NationStates Jolt Archive

Because of what some right-wing blogger said?
No! Because of what some left-leaning alternative (read as "obscure, with small readership") paper had printed about her and her husband.

http://www.metronews.com/feinstein.html

anuary 24, 2007 — Sen. Dianne Feinstein's husband was a major beneficiary of military appropriations blessed by a subcommittee that she headed, Metro Newspapers reports this week.

Feinstein (D-Calif.) acted in apparent conflict of interest while approving billions of dollars in military construction expenditures, according to an investigative story by award-winning journalist Peter Byrne. The story was published jointly in the North Bay Bohemian and Metro Silicon Valley weekly newspapers this week.

Following Feinstein's participation at the legislative level, large contracts were awarded to two firms — URS Corporation and Perini Corporation — that were controlled by an investment group headed by the senator's spouse, financier Richard C. Blum.

Byrne's investigation reveals the following details about Feinstein's service as a member of the United States Senate's Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee (MILCON):

* From 1997 through the end of 2005, with Feinstein's knowledge, her husband's group held a majority interest in two defense contractors active in Iraq and U.S. military bases.

* While setting MILCON agendas, Feinstein supervised her own staff of military construction experts and lobbied Pentagon officials in public hearings.

* From 2001 to 2005, URS earned $792 million from military construction and environmental cleanup projects approved by MILCON; Perini secured $759 million from MILCON projects.

* Attorney Michael R. Klein, a Feinstein legal adviser and long-time Blum business partner, also served as vice-chairman of Perini's board of directors. In an interview with Byrne in September, Klein stated that, beginning in 1997, he routinely informed Feinstein about specific federal projects coming before her in which Perini had a stake. The insider information, Klein said, was intended to help the senator avoid conflicts of interest. Although Klein's admission was intended to defuse the issue of Feinstein's conflict of interest, it instead exacerbated it, and Sen. Feinstein did in fact vote on legislation that affected Perini and URS.

It's not only impropriety that needs to be avoided, it's the appearance of impropriety. It looks like there was the possibility that she'd pushed contracts her husband's way, so she was ethically bound to resign. Good to see someone takes ethics seriously in DC.

It's not only impropriety that needs to be avoided, it's the appearance of impropriety. It looks like there was the possibility that she'd pushed contracts her husband's way, so she was ethically bound to resign. Good to see someone takes ethics seriously in DC.

Oh yeah, like she took it seriously until someone called her on it.

Wouldn't you think she would have noticed she was pushing contracts to her husband?

Or is that merely a happy accident?

SWEET! I hate DiFi :upyours: :headbang: :sniper: :mp5:

I can hear the Nazz and Jocabia desperately struggling to find a way to undermine the source by calling it "right wing" or "blogger".

Oh yeah, like she took it seriously until someone called her on it.

Wouldn't you think she would have noticed she was pushing contracts to her husband?

Or is that merely a happy accident?

How the hell should I know? I live in Michigan, for the sake of sweet zmobie jesus!! I don't know her, I don't know what was going through her head, or her husbands, for that matter. I just pointed out that under basic ethical rules, she did the correct thing.

Because of what some right-wing blogger said?
No! Because of what some left-leaning alternative (read as "obscure, with small readership") paper had printed about her and her husband.

http://www.metronews.com/feinstein.html

....who?

How the hell should I know? I live in Michigan, for the sake of sweet zmobie jesus!! I don't know her, I don't know what was going through her head, or her husbands, for that matter. I just pointed out that under basic ethical rules, she did the correct thing.

Incorrect. Under basic ethical rules, she should have recused herself from dealings with her husband's companies.

This was unethical behavior. It's nice that she resigned when called on it, but her actions were still unethical.

I can hear the Nazz and Jocabia desperately struggling to find a way to undermine the source by calling it "right wing" or "blogger".

How about this "She is a politician. They aren't a bright shining light of morality."

Seriously Donkey Kong, you need to get over you right wing self righteousness.

How about this "She is a politician. They aren't a bright shining light of morality."

Seriously Donkey Kong, you need to get over you right wing self righteousness.

