taxpayer-financed luxury jet travel,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. For more from Judicial Watch, go here.

source

 

[Meister]

Is Conflict of Interest a Crime?

In the U.S., conflict of interest usually is not itself a crime unless the individual with the conflict is a government employee

Conflict of Interest - Mark R Simmons

 

[Uncensored2008]

he didn't borrow money, he was HANDED MONEY....and yes, there is a difference!

You know, if your position was valid, you wouldn't have to lie.

No, he wasn't handed money.

He sold software that had a GROSS revenue of $5 million, you claimed "billions," but that too was a lie.

actually, both situations are very similar, in that there is potential conflict of interest.

Actually, they aren't at all similar.

Neil Bush took advantage of his name and his brother being president to cash in on the NCLB bullshit. We can question Neil's ethics for doing so,

HOWEVER, there was ZERO, grasp that, ZERO involvement by any government agency. No loans, no grants, no endorsements and no guarantees.

as far as the last claim you made on pelosi, do you have a legitimate link on that? any newspaper would be fine.....but bloggers...i probably won't take it as truth....from either side of the aisle!

First off, the "Weekly Standard" is hardly a "blog." Secondly, it's all over the news.

Pelosi?s Relative Given $737 Million for ?Green Jobs?

Your partisanship doesn't actually alter reality, you know?