OT – Whitman Hired Illegal Worker

[enron_by_the_sea]

Does anyone know if those paid sign holders holding signs that say “Shame on XYZ” unionized?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]I think that there is a qualitative difference between Whitman and Pelosi.

In Pelosi’s case, her husband is the business person. He’s not running for office.

In Whitman’s case, she’s the business person. She’s running for office. Whitman’s fortune is many multiples that of Pelosi’s; so Whitman’s business dealings are more relevant to her political positions.[/quote]

Brian: Wrong and wrong. I provided excellent examples where Pelosi herself was either directly involved or HAD KNOWLEDGE of what was transpiring. Proffering up “her husband is the business person” is the lamest of lame excuses. Not only is that patently untrue, but as a public servant (note the combination of those two words, by the way), she is held to a much higher standard of accountability. Nancy Pelosi is not the proverbial “little woman” who doesn’t “worry her pretty little head” with those pesky business decisions, she is quite a capable business person in her own right, as thousands of pages of public records detailing her business holdings show.

As far as Whitman’s holdings being “many multiples” of Nancy Pelosi’s, well, you must really not have any idea what Pelosi is truly worth.

Again, Brian, you diminish your credibility by being intellectually dishonest and evasive when confronted with facts and, instead of debating the issues fairly, you either avoid them entirely (as you initially did by not answering) or coming back with non-answers like those you provided above.

I guarantee that, if the shoe was on the other foot, and this accusation was leveled at Pelosi, you would have never brought it up for discussion.

Personally, I find it awfully funny for someone who rails so strongly about hypocrisy, to practice it so freely himself. But that was sort of your point, wasn’t it?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]I think that there is a qualitative difference between Whitman and Pelosi.

In Pelosi’s case, her husband is the business person. He’s not running for office.

In Whitman’s case, she’s the business person. She’s running for office. Whitman’s fortune is many multiples that of Pelosi’s; so Whitman’s business dealings are more relevant to her political positions.[/quote]

Brian: Wrong and wrong. I provided excellent examples where Pelosi herself was either directly involved or HAD KNOWLEDGE of what was transpiring. Proffering up “her husband is the business person” is the lamest of lame excuses. Not only is that patently untrue, but as a public servant (note the combination of those two words, by the way), she is held to a much higher standard of accountability. Nancy Pelosi is not the proverbial “little woman” who doesn’t “worry her pretty little head” with those pesky business decisions, she is quite a capable business person in her own right, as thousands of pages of public records detailing her business holdings show.

As far as Whitman’s holdings being “many multiples” of Nancy Pelosi’s, well, you must really not have any idea what Pelosi is truly worth.

Again, Brian, you diminish your credibility by being intellectually dishonest and evasive when confronted with facts and, instead of debating the issues fairly, you either avoid them entirely (as you initially did by not answering) or coming back with non-answers like those you provided above.

I guarantee that, if the shoe was on the other foot, and this accusation was leveled at Pelosi, you would have never brought it up for discussion.

Personally, I find it awfully funny for someone who rails so strongly about hypocrisy, to practice it so freely himself. But that was sort of your point, wasn’t it?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]I think that there is a qualitative difference between Whitman and Pelosi.

In Pelosi’s case, her husband is the business person. He’s not running for office.

In Whitman’s case, she’s the business person. She’s running for office. Whitman’s fortune is many multiples that of Pelosi’s; so Whitman’s business dealings are more relevant to her political positions.[/quote]

Brian: Wrong and wrong. I provided excellent examples where Pelosi herself was either directly involved or HAD KNOWLEDGE of what was transpiring. Proffering up “her husband is the business person” is the lamest of lame excuses. Not only is that patently untrue, but as a public servant (note the combination of those two words, by the way), she is held to a much higher standard of accountability. Nancy Pelosi is not the proverbial “little woman” who doesn’t “worry her pretty little head” with those pesky business decisions, she is quite a capable business person in her own right, as thousands of pages of public records detailing her business holdings show.

As far as Whitman’s holdings being “many multiples” of Nancy Pelosi’s, well, you must really not have any idea what Pelosi is truly worth.

Again, Brian, you diminish your credibility by being intellectually dishonest and evasive when confronted with facts and, instead of debating the issues fairly, you either avoid them entirely (as you initially did by not answering) or coming back with non-answers like those you provided above.

I guarantee that, if the shoe was on the other foot, and this accusation was leveled at Pelosi, you would have never brought it up for discussion.

Personally, I find it awfully funny for someone who rails so strongly about hypocrisy, to practice it so freely himself. But that was sort of your point, wasn’t it?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]I think that there is a qualitative difference between Whitman and Pelosi.

