OnTheRocks Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 http://www.metroactive.com/metro/03.21.07/...signs-0712.html ...due to her husband Richard C. Blum's ownership of two major defense contractors, who were awarded billions of dollars for military construction projects approved by Feinstein. :haliburton: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Democrats, Republicans, two sides of the same corrupt power infused coin....one coin to rule them all.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Democrats, Republicans, two sides of the same corrupt power infused coin....one coin to rule them all.... No, no, no, when Feinstein does it, it's different. Ask molson_goldfish to explain it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 CB Richard Elllis is EVERYPLACE here in the Bay area. I didn't know Fineswine's hubby was the B in that. They didn't mention that she was the leader in expanding the Death Valley National monument by almost 100%. This shut down the major iridium mine in the US, which is needed for fighter jets. Now we have to get it from overseas, from mines which guess who is highly invested in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 No, no, no, when Feinstein does it, it's different. Ask molson_goldfish to explain it... I would like to hear this explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 No, no, no, when Feinstein does it, it's different. Ask molson_goldfish to explain it... Should she be arrested? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 http://www.metroactive.com/metro/03.21.07/...signs-0712.html :haliburton: My favorite part of the story is that the San Francisco Chronicle is apparently refusing to cover it. Pretty much the journalistic equivalent of putting their hands over their ears and saying "la la la, I can't hear you." mmmmmm.....bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 Should she be arrested? Thats not his point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 Thats not his point. No sh--, I was asking a question about what should be done about this. It's theft, isn't it? Should she be punished? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 No sh--, I was asking a question about what should be done about this. It's theft, isn't it? Should she be punished? Looks like you have more questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 Should she be arrested? For what? The exact same problem with conflicts of interest that every single other politician in the country has? Hell, I'm just going to say "Yes, she should, because she's a Democrat". For no other reason than because capricious partisanship seems to be the only thing your little idiot mind can comprehend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 My favorite part of the story is that the San Francisco Chronicle is apparently refusing to cover it. Pretty much the journalistic equivalent of putting their hands over their ears and saying "la la la, I can't hear you." mmmmmm.....bias. How the hell is that "refusing to cover it"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 How the hell is that "refusing to cover it"? That would be the first independent investigation they've done in years! the Chronicle is regarded as TP now-a-days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 That would be the first independent investigation they've done in years! the Chronicle is regarded as TP now-a-days. Way to answer the question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 How the hell is that "refusing to cover it"? By not putting it in their paper, that is how they are "refusing to cover it". Regardless of whether she did anything inappropriate or not, and by Washington standards I doubt she did (by any other standard, maybe), don't you think the editors would at least find it worthy to put SOMEWHERE in the paper that the Senator who hails from their city stepped down off a particular subcommittee? Naaah. It makes much more sense for them to wait to print an article until they understand the full ramifications of what this means and are able to hector in extreme detail to their readership what it means to them, rather than simply write "Feinstein resigned from a subcommittee". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 By not putting it in their paper, that is how they are "refusing to cover it". Regardless of whether she did anything inappropriate or not, and by Washington standards I doubt she did (by any other standard, maybe), don't you think the editors would at least find it worthy to put SOMEWHERE in the paper that the Senator who hails from their city stepped down off a particular subcommittee? Naaah. It makes much more sense for them to wait to print an article until they understand the full ramifications of what this means and are able to hector in extreme detail to their readership what it means to them, rather than simply write "Feinstein resigned from a subcommittee". Whether or not you agree with how they are doing it, if they do in fact end up printing an article that she resigned from a subcommittee, they will have covered it. Show me where they have said they have refused to put it in their paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Whether or not you agree with how they are doing it, if they do in fact end up printing an article that she resigned from a subcommittee, they will have covered it. Show me where they have said they have refused to put it in their paper. She resigned, what, 4 days ago? And they are still trying to decide whether it's newsworthy? If they run an article 3 weeks from now, its not exactly NEWS, now is it. They have not covered it to date, SnR is correct they APPARENTLY are refusing to cover it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Whether or not you agree with how they are doing it, if they do in fact end up printing an article that she resigned from a subcommittee, they will have covered it. Show me where they have said they have refused to put it in their paper. A blurb a week or two after the fact really isn't much coverage. But, yeah, I'm sure if this was a Republican they'd handle it the exact same way. It's completely surreal that they wouldn't mention it at all when it actually happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 They have not covered it to date, SnR is correct they APPARENTLY are refusing to cover it. O RLY? In what world is a statement by them saying that they are still investigating it evidence that they refuse to cover it? A blurb a week or two after the fact really isn't much coverage. But, yeah, I'm sure if this was a Republican they'd handle it the exact same way. It's completely surreal that they wouldn't mention it at all when it actually happened. Its the market. They'll run the story, but only after they are able to put their own spin on it. Look at who their paper is attempting to sell to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 O RLY? In what world is a statement by them saying that they are still investigating it evidence that they refuse to cover it?Its the market. They'll run the story, but only after they are able to put their own spin on it. Look at who their paper is attempting to sell to. Has it been in their #$@%% newspaper? NO. Not putting it in the newspaper when it is the HOMETOWN politician IS not covering it. Not covering it is the evidence they are not covering it. What part of THAT is so difficult to comprehend? But, but, but, they said they'd think about running a story on it. My bad, I guess they MUST be covering it then. If they run a story 3 weeks from now, they aren't exactly covering it in a timely manner now are they? Shouldn't something thats NEWS actually be NEW (current)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts