| |
Main
Date: 13 Oct 2006 09:59:52
From: larry
Subject: Reid Leading the Dems to defeat in November
|
These articles are from the Philadelphia Inquirer-- a liberal
newspaper that must have been VERY reluctant to rat out of their own--
Reid is at least as dishonest as Cunningham--- This went on for years
and years-- and he lied under oath about it. Prison?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Reid's Land Deal
Editorial
|
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 11:45:41
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Reid Leading the Dems to defeat in November
|
Tex wrote:
> MnMikew wrote:
> > "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com> wrote in message
> > news:vIadnU96HqDcVq3YnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > > multi wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:10:26 -0400, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> multi wrote:
> > >>>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:59:52 -0700, larry <larry@deldata.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>> These articles are from the Philadelphia Inquirer-- a liberal
> > >>>>> newspaper that must have been VERY reluctant to rat out of their own--
> > >>>>> Reid is at least as dishonest as Cunningham
> > >>>> You are as accurate as usual. Cunningham sold his vote for money and
> > >>>> gifts. Reid, as far as I can see, continued to claim personal
> > >>>> ownership of a parcel of land, fully identified and located, after he
> > >>>> had transferred it to an LLC that he partially owned. In other words,
> > >>>> he claimed MORE involvement with land that he later sold than he
> > >>>> actually should have. How is that hiding anything, hurting the
> > >>>> voters, or betraying his trust?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> By the way, there is no indication that Reid did anything in the
> > >>>> Senate to influence the value of the property, which didn't quite
> > >>>> triple in six years. My house has more than tripled in less than
> > >>>> that, and I live in a sleepy small town, not the biggest city in the
> > >>>> fastest growing state in the Union. There is nothing to see here.
> > >>>> It's not like, say, Dennis Hastert's deal, where he not only concealed
> > >>>> the location of land he owned through an Illinois trust, but earked
> > >>>> a $200 million highway appropriation to increase its value.
> > >>> Aren't the rules the rules?
> > >>>
> > >>> Either you play by the rules or you don't regardless of the game.
> > >>>
> > >>> If you don't play by the rules your are a cheater.
> > >>
> > >> There's a big difference between saying he broke the rules, which he
> > >> apparently did, and saying he's as bad as Cunningham, which is
> > >> ridiculous. It's like saying somebody who jaywalks is as bad as a
> > >> bank robber. But I guess that's what you guys do. At least I haven't
> > >> heard that Clinton was involved. Yet.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Jaywalkers are committing a misdemeanor and bank robbers are committing a
> > > felony. The law recognizes these different levels of infractions and
> > > assigns punishment depending upon the severity of the infraction.. But, a
> > > felony is a felony and usually gets you time in prison. The difference
> > > between felonies is usually expressed by the level of and duration of the
> > > punishment.
> > >
> > > At a minimum Reid broke the rules of the Senate and he should be held to
> > > account for that by the Senate. Whether he broke the law, in the legal
> > > sense, will have to be determined by a judge or jury if it gets that far.
> > > But, from the public Reid is is a dirty politician and will now always
> > > carry that stain.
> >
> > Looks like Reid is now one of the "evil rich" the left is always railing
> > about.
>
> Using campaign rhetoric, anyone making more than $60K/year is
> "rich"....which puts all members of Congress into the "super rich"
> category. Which means, through guilt by association, they are evil.
> :)
>
> Tex
What campaign rhetoric says someone making $60K a year is rich?
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 22:08:24
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Reid Leading the Dems to defeat in November
|
John B. wrote:
> Tex wrote:
>> MnMikew wrote:
>>> "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com> wrote in message
>>> news:vIadnU96HqDcVq3YnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>> multi wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:10:26 -0400, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> multi wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:59:52 -0700, larry <larry@deldata.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> These articles are from the Philadelphia Inquirer-- a liberal
>>>>>>>> newspaper that must have been VERY reluctant to rat out of their own--
>>>>>>>> Reid is at least as dishonest as Cunningham
>>>>>>> You are as accurate as usual. Cunningham sold his vote for money and
>>>>>>> gifts. Reid, as far as I can see, continued to claim personal
>>>>>>> ownership of a parcel of land, fully identified and located, after he
>>>>>>> had transferred it to an LLC that he partially owned. In other words,
>>>>>>> he claimed MORE involvement with land that he later sold than he
>>>>>>> actually should have. How is that hiding anything, hurting the
>>>>>>> voters, or betraying his trust?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By the way, there is no indication that Reid did anything in the
>>>>>>> Senate to influence the value of the property, which didn't quite
>>>>>>> triple in six years. My house has more than tripled in less than
>>>>>>> that, and I live in a sleepy small town, not the biggest city in the
>>>>>>> fastest growing state in the Union. There is nothing to see here.
>>>>>>> It's not like, say, Dennis Hastert's deal, where he not only concealed
>>>>>>> the location of land he owned through an Illinois trust, but earked
>>>>>>> a $200 million highway appropriation to increase its value.
>>>>>> Aren't the rules the rules?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Either you play by the rules or you don't regardless of the game.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you don't play by the rules your are a cheater.
>>>>> There's a big difference between saying he broke the rules, which he
>>>>> apparently did, and saying he's as bad as Cunningham, which is
>>>>> ridiculous. It's like saying somebody who jaywalks is as bad as a
>>>>> bank robber. But I guess that's what you guys do. At least I haven't
>>>>> heard that Clinton was involved. Yet.
>>>>>
>>>> Jaywalkers are committing a misdemeanor and bank robbers are committing a
>>>> felony. The law recognizes these different levels of infractions and
>>>> assigns punishment depending upon the severity of the infraction.. But, a
>>>> felony is a felony and usually gets you time in prison. The difference
>>>> between felonies is usually expressed by the level of and duration of the
>>>> punishment.
>>>>
>>>> At a minimum Reid broke the rules of the Senate and he should be held to
>>>> account for that by the Senate. Whether he broke the law, in the legal
>>>> sense, will have to be determined by a judge or jury if it gets that far.
>>>> But, from the public Reid is is a dirty politician and will now always
>>>> carry that stain.
>>> Looks like Reid is now one of the "evil rich" the left is always railing
>>> about.
>> Using campaign rhetoric, anyone making more than $60K/year is
>> "rich"....which puts all members of Congress into the "super rich"
>> category. Which means, through guilt by association, they are evil.
>> :)
>>
>> Tex
>
> What campaign rhetoric says someone making $60K a year is rich?
>
Any which call for the repeal of what they say are the Bush tax cuts for
the rich. I am still waiting for them to repeal the riage penalty.
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 10:36:06
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Reid Leading the Dems to defeat in November
|
MnMikew wrote:
> "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com> wrote in message
> news:vIadnU96HqDcVq3YnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > multi wrote:
> >> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:10:26 -0400, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> multi wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:59:52 -0700, larry <larry@deldata.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> These articles are from the Philadelphia Inquirer-- a liberal
> >>>>> newspaper that must have been VERY reluctant to rat out of their own--
> >>>>> Reid is at least as dishonest as Cunningham
> >>>> You are as accurate as usual. Cunningham sold his vote for money and
> >>>> gifts. Reid, as far as I can see, continued to claim personal
> >>>> ownership of a parcel of land, fully identified and located, after he
> >>>> had transferred it to an LLC that he partially owned. In other words,
> >>>> he claimed MORE involvement with land that he later sold than he
> >>>> actually should have. How is that hiding anything, hurting the
> >>>> voters, or betraying his trust?
> >>>>
> >>>> By the way, there is no indication that Reid did anything in the
> >>>> Senate to influence the value of the property, which didn't quite
> >>>> triple in six years. My house has more than tripled in less than
> >>>> that, and I live in a sleepy small town, not the biggest city in the
> >>>> fastest growing state in the Union. There is nothing to see here.
> >>>> It's not like, say, Dennis Hastert's deal, where he not only concealed
> >>>> the location of land he owned through an Illinois trust, but earked
> >>>> a $200 million highway appropriation to increase its value.
> >>> Aren't the rules the rules?
> >>>
> >>> Either you play by the rules or you don't regardless of the game.
> >>>
> >>> If you don't play by the rules your are a cheater.
> >>
> >> There's a big difference between saying he broke the rules, which he
> >> apparently did, and saying he's as bad as Cunningham, which is
> >> ridiculous. It's like saying somebody who jaywalks is as bad as a
> >> bank robber. But I guess that's what you guys do. At least I haven't
> >> heard that Clinton was involved. Yet.
> >>
> >
> > Jaywalkers are committing a misdemeanor and bank robbers are committing a
> > felony. The law recognizes these different levels of infractions and
> > assigns punishment depending upon the severity of the infraction.. But, a
> > felony is a felony and usually gets you time in prison. The difference
> > between felonies is usually expressed by the level of and duration of the
> > punishment.
> >
> > At a minimum Reid broke the rules of the Senate and he should be held to
> > account for that by the Senate. Whether he broke the law, in the legal
> > sense, will have to be determined by a judge or jury if it gets that far.
> > But, from the public Reid is is a dirty politician and will now always
> > carry that stain.
>
> Looks like Reid is now one of the "evil rich" the left is always railing
> about.
Using campaign rhetoric, anyone making more than $60K/year is
"rich"....which puts all members of Congress into the "super rich"
category. Which means, through guilt by association, they are evil.
:)
Tex
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 07:51:24
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Reid Leading the Dems to defeat in November
|
sfb wrote:
> Sorry, but if you follow the paper trail you'll see there are more than
> indications that Senator Reid was helping himself. There's a parcel that
> was obtained from the Feds in a land swap that Reid pushed though the
> Congress late one night being developed adjacent to Reid's land that make
> his land that much more valuable.
Interesting. You have a cite for this?
|
| | |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 13:21:37
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Reid Leading the Dems to defeat in November
|
John B. wrote:
> sfb wrote:
>> Sorry, but if you follow the paper trail you'll see there are more than
>> indications that Senator Reid was helping himself. There's a parcel that
>> was obtained from the Feds in a land swap that Reid pushed though the
>> Congress late one night being developed adjacent to Reid's land that make
>> his land that much more valuable.
>
> Interesting. You have a cite for this?
>
Yes, the Associated Press, that notoriously right-wing organization.
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 07:47:36
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Reid Leading the Dems to defeat in November
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> multi wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:59:52 -0700, larry <larry@deldata.com>
> > wrote:
> >> These articles are from the Philadelphia Inquirer-- a liberal
> >> newspaper that must have been VERY reluctant to rat out of their own--
> >> Reid is at least as dishonest as Cunningham
> >
> > You are as accurate as usual. Cunningham sold his vote for money and
> > gifts. Reid, as far as I can see, continued to claim personal
> > ownership of a parcel of land, fully identified and located, after he
> > had transferred it to an LLC that he partially owned. In other words,
> > he claimed MORE involvement with land that he later sold than he
> > actually should have. How is that hiding anything, hurting the
> > voters, or betraying his trust?
> >
> > By the way, there is no indication that Reid did anything in the
> > Senate to influence the value of the property, which didn't quite
> > triple in six years. My house has more than tripled in less than
> > that, and I live in a sleepy small town, not the biggest city in the
> > fastest growing state in the Union. There is nothing to see here.
> > It's not like, say, Dennis Hastert's deal, where he not only concealed
> > the location of land he owned through an Illinois trust, but earked
> > a $200 million highway appropriation to increase its value.
>
> Aren't the rules the rules?
>
> Either you play by the rules or you don't regardless of the game.
>
> If you don't play by the rules your are a cheater.
This is a disclosure issue, not a criminal issue. No one has accused
Reid of breaking the law. He probably broke Senate rules and if so, he
should be sanctioned for it, maybe removed as majority leader.
Republicans who are gleefully saying this will bring the downfall of
the Democrats said the same thing about Whitewater, which proved to be
nothing.
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 07:46:06
From: MS
Subject: Re: Reid Leading the Dems to defeat in November
|
Reid should resign! Hastert is getting more heat from the press and the
Democrats for a much lesser, if any, offense. The Republicans should
put more heat on Reid than they are getting for Foley. Unfortunately,
the liberal press won't cover it.
On 2006-10-13 09:59:52 -0700, larry <larry@deldata.com > said:
> These articles are from the Philadelphia Inquirer-- a liberal
> newspaper that must have been VERY reluctant to rat out of their own--
> Reid is at least as dishonest as Cunningham--- This went on for years
> and years-- and he lied under oath about it. Prison?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Reid's Land Deal
>
> Editorial
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 16:02:56
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Reid Leading the Dems to defeat in November
|
larry wrote:
> These articles are from the Philadelphia Inquirer-- a liberal newspaper......
Since when are you gonna believe a leftist rag like that?
You reading newspapers now? Geez, what next ... CNN?
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 10:48:22
From: multi
Subject: Re: Reid Leading the Dems to defeat in November
|
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:59:52 -0700, larry <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:
>These articles are from the Philadelphia Inquirer-- a liberal
>newspaper that must have been VERY reluctant to rat out of their own--
>Reid is at least as dishonest as Cunningham
You are as accurate as usual. Cunningham sold his vote for money and
gifts. Reid, as far as I can see, continued to claim personal
ownership of a parcel of land, fully identified and located, after he
had transferred it to an LLC that he partially owned. In other words,
he claimed MORE involvement with land that he later sold than he
actually should have. How is that hiding anything, hurting the
voters, or betraying his trust?
By the way, there is no indication that Reid did anything in the
Senate to influence the value of the property, which didn't quite
triple in six years. My house has more than tripled in less than
that, and I live in a sleepy small town, not the biggest city in the
fastest growing state in the Union. There is nothing to see here.
It's not like, say, Dennis Hastert's deal, where he not only concealed
the location of land he owned through an Illinois trust, but earked
a $200 million highway appropriation to increase its value.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 16:48:39
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Reid Leading the Dems to defeat in November
|
Sorry, but if you follow the paper trail you'll see there are more than
indications that Senator Reid was helping himself. There's a parcel that
was obtained from the Feds in a land swap that Reid pushed though the
Congress late one night being developed adjacent to Reid's land that make
his land that much more valuable
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:mgjvi2tosffgb0ip0l7086kghul2dojpc9@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:59:52 -0700, larry <larry@deldata.com>
> wrote:
>>These articles are from the Philadelphia Inquirer-- a liberal
>>newspaper that must have been VERY reluctant to rat out of their own--
>>Reid is at least as dishonest as Cunningham
>
> You are as accurate as usual. Cunningham sold his vote for money and
> gifts. Reid, as far as I can see, continued to claim personal
> ownership of a parcel of land, fully identified and located, after he
> had transferred it to an LLC that he partially owned. In other words,
> he claimed MORE involvement with land that he later sold than he
> actually should have. How is that hiding anything, hurting the
> voters, or betraying his trust?
>
> By the way, there is no indication that Reid did anything in the
> Senate to influence the value of the property, which didn't quite
> triple in six years. My house has more than tripled in less than
> that, and I live in a sleepy small town, not the biggest city in the
> fastest growing state in the Union. There is nothing to see here.
> It's not like, say, Dennis Hastert's deal, where he not only concealed
> the location of land he owned through an Illinois trust, but earked
> a $200 million highway appropriation to increase its value.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 13:33:49
From: larry
Subject: Re: Reid Leading the Dems to defeat in November
|
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:48:22 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:59:52 -0700, larry <larry@deldata.com>
>wrote:
>>These articles are from the Philadelphia Inquirer-- a liberal
>>newspaper that must have been VERY reluctant to rat out of their own--
>>Reid is at least as dishonest as Cunningham
>
>You are as accurate as usual. Cunningham sold his vote for money and
>gifts. Reid, as far as I can see, continued to claim personal
>ownership of a parcel of land, fully identified and located, after he
>had transferred it to an LLC that he partially owned. In other words,
>he claimed MORE involvement with land that he later sold than he
>actually should have. How is that hiding anything, hurting the
>voters, or betraying his trust?
>
>By the way, there is no indication that Reid did anything in the
>Senate to influence the value of the property, which didn't quite
>triple in six years. My house has more than tripled in less than
>that, and I live in a sleepy small town, not the biggest city in the
>fastest growing state in the Union. There is nothing to see here.
>It's not like, say, Dennis Hastert's deal, where he not only concealed
>the location of land he owned through an Illinois trust, but earked
>a $200 million highway appropriation to increase its value.
Except that thr "Honorable" Senator Reid lied about it and went to
great lengths to hide the facts--including failure to correctly
disclose. His lie is a felony.
Larry
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 17:50:16
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Reid Leading the Dems to defeat in November
|
In article <cbi2j2lid5sur8g0q58semkn8vc8ptbn6c@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:48:22 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:59:52 -0700, larry <larry@deldata.com>
> >wrote:
> >>These articles are from the Philadelphia Inquirer-- a liberal
> >>newspaper that must have been VERY reluctant to rat out of their own--
> >>Reid is at least as dishonest as Cunningham
> >
> >You are as accurate as usual. Cunningham sold his vote for money and
> >gifts. Reid, as far as I can see, continued to claim personal
> >ownership of a parcel of land, fully identified and located, after he
> >had transferred it to an LLC that he partially owned. In other words,
> >he claimed MORE involvement with land that he later sold than he
> >actually should have. How is that hiding anything, hurting the
> >voters, or betraying his trust?
> >
> >By the way, there is no indication that Reid did anything in the
> >Senate to influence the value of the property, which didn't quite
> >triple in six years. My house has more than tripled in less than
> >that, and I live in a sleepy small town, not the biggest city in the
> >fastest growing state in the Union. There is nothing to see here.
> >It's not like, say, Dennis Hastert's deal, where he not only concealed
> >the location of land he owned through an Illinois trust, but earked
> >a $200 million highway appropriation to increase its value.
>
> Except that thr "Honorable" Senator Reid lied about it and went to
> great lengths to hide the facts--including failure to correctly
> disclose. His lie is a felony.
>
> Larry
Not to excuse Reid in anything, but I think he has only violated a
Senate rule, which is not a felony.
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 21:33:50
From: Michael Anselmo
Subject: Re: Reid Leading the Dems to defeat in November
|
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-3187AB.17501614102006@individual.net...
> In article <cbi2j2lid5sur8g0q58semkn8vc8ptbn6c@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:48:22 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:59:52 -0700, larry <larry@deldata.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >>These articles are from the Philadelphia Inquirer-- a liberal
>> >>newspaper that must have been VERY reluctant to rat out of their own--
>> >>Reid is at least as dishonest as Cunningham
>> >
>> >You are as accurate as usual. Cunningham sold his vote for money and
>> >gifts. Reid, as far as I can see, continued to claim personal
>> >ownership of a parcel of land, fully identified and located, after he
>> >had transferred it to an LLC that he partially owned. In other words,
>> >he claimed MORE involvement with land that he later sold than he
>> >actually should have. How is that hiding anything, hurting the
>> >voters, or betraying his trust?
>> >
>> >By the way, there is no indication that Reid did anything in the
>> >Senate to influence the value of the property, which didn't quite
>> >triple in six years. My house has more than tripled in less than
>> >that, and I live in a sleepy small town, not the biggest city in the
>> >fastest growing state in the Union. There is nothing to see here.
>> >It's not like, say, Dennis Hastert's deal, where he not only concealed
>> >the location of land he owned through an Illinois trust, but earked
>> >a $200 million highway appropriation to increase its value.
>>
>> Except that thr "Honorable" Senator Reid lied about it and went to
>> great lengths to hide the facts--including failure to correctly
>> disclose. His lie is a felony.
>>
>> Larry
>
> Not to excuse Reid in anything, but I think he has only violated a
> Senate rule, which is not a felony.
