Pages: 1 2

 

2006-10-14 21:47:35
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6900|Seattle, WA
Oh say it aint so Harry!

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006 … 0005.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006 … 5231.shtml
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politic … andal.html

And in case you think those blogs r crap here it is straight from the AP
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061011/D8KMO6NG0.html

Oh say it aint so.

Discuss.
2006-10-14 22:03:51
13rin
Member
+977|6735

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Oh say it aint so Harry!

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006 … 0005.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006 … 5231.shtml
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politic … andal.html

And in case you think those blogs r crap here it is straight from the AP
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061011/D8KMO6NG0.html

Oh say it aint so.

Discuss.
Can you say Whitewater?
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
2006-10-14 23:15:49
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|6978|Eastern PA
Generally, if you transfer property to a company in return for an interest in the company, there is no federal income tax on the transfer. If the company was an LLC (as stated in the media reports), the company was probably a partnership for tax purposes. There would be no LLC level tax as profits and losses would pass through to the partners.

So I can see no real tax issue. The only issue is that Reid might have been hiding his ownership of the property, but holding investment property in an LLC is fairly common in order to protect the owners from torts or bankruptcy. I think this is simply an issue of someone forgetting to file a form.

It seems he leveled with the ethics committee, his only mistake seems to have disclosed ownership of the land as a personal asset instead of ownership of the LLC, but the LLC only had the land as an asset, which was disclosed.
2006-10-14 23:24:19
tehmoogles
Don't touch the pom-pom!
+7|6966
I don't think anyone outside the US could ever understand your politics. At least it's relatively easy here in the UK.
2006-10-15 02:49:50
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7028|PNW

The government is a bunch of evil, manipulative bastards! OH, YOU THINK IT'S FUNNY, M'KAY?!
2006-10-15 02:51:28
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6817
Wow.  How amazing.  I am truly shocked.
2006-10-15 03:53:29
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6905

Oh noes! A corrupt politician! Whatever next!
2006-10-15 04:31:50
Ikarti
Banned - for ever.
+231|6965|Wilmington, DE, US
Who said that Democrats were clean? At least Dean, a democrat, is holding him accountable. Unlike poor Mr. Foley, who was a victim of the equivilant to a liberal media drive by shooting. At least his friends had his back though. Democrats will sell anyone out for a dollar, or attention, or tickets or tickets to a Streisand concert.
2006-10-15 07:28:07
PHPR Hunter
Member
+4|6794

Ikarti wrote:

Who said that Democrats were clean? At least Dean, a democrat, is holding him accountable. Unlike poor Mr. Foley, who was a victim of the equivilant to a liberal media drive by shooting. At least his friends had his back though. Democrats will sell anyone out for a dollar, or attention, or tickets or tickets to a Streisand concert.
We'll see if he really holds him accountable.  I'm not sure that Dean really has the power to hold anyone accountable.  His role is fund raiser in chief for the DNC.  He might have the authority not to dole out money to Reid, but that is about it.
2006-10-15 08:50:14
Ikarti
Banned - for ever.
+231|6965|Wilmington, DE, US

PHPR Hunter wrote:

Ikarti wrote:

Who said that Democrats were clean? At least Dean, a democrat, is holding him accountable. Unlike poor Mr. Foley, who was a victim of the equivilant to a liberal media drive by shooting. At least his friends had his back though. Democrats will sell anyone out for a dollar, or attention, or tickets or tickets to a Streisand concert.
We'll see if he really holds him accountable.  I'm not sure that Dean really has the power to hold anyone accountable.  His role is fund raiser in chief for the DNC.  He might have the authority not to dole out money to Reid, but that is about it.
Fine, at the very least you could replace "hold accountable" with "call him on his bullshit"
2006-10-15 09:41:05
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6805|Southeastern USA

Ikarti wrote:

Who said that Democrats were clean? At least Dean, a democrat, is holding him accountable. Unlike poor Mr. Foley, who was a victim of the equivilant to a liberal media drive by shooting. At least his friends had his back though. Democrats will sell anyone out for a dollar, or attention, or tickets or tickets to a Streisand concert.
i dunno if thar be some sarcasm, but I wanna see foley run out on a rail, as i believe he has been, i also wanna see whoever was sitting on those IM's for a couple of years to be investigated as well, if they were "thinking only of protecting the children" then why not bring em out when you first got them? Smacks of 'withholding evidence' and the like.
2006-10-15 21:59:43
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6804|San Diego, CA, USA

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Can you say Whitewater?
You a correct, historially, but elections are voted with current events in mind.

The only thing that could probably save the Republicans from this "Vail of Corruption" is if Al Qaeda had donated millions of dollars to the Democrats.
2006-10-16 15:34:03
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6900|Seattle, WA

Harmor wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Can you say Whitewater?
You a correct, historially, but elections are voted with current events in mind.

The only thing that could probably save the Republicans from this "Vail of Corruption" is if Al Qaeda had donated millions of dollars to the Democrats.
LOL, funny you should mention that, there was one Democrat congressman, God save me I can't remember his name but he has been connected to an extremist Muslim church funded by Al Qaeda, and he has gotten donations from that church.  I think its been investigating as I type.  I'll  see if I can find it.  At any rate, The Foley case that Dems have been screaming about is pre-posterous, people aren't going to link some dumbasses actions with the party line.  Just as I think the dumbass Democrat taking donations from an extremist church with Al Qaeda ties shouldn't be relagated to the Democratic line.  The Dems knew about Foley in March, yet where was the uproar.  They waited, thats been proven, but hey no one on ABC, NBC, CBS cares about that right?
2006-10-16 16:02:25
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|6978|Eastern PA

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Harmor wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Can you say Whitewater?
You a correct, historially, but elections are voted with current events in mind.

The only thing that could probably save the Republicans from this "Vail of Corruption" is if Al Qaeda had donated millions of dollars to the Democrats.
LOL, funny you should mention that, there was one Democrat congressman, God save me I can't remember his name but he has been connected to an extremist Muslim church funded by Al Qaeda, and he has gotten donations from that church.  I think its been investigating as I type.  I'll  see if I can find it.  At any rate, The Foley case that Dems have been screaming about is pre-posterous, people aren't going to link some dumbasses actions with the party line.  Just as I think the dumbass Democrat taking donations from an extremist church with Al Qaeda ties shouldn't be relagated to the Democratic line.  The Dems knew about Foley in March, yet where was the uproar.  They waited, thats been proven, but hey no one on ABC, NBC, CBS cares about that right?
The mosque in question wasn't extremist, but the congressmen in question (Dave Mejias (D) and Peter King (R)) both accepted money from the same organization, the Islamic Center of Long Island (King's campaign mailing is here).

Infact, King accepted more contributions than his opponet from the same organization he labeled as extremist: (link)
Last year, King took a total of $3,000 from three Muslim donors who have given $950 to Mejias this year, including Ahmed; Mohammed Saleh, president of the Long Island Muslim Society in East Meadow; and Syed Zaki Hossain, a Hicksville businessman.
EDIT: "Ahmed" refers to Habeeb Ahmed, the president of the mosque.

Last edited by Masques (2006-10-16 16:03:42)

2006-10-16 16:21:15
The_Shipbuilder
Stay the corpse
+261|6756|Los Angeles
Yeah - if he's dirty he should be bitchslapped just like everyone else.

Though I'm not sure this is going to do much to stem the mass exodus away from the Republican party.

At least Mehlman will have an "oh yeah well" response when reporters throw the Foley/Abramoff/State of Denial Perfect Storm questions at him. A weak retort is better than none.

Speaking of which, State of Denial is #1 on Amazon and on NYT non-fiction bestseller lists.
2006-10-16 17:07:04
psychotoxic187
Member
+11|6965
Here's another funny story some of you mite like. It's funny how they slam Foley, which he was wrong, and needs to be punished. The Democrats have a nasty skeleton in their closet. This guy did the same thing, except he took the underage page on a cruise, and had sex with him, then was re-elected to office 5 times after the fact. Democrats are such hypocrites.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20061002/bs … 02issues01

Last edited by psychotoxic187 (2006-10-16 17:10:40)

2006-10-16 17:19:10
jonsimon
Member
+224|6751
Who gives two shits? I don't care what politicians do in their personal lives as long as they recieve due punishment.

