Harry Reid - Got Caught

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Oct 13 2006, 02:26 PM) [snapback]332422[/snapback]</div>

Well, here in N. CA, I've seen articles about this, above the fold, in a number of newspapers.

You'd think that in this vortex of degeneracy -- the breeding ground for moral decay and a maelstrom of liberal politics, for goodness sake -- this would be ignored. And (from what I've been reading) it hasn't.

I just don't think there's really enough money involved for it to make a great story...and without the illicit sex component, mere real estate fraud just doesn't push our buttons like it used to.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Oct 13 2006, 02:47 PM) [snapback]332433[/snapback]</div>

What level of criminal behavior is required before you should step down from the US congress? Who makes these decisions and moves the cutoff line around?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 13 2006, 05:57 AM) [snapback]332182[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, but he didn't evade taxes on it, and I don't think he broke other laws ... he broke the Senate rules on disclosure. I'm not sure if that law really carries strong penalties other than making him disclose it later. The Legislators rarely make laws governing themselves that are very strict!


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 13 2006, 05:57 AM) [snapback]332182[/snapback]</div>

You are absolutely right with this point. I think the reason he's getting a relative pass is that he's a white, northern Democrat (they still turn, very quickly, on their black Congressman). The press will tell you its because he's minority leader; if he was the majority leader, they may say, then it would be bigger news.

If "turnabout" is fair play, then we could ask questions like this: What I want to know is did Nancy Pelosi in the House know about this? When did she know, and why didn't she come forward? Does she OWN real estate in a neighboring state? And, if she does, has she ever visited Nevada? Hmmmm ....

But "turnabout" isn't fair play. America is not well served by the partisans.

 

…a thread about flatulence (verbal, of course) .

Boys & Girls, WE can send the Reids, Cheneys , Halliburtons and anybody else of the same ilk back where they came from IF WE GET OUR BUTTS FROM THE COUCH AND VOTE. :angry:

It’s absolutely ridiculous and shameful the low percentage of registered voters (which by the way is also low) that actually vote; somehow we have been brain washed to believe that it is our right NOT TO.:huh:

WAKE UP - voting is a privilege that we MUST exercise.


In the ancient Athenian Democracy participating in the government process was a cherished privilege and the punishment of being “ostracized†was considered worse than the death penalty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nicos @ Oct 13 2006, 09:40 PM) [snapback]332626[/snapback]</div>

In the USA it is our right to vote or NOT to vote.

On the other hand, in Australia, they do NOT have the right Not to vote.
http://www.slate.com/id/2108832/

Me personally, I look at the small number of registered voters in the USA and the even smaller number of those registered voters who bother to vote as and indication that people are basically happy with their lives as Americans. They don't ascribe to the “vote the bums out†or “the country is falling apart†mentality which is American politics. No, they are busy enjoying their freedoms and don't care one way or another if a liberal or conservative wins an election.

Having more people vote doesn't guarantee a different outcome. <_<

 

Get out and vote. Help America decide which millionaire to send to Congress.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Oct 14 2006, 01:23 AM) [snapback]332655[/snapback]</div>

In the USA we have the FREEDOM to CHOOSE whether to vote or not.
This does not absolve us from the RESPONSIBILITY to vote.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nicos @ Oct 14 2006, 08:39 AM) [snapback]332729[/snapback]</div>

Care to explain what “RESPONSIBILITY to vote†is?

Many people who do not bother to vote ARE acting RESPONSIBLE. They have chosen not to try to keep up on politics. They don't wish to try to decipher the crap from the truth. They are happy that those who do – vote. And they are OK with the outcome of elections . . . whatever the outcome.

Why register, not pay attention to the details, then go vote with only campaign slogans, billboards, mass mailings, telephone messages, bumper stickers, newspaper and TV and radio commercials floating around in your head?

These people wish not to become voting automatons. THAT IS ACTING RESPONSIBLE!

If it's true that “everyone should be voting,†does that mean we as a society should be making a concerted effort to make sure everyone in mental hospitals are badgered about their “RESPONSIBILITY to vote†too?

Me personally, I'd rather that people who want to vote vote . . . and those who don't, don't. Let the individual decide what is best for them.

 

As I said somewhere way above, I'm in favor of Reid getting whatever punishment his alleged crimes might deserve. (As I also mentioned previously in the case of Jefferson and his "cold cash.")

Throw any and all bums out! Lots of people on this post have said that.

But I'd feel a little more inclined to join this slanted discussion if it weren't for the mad-dog-Doberman types that so lust for blood they go directly for the throat. They have no equally rigid judgmental posture for anybody on their side of the political line, though. Execute the Democrats but find any weasel-way out for the Republicans.

Dennis Prager, an ultra-staunch right winger, once said something I really agree with. "If you can't find fault, where it exists, in your own house, you have no credibility when you look into others." (Paraphrased.)

It's such dishonest logic!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Oct 14 2006, 01:17 PM) [snapback]332814[/snapback]</div>

I care to.

In simpler words, you speak for the lazy and the intentionally ignorant. Laziness disguised as virtue! Who said it? "Evil continues in this world because good men do nothing." (Paraphrased.)

And you can really feel certain that "And they are OK with the outcome of elections . . . whatever the outcome."? It seems to me they are among the first to complain when some pet-project benefiting them is canceled or their taxes go up or any of a dozen freedoms is lost.

I'd be against motorcycle helmet laws if it were the enforced policy that nothing beyond regular first aid would be forthcoming to the bare-heads. But no, they, and their families, will insist on a lifetime of medical care provided by the citizens for this important "freedom."

Besides, it has consequences beyond their selfishness. It's like M.A.D.D. The vast majority of its members never lifted a finger about drunk drivers until somebody they knew got hurt. Now they're real believers. If you don't bother voting and the jerk that gets into office sends your kid off to die for no real good reason, you immediately become a regular voter. But it's too late then.

Why the ridiculous question about mental inmates? Duh, no...they shouldn't vote. Are you equating these sorry folks with the self-imposed mental deficients that don't think their country is worth any thought or effort? Because they aren't much different, you know.

The benefits of democracy require some responsibility. (Look up what THAT word means. Seriously, look it up.) Voting is the least of it. Can we expect nothing from our citizens? Is it all take and no give in America? If so, let's go back to a monarchy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Oct 14 2006, 03:46 PM) [snapback]332849[/snapback]</div>

I don't think Senator Reid is in too much trouble. It seems to be a technical violation, rather than a real legal violation. Its murky, as most real estate deals are, but one of the liberal bloggers recaps what Senator Reid did and did not do:

At first I thought the rest of the media was giving Senator Reid a pass due to the white man/rich man thing, but it looks like there's just not much there on this one. Like Representative Foley, this one is way overblown, and I doubt there will be any charges filed.

And just like Mr. Foley, it could be that an investigation turns up more incriminating evidence, but as it stands right now, it certainly is not enough of a violation for Senator Reid to "go to jail" or resign.

 

I cannot help but laugh at republicans. Cheney funnels billions into his old company, and repubs give it a pass. Reid does not file LLC transfer papers, and it is viewed in the same light as the Foley travesties and party cover-up.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Oct 15 2006, 06:59 AM) [snapback]332960[/snapback]</div>

They're the "our president, right or wrong" crowd. Just wait till President Hillary so much as snores. They'll be all over her like you can't believe where such invectives could come from. Hypocrites!!!

On another slightly different subject I have come to believe that cell phone users who drive poorly and cause accidents which they leave in their rear-view mirror not even aware of the havoc they are causing can be likened to republicans. They are so intent on getting theirs that they don't even see what others can, as to how ridiculous they seem. They are completely oblivious and therefore can't possibly understand why everyone else looks at them in wonder.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Oct 14 2006, 04:20 PM) [snapback]332858[/snapback]</div>

The fallacy in “everyone should vote†is assuming a higher percentage of votes would mean the outcome of any particular election would swing the way you would like.

You are making some widely inaccurate assumptions saying, “If you don't bother voting and the jerk that gets into office sends your kid off to die for no real good reason, you immediately become a regular voter. But it's too late then.â€

1) Standing at the poll, there is no 20/20 hindsight of future events for you to consider.
2) The Iraq war started on March 20, 2003. President Bush was reelected on November 2, 2004. The 'jerk' was already in office, but was reelected with a majority vote.
3) More voters does not equal a more informed electorate.
4) You are assuming having more voters show up at the polls would somehow change the percentages of votes cast for a candidate . . . thereby changing the outcome. 50.7 percent of 125,736,000 people voted who cast ballots voted for Bush. If 50.7 percent of the 197,005,000 American Citizens aged 18 or over voted . . . BUSH STILL WOULD HAVE WON!!! You are making a fallacious assumption that a greater percentage of those who did not vote would have voted for a candidate other than Bush. That is just wishful thinking.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presiden...lection_results

My use of mental hospital patients IS an extreme example, and was meant to highlight part of the fallacy of “everyone should vote.â€
Just where would you draw the line of those who should and those who shouldn't vote? I say leave it up to the individual whether they personally feel capable of voting – be it mentally, physically, or psychologically.
You on the other hand call those who would rather not vote “self-imposed mental deficients.â€

63.8% of the US citizens of voting age voted in the last Presidential election. I'm happy with that number.