In Pelosi’s case, her husband is the business person. He’s not running for office.

In Whitman’s case, she’s the business person. She’s running for office. Whitman’s fortune is many multiples that of Pelosi’s; so Whitman’s business dealings are more relevant to her political positions.[/quote]

Brian: Wrong and wrong. I provided excellent examples where Pelosi herself was either directly involved or HAD KNOWLEDGE of what was transpiring. Proffering up “her husband is the business person” is the lamest of lame excuses. Not only is that patently untrue, but as a public servant (note the combination of those two words, by the way), she is held to a much higher standard of accountability. Nancy Pelosi is not the proverbial “little woman” who doesn’t “worry her pretty little head” with those pesky business decisions, she is quite a capable business person in her own right, as thousands of pages of public records detailing her business holdings show.

As far as Whitman’s holdings being “many multiples” of Nancy Pelosi’s, well, you must really not have any idea what Pelosi is truly worth.

Again, Brian, you diminish your credibility by being intellectually dishonest and evasive when confronted with facts and, instead of debating the issues fairly, you either avoid them entirely (as you initially did by not answering) or coming back with non-answers like those you provided above.

I guarantee that, if the shoe was on the other foot, and this accusation was leveled at Pelosi, you would have never brought it up for discussion.

Personally, I find it awfully funny for someone who rails so strongly about hypocrisy, to practice it so freely himself. But that was sort of your point, wasn’t it?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]I think that there is a qualitative difference between Whitman and Pelosi.

In Pelosi’s case, her husband is the business person. He’s not running for office.

In Whitman’s case, she’s the business person. She’s running for office. Whitman’s fortune is many multiples that of Pelosi’s; so Whitman’s business dealings are more relevant to her political positions.[/quote]

Brian: Wrong and wrong. I provided excellent examples where Pelosi herself was either directly involved or HAD KNOWLEDGE of what was transpiring. Proffering up “her husband is the business person” is the lamest of lame excuses. Not only is that patently untrue, but as a public servant (note the combination of those two words, by the way), she is held to a much higher standard of accountability. Nancy Pelosi is not the proverbial “little woman” who doesn’t “worry her pretty little head” with those pesky business decisions, she is quite a capable business person in her own right, as thousands of pages of public records detailing her business holdings show.

As far as Whitman’s holdings being “many multiples” of Nancy Pelosi’s, well, you must really not have any idea what Pelosi is truly worth.

Again, Brian, you diminish your credibility by being intellectually dishonest and evasive when confronted with facts and, instead of debating the issues fairly, you either avoid them entirely (as you initially did by not answering) or coming back with non-answers like those you provided above.

I guarantee that, if the shoe was on the other foot, and this accusation was leveled at Pelosi, you would have never brought it up for discussion.

Personally, I find it awfully funny for someone who rails so strongly about hypocrisy, to practice it so freely himself. But that was sort of your point, wasn’t it?

[briansd1]

Allan, despite one’s own personal (or one’s spouse’s) behavior, it’s better to support progressive policies than not.

For example, in my own case, I drive an SUV (not everyday). But I support higher gas taxes, alternative fuel initiatives and public transport for the future.

That’s better than being against everything environmentally beneficial and chanting drill-baby-drill.

So I don’t see my driving a gas guzzling SUV as hypocrisy. It’s the vehicle that best fits my towing needs now. But I’m open to whatever else might be available in the future.

As far as Pelosi’s money is concerned:

Because the federal statements require a politician to give only a range of value for investments, they show the Pelosis’ net worth was $14.7 million to $55 million in 2005, ranking them ninth in the House and 17th in the entire Congress.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/01/MNG83NB37E1.DTL&ao=all#ixzz11QmZqE9K

Compare that to the money Whitman has spent so far on her own campaign.

As it is, many Republicans have been frustrated by the extent to which Ms. Whitman’s campaign seems stuck in place, even after she has spent a total of $145 million, compared with $4 million by Mr. Brown (though he has been helped by nearly $13 million in ads placed by independent committees, mostly unions, according to a study by the California Fair Political Practices Commission).

Whitman’s $119 million in personal contributions to her campaign broke Bloomberg’s record of personal spending on a race.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/bloomberg-defends-whitman_n_720080.html

[briansd1]

Allan, despite one’s own personal (or one’s spouse’s) behavior, it’s better to support progressive policies than not.

For example, in my own case, I drive an SUV (not everyday). But I support higher gas taxes, alternative fuel initiatives and public transport for the future.

That’s better than being against everything environmentally beneficial and chanting drill-baby-drill.

So I don’t see my driving a gas guzzling SUV as hypocrisy. It’s the vehicle that best fits my towing needs now. But I’m open to whatever else might be available in the future.

As far as Pelosi’s money is concerned:

Because the federal statements require a politician to give only a range of value for investments, they show the Pelosis’ net worth was $14.7 million to $55 million in 2005, ranking them ninth in the House and 17th in the entire Congress.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/01/MNG83NB37E1.DTL&ao=all#ixzz11QmZqE9K

Compare that to the money Whitman has spent so far on her own campaign.

As it is, many Republicans have been frustrated by the extent to which Ms. Whitman’s campaign seems stuck in place, even after she has spent a total of $145 million, compared with $4 million by Mr. Brown (though he has been helped by nearly $13 million in ads placed by independent committees, mostly unions, according to a study by the California Fair Political Practices Commission).

Whitman’s $119 million in personal contributions to her campaign broke Bloomberg’s record of personal spending on a race.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/bloomberg-defends-whitman_n_720080.html

[briansd1]

Allan, despite one’s own personal (or one’s spouse’s) behavior, it’s better to support progressive policies than not.

For example, in my own case, I drive an SUV (not everyday). But I support higher gas taxes, alternative fuel initiatives and public transport for the future.

That’s better than being against everything environmentally beneficial and chanting drill-baby-drill.

So I don’t see my driving a gas guzzling SUV as hypocrisy. It’s the vehicle that best fits my towing needs now. But I’m open to whatever else might be available in the future.

As far as Pelosi’s money is concerned:

Because the federal statements require a politician to give only a range of value for investments, they show the Pelosis’ net worth was $14.7 million to $55 million in 2005, ranking them ninth in the House and 17th in the entire Congress.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/01/MNG83NB37E1.DTL&ao=all#ixzz11QmZqE9K

Compare that to the money Whitman has spent so far on her own campaign.

As it is, many Republicans have been frustrated by the extent to which Ms. Whitman’s campaign seems stuck in place, even after she has spent a total of $145 million, compared with $4 million by Mr. Brown (though he has been helped by nearly $13 million in ads placed by independent committees, mostly unions, according to a study by the California Fair Political Practices Commission).

Whitman’s $119 million in personal contributions to her campaign broke Bloomberg’s record of personal spending on a race.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/bloomberg-defends-whitman_n_720080.html

[briansd1]

Allan, despite one’s own personal (or one’s spouse’s) behavior, it’s better to support progressive policies than not.

For example, in my own case, I drive an SUV (not everyday). But I support higher gas taxes, alternative fuel initiatives and public transport for the future.

That’s better than being against everything environmentally beneficial and chanting drill-baby-drill.

So I don’t see my driving a gas guzzling SUV as hypocrisy. It’s the vehicle that best fits my towing needs now. But I’m open to whatever else might be available in the future.

As far as Pelosi’s money is concerned:

Because the federal statements require a politician to give only a range of value for investments, they show the Pelosis’ net worth was $14.7 million to $55 million in 2005, ranking them ninth in the House and 17th in the entire Congress.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/01/MNG83NB37E1.DTL&ao=all#ixzz11QmZqE9K

Compare that to the money Whitman has spent so far on her own campaign.

As it is, many Republicans have been frustrated by the extent to which Ms. Whitman’s campaign seems stuck in place, even after she has spent a total of $145 million, compared with $4 million by Mr. Brown (though he has been helped by nearly $13 million in ads placed by independent committees, mostly unions, according to a study by the California Fair Political Practices Commission).

Whitman’s $119 million in personal contributions to her campaign broke Bloomberg’s record of personal spending on a race.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/bloomberg-defends-whitman_n_720080.html

[briansd1]

Allan, despite one’s own personal (or one’s spouse’s) behavior, it’s better to support progressive policies than not.

For example, in my own case, I drive an SUV (not everyday). But I support higher gas taxes, alternative fuel initiatives and public transport for the future.

That’s better than being against everything environmentally beneficial and chanting drill-baby-drill.

So I don’t see my driving a gas guzzling SUV as hypocrisy. It’s the vehicle that best fits my towing needs now. But I’m open to whatever else might be available in the future.

As far as Pelosi’s money is concerned:

Because the federal statements require a politician to give only a range of value for investments, they show the Pelosis’ net worth was $14.7 million to $55 million in 2005, ranking them ninth in the House and 17th in the entire Congress.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/01/MNG83NB37E1.DTL&ao=all#ixzz11QmZqE9K

Compare that to the money Whitman has spent so far on her own campaign.

