Alaska Darin Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Yes, it's absolutely absurd that I would point out that there is nothing wrong when there was nothing wrong. It's all part of my personal agenda to mislead the readers of the PPP. 802619[/snapback] Why don't you spend 5 minutes looking for some bloggage on the subject from someone not of your political bent? You know, like you've been doing when the guys on the other side of the aisle do it? Your personal agenda on politics is garbage. Just like the people you supposedly hate so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Right, because millionaires generally do business without any paperwork. You apologists never cease to amaze me. 802703[/snapback] Actually, yes. Millionaires often do business with friends like that without paperwork and when they finalize the deal some of them actually pay taxes on their income. Everyday. Should they? No. Do they? A ton. Is it illegal? Sometimes. Is it criminal? Technically. Is it sinister. Sometimes. Should a politician? No way. The only question here, however, is whether it was diabolical, and it doesn't appear that way with me. I'm sure everything you do in your life adheres to the letter of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Why don't you spend 5 minutes looking for some bloggage on the subject from someone not of your political bent? You know, like you've been doing when the guys on the other side of the aisle do it? Your personal agenda on politics is garbage. Just like the people you supposedly hate so much. 802707[/snapback] Four or five other posters in this thread have read the article and deemed it short on substance, yet because I agree with them and happen to be a Dem I have a personal agenda that's "garbage"? What's your agenda again, Darin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Right, because millionaires generally do business without any paperwork. You apologists never cease to amaze me. 802703[/snapback] Did you read my post? You don't have to be a millionaire to do the exact same thing. I've seen it. My wife sees it every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Four or five other posters in this thread have read the article and deemed it short on substance, yet because I agree with them and happen to be a Dem I have a personal agenda that's "garbage"? What's your agenda again, Darin? 802715[/snapback] Calling them as I see them, regardless of political affiliation. Try using some of your investigative reporting skills without looking for a (R-State) next to the guy's name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Did you read my post? You don't have to be a millionaire to do the exact same thing. I've seen it. My wife sees it every day. 802722[/snapback] How many of your wife's client's cosponsor the bills to rezone the property, guaranteeing themselves a hefty profit? If it looks like graft and corruption, it probably is. And no, I didn't read your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 I'm sure everything you do in your life adheres to the letter of the law. 802713[/snapback] Nah. Sometimes I drive over the speed limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 2. Former Rep. Mel Reynolds. The Illinois Democrat was convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault with a 16-year-old. President Bill Clinton pardoned him before leaving office. How anyone could have an ounce of respect for Bill Clinton is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Solomon is the same AP hack who went after Reid for his ties with Abramoff and for getting the free boxing tickets. He tried to tie Reid to the Abramoff scandal, although the facts showed that Reid never voted the way that Abramoff wanted him to. Sort of a Quid Pro Quo without the Pro Quo. Now, he tries to magnify this supposed land scandal by saying that he made $1.1 million on the sale, although his profit was $770,000. But from what I read it was a matter of a failure to disclose the transfer to the LLC. He continued to show that he owned the land after the transfer, and he recorded the full gain upon the sale. It wasn't like he was hiding his ownership stake. If he did wrong, they should investigate and punish him. The bigger issue to me is that this is the third time that Soloman and the AP have tried to sensationalize a piece of news about Reid. He may have a future with Fox News if the AP cans his ass. Let's get real: he's a Congressman so he's definitely a crook and a liar. But if this is the best they can come up with, he mustn't be all that dirty. I would think that if you investigated any Congressman long enough, you could find something more than this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 How many of your wife's client's cosponsor the bills to rezone the property, guaranteeing themselves a hefty profit? If it looks like graft and corruption, it probably is. And no, I didn't read your post. 802737[/snapback] Clients? None. Bosses? And yes, if it looks like graft and corruption, it probably is. W/R/T the zoning, which is common as sh--. If you want to throw Reid under the bus for it, you'd have to throw virtually every political figure from town councilman on up under the bus as well (note: I'm not necessarily saying that's a bad idea. ) The real estate deal, including the reporting requirements to Congress...it only looks like corruption, because significant details are missing. Namely: the details that would actually make it corrupt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Clients? None. Bosses? And yes, if it looks like graft and corruption, it probably is. W/R/T the zoning, which is common as sh--. If you want to throw Reid under the bus for it, you'd have to throw virtually every political figure from town councilman on up under the bus as well (note: I'm not necessarily saying that's a bad idea. ) The real estate deal, including the reporting requirements to Congress...it only looks like corruption, because significant details are missing. Namely: the details that would actually make it corrupt. 802800[/snapback] Nope. They all suck and they all need to go. Signed, Alaska Sullivan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Who cares about embezzlements and payoffs when we still have a gay sex scandal in full brew. 802161[/snapback] I agree with you again; when will the press get back to focussing on ebezzlement and payoffs...? Can you say Mr. Abramoff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 And as I said, ownership may not have transferred until just before the sale to the developer. The details of that "transfer of ownership" are conspicuously absent from that story. 802650[/snapback] They are? The article cites land deed records as showing transfer of ownership to the LLC. Good thing that Reid never commented on the Enron scandal, as this could be deemed very Skillingesque. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 There are two things I don't like about this land deal. The first is that Reid purchased the land from Lessman, a man who owed Reid a favor. You really have to wonder if Lessman sold the property to Reid than he would have to someone else. The second thing I don't like is the LLC. It's quite possible--probable, in fact--that Reid and Brown entered into the LLC for legitimate business reasons. But there's also a chance the LLC was used as a vehicle to funnel contributions to Reid. If some guy wrote Reid a check for $200,000, federal officials would take notice. But that same guy could write Brown a check for that same $200,000, and nobody would care. Then the money would flow through the LLC to Reid. Do I think this actually happened? Probably not, but it would be worth investigating. My main concern at this point is that Lessman might have sold Reid the land at too low a price, as repayment for past favors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts