|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Not news?????
#6163424 - 10/12/06 07:01 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/4381-The-Harry-Reid-Land-Deal.html
Quote:
"As Curt over at Flopping Aces points out, this deal really isn't that hard to understand: In 1998, Reid bought the land, zoned for residential use, for $400,000.
In 2001, Reid sold the land for no profit to a friend, getting a share of the limited liability company that held the property.
The LLC tried to get the land rezoned for commercial use, but was rebuffed by the Clark County Zoning Commission.
The LLC then appealled the decision to the full Clark County Commission and lobbied the commission, going so far as invoking Reid's name to the commission in a public hearing on the matter.
The zoning commission's original decision was then vetoed, and they rezoned the property for commercial use.
In 2004, the property was sold for $1.6 million, netting the LLC $1.2 million profit.
Reid never reported the sale of the property to the LLC, as he is required by law to do.
Like I said, this isn't very hard to understand...
Update: Harry Reid's son, Rory Reid, was sworn in as a Clark County Commissioner in 2003, and has been County Commission Chairman since 2005.
His election to the commission and appointment to the position of chairman both happened after the land deal... (actually, he was elected after the land was rezoned ... the land was rezoned for commercial use in September 2001)."
Newspaper? We don't need no steenking newspaper? If anybody can find something disputing the facts as presented I would be more than happy to see them. If not, can someone please tell me why this isn't on the front page of the NY Times when the totally irrelevant Foley fiasco has grabbed headlines for 2 weeks. I know why, but I wonder if most of you do? This IS a quiz. You will be graded on your answers and they will count towards your final grade.
(If I could buy property zoned for x and guarantee getting it rezoned for y I would never have to work a second. In fact, if I could do that in an unlimited fashion I could set you all up for life. Think about it.)
--------------------
|
barfightlard
tales of theinexpressible



Registered: 01/29/03
Posts: 8,670
Loc: Canoodia
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
|
|
Because it's not as rating worthy as a sexual scandal.
News isn't news, it's entertainment.
--------------------
"What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?" - Bill Hicks
Edited by barfightlard (10/12/06 07:12 PM)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
|
D
--------------------
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs



Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 6 months, 28 days
|
|
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: Not news????? [Re: Redstorm]
#6163727 - 10/12/06 08:22 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Redstorm said: It's not?
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/6159279/an/0/page/0
Look at the link. World Net Daily. Readership......6.
If Frist did this it would be front page for a month. Readership......50 million
--------------------
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.


Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
|
|
The only BIG news is about two adult Homos writing dirty letters to each other....
-------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
|
Gijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
|
|
It was pretty big news last night and early today. The AP story got carried by ABC, CBS, MSNBC, Fox, LA Times, USA Today, Washington Post, a few hundred more. Not bad for a story that's about as exciting as, well, real estate investment, takes several readings for most people to understand and centers around a man that nobody's ever heard of.
-------------------- what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: can someone please tell me why this isn't on the front page of the NY Times when the totally irrelevant Foley fiasco has grabbed headlines for 2 weeks.
NY Times, US, Washington, 11 Oct: Sen. Reid Asks Panel for Opinion on Land Sale: Report NY Times, US, Politics, 12 Oct: Senator Offers to Amend Financial Forms NY Times, US, AP, 12 Oct: Reid Got $1 Million in Land Sale
Maybe not front page, but it definitely made news.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
|
Buried
On Oct 13 we get this FRONT PAGE article in the Times http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/us/politics/13caucus.html?ref=todayspaper About a rising Dem in Nevada, Reid's state. A total fluff piece. Meanwhile, this is what the Times prints on the 11thWASHINGTON
Quote:
(Reuters) - Harry Reid, the top Democrat in the U.S. Senate, might amend his financial disclosure forms to include more details of a real-estate transaction that brought him $1.1 million, The Washington Post reported in its Thursday edition.
Reid profited from the sale in 2004 even though he had not personally owned the property for the previous three years, according to published reports. He transferred the land in 2001 to a company he owned with a friend but did not mention the deal in disclosure forms that all members of Congress are required to file.
Reid spokesman Jim Manley told the Post that the Nevada senator will provide details of the sale if the Senate Ethics Committee requires it.