As it is, many Republicans have been frustrated by the extent to which Ms. Whitman’s campaign seems stuck in place, even after she has spent a total of $145 million, compared with $4 million by Mr. Brown (though he has been helped by nearly $13 million in ads placed by independent committees, mostly unions, according to a study by the California Fair Political Practices Commission).

Whitman’s $119 million in personal contributions to her campaign broke Bloomberg’s record of personal spending on a race.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/bloomberg-defends-whitman_n_720080.html

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: More non-answers. Nothing personal, but I could care less whether you own an SUV or not.

This is about Pelosi’s obvious hypocrisy, which you’ve again managed to avoid addressing. Your argument would appear to be that, since she supports progressive policies, we shouldn’t peer too closely at whether or not she practices what she preaches. Which is akin to your saying, “Well, since I like her politics, its perfectly acceptable for her to be an insincere, lying hypocrite”. And, since Whitman supports policies you either don’t support, or find offensive, you’re going to pillory her for her misdeeds. This is a blatant double standard and is, in and of itself, hypocritical.

As to Pelosi’s “estimated” net worth, I think we need only look as far as the distinguished gentleman, Charlie Rangel, to get a sense of how accurate those particular documents are. She’s worth well in excess of the numbers you provided, and a little diligent research on your part will confirm that.

Like your “I’m morally flexible” comment previously, you continue to hold those you disagree with politically to a higher standard than those you hold common cause with. Like I said, I could care less personally, but, if you want to debate ethics and character, I’d start with yourself.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: More non-answers. Nothing personal, but I could care less whether you own an SUV or not.

This is about Pelosi’s obvious hypocrisy, which you’ve again managed to avoid addressing. Your argument would appear to be that, since she supports progressive policies, we shouldn’t peer too closely at whether or not she practices what she preaches. Which is akin to your saying, “Well, since I like her politics, its perfectly acceptable for her to be an insincere, lying hypocrite”. And, since Whitman supports policies you either don’t support, or find offensive, you’re going to pillory her for her misdeeds. This is a blatant double standard and is, in and of itself, hypocritical.

As to Pelosi’s “estimated” net worth, I think we need only look as far as the distinguished gentleman, Charlie Rangel, to get a sense of how accurate those particular documents are. She’s worth well in excess of the numbers you provided, and a little diligent research on your part will confirm that.

Like your “I’m morally flexible” comment previously, you continue to hold those you disagree with politically to a higher standard than those you hold common cause with. Like I said, I could care less personally, but, if you want to debate ethics and character, I’d start with yourself.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: More non-answers. Nothing personal, but I could care less whether you own an SUV or not.

This is about Pelosi’s obvious hypocrisy, which you’ve again managed to avoid addressing. Your argument would appear to be that, since she supports progressive policies, we shouldn’t peer too closely at whether or not she practices what she preaches. Which is akin to your saying, “Well, since I like her politics, its perfectly acceptable for her to be an insincere, lying hypocrite”. And, since Whitman supports policies you either don’t support, or find offensive, you’re going to pillory her for her misdeeds. This is a blatant double standard and is, in and of itself, hypocritical.

As to Pelosi’s “estimated” net worth, I think we need only look as far as the distinguished gentleman, Charlie Rangel, to get a sense of how accurate those particular documents are. She’s worth well in excess of the numbers you provided, and a little diligent research on your part will confirm that.

Like your “I’m morally flexible” comment previously, you continue to hold those you disagree with politically to a higher standard than those you hold common cause with. Like I said, I could care less personally, but, if you want to debate ethics and character, I’d start with yourself.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: More non-answers. Nothing personal, but I could care less whether you own an SUV or not.

This is about Pelosi’s obvious hypocrisy, which you’ve again managed to avoid addressing. Your argument would appear to be that, since she supports progressive policies, we shouldn’t peer too closely at whether or not she practices what she preaches. Which is akin to your saying, “Well, since I like her politics, its perfectly acceptable for her to be an insincere, lying hypocrite”. And, since Whitman supports policies you either don’t support, or find offensive, you’re going to pillory her for her misdeeds. This is a blatant double standard and is, in and of itself, hypocritical.

As to Pelosi’s “estimated” net worth, I think we need only look as far as the distinguished gentleman, Charlie Rangel, to get a sense of how accurate those particular documents are. She’s worth well in excess of the numbers you provided, and a little diligent research on your part will confirm that.

Like your “I’m morally flexible” comment previously, you continue to hold those you disagree with politically to a higher standard than those you hold common cause with. Like I said, I could care less personally, but, if you want to debate ethics and character, I’d start with yourself.

[Author]

Posts