You say, “The benefits of democracy require some responsibility.†I AGREE! I don't need to look up the word “democracy†in the dictionary to understand that it is worth fighting for . . . That's why I served 20+ years in the Navy / Navy Reserve, AND I have voted in every election since I was 18. But, on the other hand, you won't see me criticizing those who would rather not vote or did not serve in the military. THAT IS THEIR RIGHT!

If voting is a responsibility everyone must undertake in order to enjoy the benefits of living in a democracy, why is it that naturalized citizens (ones who were not born in the USA) voted in the last Presidential election at a rate less than that of native born citizens? 53.7% compared to 64.5%. One would think that naturalized citizens, of all, would feel compelled to exercise their right to vote and show appreciation for the benefits of living in a democracy. Maybe . . . could it be . . . they feel our democracy is not in jeopardy without their vote?
[same census.gov link above]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Oct 15 2006, 12:19 PM) [snapback]333064[/snapback]</div>

Shotgun answers:

1) I don't assume that a greater number of voters would swing anything my way. Matter of fact, it is being speculated that CC Republicans will stay home in great numbers in disgust with the way Bush treated them. Why don't I applaud this? Because I don't want a clique to run this country but a DEMOCRATICALLY elected government. Future events can be estimated pretty accurately. That's why we have elections: to mold a better future. Nothing is 20/20.

2)If more people voted the first time, it has been documented a hundred times, Gore would have won. (As he did anyhow in the popular vote.) More voters won't insure a better educated electorate. But here's a system for you: in order to vote, you need to pass a simple test on the issues and candidates. The test has to have across the board approval. If you pass the test, you can vote. And if you vote, you get $50. I don't want to hear about all the ways this can go wrong. I want you to take this simple idea and tell me if you don't think, in short order, a vast majority of Americans would become constitutional scholars and never miss even a dog-catcher election. They just aren't properly motivated right now, you think?

3) You seem to think the results are important, not the process. If anybody wins 50.1% of ELIGIBLE VOTERS, he should get the reward. Winning with something like 40% of the 55% who bothered to vote isn't a majority in my book. Less than 2/3 of folks voting is nothing to import to Iraq. Bush was proud as a peacock about the NUMBER of Iraqis who voted. He wasn't crazy about the result.

4) I didn't ask you to look up the word "Democracy" to tell me it was worth fighting for but to understand what it means. "Demos" means "people" in Greek. A democracy is a government elected by "the people." If they abdicate this right, the system diminishes to the extent they stay home.

5)You know what? I'm pretty tired about everybody sitting on their dead butts proclaiming all their rights. Has this country thrived for 230 years because everybody just exercised their rights? Not at all. You put in your 20, I did my 7, while Cheney tells us about his "higher priorities." I've never been shot at, and I don't recall you saying one way or the other, but I'll bet you a whole lot of GIs have higher priorities right now and many of them are not having their contracts honored by these same chickenhawks running the circus. So much for their rights. Just like a guy who shoves ahead of me in the chow line, I do complain that too many Americans want to take without giving. It's up to everybody, not just you and me.

6)The voting system is so screwed up right now that I imagine totally insane people can get an absentee ballot. Where do I draw the line? That's a good place: mental competence. I realize this would be difficult to police so, to hell with it. Everybody should vote. The few crazies running around will probably be a wash, but it might make them feel more useful than they have in a long time. Anybody can get a ballot in the mail, so physical incapacity should be pretty rare short of the death bed.

7)I don't know where you live, but naturalized citizens from my early family and those I've gotten to know, can't wait to vote. They had to work hard to become citizens. It wasn't handed to them on a plate.

Frankly, I can't understand this permissive attitude about civic responsibility by anybody who has done as much as you have. A country's strength is its citizens. I'll say no more on this subject. With rights comes responsibility. I stand by my earlier remarks. I'm tired of beating my head against a wall.