Last edited by jonsimon (2006-10-16 17:36:51)

2006-10-16 17:21:10
psychotoxic187
Member
+11|6965

jonsimon wrote:

Who gives two shits? I don't care what politicians do in their personal lives as long as they revieve due punishment.
You're partially correct. If the guy is having sex with underage boys, that's breaking the law, and something should be done about it. Same with soliciting sex from underage boys.
2006-10-16 17:39:15
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|6978|Eastern PA

psychotoxic187 wrote:

Here's another funny story some of you mite like. It's funny how they slam Foley, which he was wrong, and needs to be punished. The Democrats have a nasty skeleton in their closet. This guy did the same thing, except he took the underage page on a cruise, and had sex with him, then was re-elected to office 5 times after the fact. Democrats are such hypocrites.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20061002/bs … 02issues01
Studds was forced to give up his committee assignments, I don't recall Foley (who was deputy majority whip (4th highest ranking Republican in the house) being forced to give anything up in the years that this conduct has been known. You can't force someone to resign from office. The next best thing in such an instance is loss of assignments (ie. power) which affects influence and money. None of that excuses the behaviour of the individuals in question.

We even have an example of a congressman who has been charged and pled guilty of a crime (perjury and influence peddling), but who has yet to resign his seat (Bob Ney R-Ohio). Until a congressperson is actually convicted of a crime there is nothing that can remove them from office (save impeachment, which almost never works) if they don't want to vacate a seat.
2006-10-16 17:45:49
psychotoxic187
Member
+11|6965

Masques wrote:

psychotoxic187 wrote:

Here's another funny story some of you mite like. It's funny how they slam Foley, which he was wrong, and needs to be punished. The Democrats have a nasty skeleton in their closet. This guy did the same thing, except he took the underage page on a cruise, and had sex with him, then was re-elected to office 5 times after the fact. Democrats are such hypocrites.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20061002/bs … 02issues01
Studds was forced to give up his committee assignments, I don't recall Foley (who was deputy majority whip (4th highest ranking Republican in the house) being forced to give anything up in the years that this conduct has been known. You can't force someone to resign from office. The next best thing in such an instance is loss of assignments (ie. power) which affects influence and money. None of that excuses the behaviour of the individuals in question.

We even have an example of a congressman who has been charged and pled guilty of a crime (perjury and influence peddling), but who has yet to resign his seat (Bob Ney R-Ohio). Until a congressperson is actually convicted of a crime there is nothing that can remove them from office (save impeachment, which almost never works) if they don't want to vacate a seat.
Very true. Except, they still did not damn Studds, who did have sex with an underage boy. I agree though Foley should be dealt with, he was wrong. But, we're not talking only Republicans knew about this going on, we're talking about people from both sides turning a blind eye to it. They need to be dealt with as well.
2006-10-16 18:10:53
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|6978|Eastern PA

psychotoxic187 wrote:

Masques wrote:

psychotoxic187 wrote:

Here's another funny story some of you mite like. It's funny how they slam Foley, which he was wrong, and needs to be punished. The Democrats have a nasty skeleton in their closet. This guy did the same thing, except he took the underage page on a cruise, and had sex with him, then was re-elected to office 5 times after the fact. Democrats are such hypocrites.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20061002/bs … 02issues01
Studds was forced to give up his committee assignments, I don't recall Foley (who was deputy majority whip (4th highest ranking Republican in the house) being forced to give anything up in the years that this conduct has been known. You can't force someone to resign from office. The next best thing in such an instance is loss of assignments (ie. power) which affects influence and money. None of that excuses the behaviour of the individuals in question.

