PDA

View Full Version : Harry Reid



billythrilly7th
10-18-2006, 05:43 AM
http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view.bg?articleid=162777


WASHINGTON - Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid has been using campaign donations instead of his personal money to pay Christmas bonuses for the support staff at the Ritz-Carlton where he lives in an upscale condominium. Federal election law bars candidates from converting political donations for personal use.


What kind of person pays Christmas bonus' from donations instead of out of their pocket?

Just shameful.

Illegal too.

Not to mention....

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061017/NEWS07/610170315/1009


WASHINGTON -- Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said Monday he is amending his ethics reports to Congress to account for a Las Vegas land deal that let him collect $1.1 million for property he hadn't owned for three years.

Reports last week said Reid, D-Nev., didn't disclose to Congress that he sold land to a friend's company in 2001 and took an ownership stake in the firm. He collected the seven-figure payout when the company sold the land in 2004.

Reid portrayed the 2004 transaction as a personal sale of land, making no mention of the company. Reid said his amended ethics reports will list the 2001 sale and the company, Patrick Lane LLC.

What a great country we have.

People get to "AMEND" things after they get caught.

What a skunk.

robeiae
10-18-2006, 06:26 AM
If the Democrats gain control of Congress, Harry Reid's shenanigans will come under the microscope. Don't worry.

billythrilly7th
10-18-2006, 06:51 AM
If the Democrats gain control of Congress, Harry Reid's shenanigans will come under the microscope. Don't worry.

You worried about Nancy Pelosi as Speaker? This woman will control the agenda.

Voting: A few of her just awful votes....there are wayyy to many to list...feel free to peruse...

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=H0222103

09/14/2006 Secure Fence Act of 2006 - N
12/16/2005 Border Security bill - N
10/02/2003 Prohibit Partial-Birth Abortion bill - N
09/20/2006 Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006 - N
09/30/1999 Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999 - N
03/18/1999 National Missile Defense bill -N
06/30/2005 Eminent Domain Amdendment - N
03/07/2006 PATRIOT Act Reauthorization bill - N

We're doomed.

ETA:

And the woman hates cheeseburgers.

10/19/2005 Cheeseburger bill - N

God help us.

whistlelock
10-18-2006, 09:13 AM
If the Democrats gain control of Congress, Harry Reid's shenanigans will come under the microscope. Don't worry. You know, something cynical in me says, "no, that won't happen."

Gary
10-18-2006, 06:08 PM
What! Mr. "Republican culture of corruption" Harry did something illegal? That's odd, I read four newspapers and watch and listen to the news and I haven't heard anything about it.

SC Harrison
10-18-2006, 09:20 PM
What! Mr. "Republican culture of corruption" Harry did something illegal? That's odd, I read four newspapers and watch and listen to the news and I haven't heard anything about it.

He also received (I think) $45,000 from Jack Abramoff, but that came out some time ago and I haven't heard much about it since.

I have a hunch there are many more skeletons in Reid's closet, and I hope every one of them is exposed.

blacbird
10-18-2006, 09:38 PM
If Reid's hands are dirty, he deserves whatever he gets for that. Likewise William Jefferson (who I have little doubt about). It is interesting that in our recent history, when the news about Jefferson came to light, Democrats immediately removed him from whatever committee leadership posts he held, even though he hasn't yet been indicted. When Tom Delay was indicted, the response of the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives was to change their own party rules to permit him to keep his leadership post. Only after public outcry did they reverse that decision.

But, I must say, with this Mark Foley flap, there are signs that some House Republicans are beginning to get it. Others will likely get it in the upcoming election, by all indications.

caw.

Kate Thornton
10-19-2006, 12:32 AM
You worried about Nancy Pelosi as Speaker? This woman will control the agenda.

Voting: A few of her just awful votes....there are wayyy to many to list...feel free to peruse...

Good - someone who votes the way *I* would!

English Dave
10-19-2006, 12:35 AM
I know sh1t all about American politics. But it seems to me that people are donating because they agree with the policies and perhaps agree that those who actively work to promote those policies rather than just write a check deserve a Christmas bonus which shouldn't have to come out of the pocket of the candidate who might not actually have a rich daddy?

It might be illegal. I don't know. I'll take Billy's word for it.

blacbird
10-19-2006, 12:37 AM
I'll take Billy's word for it.

Uh . . . uh . . . oh, never mind.

caw

SC Harrison
10-19-2006, 12:45 AM
I know sh1t all about American politics. But it seems to me that people are donating because they agree with the policies and perhaps agree that those who actively work to promote those policies rather than just write a check deserve a Christmas bonus which shouldn't have to come out of the pocket of the candidate who might not actually have a rich daddy?

It might be illegal. I don't know. I'll take Billy's word for it.

It's not only illegal ED, it's unethical as well. He's paying bonuses to domestic staff so they will continue to kiss his butt the following year.

Okay, now I want to know how much slumming at the Ritz-Carlton costs Reid every year...

robeiae
10-19-2006, 12:47 AM
But, I must say, with this Mark Foley flap, there are signs that some House Republicans are beginning to get it. Others will likely get it in the upcoming election, by all indications.Obviously, they didn't "get it" from watching how the Dems delt with Gerry Studds, now did they?

English Dave
10-19-2006, 12:48 AM
It's not only illegal ED, it's unethical as well. He's paying bonuses to domestic staff so they will continue to kiss his butt the following year.

Okay, now I want to know how much slumming at the Ritz-Carlton costs .

That's the clincher. He's off my Christmas card list. :D

blacbird
10-19-2006, 12:55 AM
Obviously, they didn't "get it" from watching how the Dems delt with Gerry Studds, now did they?

Nope. I ain't about to claim universal high ground on the part of Democrats, who've had their share of shameful moments. But over the past couple of years, there's been a decided imbalance of sleaze.

Perhaps the upcoming election can bring the yin-yang back into more even proportion.

caw.

billythrilly7th
10-19-2006, 01:02 AM
Nope. I ain't about to claim universal high ground on the part of Democrats, who've had their share of shameful moments. But over the past couple of years, there's been a decided imbalance of sleaze.

Perhaps the upcoming election can bring the yin-yang back into more even proportion.

caw.

But the sad thing is that if the democrats take over the Senate their majority leader is ALREADY corrupt.

Not even a fresh guy who comes in and after a few years power begins to corrupt him or her.

Democrats are apparently skipping go and heading directly to jail. Metaphorically of course. I hope.



And one more point on Harry Reid, the leader of democrats. DEMOCRATS, the champions of the poor and down trodden. Friends of the working man.

Yeah, some friend...

"Here's your Christmas bonus. Great job this year!!!"
Harry Reid

"Thanks, Senator!! So generous of you!!
Worker

"Ohhhhh....no big deal."
Harry Reid


Yep.

What a hump.

English Dave
10-19-2006, 01:06 AM
At least they got a Christmas Bonus that they might have thought was deserved for their efforts rather than their connections?

robeiae
10-19-2006, 01:08 AM
Nope. I ain't about to claim universal high ground on the part of Democrats, who've had their share of shameful moments. But over the past couple of years, there's been a decided imbalance of sleaze.
Maybe that "decided imbalance" is merely a result of the current state of affairs, wherein the Republicans have continued to be the party in power, meaning:

1) By defintion, more Republican targets than Democratic targets
2) The media seeks dirt more vigorously with regard to those in power
3) It's nothing but your perception and both parties remain sleazy to pretty much the same degree, as always

Of course, my position could be tested be looking back at history...

English Dave
10-19-2006, 01:15 AM
Of course, my position could be tested be looking back at history...

Go for it. Look at Vietnam and the Kennedy assasination.

blacbird
10-19-2006, 01:15 AM
Maybe that "decided imbalance" is merely a result of the current state of affairs, wherein the Republicans have continued to be the party in power:

True, much as the demographics of vulnerable seats have turned against the Republicans in this election, after running against the Dems in the last couple of off-year elections. That phenomenon is particularly true in the Senate, where only 1/3 of the seats are up for grabs in any particular vote.

But actually I think it's an even simpler matter. These scandal trends have ups and downs and are to some degree self-governing. They're always there, to some basal extent, but when they fester and burst, the worst of them get cleaned up. It's just the Repub turn for some angst right now.

It'll be good for 'em.

caw.

robeiae
10-19-2006, 01:17 AM
Go for it. Look at Vietnam and the Kennedy assasination.Okay... ... ... ...look at that! I'm right!

English Dave
10-19-2006, 01:23 AM
Okay... ... ... ...look at that! I'm right!
:)

I think that democrats, real democrats not the polarised version, tend towards real democracy.