Do you think that the profit from this deal showed up on his 1040?
Mike
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 20:51:43
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Reid Leading the Dems to defeat in November
|
In article <b9ydnVx6aNRnEqzYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@adelphia.com >,
"Michael Anselmo" <manselmo@NOEFFINGSPAMoptonline.net > wrote:
> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:lloydparsons-3187AB.17501614102006@individual.net...
> > In article <cbi2j2lid5sur8g0q58semkn8vc8ptbn6c@4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:48:22 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:59:52 -0700, larry <larry@deldata.com>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >>These articles are from the Philadelphia Inquirer-- a liberal
> >> >>newspaper that must have been VERY reluctant to rat out of their own--
> >> >>Reid is at least as dishonest as Cunningham
> >> >
> >> >You are as accurate as usual. Cunningham sold his vote for money and
> >> >gifts. Reid, as far as I can see, continued to claim personal
> >> >ownership of a parcel of land, fully identified and located, after he
> >> >had transferred it to an LLC that he partially owned. In other words,
> >> >he claimed MORE involvement with land that he later sold than he
> >> >actually should have. How is that hiding anything, hurting the
> >> >voters, or betraying his trust?
> >> >
> >> >By the way, there is no indication that Reid did anything in the
> >> >Senate to influence the value of the property, which didn't quite
> >> >triple in six years. My house has more than tripled in less than
> >> >that, and I live in a sleepy small town, not the biggest city in the
> >> >fastest growing state in the Union. There is nothing to see here.
> >> >It's not like, say, Dennis Hastert's deal, where he not only concealed
> >> >the location of land he owned through an Illinois trust, but earked
> >> >a $200 million highway appropriation to increase its value.
> >>
> >> Except that thr "Honorable" Senator Reid lied about it and went to
> >> great lengths to hide the facts--including failure to correctly
> >> disclose. His lie is a felony.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> > Not to excuse Reid in anything, but I think he has only violated a
> > Senate rule, which is not a felony.
>
> Do you think that the profit from this deal showed up on his 1040?
>
> Mike
Good question, and I don't have the answer. But I think we will all
know shortly, don't you?
|
| | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 19:10:26
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Reid Leading the Dems to defeat in November
|
multi wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:59:52 -0700, larry <larry@deldata.com>
> wrote:
>> These articles are from the Philadelphia Inquirer-- a liberal
>> newspaper that must have been VERY reluctant to rat out of their own--
>> Reid is at least as dishonest as Cunningham
>
> You are as accurate as usual. Cunningham sold his vote for money and
> gifts. Reid, as far as I can see, continued to claim personal
> ownership of a parcel of land, fully identified and located, after he
> had transferred it to an LLC that he partially owned. In other words,
> he claimed MORE involvement with land that he later sold than he
> actually should have. How is that hiding anything, hurting the
> voters, or betraying his trust?
>
> By the way, there is no indication that Reid did anything in the
> Senate to influence the value of the property, which didn't quite
> triple in six years. My house has more than tripled in less than
> that, and I live in a sleepy small town, not the biggest city in the
> fastest growing state in the Union. There is nothing to see here.
> It's not like, say, Dennis Hastert's deal, where he not only concealed
> the location of land he owned through an Illinois trust, but earked
> a $200 million highway appropriation to increase its value.
Aren't the rules the rules?
Either you play by the rules or you don't regardless of the game.
If you don't play by the rules your are a cheater.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 19:35:43
From: multi
Subject: Re: Reid Leading the Dems to defeat in November
|
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:10:26 -0400, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com >
wrote:
>multi wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:59:52 -0700, larry <larry@deldata.com>
>> wrote:
>>> These articles are from the Philadelphia Inquirer-- a liberal
>>> newspaper that must have been VERY reluctant to rat out of their own--
>>> Reid is at least as dishonest as Cunningham
>>
>> You are as accurate as usual. Cunningham sold his vote for money and
>> gifts. Reid, as far as I can see, continued to claim personal
>> ownership of a parcel of land, fully identified and located, after he
>> had transferred it to an LLC that he partially owned. In other words,
>> he claimed MORE involvement with land that he later sold than he
>> actually should have. How is that hiding anything, hurting the
>> voters, or betraying his trust?
>>
>> By the way, there is no indication that Reid did anything in the
>> Senate to influence the value of the property, which didn't quite
>> triple in six years. My house has more than tripled in less than
>> that, and I live in a sleepy small town, not the biggest city in the
>> fastest growing state in the Union. There is nothing to see here.
>> It's not like, say, Dennis Hastert's deal, where he not only concealed
>> the location of land he owned through an Illinois trust, but earked
>> a $200 million highway appropriation to increase its value.
>
>Aren't the rules the rules?
>
>Either you play by the rules or you don't regardless of the game.
>
>If you don't play by the rules your are a cheater.
There's a big difference between saying he broke the rules, which he
apparently did, and saying he's as bad as Cunningham, which is
ridiculous. It's like saying somebody who jaywalks is as bad as a
bank robber. But I guess that's what you guys do. At least I haven't
heard that Clinton was involved. Yet.
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 07:34:24
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Reid Leading the Dems to defeat in November
|
multi wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:10:26 -0400, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
> wrote:
>
>> multi wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:59:52 -0700, larry <larry@deldata.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> These articles are from the Philadelphia Inquirer-- a liberal
>>>> newspaper that must have been VERY reluctant to rat out of their own--
>>>> Reid is at least as dishonest as Cunningham
>>> You are as accurate as usual. Cunningham sold his vote for money and
>>> gifts. Reid, as far as I can see, continued to claim personal
>>> ownership of a parcel of land, fully identified and located, after he
>>> had transferred it to an LLC that he partially owned. In other words,
>>> he claimed MORE involvement with land that he later sold than he
>>> actually should have. How is that hiding anything, hurting the
>>> voters, or betraying his trust?
>>>
>>> By the way, there is no indication that Reid did anything in the
>>> Senate to influence the value of the property, which didn't quite
>>> triple in six years. My house has more than tripled in less than
>>> that, and I live in a sleepy small town, not the biggest city in the
>>> fastest growing state in the Union. There is nothing to see here.
>>> It's not like, say, Dennis Hastert's deal, where he not only concealed
>>> the location of land he owned through an Illinois trust, but earked
>>> a $200 million highway appropriation to increase its value.
>> Aren't the rules the rules?
>>
>> Either you play by the rules or you don't regardless of the game.
>>
>> If you don't play by the rules your are a cheater.
>
> There's a big difference between saying he broke the rules, which he
> apparently did, and saying he's as bad as Cunningham, which is
> ridiculous. It's like saying somebody who jaywalks is as bad as a
> bank robber. But I guess that's what you guys do. At least I haven't
> heard that Clinton was involved. Yet.
>
Jaywalkers are committing a misdemeanor and bank robbers are committing
a felony. The law recognizes these different levels of infractions and
assigns punishment depending upon the severity of the infraction.. But,
a felony is a felony and usually gets you time in prison. The difference
between felonies is usually expressed by the level of and duration of
the punishment.
At a minimum Reid broke the rules of the Senate and he should be held to
account for that by the Senate. Whether he broke the law, in the legal
sense, will have to be determined by a judge or jury if it gets that
far. But, from the public Reid is is a dirty politician and will now
always carry that stain.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2006 11:33:27
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Reid Leading the Dems to defeat in November
|
"Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com > wrote in message
news:vIadnU96HqDcVq3YnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> multi wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:10:26 -0400, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> multi wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:59:52 -0700, larry <larry@deldata.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> These articles are from the Philadelphia Inquirer-- a liberal
>>>>> newspaper that must have been VERY reluctant to rat out of their own--
>>>>> Reid is at least as dishonest as Cunningham
>>>> You are as accurate as usual. Cunningham sold his vote for money and
>>>> gifts. Reid, as far as I can see, continued to claim personal
>>>> ownership of a parcel of land, fully identified and located, after he
>>>> had transferred it to an LLC that he partially owned. In other words,
>>>> he claimed MORE involvement with land that he later sold than he
>>>> actually should have. How is that hiding anything, hurting the
>>>> voters, or betraying his trust?
>>>>
>>>> By the way, there is no indication that Reid did anything in the
>>>> Senate to influence the value of the property, which didn't quite
>>>> triple in six years. My house has more than tripled in less than
>>>> that, and I live in a sleepy small town, not the biggest city in the
>>>> fastest growing state in the Union. There is nothing to see here.
>>>> It's not like, say, Dennis Hastert's deal, where he not only concealed
>>>> the location of land he owned through an Illinois trust, but earked
>>>> a $200 million highway appropriation to increase its value.
>>> Aren't the rules the rules?
>>>
>>> Either you play by the rules or you don't regardless of the game.
>>>
>>> If you don't play by the rules your are a cheater.
>>
>> There's a big difference between saying he broke the rules, which he
>> apparently did, and saying he's as bad as Cunningham, which is
>> ridiculous. It's like saying somebody who jaywalks is as bad as a
>> bank robber. But I guess that's what you guys do. At least I haven't
>> heard that Clinton was involved. Yet.
>>
>
> Jaywalkers are committing a misdemeanor and bank robbers are committing a
> felony. The law recognizes these different levels of infractions and
> assigns punishment depending upon the severity of the infraction.. But, a
> felony is a felony and usually gets you time in prison. The difference
> between felonies is usually expressed by the level of and duration of the
> punishment.
>
> At a minimum Reid broke the rules of the Senate and he should be held to
> account for that by the Senate. Whether he broke the law, in the legal
> sense, will have to be determined by a judge or jury if it gets that far.
> But, from the public Reid is is a dirty politician and will now always
> carry that stain.
Looks like Reid is now one of the "evil rich" the left is always railing
about.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 14:34:25
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Reid Leading the Dems to defeat in November
|
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 07:34:24 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:
> multi wrote:
>> There's a big difference between saying he broke the rules, which he
>> apparently did, and saying he's as bad as Cunningham, which is
>> ridiculous. It's like saying somebody who jaywalks is as bad as a bank
>> robber. But I guess that's what you guys do. At least I haven't heard
>> that Clinton was involved. Yet.
>>
> Jaywalkers are committing a misdemeanor and bank robbers are committing
> a felony. The law recognizes these different levels of infractions and
> assigns punishment depending upon the severity of the infraction.. But,
> a felony is a felony and usually gets you time in prison. The difference
> between felonies is usually expressed by the level of and duration of
> the punishment.
>
> At a minimum Reid broke the rules of the Senate and he should be held to
> account for that by the Senate. Whether he broke the law, in the legal
> sense, will have to be determined by a judge or jury if it gets that
> far. But, from the public Reid is is a dirty politician and will now
> always carry that stain.
You are insane if you think what Reid and Cunningham did are in any way
comparable. The Republicans are awash in scandal after scandal and this is
the best they can come up with. It's pathetic.
It comes off like those talking heads trying to blame the Foley scandal on
the Democrats. The Republicans bitch about the timing. The Dems ask, so,
you're saying we should keep the underage boys in harm's way because it's
politically convenient? Like you've been doing for the last year?
There's no way to win that one. The Republicans look like a bunch of
uncaring dirtbags and the whole mess stays on the front page. Obviously
the Democrats are disgusted, but probably less so than the traditionally
homophobic evangelical Republican base. How do you think this scandal is
playing with them? Especially after David Kuo came forward and said the
Bush administation used them for their votes and ridiculed them in
private.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1922408,00.html
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 10:08:57
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: Reid Leading the Dems to defeat in November
|
larry wrote:
> These articles are from the Philadelphia Inquirer-- a liberal
> newspaper that must have been VERY reluctant to rat out of their own--
> Reid is at least as dishonest as Cunningham--- This went on for years
> and years-- and he lied under oath about it. Prison?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Reid's Land Deal
>
> Editorial
|
|