We even have an example of a congressman who has been charged and pled guilty of a crime (perjury and influence peddling), but who has yet to resign his seat (Bob Ney R-Ohio). Until a congressperson is actually convicted of a crime there is nothing that can remove them from office (save impeachment, which almost never works) if they don't want to vacate a seat.
Very true. Except, they still did not damn Studds, who did have sex with an underage boy. I agree though Foley should be dealt with, he was wrong. But, we're not talking only Republicans knew about this going on, we're talking about people from both sides turning a blind eye to it. They need to be dealt with as well.
I've heard all of this about how Democrats "knew" about what Foley did for months and all I've seen are reports saying that Republicans say that Democrats have known about this for months...consider me non plussed. All of the sources that have mentioned Foley's behaviour in the past have been republicans (Hastert, Reynolds, Alexander, Boehner, Blunt, Fordham, etc.) and apparently the lone Democrat on the pages committee was not notified of the e-mails or IMs. The only thing that kinda-sorta-almost seems like what the Republicans are saying is that the first organization to receive the messages was CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) which is run by former Democratic pages. But in this case CREW immediately forwarded the information to the FBI. It appears that they only released it to the media when the FBI didn't take action. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1006/p02s01-uspo.html The GOP seems to be just baldly making shit up here.

Rep. Patrick McHenry went on Wolf Blitzer's show and made the same accusation. When pressed he couldn't produce any proof and according to ABC news the source of the story was Republican.

Frankly, the attempts to pin this on Democrats (esp. when there has been so little exploitation of the issue by Democrats) reeks of desperation. They've already tried to blame the pages, the gay, Foley's alcoholism, Foley's supposed molestation as a teen, and now Democrats.

And re: Studds, if removing him from assignments is the most the members of congress can do, how else were they supposed to "damn" him? As I said, congresspersons can remain so unless convicted of a felony. They can even admit to committing a felony and remain in office.
2006-10-16 23:05:41
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6900|Seattle, WA

Masques wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Harmor wrote:


You a correct, historially, but elections are voted with current events in mind.

The only thing that could probably save the Republicans from this "Vail of Corruption" is if Al Qaeda had donated millions of dollars to the Democrats.
LOL, funny you should mention that, there was one Democrat congressman, God save me I can't remember his name but he has been connected to an extremist Muslim church funded by Al Qaeda, and he has gotten donations from that church.  I think its been investigating as I type.  I'll  see if I can find it.  At any rate, The Foley case that Dems have been screaming about is pre-posterous, people aren't going to link some dumbasses actions with the party line.  Just as I think the dumbass Democrat taking donations from an extremist church with Al Qaeda ties shouldn't be relagated to the Democratic line.  The Dems knew about Foley in March, yet where was the uproar.  They waited, thats been proven, but hey no one on ABC, NBC, CBS cares about that right?
The mosque in question wasn't extremist, but the congressmen in question (Dave Mejias (D) and Peter King (R)) both accepted money from the same organization, the Islamic Center of Long Island (King's campaign mailing is here).

Infact, King accepted more contributions than his opponet from the same organization he labeled as extremist: (link)
Last year, King took a total of $3,000 from three Muslim donors who have given $950 to Mejias this year, including Ahmed; Mohammed Saleh, president of the Long Island Muslim Society in East Meadow; and Syed Zaki Hossain, a Hicksville businessman.
EDIT: "Ahmed" refers to Habeeb Ahmed, the president of the mosque.
Thanks for the correction.  I meant to add in about the Republican.  Here is my main point guys.  I'm sick and tired of Dems and the media saying that OMG Mark Foley, OMG Jack Abramoff (Now Harry Reid might be connected with Abramoff, he took him to a lot of lunches in DC, well noted).  I'm sick of the Dems saying OMG the Republicans are tainted when in reality guys, BOTH PARTIES are EQUALLY corrupted.  Politicians are corrupted, or at least susceptible to it despite party affiliations.  So please if you think Dems are gonna take over this Nov, don't cite Foley or Abramoff as one of your reasons, you sound stupid.
2006-10-16 23:07:39
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6900|Seattle, WA

