Pelosi fires back at '60 Minutes' report on 'soft corruption'

1Perry · Nov 23, 2011

Karl said:
My usual practice in these types of situations is that, absent any evidence, to believe nothing at all

Especially if the person in question has no 'history' (which, despite concerted attempts by right wing media to manufacture, does not exist AFAIK).

California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the former house speaker, and her husband invested in eight initial public stock offerings in 2008. The Pelosi’s, for example, bought 5,000 shares in VISA at $44 a share, while a bill that could have hurt the company was under review in the House. The stock jumped to $64 a share–an increase in value for Pelosi of $100,000.

Would most people have jumped on the initial offering before anyone else could get it for something like Visa? I'm sure they would. If they had while having inside information about how a bill in Congress would be voted on, would they have been charged with insider trading if they didn't have a (R) or (D) after their name? I bet they would.

Pelosi, Boehner, Bachus, Hastert, Other Congressional Reps Traded Stock On Inside Tips, But It’s All Legal (!?!) | David Webb

Do you think she would have bought in if she knew the bill would go against Visa? Do you think the offer to jump in before anyone not influential was able to had anything to do with her standing in Congress?

AdamT · Nov 24, 2011

Thrilla said:
If you have no knowledge of Pelosi's corruption.. it is not because it doesn't exist.. it's because you have chosen not to inform yourself.
it's not uncommon for a hyperpartisan not to inform themselves of what going on with their party's leaders....willful ignorance runs rampant.

Speaking of hyperpartisan, did we all forget that the same article made exactly the same kinds of accusations against the current House speaker, John Boehner, and Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama?

Would you agree that Boehner should be drummed out of the House?

BmanMcfly · Nov 24, 2011

Everytime I see this thread title on "soft corruption", it makes me laugh...

Makes me wonder, can a person claim that it was "soft" theft? a "soft" speeding ticket?? a "soft" rape? And have it not be a big deal...

No judge, it was a "SOFT" murder.

Thrilla · Nov 24, 2011

AdamT said:
Speaking of hyperpartisan, did we all forget that the same article made exactly the same kinds of accusations against the current House speaker, John Boehner, and Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama?

Would you agree that Boehner should be drummed out of the House?

.. yes, absolutely.

I prefer to see all D's and R's, who are corrupt, drummed out of office.... and more importantly, i want all corrupt L's out of office even more, as those are my peeps and i don't want my peeps being corrupt and holding office.

AdamT · Nov 24, 2011

Thrilla said:
.. yes, absolutely.

I prefer to see all D's and R's, who are corrupt, drummed out of office.... and more importantly, i want all corrupt L's out of office even more, as those are my peeps and i don't want my peeps being corrupt and holding office.

I'm with you on that. I think that legislators should have to put their investments in a blind trust as long as they are in office.

Thrilla · Nov 24, 2011

AdamT said:
I'm with you on that. I think that legislators should have to put their investments in a blind trust as long as they are in office.

you are more generous than I am... i would disallow investment for politicians entirely.

1Perry · Nov 24, 2011

AdamT said:
Speaking of hyperpartisan, did we all forget that the same article made exactly the same kinds of accusations against the current House speaker, John Boehner, and Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama?

Would you agree that Boehner should be drummed out of the House?

Yes. I believe we need a complete turnover.

Karl · Nov 24, 2011

1Perry said:
California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the former house speaker, and her husband invested in eight initial public stock offerings in 2008. The Pelosi’s, for example, bought 5,000 shares in VISA at $44 a share, while a bill that could have hurt the company was under review in the House. The stock jumped to $64 a share–an increase in value for Pelosi of $100,000.

Would most people have jumped on the initial offering before anyone else could get it for something like Visa? I'm sure they would. If they had while having inside information about how a bill in Congress would be voted on, would they have been charged with insider trading if they didn't have a (R) or (D) after their name? I bet they would.

Pelosi, Boehner, Bachus, Hastert, Other Congressional Reps Traded Stock On Inside Tips, But It’s All Legal (!?!) | David Webb

Do you think she would have bought in if she knew the bill would go against Visa? Do you think the offer to jump in before anyone not influential was able to had anything to do with her standing in Congress?

Your argument is constructed of coincidence and conjecture, held together with nails of occasionally irrational suspicion.

Let me know if you find a smoking gun -- that isn't loaded with blanks

j-mac · Nov 24, 2011

Karl said:
Your argument is constructed of coincidence and conjecture, held together with nails of occasionally irrational suspicion.

Let me know if you find a smoking gun -- that isn't loaded with blanks

So your rebuttal is dismissal, refusal to critically think, and ideologically dismantlement of anything that goes after the Bourgeois skirting of law that anyone else has to live by. How is that even close to an honest argument?

Let us know when you want to stop carrying the putrid water of Socialism.

j-mac

Karl · Nov 24, 2011

j-mac said:
So your rebuttal is dismissal, refusal to critically think, and ideologically dismantlement of anything that goes after the Bourgeois skirting of law that anyone else has to live by. How is that even close to an honest argument?

Let us know when you want to stop carrying the putrid water of Socialism.

The ideological refusal to critically think is clearly all yours.