Seriously, if this had been a Republican, the Nazz would have been all over it...

You lead such a sad life since you spend ALL day trying to prove the democrats and muslims to be ebil monsters. Congratulations you showed that a politician is corrupt, that's like finding a needle in a needle stack.

At least she did the noble thing and stepped down, unlike Bush who's started the war under incredibly suspicious pretenses. Let's not judge him because he has an R in front of his name.

R and D are just letters categorizing two different piles of shit. The worst is the people who think one smells better than the other.

you need to get over you right wing self righteousness.

I'm not DK.

And you need to get over your left-wing self righteousness (you, and Nazz, and others who posts threads no different than this about Republicans, the McCain thread being an excellent example).

Are you saying that people only have the right to post about things you agree with?

Better get used to disappointment.

Incorrect. Under basic ethical rules, she should have recused herself from dealings with her husband's companies.

This was unethical behavior. It's nice that she resigned when called on it, but her actions were still unethical.

Unethical in the sense of the Vice President's former company being given nearly all(if not all) of the contracts to rebuild Iraq? Unethical like lying to a nation with intent to invade a sovereign nation? Unethical like detaining people without giving them basic rights? Unethical like vetoing a bill for troop spending, because it will clash with your narrow minded view on the world? I can go on about the so called ethics of the right wing..

I'm not defending her, just saying that you need to accept that people are unethical morons on all sides, so long as they wear the title of politician.

Unethical in the sense of the Vice President's former company being given nearly all(if not all) of the contracts to rebuild Iraq? Unethical like lying to a nation with intent to invade a sovereign nation? Unethical like detaining people without giving them basic rights? Unethical like vetoing a bill for troop spending, because it will clash with your narrow minded view on the world? I can go on about the so called ethics of the right wing..


The subject is Feinstein. Please try to keep up.


I'm not defending her, just saying that you need to accept that people are unethical morons on all sides, so long as they wear the title of politician.

Sure you are. By bringing up something else, in the hopes of hijacking the thread.

If someone can post a thread about McCain being a cowardly weasel, then I feel free to post about any Democrat doing anything unethical.

See how that works?

I could argue (as you did) that all politicians are cowardly weasels, but I'm not.

I'm not DK.

And you need to get over your left-wing self righteousness (you, and Nazz, and others who posts threads no different than this about Republicans, the McCain thread being an excellent example).

Are you saying that people only have the right to post about things you agree with?

Better get used to disappointment.

When you can prove that, let me know. ;)

And how am I being left wing and self righteous. I am not the one running around thinking that my political beliefs are the most supreme and those that follow the same beliefs are gods among men. That's you problem. You don't realize that once in a while(ok most of the time) you are wrong. But keep lying to yourself.

I'm not DK.

I find that very hard to believe.

The subject is Feinstein. Please try to keep up.

That's your response?

For the love of Quetzecotal you can't just ignore a point because it's not exactly the subject on hand. He made a valid point of the Republican party being corrupt, in the name decent debate I demand a rebuttle.

When you can prove that, let me know. ;)


It's your assertion, you have to prove it.

And how am I being left wing and self righteous. I am not the one running around thinking that my political beliefs are the most supreme and those that follow the same beliefs are gods among men.

Oh, and the Nazz doesn't have that problem? Or you? Bullshit.

That's your response?

For the love of Quetzecotal you can't just ignore a point because it's not exactly the subject on hand. He made a valid point of the Republican party being corrupt, in the name decent debate I demand a rebuttle.

I never said the Republican party wasn't.

But saying "they're all corrupt" doesn't solve the problem now, does it?

And I'm talking about Feinstein.

I don't see you holding her feet to the fire the way you would a Republican.

It's your assertion, you have to prove it.

Should we really go look at your old posts DK? compare them to now? They'd be an EXACT match. So don't give me that bullshit.


Oh, and the Nazz doesn't have that problem? Or you? Bullshit.

I am not speaking for the Nazz, if you think he is a self righteous asshole, then so be it. He can defend himself. As for me, i'm hardly in the same category, as I don't refer to anyone different than me as Nazi's all the time, or refer to people that are pacifists and demand peace before needless bloodshed, as Chamberlains. When you can learn to quit making such dumb ass remarks, then maybe more people will have respect for you.

Government contractors are corrupt?!?!?!?! REALLY? Wow... :rolleyes:

Yeah, Small shit. She appears to have done her best to avoid conflict of interest. Hardly on the same scale of the Haliburton corruption issues that our administration has.

Now me, I think that government contracters oughta be done away with. Clearly they cannot be trusted.

whine whine whine whine whine whine Democrat whine whine whine

whine whine whine whine whine whine Republican whine whine whine
*yawns*

I'm happy to see her resign. I fucking hate that communist whore.

I'm happy to see her resign. I fucking hate that communist whore.

You might want to edit this post before it gets you banned.

I fucking hate that communist whore.
Joe McCarthy, is that you?

Joe McCarthy, is that you?

No, that'd be me. :cool:


j/k

I don't see you holding her feet to the fire the way you would a Republican.

I'm sorry if I expect more from our commander in cheif and vice president than a senator. You don't even have a fire for them.

You might want to edit this post before it gets you banned.

O RLY?

I can hear the Nazz and Jocabia desperately struggling to find a way to undermine the source by calling it "right wing" or "blogger".


Amusing. I notice that you even said in another thread that you'd prefer I come here. Is that because you recognize the other thread is a lost cause? I'll take that as a yes. Hey, knowing is half the battle, EO. Perhaps there's hope for you, yet.

Meanwhile, you do realize that nothing I've ever said indicates democrats are above abuse of their position. I'm not democrat, so I'm not sure what would make you think I would automatically WANT to debunk this article.

Unfortunately for you, being right in your shotgun approach to presenting arguments once out of a dozen tries still makes for a pretty poor record, and that's assuming you're actually right here, which is a fact certainly not in evidence.

I'm sorry if I expect more from our commander in cheif and vice president than a senator.

Because, you know, our Presidents have always been paragons of virtue...

O RLY?

http://www.forumspile.com/O_RLY-Ya-Rly.jpg

I'm not DK.

And you need to get over your left-wing self righteousness (you, and Nazz, and others who posts threads no different than this about Republicans, the McCain thread being an excellent example).

Are you saying that people only have the right to post about things you agree with?

Better get used to disappointment.

QFT. Of course, that would apply just as easily to you if one were to change the word left-wing to right-wing.

Unfortunately for you, The Nazz is only found to be inaccurate once in a while and you are only found to be accurate once in while. You should really compare yourself to someone more comparable like the defense minister of Iraq.

O RLY?

http://www.orlyowl.com/upload/files/Not_Rly.jpg

Because, you know, our Presidents have always been paragons of virtue...

This one in particular, but if you're going to call "corrupt" on the Democrats you might want to avoid the reflecting pool on the way back to congress.

I do side with the Democrats now, more so because I have been greatly dissapointed by the Republicans in the past six years. However, I am not foolish enough to be positive they're going to be much better.

This one in particular, but if you're going to call "corrupt" on the Democrats you might want to avoid the reflecting pool on the way back to congress.

I do side with the Democrats now, more so because I have been greatly dissapointed by the Republicans in the past six years. However, I am not foolish enough to be positive they're going to be much better.

Yes, I must say that finding out that a particular democrat behaved unethically is about as surprising as finding out I'm wearing underwear.

I notice this, where the culprit, the person who behaved unethically actually was the person who actually was addressed in the response, the stepping down, constrasts sharply to when the Bush administration finds a scapegoat for the repeated and jawdroppingly obvious corruptions pop up. Though, I'm sure it's just coincidence that buck never stops at Bush no matter how many of his appointees are wrapped in scandal.

Now, I just wonder how we can use this to prove that global warming is a figment of Gore's imagination.

Yes, I must say that finding out that a particular democrat behaved unethically is about as surprising as finding out I'm wearing underwear.

I notice this, where the culprit, the person who behaved unethically actually was the person who actually was addressed in the response, the stepping down, constrasts sharply to when the Bush administration finds a scapegoat for the repeated and jawdroppingly obvious corruptions pop up. Though, I'm sure it's just coincidence that buck never stops at Bush no matter how many of his appointees are wrapped in scandal.

Now, I just wonder how we can use this to prove that global warming is a figment of Gore's imagination.

I still don't see you calling Feinstein on it.

Do you think that the contracts fed to her husband's company should be cancelled, and rebid, with his firm disqualified? Should his company be forced to pay back the money?

I still don't see you calling Feinstein on it.

Do you think that the contracts fed to her husband's company should be cancelled, and rebid, with his firm disqualified? Should his company be forced to pay back the money?

only if it can be demonstrated that the contracts were awarded unfairly.

Republicans suck.

Democrats suck more.

I still don't see you calling Feinstein on it.

Do you think that the contracts fed to her husband's company should be cancelled, and rebid, with his firm disqualified? Should his company be forced to pay back the money?

As I understand it, her husband is part of a company that owns part of the companies in question. Not trying to excuse unethical behavior, it looks as if her husband is sitting at least a couple of removes from directly profiting (I think, I'm not sure what the correct legal definition is for direct profit). I do stand by that whether or not there was any actually impropriety, she did the correct thing in resigning from the committee. And, hell, would any politician, Democrat or Republican, step down until they were called on something like this?

Now, if he did actually profit directly from contracts steered his way by Sen. Feinstein, then the companies should pay it back. Do I think that it will happen? Well, let's just say I think it's more likely that flying green monkeys will fly out of my computer screen and terrorize the cat. Then she'd beat the crap out of them and put them on our pillows, but that's another story.

Republicans suck.

Democrats suck more.

Care to elaborate, or remain a simple minded bafoon?

I still don't see you calling Feinstein on it.

Do you think that the contracts fed to her husband's company should be cancelled, and rebid, with his firm disqualified? Should his company be forced to pay back the money?

I'm calling her on it.

It was a corrupt move *calls it*. I have yet to see you call the Bush administration anything but "effective".

I still don't see you calling Feinstein on it.

Do you think that the contracts fed to her husband's company should be cancelled, and rebid, with his firm disqualified? Should his company be forced to pay back the money?

What do you mean? If she did it, she should resign from the committee. But she did that already. Just like Cheney should stop giving contracts to Haliburton.

Yes, if it's found that he could preferential treatment, then the contracts should be cancelled and rebid, but disqualifying his firm is not necessary. If his firm is the best candidate then that simply proves they go what they should have gotten. If they his firm is not, then there is no need to disqualify. However, this preferential treatment has to be proven. You know the proposals are available. Can you show who should have won the contract over them? I'll wait.

You cannot make his firm pay back the money unless they committed fraud which your article doesn't even allege.

Just like if Haliburton is proven to have been given preferential treatment they should lose their contracts as well. Of course, since we know about the connection between the VP and Haliburton. You are calling for his head as well, no? We know what an angel of consistency you are.

Meanwhile, I'll take this -

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12504775&postcount=92
Why don't you go over to the Feinstein is an Unethical person thread and try your luck there?

Obviously, this means "I can't defend this point, so let me see if I can slip this next one by."

you know, for all you know her husband's companies were the best ones for the job, and she just happened to not realize thait was against ethical proceedure. Then she saw the article, said "oh crap, they're right" and resigned. For all we know this is what could have happened, and if that is true, then the behaved in the most ethical way possible.

only if it can be demonstrated that the contracts were awarded unfairly.

Yes, which would be easy to prove since the proposals can be reviewed. Evidence would be easy to provide if it exists, but EO doesn't care about evidence. Allegations are sufficient, so long as it's about Democrats. Now, of course, if it's about Republicans their better be a smoking gun, a confession, three male witnesses, a pair of ruby slippers, a magic mirror and two UN Representatives who recorded the conversation on tape and video.

you know, for all you know her husband's companies were the best ones for the job, and she just happened to not realize thait was against ethical proceedure.

Well, I don't know about that. However, given how vague the connection is, it's quite possible this is one of many, many companies invested in by his group. That she was completely unaware of the issue is not all that likely. It's possible, I suppose, but I haven't seen any evidence or even anything resembling evidence of her pushing the contracts at her husband's investment group. Unfortunately, I can't find a single article out there that is more than vaguely referencing the connection.

