Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Feinstein CronyismFollow

#52 Apr 23 2009 at 10:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
hangtennow wrote:
I'm simply supporting my original assertion of the media's handling of Obama concerning Iraq.
You claiming it was to "blunt the effect" isn't "support", it's you making shit up.

Besides, you've failed to address the other articles quoted so your premise, that there's no major media coverage of negative issues in Iraq, is defeated.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#53REDACTED, Posted: Apr 24 2009 at 9:51 AM, Rating: Unrated, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#54 Apr 24 2009 at 9:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
hangtennow wrote:
cont...that casts Obama and his administration in a bad light.
Wasn't what you originally said. But I can understand why you'd need to keep changing it when it's so obvious that you're wrong Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#55REDACTED, Posted: Apr 24 2009 at 9:58 AM, Rating: Unrated, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#56 Apr 24 2009 at 9:59 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
hangtennow wrote:
You misunderstood.
If I was the kind of guy that went around quoting people in my sig, this would be one.
#57 Apr 24 2009 at 10:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
hangtennow wrote:
Jophed,

You misunderstood.
No I didn't. I previously quoted exactly what you said. There was no misunderstanding there, just the sad flailing of an okra farmer who wants so very much to pretend that there's some conspiracy.

By the way, reading into the Feinstein story, it sounds like a bunch of nothing dressed up with "These people are all involved! It has to be a story!" In reality, none of the so-called principle players were involved in the bid generation nor the competitively bid contract approval. You're welcome to claim otherwise but the onus is on you to prove it, not on me to defend it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#58 Apr 24 2009 at 11:21 AM Rating: Default
Jophed,

Quote:
No I didn't. I previously quoted exactly what you said.



Quote:
It's also the reason we're not hearing about Iraq on tv, unless it's good news, or about the search for Bin laden or Gitmo, which is still open and operating a full capacity.


If you can't infer that I was talking about Iraq under the Obama administration you're a ******.


Quote:
By the way, reading into the Feinstein story, it sounds like a bunch of nothing dressed up with "These people are all involved!


Actually it sounds like a top senator getting her husband a backdoor deal worth over 25billion for his real estate company; which has traditionally only dealt with commercial real estate.


New media spin;

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Senator Dianne Feinstein offered to help secure federal funds for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. just days before the agency awarded a contract to her husband's company in the housing foreclosure crisis.

On Oct. 30, Feinstein expressed backing for FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair's proposal to stem home foreclosures through the use of federal bailout funds for the agency.

Days later, the career staff at the FDIC awarded an unrelated, competitively bid, contract to CB Richard Ellis Group, a commercial real estate services company where Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum, is board chairman.

Feinstein's office says the senator was unaware that her husband's company had received an FDIC contract until The Washington Times inquired about it on Jan. 21.


I see the I don't recall defense is back in play for the democrats.





Edited, Apr 24th 2009 3:22pm by hangtennow
#59 Apr 24 2009 at 11:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
hangtennow wrote:
Quote:
It's also the reason we're not hearing about Iraq on tv, unless it's good news, or about the search for Bin laden or Gitmo, which is still open and operating a full capacity.
If you can't infer that I was talking about Iraq under the Obama administration you're a ******.
Yes, you whined about how the media isn't presenting news from Iraq since Obama took office unless it's good news. You were wrong and now you're trying to make it "The media isn't attacking Obama! OMG Liberalmediabias!!"

Keep spinning, though! You're a never ending font of amusement when you're desperate.
Quote:
Actually it sounds like a top senator getting her husband...
Yeah, it falls apart right there. Neither Blair nor Blum were involved in the contract generation or bidding. Did you have any evidence to the contrary? No? Didn't think so.
Quote:
I see the I don't recall defense is back in play for the democrats.
Not what she said, but any port in a storm.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#60 Apr 24 2009 at 11:51 AM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
hangtennow wrote:


New media spin;

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Senator Dianne Feinstein offered to help secure federal funds for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. just days before the agency awarded a contract to her husband's company in the housing foreclosure crisis.