But they can be Deer in headlights.

robeiae
10-19-2006, 01:26 AM
:)

I think that democrats, real democrats not the polarised version, tend towards real democracy.Like the ones who led us into Vietnam...you're ignoring your own examples. And small 'r' republicans forged the ideological foundations of this country, not small 'd' democrats.

English Dave
10-19-2006, 01:39 AM
Like the ones who led us into Vietnam...you're ignoring your own examples. And small 'r' republicans forged the ideological foundations of this country, not small 'd' democrats.

Little as I know about American Politics wasn't it Nixon who escalated Vietnam?

And as for making a country wasn't that done by people with great ideals rather than the dogmatic politicos who form the refuse of that ideal?

robeiae
10-19-2006, 01:41 AM
Little as I know about American Politics wasn't it Nixon who escalated Vietnam?No. It was LBJ--an escalation of something started by JFK...


And as for making a country wasn't that done by people with great ideals rather than the dogmatic politicos who form the refuse of that ideal?Yes, but the politicos are called Democrats and Republicans; the idealists were republicans, not democrats...

blacbird
10-19-2006, 01:43 AM
Little as I know about American Politics wasn't it Nixon who escalated Vietnam?

No. The very first military advisers went there under Eisenhower. Kennedy increased them, but it was Johnson, following what we now know to be the largely fictitious "Tonkin Gulf Incident", who really escalated the thing. Nixon prolonged it. None of 'em get gold stars about this one.

caw.

robeiae
10-19-2006, 01:45 AM
I like Ike.

English Dave
10-19-2006, 01:47 AM
No. It was LBJ--an escalation of something started by JFK...

Yes, but the politicos are called Democrats and Republicans; the idealists were republicans, not democrats...

Awewwww. Not to get all Oliver Stone about this but......eeeeeeuwww.

blacbird
10-19-2006, 01:48 AM
the idealists were republicans, not democrats...

Oh, blather. The terms in use for the two major parties today have less connection to their use in 1790 than I have to the publication industry. The founding fathers were wealthy white landowners who, all to their credit, were trying out something entirely new in the way of governing a nation, largely making it up as they went along, with a lot of trial-and-error on the way (remember the Articles of Confederation?). In the end, what won the day was as much pragmatism as idealism. It was a work in progress.

It still is.

caw.

English Dave
10-19-2006, 01:51 AM
No. It was LBJ--an escalation of something started by JFK...

Yes, but the politicos are called Democrats and Republicans; the idealists were republicans, not democrats...

Yep LBJ was the cause of that war. When it was just another cold war backwater. Nothing to do with the the billions of dollars and thousands of lives that could have been averted if real politics rather than machismo had been used. He started it. No doubt.

robeiae
10-19-2006, 01:55 AM
Yep LBJ was the cause of that war. When it was just another cold war backwater. Nothing to do with the the billions of dollars and thousands of lives that could have been averted if real politics rather than machismo had been used. He started it. No doubt.Glad you've seen the light.

robeiae
10-19-2006, 01:58 AM
Oh, blather. The terms in use for the two major parties today have less connection to their use in 1790 than I have to the publication industry. The founding fathers were wealthy white landowners who, all to their credit, were trying out something entirely new in the way of governing a nation, largely making it up as they went along, with a lot of trial-and-error on the way (remember the Articles of Confederation?). In the end, what won the day was as much pragmatism as idealism. It was a work in progress.

It still is.What's your point? It was a based on republicanism, philosophically speaking. Surely, you know that. And while it is true that most modern-day Republicans do little more than give lip service to this ideology, it's a far cry better than most modern-day Democrats, who actively ignore it or seek to undo it...

blacbird
10-19-2006, 02:01 AM
I like Ike.

So do I, in retrospect, but the Vietnam adventure grew directly out of foreign policy developed by his Sec'y of State, John Foster Dulles, after the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. The influence of the quasi-imperialist Dulles had a loooooong reach, extending well past his death into such things as the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1979, and even echoing loudly today, as a direct result of that event. The Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Feith-Rice Neocon world-view is not very "neo", and largely based on Dulles, whom they tend to regard as a saint.

caw.

SC Harrison
10-19-2006, 02:06 AM
No. The very first military advisers went there under Eisenhower.

And Ike's VP (Nixon) made several trips over there trying to solidify U.S. influence in the area. He owns a lot of what followed, imo, and Ike should not have forgotten the sacrifices made by the Vietminh forces only a handful of years before. Our losses in Indochina would have been much worse without their help.

English Dave
10-19-2006, 02:07 AM
Damn the misuse of Irony.

blacbird
10-19-2006, 02:35 AM
What's your point? It was a based on republicanism, philosophically speaking. Surely, you know that. And while it is true that most modern-day Republicans do little more than give lip service to this ideology, it's a far cry better than most modern-day Democrats, who actively ignore it or seek to undo it...

You do love labels, don't you, Robbie?

caw.

Gary
10-19-2006, 03:33 AM
American involvement in Indochina actually began right after WWII, when President Truman sent financial aid to the French, who were already involved in a major war. The numbers I've seen put that aid at somewhere near 3 billion 1950 dollars. Truman also sent a few troops in 1950 and of course, everything escalated after that.

What seems to be forgotten is that the French suffered nearly twice as many casualties in Vietnam as the United States, but their role is conveniently forgotten, especially by modern Europeans. The U.S. is held up as the bad guys in that war and no blame is placed on the brutal French colonialism that inflamed the the Vietnamese and led them to embrace communism.

Vietnam was not a war of any party, it was fought for a noble cause, but was lost by meddling politicians, and a populace in America that preferred defeat to continued war. After the war, the same people who protested it because of the deaths of innocents, were strangely silent and unconcerned at the bloodbath in Cambodia that resulted from our defeat.

English Dave
10-19-2006, 03:48 AM
American involvement in Indochina actually began right after WWII, when President Truman sent financial aid to the French, who were already involved in a major war. The numbers I've seen put that aid at somewhere near 3 billion 1950 dollars. Truman also sent a few troops in 1950 and of course, everything escalated after that.

What seems to be forgotten is that the French suffered nearly twice as many casualties in Vietnam as the United States, but their role is conveniently forgotten, especially by modern Europeans. The U.S. is held up as the bad guys in that war and no blame is placed on the brutal French colonialism that inflamed the the Vietnamese and led them to embrace communism.

Vietnam was not a war of any party, it was fought for a noble cause, but was lost by meddling politicians, and a populace in America that preferred defeat to continued war. After the war, the same people who protested it because of the deaths of innocents, were strangely silent and unconcerned at the bloodbath in Cambodia that resulted from our defeat.

What is conveniently forgotten is what the fvck were the French doing there in the first place?

And don't give me the 'Who's a Brit to talk about Colonialsm'

Bought the T shirt.

billythrilly7th
10-19-2006, 03:58 AM
I believe in freedom.


Thank you.

billythrilly7th
10-19-2006, 04:01 AM
After the war, the same people who protested it because of the deaths of innocents, were strangely silent and unconcerned at the bloodbath in Cambodia that resulted from our defeat.

I'm pretty sure that those will be the exact same people who are strangely silent and unconcerned with the bloodbath that might occur between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq that results from our "defeat" there.

Thank you.

English Dave
10-19-2006, 04:09 AM
I believe in freedom.


Thank you.

Excuse me while I stand up an salute the frickin Flag.

A hero dies fighting for something he believes in. A wannabe hero phones his agent . There is a difference.

Gary
10-19-2006, 04:27 AM
What is conveniently forgotten is what the fvck were the French doing there in the first place?


Colonialism was the way of the world during that time and despite the political incorrectness, all colonialism was not bad for the parties involved. Some countries that are self-govening today might have their freedom, but their lifestyle is far less comfortable and secure than when they were a colony. Before you jump on me, I will admit that I'm among those who would prefer freedom to comfort, but reality is reality.

It's easy to look back with 60 years of hindsight and play the woulda-shoulda game. I was merely pointing out that there was a huge war going on in Indochina before America became deeply involved, but the reporting of history has been conveniently altered to suit the politics of the reporters. As a world, we would be better served to study all of history, not selected events.

Unique
10-19-2006, 04:52 AM
both parties remain sleazy


...

the biggest shame is there doesn't seem to be anything we can do about it.

It makes me wanna cry when I go to vote and have to decide which 'whore' I want to vote for.

::::kicks some more rocks and shuffles off::::

SC Harrison
10-19-2006, 05:49 AM
American involvement in Indochina actually began right after WWII

Not to quibble here, but we first landed combat troops in Indochina in 1845, in an effort to help the French secure the release of a Catholic Bishop who had been arrested by locals. Blew up some stuff, killed some people, and left without freeing said bishop.

blacbird
10-19-2006, 08:40 AM
Not to quibble here, but we first landed combat troops in Indochina in 1845, in an effort to help the French secure the release of a Catholic Bishop who had been arrested by locals. Blew up some stuff, killed some people, and left without freeing said bishop.

Remind you of anything else more currently in the news?

caw.

robeiae
10-19-2006, 08:43 PM
Damn the misuse of Irony.Damn the inability of others to sense sarcasm...

robeiae
10-19-2006, 08:48 PM
You do love labels, don't you, Robbie?
:roll:
This from the guy who summons the spectre of the "Neocons" at the drop of a hat and can't seem to get past the fact that he can't find a label for me, try though he might.

Of course, the best ideological labels are always the ones that are self-imposed. I respect Marxists, communinsts, and socialists who gladly define themselves. Far too rare, these days...

And the label for me is easy, too--since I accept it freely:

republican (though whiggish works pretty well, too)

What are you calling yourself these days, blacbird?

blacbird
10-20-2006, 01:35 AM
:roll:
This from the guy who summons the spectre of the "Neocons" at the drop of a hat and can't seem to get past the fact that he can't find a label for me, try though he might.

Of course, the best ideological labels are always the ones that are self-imposed. I respect Marxists, communinsts, and socialists who gladly define themselves. Far too rare, these days...

And the label for me is easy, too--since I accept it freely:

republican (though whiggish works pretty well, too)

What are you calling yourself these days, blacbird?

Tired.

The only reason I use the term "Neocon" is that it seems to have been hung on that particular clique of political theorists by themselves, or at least by their friends. I've always found it kind of stupid. For one thing, as people like Andrew Sullivan point out, they're hardly "conservative" in the standard tradition of that word. And they aren't really much "neo-", either. John Foster Dulles, Robert MacNamara, Dean Rusk, all would find them pretty comfortable. So would J. Edgar Hoover.

But by and large I'd prefer to debate the substance of individual issues, rather than hang a sign on a package of them and consider that meaningful.

"Stay the course."

caw.

SC Harrison
10-20-2006, 02:32 AM
Remind you of anything else more currently in the news?

caw.

No doubt.

Engaging in a course of action based on faulty assumptions is a recipe for failure. The only valid assumption is that we will keep on doing so.

BottomlessCup
10-20-2006, 10:01 PM
Harry Reid claims he lives in Searchlight, Nevada. Having been there, I can attest that this is undoubtedly a lie.

It's a trailer park, a gas station, and a ratty casino.


As for these allegations, the first one will stick.

The land deal is kinda ridiculous. The Vegas papers have been covering it extensively, and I've read all the articles. I'm still not sure what he's meant to have done wrong. He reported it as a personal sale, but it was sold through an LLC. Whoop-de-do.

SC Harrison
10-21-2006, 05:41 AM
The land deal is kinda ridiculous. The Vegas papers have been covering it extensively, and I've read all the articles. I'm still not sure what he's meant to have done wrong. He reported it as a personal sale, but it was sold through an LLC. Whoop-de-do.

What I heard today on NPR is that he purchased the land when it was zoned for residential only, then one (some?) of his influential friends pushed to have it rezoned for commercial/residential use (or something along those lines), then he transferred the holding to an LLC, and sold the property for approximately $750,000 more than he paid for it initially. The LLC thing may have come before the rezoning effort, but either way it was an effort to conceal his interest in the property.

blacbird
10-21-2006, 09:19 AM
Baaaad. Don't need a guy who does this sort of thing in the U.S. Senate, regardless of party affiliation. I'd bet (it being a Nevada issue) a fair amount of money that if this proves even remotely true, and the Dems take over the Senate in the upcoming electing, Reid is stillborn as Majority Leader. Probably even gone as Minority Leader if they don't. They have lots of more effective people around, anyway. Biden, Durbin, Schumer, Levin immediately come to mind. You conservs might not like 'em, but it's hard not to admit, however grudgingly, that they're effective spokesmen for their party's views.

Which brings up, how soon are the Repubs in the House going to get it and jettison Hastert? I predict not long after the electing is done.

caw.