Well, I don't know about that. However, given how vague the connection is, it's quite possible this is one of many, many companies invested in by his group. That she was completely unaware of the issue is not all that likely. It's possible, I suppose, but I haven't seen any evidence or even anything resembling evidence of her pushing the contracts at her husband's investment group. Unfortunately, I can't find a single article out there that is more than vaguely referencing the connection.

It is true that it is unlikely she didn't know, but as we have no evidence, we shouldn't assume she did. Now if the contracts were obviously bad contracts, or if she had been pushing rather hard for the committee to accept them, or if it had been a really close vote, that would be something else.

You also have to remember that it wasn't her, alone, approving these contracts. The rest of the committee seemed to think they were a good deal as well.

Since she can't possibly claim ignorance, I think it'd be entirely appropriate to nullify whatever contracts her husband's companies were awarded, confiscate whatever financial gains the couple made from them, and fine her corrupt ass into oblivion.

Then again, it's the US, so perhaps it'd be more appropriate to give her back her job, pin a medal on her chest and give her a raise. It's how you do things over there in Backwateristan after all. No reason to come after her for following the American Dream™.

Since she can't possibly claim ignorance, I think it'd be entirely appropriate to nullify whatever contracts her husband's companies were awarded, confiscate whatever financial gains the couple made from them, and fine her corrupt ass into oblivion.

Then again, it's the US, so perhaps it'd be more appropriate to give her back her job, pin a medal on her chest and give her a raise. It's how you do things over there in Backwateristan after all. No reason to come after her for following the American Dream™.

It's not enough to prove that ethically she should have stood down. It has to be shown they benefitted and by how much. It hasn't even been alleged that they wouldn't have gotten the contracts without her being on the committee and it certainly hasn't been established that she pushed the contracts to her husband.

Again, the proposals are available publicly if someone cares to examine them. So far no one, not even the person "breaking" this story cares enough to actually do the work required to actually do something to actually support what is no really just the slimmest of implications.

The fact is the problem here is the appearance of impropriety. Impropriety has not be demonstrated.

I can hear the Nazz and Jocabia desperately struggling to find a way to undermine the source by calling it "right wing" or "blogger".

Wrong again. Guess you really do like it on that side of the street.

<Snip>It's criminal neglegt in countries where corruption isn't strongly encouraged. They even had a person hired to inform her she was inhabile, yet she failed to act on it. That should be more than enough reason to confiscate any & all profits the couple made, fine her ass off, and nullify the contracts in question. It may be hard on his company, but it made its bed. If it truly walked into it blindly, it can always sue the corrupt couple.

Because in these situations, the appearance of impropriety is all there'll ever be, unless the corrupt scum involved are borderline brain-dead (and as you've hopefully picked up on by now, I'm not denying she may be).

If actual corruption could be shown, both their asses would belong in jail, all their actives should be frozen (and possibly confiscated), and the company and council should be charged with fraud and thoroughly investigated. Failing to do so creates a corporate-political mafia, effectively beyond the law. You needn't look further than your administration for the perfect example.

Wonderful. Now if we could only get her to resign from office, we may have actually accomplished something.

Wonderful. Now if we could only get her to resign from office, we may have actually accomplished something.

Yeah, it sure does suck to have politicians that cop to their fuckups when called on it. I much prefer the right, who try to wiggle and pass the buck as much as possible. I don't like it when people own up and take responsibility. That's just weakness of character.

Hail Dubya.

Yeah, it sure does suck to have politicians that cop to their fuckups when called on it. I much prefer the right, who try to wiggle and pass the buck as much as possible. I don't like it when people own up and take responsibility. That's just weakness of character.

Hail Dubya.

I despise hypocrites of all sorts. They exist on BOTH sides of the political spectrum. Add yourself to the list. The fact of the matter is that she didn't fess up to it until she was called on it. So much for honesty and integrity. You do realize you are praising someone for honesty who has just admitted to abusing the trust of the people she represents, don't you?

I despise hypocrites of all sorts.

Great. Me too.

They exist on BOTH sides of the political spectrum. Add yourself to the list.

Yes, they do. But I would like to know exactly where my hypocrisy lies. You can even use quotes if you like.

The fact of the matter is that she didn't fess up to it until she was called on it. So much for honesty and integrity.

Yep, hence my saying, "Yeah, it sure does suck to have politicians that cop to their fuckups when called on it."

I didn't deny that she fucked up, or that she waited until she was called on it. Where, exactly, did you read that in my words?

You do realize you are praising someone for honesty who has just admitted to abusing the trust of the people she represents, don't you?

I'm praising her taking responsibility and taking the fall, instead of trying to weasel out of it, pointing fingers, passing the blame, and whining in the media about a "witch hunt," or any other bullshit. She got called out, and stepped down. What a bitch. Doesn't she know she's supposed to have a fall guy all planned out? She really should call Karl Rove in.

Of course, that's assuming there actually was any impropriety. As has been pointed out, the throughline is less than clear, and the level of her guilt--if any--has hardly been proven.

Now, I do wonder how quick you have been to call for the resignation for any of the fuckups on the part of the right... but I'm sure you're not partisan like that, huh? Just like our EO, here. But hey, way to try and skew my words.

It's criminal neglegt in countries where corruption isn't strongly encouraged. They even had a person hired to inform her she was inhabile, yet she failed to act on it. That should be more than enough reason to confiscate any & all profits the couple made, fine her ass off, and nullify the contracts in question. It may be hard on his company, but it made its bed. If it truly walked into it blindly, it can always sue the corrupt couple.

Because in these situations, the appearance of impropriety is all there'll ever be, unless the corrupt scum involved are borderline brain-dead (and as you've hopefully picked up on by now, I'm not denying she may be).

So in other words, you would nullify a legally binding contract on nothing more than mere suspicion and your feeling that it "looks funny"?

Sorry, no.

Maybe this'll make it easier for Arnold to take her seat after his term expires. Although it may be Boxer he goes after, depending on the year. Either way, more craziness. :p

It's criminal neglegt in countries where corruption isn't strongly encouraged. They even had a person hired to inform her she was inhabile, yet she failed to act on it.

Inhabile? She was incompetent or unqualified? How?

It's not criminal neglect ever. But, please, cite the law. I'm interested in something other than rhetoric.

That should be more than enough reason to confiscate any & all profits the couple made, fine her ass off, and nullify the contracts in question. It may be hard on his company, but it made its bed. If it truly walked into it blindly, it can always sue the corrupt couple.

It did nothing of the sort. Unless there is proof of impropriety, how do you justify assuming guilt? There is no evidence that any in the company save the couple knows anything was wrong, and there isn't even evidence the couple behaved in any manner that is provably unethical. No evidence the contracts were awarded for any other reason than merit and not even evidence that she didn't recuse herself from the decision which is the common practice among countries where corruption isn't strongly encouraged.

You're sure quick to call them corrupt without evidence. I guess if being right isn't important to you, then carry on.

Because in these situations, the appearance of impropriety is all there'll ever be, unless the corrupt scum involved are borderline brain-dead (and as you've hopefully picked up on by now, I'm not denying she may be).

So because you can't find the evidence, you just want to skip over it and assume guilt. So much for avoiding corruption. In civilized countries one should assume innocence absent compelling evidence of guilt. Appearance is not guilt.


If actual corruption could be shown, both their asses would belong in jail, all their actives should be frozen (and possibly confiscated), and the company and council should be charged with fraud and thoroughly investigated. Failing to do so creates a corporate-political mafia, effectively beyond the law. You needn't look further than your administration for the perfect example.

Ah, but since it can't be then it's a different kind of punishment them. She has an obligation to recuse herself if a conflict is known. Standard business ethics. There is no evidence she did not do so. No evidence that these contracts are not meritorious. And it would be EASY to prove as it's required by law that the proposals be made public.

the McCain thread being an excellent example).


McCain didn't retire did he? A comparable offense would be finding someone who did shit and didn't retire.