Reid and his wife purchased the land on the outskirts of Las Vegas for $400,000 in 1998, the Post said. The plot was adjacent to one owned by a longtime friend, former casino lawyer Jay Brown.
The two combined ownership of their properties into a single company to make it easier to rezone for a shopping center, Manley said.
Reid did not report the change of ownership because he handled the property as if it was still his own, Manley told the Post.
Reid sold his share of the company for $1.1 million to shopping-center developers in 2004 for a theoretical profit of $700,000, the Post said, but reported the transaction as a personal sale.
A theoretical profit? I never heard of such a thing. Unless it involved uncashable options, which this didn't. You can find some facts here http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2685 that the NYTimes seems to be uninterested in. Simple matters of public record that don't really require any deep digging. My favorite:Quote:
Are we to believe Reid’s well timed moves and his clear ’selling’ of his land with zero increase in price at a time the land’s value would begin skyrocketing to business entity without any mention of Reid’s involvement or ownership, and his willingness to cough up $400K worth of real estate without any written agreement of interest in said business, is all innocent?
I personally am not to believe that, because I haven't had my brain removed. Bill Frist does nothing and it gets splashed on the front page of the Times. Harry Reid pulls off mobster scams and it gets buried. It's time for the NYTimes to come out of the closet and register as a Democrat Party public relations firm and just give up all pretense of being a news organization.
--------------------
|
Gijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
|
|
It did, at one point, get very prominent placement on the Times' website.
I don't see why this is a big deal. This probably isn't a story that the people who write/read the NY Times want to pay attention to at the moment. What's the issue?
If there was an enormous scandal involving Lindsay Lohan's cocaine addiction, it would probably get buried on the Jim Lehrer news hour.
-------------------- what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?
|
JonnyOnTheSpot
Sober Surfer


Registered: 01/27/02
Posts: 11,528
Loc: North Carolina
|
|
It's hard to for me to tell if you're in selective denial, or if you're just extremely dense. Why are people more concerned about the foley scandal you ask? First of all it's a much much bigger story on many levels, and not because the NY Times is liberally biased The foley sex scandal is the type of scandal that creates a general feeling of corruption in washington. It's alleged that top republicans helped sweep this under the rug, possibly knowing that they might be endangering minors.
Hmm..republican conspiracy to ignore claims of possible child molestation which effectively potentially throws these young pages to the wolves all to protect the political status quo and republican dominance in the house, or a single democrat acting alone outside of washington to gain money in a corrupt manner. Gee i wonder which is more news worthy, especially since neither scandal is proven at this point, so let's assume the worst in both cases. It's easy for me to see that it's more important to find out if the house leadership is a corrupt self serving entity interested not in the safety of the american people (teenage boys at any rate) or in maintaining their holier than thou morale standards they always posture towards, but rather a corrupt organization only concerned with maintain power in american politics. To me and everyone else not living in lala land that's a bit more interesting than reid's case.
On top of that, the foley scandal has caused a bunch of important republican figures to come flying out of the closet all at the same time. Let's not forget that foley was the chairman of the committee to protect children from online predators so there is a whole other level of hypocrisy that calls into question republican integrity as a whole. Especially since a lot of people vote some of these people into office base on their morale ideals on issues such as gay marriage. Are these politicians who they say they are? I think the republican base more than anybody else is interested in finding out the answer to that.
The story is just so much bigger in scope that it's hard to even compare it to the reid scandal. Reid's scandal is more like a story of corruption by a man who happens to be a politician, while foleygate is a true political scandal calling republican integrity into question. Do you see the difference now, or are you still certain it's all due to the left wing media
Quote:
It's time for the NYTimes to come out of the closet and register as a Democrat Party public relations firm and just give up all pretense of being a news organization.
Maybe Fox News should do the same thing since a couple weeks ago when the foley scandal actually WAS the only news they were barely touching the story, instead choosing to cover their "10th anniversary" like it was some huge story. The NY Times is leftist, but you should really stop citing it as a example of typical "liberal" media because it's not even close. Sadly, Fox News is just as bad, actually much much worse and they have a vastly larger group of viewers.
Oh yeah, i don't know if you've been keeping up with the news but it's mostly had to do with North Korea's nuclear weapons recently...
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Shady real estate deals are only news when it involves Clinton.