Do you think Pelosi was guilty of all the previous charges levied against her, which have been proven to be bogus? (1. the big jet, 2. the booze for the big jet, and 3. the joyriding relatives on the big jet.)

j-mac · Nov 24, 2011

Karl said:
The ideological refusal to critically think is clearly all yours.

Do you think Pelosi was guilty of all the previous charges levied against her, which have been proven to be bogus? (1. the big jet, 2. the booze for the big jet, and 3. the joyriding relatives on the big jet.)

Pelosi's Speaker Shuttle: The Inside Story - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

CBS outlines it pretty good, and although Pelosi didn't demand a 757 size jet, she did fly colleagues and friends, and family back and forth at tax payer expense to some extent. Whether or not this is a failing of both sides of the isle is not clear, however, this isn't about whether or not she had a jet as speaker, or if she treats our money like it is her personal expense account or not, she clearly does. It is about her using inside information on legislation, to game the stock market and enrich herself, which if not legally problematic at the moment, it is at least a moral failing that shows what kind of person she is.

And if you think I say this on in her actions, I don't Republicans that do this should be in jail right next to her...

j-mac

Karl · Nov 24, 2011

j-mac said:
[...] It is about her using inside information on legislation, to game the stock market and enrich herself [...]

A critical thinker would ask: Where your evidence?

An ideologue would say:

j-mac said:
[...] this isn't about whether or not she [...] treats our money like it is her personal expense account or not, she clearly does.

apdst · Nov 24, 2011

Temporal said:
^ Just curious if either of you feel the same about Republican congress people who own stock, or is it just your Democrat enemies?

Maggie said, "no sitting congressman". Your question was answered before you asked it.

Thrilla · Nov 24, 2011

you can lead a horse to water... but ya can't make him drink.

that sums it all up...

apdst · Nov 24, 2011

MaggieD said:
She had to fire back something -- she looked like an absolute idiot on 60 Minutes. Buncha' crooks. No sitting congressman should be allowed to own individual stocks -- and no one in their immediate family. Period. Want to invest? Buy the Total Market Index.

I wonder why we don't hear a peep out of the occu-tards about this.

1Perry · Nov 24, 2011

Karl said:
Your argument is constructed of coincidence and conjecture, held together with nails of occasionally irrational suspicion.

Let me know if you find a smoking gun -- that isn't loaded with blanks

I see that you don't have that Pelosi poster over your bed for nothin.

Karl · Nov 24, 2011

j-mac said:
[...] she [Pelosi] did fly colleagues and friends, and family back and forth at tax payer expense to some extent. [...]

Not true. Your own link states that the "colleagues and family" paid a standard fee for the ride. It makes no mention of "friends".

j-mac · Nov 24, 2011

Karl said:
Not true. Your own link states that the "colleagues and family" paid a standard fee for the ride. It makes no mention of "friends".

The article also says that it costs some $28k to make that flight, are you really trying to say that these people picked up that expense? I'll tell you, no they did not. Even if they paid say $700 per ticket, they'd have to pack 40 people on that Gulf stream V....Now that is a crowded flight.

j-mac

Karl · Nov 24, 2011

j-mac said:
The article also says that it costs some $28k to make that flight, are you really trying to say that these people picked up that expense? [...]

Here's a critical thought lesson:

That flight would have allegedly cost $28K if Pelosi had been the only one on it. So how much more did it cost to carry a few extra people?

What was the additional cost to the taxpayers?

j-mac · Nov 24, 2011

Karl said:
Here's a critical thought lesson:

That flight would have allegedly cost $28K if Pelosi had been the only one on it. So how much more did it cost to carry a few extra people?

What was the additional cost to the taxpayers?

You know Karl, that is a great question, and if it was even the Gulf V that took them, the article also says at times there were larger planes, because they were the only ones available. Either way, I understand if the SoH needs to get back and forth, that is fine with me. But it isn't, and shouldn't have been used like her own personal fleet to hand out.

j-mac

1Perry · Nov 24, 2011

Karl said:
Here's a critical thought lesson:

That flight would have allegedly cost $28K if Pelosi had been the only one on it. So how much more did it cost to carry a few extra people?

What was the additional cost to the taxpayers?

Roughly 27K as she should have been flying commercial.

Karl · Nov 25, 2011

j-mac said:
[...] Either way, I understand if the SoH needs to get back and forth, that is fine with me. But it isn't, and shouldn't have been used like her own personal fleet to hand out.

So, your argument is not that she wasted any taxpayer money, but that she gave a few people a ride on the cheap.

Where I come from, we call that petty

Karl · Nov 25, 2011

1Perry said:
Roughly 27K as she should have been flying commercial.

So your complaint is not the size of the plane, not the booze, and not the 'free' riders. I can live with that.

j-mac · Nov 25, 2011

Karl said:
So, your argument is not that she wasted any taxpayer money, but that she gave a few people a ride on the cheap.

Where I come from, we call that petty

I would think that where you come from that would be considered normal course of business.

j-mac

AdamT · Nov 25, 2011

I find it kind of amazing that the same people who pass out at the thought of doing away with a tax preference for corporate jets also pass out at the thought that the third highest ranking person in government has access to a plane as a perq of her employment.