The subject is Feinstein. Please try to keep up.



Sure you are. By bringing up something else, in the hopes of hijacking the thread.

If someone can post a thread about McCain being a cowardly weasel, then I feel free to post about any Democrat doing anything unethical.

See how that works?

I could argue (as you did) that all politicians are cowardly weasels, but I'm not.

Um, actually when McCain got called out for being Iraq your reply was to call out Pelosi. But it's good to see you're above these tactics. That means we won't see them anymore, no?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12503202&postcount=27

I suppose when you brought up Pelosi in the other thread that you immediately chastised yourself saying "The subject is McCain. Try to keep up."

Like I said, I forgive you. I'm just happy to see that we'll see this kind of partisan nonsense put aside. Pelosi's actions are not a defense for McCain's. I know you feel like pointing out that Feinstein MIGHT have done something wrong makes you feel like this justifies the dozens of corruption scandal in the current administration, but really even if every democrat in Congress was found to be equally corrupt it wouldn't defend the corruption in the current administration.

http://static.flickr.com/31/43375294_fc9090d756.jpg

snip

Ouch. She'll totally gun you down for that. :p

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/3324.jpg

Care to elaborate, or remain a simple minded bafoon?

If you talk to a Republican about the Constitution, they'll probably say "Oh, I've heard of that. What is it, exactly?"

If you talk to a Democrat about the Constitution, they'll just sit there with a dumb look on their face, wondering what the hell you're talking about.

See also: Ron Paul, Jeffrey Flake, Barry Goldwater, etc.

Corruption: Bad
Quitting after getting caught being corrupt: Good
Not being corrupt in the first place: Even better

If you talk to a Republican about the Constitution, they'll probably say "Oh, I've heard of that. What is it, exactly?"

If you talk to a Democrat about the Constitution, they'll just sit there with a dumb look on their face, wondering what the hell you're talking about.

See also: Ron Paul, Jeffrey Flake, Barry Goldwater, etc.

Ah, I see you chose the "Buffoon" route.

I can hear the Nazz and Jocabia desperately struggling to find a way to undermine the source by calling it "right wing" or "blogger".

Why would they? This demonstrates the unbiased nature of the so-called 'liberal' media. :D

If you talk to a Republican about the Constitution, they'll probably say "Oh, I've heard of that. What is it, exactly?"

If you talk to a Democrat about the Constitution, they'll just sit there with a dumb look on their face, wondering what the hell you're talking about.

See also: Ron Paul, Jeffrey Flake, Barry Goldwater, etc.

Gee, I guess a democrat like me has never heard of the constitution.

Oh, if only at some point in my life I took a constitutional studies class. You know when would have been a great time to do that? When I was in law school....

Damn it, why didn't they teach me constitutional law in law school?

No....wait....

Why would they? This demonstrates the unbiased nature of the so-called 'liberal' media. :D

Don't you know, it's "with us or against us". Doesn't matter that I don't like democrats in general. Because I criticise the republicans that EO would like to put on a pedestal, I must love democrats.

That's what people think when being a part of a party is more important to them than rational analysis of a particular issue.

Man, I just accidently erased this whole big thing about what she knew and what is going on.

Fuck it, here's the original article-
http://www.bohemian.com/feinstein/

It's huge in money spent but not really a Duke Cunningham kind of thing, and mostly is sticky because of the way the rules work, part of what she opposed changing.

But she is stepping down and not lashing out and insisting it's all a witch hunt, etc, that has been the norm with other issues like this so there isn't much to yell about but rather to watch the system work and realize some of its shortcomings (like an ethics watchdog).

http://static.flickr.com/31/43375294_fc9090d756.jpg

:eek:

Sorry guys but Eve Online set out to illustrate a point and was successful.

On these forums, when a Republican does something unethical there's usually plenty of people ready to pile on and very shrilly make sure we all know how evil and corrupt they are.

EO brings up a post about a Democrat who did something unethical and the responses break down into basically a couple categories.

"All politicians are corrupt.. So what?"

"You're so pathetic to be posting about something so trivial."

"She did the right thing [after doing the wrong thing] so all is forgiven!"