--------------------
|
The_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth


Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN
Last seen: 7 years, 12 days
|
|
Well I dont see the Republicans or anyone else making a large stink, Infact didnt i recall Dennis Hastert slamming the FBI for violating the rights of William Jefferson when they pulled 100,000 grand in cash out of his freezer.
This ENTIRE government is corrupt and inept, Democrat and Republican its time in this country we get serious change, Im about to go get my Necronmicon and raise a Zombie Teddie Roosevelt to jumpstart his Bull Moose Party, IMPEACH TAFT!
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
Infact didnt i recall Dennis Hastert slamming the FBI for violating the rights of William Jefferson when they pulled 100,000 grand in cash out of his freezer.
That would be because Jefferson's rights weren't violated. The FBI had a warrant.
Phred
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: Not news????? [Re: Gijith]
#6169284 - 10/14/06 03:21 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Gijith said: It did, at one point, get very prominent placement on the Times' website.
Yes, the website, which has about eleven viewersQuote:
I don't see why this is a big deal. This probably isn't a story that the people who write/read the NY Times want to pay attention to at the moment. What's the issue?
The issue is that Reid failed to disclose his involvement in a real estate transaction that netted him a huge profit due to zoning law changes. Like I said earlier, if I could guarantee zoning changes I could set all of the regular PA&L posters up for life. As in you would never have to work a day in your lives. He bought the property when it was almost worthless, transfered it to another entity that he didn't disclose his interest in for no profit, retained a huge share of that entity which assets were mostly that property, and then realized a huge gain, profit 175%, when the zoning laws were changed. That, my friend, is week old fish that has never been refrigerated. Quote:
If there was an enormous scandal involving Lindsay Lohan's cocaine addiction, it would probably get buried on the Jim Lehrer news hour.
I should hope so. But nobody watches that anyway. The point that the NYTimes readers don't want to read it is bullshit. It's a substantive scandal revealing real influence peddling for monetary gain. Are you saying that the NYTimes should only report happy news for Dems? I think that's what they do, but is it right that they do so under some bogus imprimatur claim of impartiality, which is a sine qua non of claiming press freedom.
They are trying to suck from both teats. On one hand, they are so magnificently partisan that they put Pauline Kael and Marie Antoinette to shame. On the other hand they demand legal protection as unbiased journalists merely reporting the news. Their behaviour is quite telling. Another day goes by with no mention on the front page.
--------------------
|
The_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth


Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN
Last seen: 7 years, 12 days
|
Re: Not news????? [Re: Phred]
#6169392 - 10/14/06 04:06 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Believe me im not disputing that claim, The fbi had every right to search the corrupt official.
The point im making is that Dennis Hastert and Nancy Pelosi both defended William Jefferson, more then likely to protect their own corruption.
If their is one thing everyone in politics can agree on is this "dont rat out my kickbacks and i wont rat out yours"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/24/politics/main1649648.shtml
Edited by The_Red_Crayon (10/14/06 04:06 PM)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
|
Quote:
JonnyOnTheSpot said: It's hard to for me to tell if you're in selective denial, or if you're just extremely dense. Why are people more concerned about the foley scandal you ask? First of all it's a much much bigger story on many levels, and not because the NY Times is liberally biased The foley sex scandal is the type of scandal that creates a general feeling of corruption in washington. It's alleged that top republicans helped sweep this under the rug, possibly knowing that they might be endangering minors.
A sex scandal with no sex is not corruption. Neither is a sex scandal WITH sex corruption. Corruption is something different. If you change legislation in return for sexual favors that is corruption. That is not what Foley did and Hastert and everybody else didn't do anything wrong at all. There is a huge question as to whether what Foley did was even illegal. There is no question that what anybody knew he did was. It was not. There is no question that what Reid did was illegal. He admitted it and is changing his report. Because he got caught. If you rob a bank and get caught do you not have to go to jail because you gave the money back? Further, I could allege that you touched three 8 year old boys on the schoolyard with their underpants on their head. There is however not a shred of evidence to back that up. People knew about it and covered it up? You're funny. I ask in all seriousness why this incredibly old shit has appeared in the last fifteen minutes before an election and after Foley's primary. I wonder just who sat on this story. Foley's seat was in a totally safe Republican district that any Republican could win and his replacement probably still will, even though Foley's name is on the ballot. Who knew what when indeed.Quote:
Hmm..republican conspiracy to ignore claims of possible child molestation which effectively potentially throws these young pages to the wolves all to protect the political status quo and republican dominance in the house, or a single democrat acting alone outside of washington to gain money in a corrupt manner.
How about this for a characterization. A single Republican making inappropriate IMs to former pages unbeknownst to anybody else (except maybe Dems waiting to pull an "October surprise") or the Dem Senate leader using his influence to personally enrich himself and whoever else he wishes. Pages thrown to the wolves? Are you fucking joking me. Google Studds and Reynolds (jail time there) and maybe Barney "Big Pimp" Frank. The guy was a jerk but his jerkiness pales in comparison and, here's the fucking biggie, he quit. He's gone out done. Nobody else did anything wrong. Except whoever knew about the IMs and saved there revelation for now.Quote:
Gee i wonder which is more news worthy, especially since neither scandal is proven at this point, so let's assume the worst in both cases.
Reid has already admitted to a certain level of "inattention". Yeah, right.Quote:
It's easy for me to see that it's more important to find out if the house leadership is a corrupt self serving entity interested not in the safety of the american people (teenage boys at any rate) or in maintaining their holier than thou morale standards they always posture towards, but rather a corrupt organization only concerned with maintain power in american politics. To me and everyone else not living in lala land that's a bit more interesting than reid's case.
And here is what you are missing, the Republicans had no advantage to gain in protecting Foley. None whatsoever, it is a totally safe Republican seat. When ther is no motive the conspiracy theory collapses. Reid, however, had a great deal to gain and did so, at the expense of everybody else. He sold his influence for personal monetary gain. That is the worst sort of corruption, even worse than selling influence for campaign contributions. Although not as bad as Kennedy the Submariner. Democrat murderer still in the Senate because his seat is safe. No coverup, just an incredible bunch of retard voters.Quote:
On top of that, the foley scandal has caused a bunch of important republican figures to come flying out of the closet all at the same time.
Who the fuck are you talking about and who gives a shit if they're homos?Quote:
Let's not forget that foley was the chairman of the committee to protect children from online predators so there is a whole other level of hypocrisy that calls into question republican integrity as a whole. Especially since a lot of people vote some of these people into office base on their morale ideals on issues such as gay marriage. Are these politicians who they say they are? I think the republican base more than anybody else is interested in finding out the answer to that.
It is rather curious that he had spearheaded that legislation. Could he have done it for cover? Oh, no, that couldn't possibly have been it, could it? Tell me again how this spreads beyond the already resigned congressmanQuote:
The story is just so much bigger in scope that it's hard to even compare it to the reid scandal. Reid's scandal is more like a story of corruption by a man who happens to be a politician, while foleygate is a true political scandal calling republican integrity into question. Do you see the difference now, or are you still certain it's all due to the left wing media 
I think you are out of your mind. One asshole congressman nobody ever heard of who probably didn't do anything illegal and resigned immediately with no sign that anybody covered up for him and would have no political motivation to do so versus the Senate minority leader involved in an influence peddling for profit deal that netted him nearly a million American dollars. And you think what's the bigger story?
Unfuckingbelievable.Quote:
Quote:
It's time for the NYTimes to come out of the closet and register as a Democrat Party public relations firm and just give up all pretense of being a news organization.
Maybe Fox News should do the same thing since a couple weeks ago when the foley scandal actually WAS the only news they were barely touching the story, instead choosing to cover their "10th anniversary" like it was some huge story. The NY Times is leftist, but you should really stop citing it as a example of typical "liberal" media because it's not even close. Sadly, Fox News is just as bad, actually much much worse and they have a vastly larger group of viewers.
FoxNews is a cable TV channel that is the lone voice of conservative politics in a sea, a fucking SEA, of liberal media, which I have listed elsewhere. Cable. Lone. And their news division isn't even slanted. Just the opinion shows. Much more than can be said for the NYTimes, WAPO, LATimes, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC Quote:
Oh yeah, i don't know if you've been keeping up with the news but it's mostly had to do with North Korea's nuclear weapons recently...
Except Foley keeps popping up on the front page and Reid pops up on the 11th. Now, my densely liberal friend, what do you have to fucking say now?
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
|
Quote:
The_Red_Crayon said: Believe me im not disputing that claim, The fbi had every right to search the corrupt official.
The point im making is that Dennis Hastert and Nancy Pelosi both defended William Jefferson, more then likely to protect their own corruption.
If their is one thing everyone in politics can agree on is this "dont rat out my kickbacks and i wont rat out yours"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/24/politics/main1649648.shtml
Hastert and Pelosi did not defend Jefferson at all. What they screamed about was the sanctity of congressional offices. Which was bullshit and they lost on
--------------------
|
Gijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: The issue is that Reid failed to disclose his involvement in a real estate transaction that netted him a huge profit due to zoning law changes. Like I said earlier, if I could guarantee zoning changes I could set all of the regular PA&L posters up for life. As in you would never have to work a day in your lives. He bought the property when it was almost worthless, transfered it to another entity that he didn't disclose his interest in for no profit, retained a huge share of that entity which assets were mostly that property, and then realized a huge gain, profit 175%, when the zoning laws were changed. That, my friend, is week old fish that has never been refrigerated.
Yes, and? The man has probably done something that's dishonest at best and very criminal at worst. My question - 'what's the issue?' - was directed at the behavior of the media, not the behavior of a crooked politician.
Quote:
I should hope so. But nobody watches that anyway. The point that the NYTimes readers don't want to read it is bullshit. It's a substantive scandal revealing real influence peddling for monetary gain. Are you saying that the NYTimes should only report happy news for Dems? I think that's what they do, but is it right that they do so under some bogus imprimatur claim of impartiality, which is a sine qua non of claiming press freedom.
They are trying to suck from both teats. On one hand, they are so magnificently partisan that they put Pauline Kael and Marie Antoinette to shame. On the other hand they demand legal protection as unbiased journalists merely reporting the news. Their behaviour is quite telling. Another day goes by with no mention on the front page.
The NY Times makes a lot of money. They've been doing it long enough. They will produce articles that will resonate with with their base consumers. They will hire staff that would be biased towards writing those kinds of articles. They will try to be ambiguous in their politics so they can remain reasonably nimble with changing times and undeniably insatiable stories. They will also try to be ambiguous so they can keep the moderate, stupid or lazy readers who think they're getting truly unbiased news. They will demand legal protections so that they can get the best scoops.
I've said nothing in my posts about what the NY Times should do. I've said nothing about whether their behavior is right. Maybe if I ran a newspaper, I'd make all reporters list their party affiliation and voting record in place of a few ads. However, my guess is that it would be hard to find good reporters willing to do that. And it probably wouldn't be a great business move.
-------------------- what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: Not news????? [Re: Gijith]
#6172136 - 10/15/06 03:02 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
The issue, my dear, is that this is being treated very differently because he is a big shot Dem than it would be if he was a big shot Rep. You know who died the other day? Studds, the Dem who had an actual physical stool-pushing affair with a 17 year old page and got re-elected after being censured (Guess what state. Come on guess. That's right, the state of Massachusetts which keeps re-electing a murderer to the Senate and a madame to the House. What is wrong with those people that they can't find a human being to elect?)
The NYTimes is in trouble financially in spite of their eminent domain theft of public land and their circulation is in rapid decline because they have become the NY Nation and are no longer trusted. Oh for the days of my youth when I could believe that what they wrote was true and that they truly did print "all the news that's fit to print" in it's proper order of prominence.
--------------------
|
JonnyOnTheSpot
Sober Surfer


Registered: 01/27/02
Posts: 11,528
Loc: North Carolina
|
|
Everything you said the downplay the foley case in the importance of election politics hinges on the assumption that every republican denying any wrong doing is telling the truth. Hastert has changed his story a couple times already so he can't really be trusted in my opinion. There are many people who think that some key republicans did know about wrong doing, and chose to not report it, including some republicans. So if you want to believe everything that the people who are trying to cover their asses are telling you then i guess there's no point in argueing, but i'm not as trusting of politicians as you are. I think it should be investigated when republicans are coming out of the wood work and claiming dennis hastert knew about all this a couple years ago. Honestly, what does a republican have to gain by making up damning lies about his fellow republicans. Maybe they just decided to tell the truth so they could avoid an obstruction of justice charge from the FBI?
And you'll be happy to know that the reid case is all over the place now.
|
|