On Oct. 30, Feinstein expressed backing for FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair's proposal to stem home foreclosures through the use of federal bailout funds for the agency.

Days later, the career staff at the FDIC awarded an unrelated, competitively bid, contract to CB Richard Ellis Group, a commercial real estate services company where Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum, is board chairman.

Feinstein's office says the senator was unaware that her husband's company had received an FDIC contract until The Washington Times inquired about it on Jan. 21.


I see the I don't recall defense is back in play for the democrats.


Huh. Sounds to me like the company was awarded the contract on the basis of price, not because the senator's husband was a board member. Especially since he wasn't involved in the deal, and it was a competitive bid where price is the only consideration as long as quality is similar.
#61REDACTED, Posted: Apr 24 2009 at 12:28 PM, Rating: Unrated, (Expand Post) Locked,
#62 Apr 24 2009 at 12:46 PM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
hangtennow wrote:
Locked,

How involved was Cheney with Halliburton?

Quote:
Cheney's Halliburton stock options rose 3,281% last year, senator finds
RAW STORY

An analysis released by a Democratic senator found that Vice President **** Cheney's Halliburton stock options have risen 3,281 percent in the last year, RAW STORY can reveal.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) asserts that Cheney's options -- worth $241,498 a year ago -- are now valued at more than $8 million. The former CEO of the oil and gas services juggernaut, Cheney has pledged to give proceeds to charity.


http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheneys_stock_options_rose_3281_last_1011.html

That's how involved he was. Nice strawman.
#63 Apr 24 2009 at 12:53 PM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
As to the rest...
hangtennow wrote:

You people are completely nutz if you don't think a husband and wife would discuss a multi-billion dollar deal. That you believe this deal just materialized and just so happens to involve a board member and a top senator is craziness.


Again, from what that second article you linked said it sounds the senator actually had no effect on the contract. A bidding process was done, and her husband's company won it, presumably through cost efficiency (that's how all contracts awarded at my work place go). While there was an appearance of a conflict of interest, looking closer seems to show there was not one after all. It was a silly move because it stirred up dirt, but in the end there wasn't anything there. And apparently they didn't realize there was any connection at first, hence why they allowed it to go through.

Again, bad appearance, but not necessarily any wrong doing. If you can show me some evidence to the contrary, I'd love to read it.
#64 Apr 24 2009 at 12:55 PM Rating: Default
Locked,

Quote:
The former CEO of the oil and gas services juggernaut, Cheney has pledged to give proceeds to charity.


Wonder if the Feinsteins will give any money they get from this deal to charity?

I'm guessing they won't. Democrats love to give away others money but never their own.



#65 Apr 24 2009 at 1:00 PM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
hangtennow wrote:
Locked,

How involved was Cheney with Halliburton?


I found better stuff: http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/chronology.html

Quote:
March: Congressman Henry Waxman launches an inquiry into the fact that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has secretly awarded a no-bid contract to KBR to extinguish oil well fires in Iraq. The contract has a huge cost ceiling of $7 billion, with additional fees of up to seven percent ($490 million). The mission and the contract have been "awarded without any competition or even notice to Congress, [… and] were entered into on March 8, but not disclosed publicly until March 24".53


Quote:
Sept. 14, 2003: On NBC's Meet the Press, Cheney said, "And since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company [Halliburton], gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years." But the vice president conveniently forgot to mention that he continues to receive from the company deferred salary of over $150,000 per year while maintaining 433,333 shares of unexercised stock options.


There are a lot of other quotes, and this only goes up to late 2004, but it's a neat read.
#66 Apr 24 2009 at 1:01 PM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
hangtennow wrote:
Locked,

Quote:
The former CEO of the oil and gas services juggernaut, Cheney has pledged to give proceeds to charity.


Wonder if the Feinsteins will give any money they get from this deal to charity?

I'm guessing they won't. Democrats love to give away others money but never their own.


Whoa whoa whoa... your response is that "fraud on a federal level is ok as long as some of it is given back to charity"? I have no idea why else you would include this title (source?).
#67 Apr 24 2009 at 1:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
hangtennow wrote:
How involved was Cheney with Halliburton?
I cared less about Cheney than I did about the Haliburton "no-bid" contract. I'm more amused at how the "Grr.. government waste!" crowd completely hand-waves away giveing away billions of dollars to Haliburton without getting competitive quotes. Which, as we all know, resulted in all sorts of overcharging and mismanagement of hundreds of millions of those precious taxpayer dollars.
Quote:
You people are completely nutz if you don't think a husband and wife would discuss a multi-billion dollar deal.
Blum wasn't involved. He's not even involved in the company operations.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#68 Apr 24 2009 at 1:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
In totally unrelated news I don't feel like making a new thread for, Scott Murphy has just won the House seat in NY-20, beating Jim Tedisco. The first of Michael Steele's three "priority" races is a loss for the GOP.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#69REDACTED, Posted: Apr 24 2009 at 1:28 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#70 Apr 24 2009 at 2:03 PM Rating: Good
***
2,824 posts
Quote:
In totally unrelated news I don't feel like making a new thread for, Scott Murphy has just won the House seat in NY-20, beating Jim Tedisco. The first of Michael Steele's three "priority" races is a loss for the GOP.


Did he use the "hip-hop-em-up*" strategury on that race?


*Which I would assume is similar to the plot in all those white kid learns to dance with inner city kids. I didn't read the memo.
#71 Apr 24 2009 at 2:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
hangtennow wrote:
the govn didn't go with the most qualified or even least expensive bid.
Says who?

The only person in the article saying they were underqualified is some real estate agent out of Colorado who presumably has reviewed the submitted bids about as closely as I have, i.e. not at all. Even then she nebulously states that there's more qualified companies without giving any indication of whether or not these companies bid on the project, how they bid, the value of their bids or anything else.

Yeah... quote from some real estate agent. Well, I'm convinced!

Edited, Apr 24th 2009 5:18pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#72 Apr 24 2009 at 3:15 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
I love reading varrus debates.

1) Varrus asserts A

2) someone says, ok, here's proof that A is false.

3) Varrus says he meant B, idiot

4) someone says, well, no but ok, here's proof that B is absurd

5) Varrus says he actually meant C, and usually makes up some point, that is of course completely unprovable to support himself (this is actually a trend right from the getgo)

6) someone says, that's crazy, and totally off topic.

7) varrus now continues to trash C while ignoring everything else. It's fantastic. Sometimes he returns to A in hopes that everyone has forgotten point 2.

Also stop rating him down, It ruins the experience.

Edited, Apr 24th 2009 6:16pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#73 Apr 25 2009 at 7:18 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,087 posts
Regardless of specifics, the generally accepted approach for "Conflict of Interest" standards is even an APPEARANCE of such would require recusal.

Its not that hard.

(most people in public sector take an OATH to this effect, but meh,this is chump change compared to CALPERS 165 BILLION dollar portfolio)
#74 Apr 25 2009 at 10:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Xsarus wrote:
Also stop rating him down, It ruins the experience.

The fact that you have the whole tired act nailed down to 7 predictable steps shows that it's not really much of an experience to ruin. It's boring and pointless.

#75 Apr 25 2009 at 9:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Terrifyingspeed wrote:
Regardless of specifics, the generally accepted approach for "Conflict of Interest" standards is even an APPEARANCE of such would require recusal.
Except that none of the parties supposedly implicated by the story were involved with or even likely had knowledge of the event. What would they recuse themselves from?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#76 Apr 25 2009 at 9:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
You're missing some steps. We usually ban him a few times in there.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 285 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (285)