Masques wrote:

And re: Studds, if removing him from assignments is the most the members of congress can do, how else were they supposed to "damn" him? As I said, congresspersons can remain so unless convicted of a felony. They can even admit to committing a felony and remain in office.
You're misconstruing trying to look at the whole picture with laying blame dude.  What is wrong with just trying to make sure the truth is covered, the fact is the majority of Repub leaders have condemned this guy since the beginnning, and anyone that didn't deserves to go, they've said that too.  Your comments reek of patisanship.  So I it is less of them trying to lay blame on anyone else than just trying to get to the bottom of it.  What are they supposed to do, not look at facts and situations and NOT investigate? Hardly....   

Prediction: This is not going to majorly affect the elections as it won't drive Conservatives from voting for Conservatives and Dems and libs are gonna vote down their lines.  Ohio is going to swing Dem and Florida is going to swing Repub.  Other than that there will be little change.  Time to stop meandering on these stupid ass stories and get to the issues.  Foley should be dealt with, but he does not represent the Repub line, sorry.



Yeah they can remain in if they admit to felonies (Chappaquidick anyone?)

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-10-16 23:10:29)

2006-10-16 23:12:08
fadedsteve
GOP Sympathizer
+266|6746|Menlo Park, CA
BOTH parties are corrupt, insensitive, misled, and money/power hungry!!!

I am republican and am SICK to death of the current political climate that we have all grown accustomed to! Its rediculous, WE THE PEOPLE SHOULD START DEMANDING BETTER!! We certainly deserve it, we fund their fucking act up their in Washington. . . .
2006-10-17 02:50:22
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|6978|Eastern PA

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Masques wrote:

And re: Studds, if removing him from assignments is the most the members of congress can do, how else were they supposed to "damn" him? As I said, congresspersons can remain so unless convicted of a felony. They can even admit to committing a felony and remain in office.
You're misconstruing trying to look at the whole picture with laying blame dude.  What is wrong with just trying to make sure the truth is covered, the fact is the majority of Repub leaders have condemned this guy since the beginnning, and anyone that didn't deserves to go, they've said that too.  Your comments reek of patisanship.  So I it is less of them trying to lay blame on anyone else than just trying to get to the bottom of it.  What are they supposed to do, not look at facts and situations and NOT investigate? Hardly....   

Prediction: This is not going to majorly affect the elections as it won't drive Conservatives from voting for Conservatives and Dems and libs are gonna vote down their lines.  Ohio is going to swing Dem and Florida is going to swing Repub.  Other than that there will be little change.  Time to stop meandering on these stupid ass stories and get to the issues.  Foley should be dealt with, but he does not represent the Repub line, sorry.



Yeah they can remain in if they admit to felonies (Chappaquidick anyone?)
They have condemned him which is good on their part, but they've also tried to obliquely blame the opposing party and that argument just doesn't have any merit when you look at the facts. When you have one party calling for the investigation of the opposing party for their own fuckups just seems a little like ass-covering, especially when there's nothing to indicate the other party had anything to do with the information released to the media. I hope you can see why I'm calling bullshit on the Republicans.

It has nothing to do with partisanship and it has nothing to do with whether or not Foley is representing the party line. I never said he was. I compared the two caucuses when the Studds and Foley incidents came to light (remember, Foley's behaviour was recognized several years ago according to statements by other Republicans). Foley was in a leadership position in the house (deputy whip) while Studds chaired a committee and was stripped of the chairmanship. I'm saying that the offense was equal, but the response in these cases by the party leadership was not equal.

It'd be like the Dems calling for an investigation of the Republicans when it came out that Studds had sex with a page. It would seem like the most blatant attempt at blame shifting for a member of that party's own wrongdoing.

And not to minimize the Chappaquiddick incident (which is shady as hell), but Kennedy pled guilty to a misdemeanor offences which would not have resulted in his being denied his senate seat. It's always struck me as odd that the incident (or at least the occurrances around the incident) haven't had more of an impact on his career.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard