There's been a lot of consensus in TSB today, it must be the weather.

4/11/2007 4:33:34 PM

maybe pelosi IS meeting with bush...as i type this!

4/11/2007 4:37:50 PM

Quote :

"There's been a lot of consensus in TSB today, it must be the weather."

I agree

4/11/2007 4:39:12 PM

House Speaker Pelosi Accused of Earmarking Funds for Husband’s Benefit, Media Mum

http://newsbusters.org/node/12598

5/9/2007 2:52:22 AM

I click the link and the first thing I see is "NEWSBUSTERS: Exposing and combating liberal media"


I immediately closed the window.

This shit is a joke.

5/9/2007 10:46:00 AM

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-na-pelosi13nov13,0,4377449.story?coll=la-center-politics-cal

5/9/2007 10:53:32 AM

http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=6481599&nav=9qrx

Quote :

"Aides to the San Francisco Democrat denied any connection, noting that the waterfront improvements were requested by the Port of San Francisco and the four rental properties in question are at least a mile away."

Did you expect outrage from the populous over some weak crap like this?

5/9/2007 10:58:55 AM

^^^ Nobody cares. It's just too bad that the news often breaks these days outside the mainstream media. Does CBS News please your delicate sensibilities?

Quote :

"Did Nancy Pelosi do anything wrong when she sponsored a $25 million earmark for a waterfront-redevelopment project near several properties in which her husband has a financial stake? It depends on whether she had any reason to believe that the project would cause the values of her husband's properties to rise. According to new House ethics rules that Speaker Pelosi herself championed back in January, members sponsoring earmarks have to sign a form stating that neither they nor their spouse has any financial interest in the provision. A spokesman for the House Transportation and Infrastructure committee tells National Review Online that Pelosi signed such a statement for the earmark in question. Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill did not return a call seeking comment for this article, but he told an AP reporter that it is 'speculative at best' that Pelosi would see a financial gain as a result of this earmark. The problem with such logic is that most future financial gains, especially in real estate, are speculative in nature. Advocates for tougher rules governing earmarks argue that such potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed."

Quote :

"The Speaker got a $20 million earmark for the same waterfront redevelopment project placed in a bill in July 2005, but the measure died. The following December, her husband increased his interest in one of the properties in question for an amount between $1 million and $5 million, according to financial disclosure forms. So even though the waterfront-redevelopment project was popular and did not originate in the Speaker's office, the question remains whether Pelosi's husband, investor Paul Pelosi, increased his stake in these properties with an eye towards his wife's likelihood of becoming the next Speaker. Being Speaker of the House has several advantages, one of which is that the earmarks you sponsor tend to get passed."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/09/opinion/main2779118.shtml

^ Your sources are "[a]ides to the San Francisco Democrat"? And you're criticizing my source?

[Edited on May 9, 2007 at 11:26 PM. Reason : .]

5/9/2007 11:23:39 PM