The double standard is pretty glaring here, guys.

Sorry guys but Eve Online set out to illustrate a point and was successful.

On these forums, when a Republican does something unethical there's usually plenty of people ready to pile on and very shrilly make sure we all know how evil and corrupt they are.

EO brings up a post about a Democrat who did something unethical and the responses break down into basically a couple categories.

"All politicians are corrupt.. So what?"

"You're so pathetic to be posting about something so trivial."

"She did the right thing [after doing the wrong thing] so all is forgiven!"

The double standard is pretty glaring here, guys.

The problem is that she already did what's required of her, even though it hasn't actually been proven she was wrong, she stepped down. We can't find ANYTHING about this from her side. No squirming. No complaints. No excuses. "Oh, you think I've been unethical? Fair enough. I step down."

It's done. If she'd not done anything then you'd have a point. However, what I see as a double standard is that Cheney gave out no bid contracts to his company, that was afterwards proven to have been involved in about a dozen other scandals that would have ended most companies, and did he step down, admit wrongdoing or anythign of the sort? Nope. Nothing. And, yes, yes, I'm sure EO was equally outraged at Cheney, as were you, no doubt.

What do you want us to say? Yes, there is the appearance of impropriety. She fixed it and rather than find a scapegoat, just stepped down.

Now if you can find any evidence of fraud, or something more extreme, you'd have a case, but so far this is a mild problem that has already presented a solution that she suggested.

Seriously. What do you think would be a proportionate response, keeping in mind that there are several companies directly tied to White House officials were more impropriety was proven, so please suggest it so we can apply it to ALL of these scandals.

EDIT: Meanwhile, are you really having trouble with why we tend to be more concerned with scandal tied to the whitehouse rather than scandal tied to a random senator? Here - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=523042 I got bored after dozens of scandals I could list related directly to the whitehouse and the Bush administration. You can't see the difference between a mild scandal for a senator who owned up and stepped down, versus dozens upon dozens of scandals all tied to the same place most of which were just ignored because the oversight is done by the same administrations? Seriously?

Let's vote in a Democratic President next election so we can find out that's the relationshp to the administration that makes people care more than anything else.

Gosh, fellas, I hope Myrm doesn't come agree with EO, then I'll really be convinced. Because people agreeing with one another and ignoring evidence like they do in EVERY thread is so unusual that I'd really be compelled if we can just get these three posters to agree that liberals are ebil.

Gee, I guess a democrat like me has never heard of the constitution.

Oh, if only at some point in my life I took a constitutional studies class. You know when would have been a great time to do that? When I was in law school....

Damn it, why didn't they teach me constitutional law in law school?

No....wait....

Okay then. Please feel free to identify the parts of the Constitution that allow for...

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994-2004, the Communications Decency Act, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, the Federal Reserve, the FCC, and the rest of the nanny-state garbage that Congressional Democrats have pushed through, or at least haven't challenged.

Okay then. Please feel free to identify the parts of the Constitution that allow for...

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994-2004, the Communications Decency Act, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, the Federal Reserve, the FCC, and the rest of the nanny-state garbage that Congressional Democrats have pushed through, or at least haven't challenged.

Okay, so you do realize that the biggest proponents of the War on Drugs have been Republicans, no? Are you kidding when you say this is reserved to Democrats. Both groups wipe their behinds with the US Constitution every day.

For more evidence, how about things that actively violate the USC, like, oh, I don't know, illegal wiretaps, illegal search and seizure, denial of marriage based on gender, imprisonment without trial, innocent until proven guilty, not given Congress oversight of military funds (The Iraq-Afghanistan scandal).

Shall I keep going or are these all things being actively attacked by the majority of Republicans. Wouldn't want to accept that both parties don't really care so much about the Constitution.

Okay then. Please feel free to identify the parts of the Constitution that allow for...

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994-2004, the Communications Decency Act, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, the Federal Reserve, the FCC, and the rest of the nanny-state garbage that Congressional Democrats have pushed through, or at least haven't challenged.

How about the part that allows congress to collect taxes and make laws? though the communications decency act, I would argue, is unconstitutional,