Would you sustain Harry Reid

[BoiseBYU]

The forgoing logic of, maybe they didn't know therefore they might not have been lying, doesn't work for me. People that have more access to information and more responsibility to know, that at the same time are touted as the smartest and most capable, don't get a "get out of lying, get out if jail" card for being blatantly stupid. First of all I do not believe they are that consistently stupid but if they were they should not be in office. If they are lying they should not be in office. It makes no difference. If you have access to information and a responsibility to know and you say something counter to fact then intent is not a factor.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

You at least missed my point, which Is that not everything a public or private figure says that doesn't pan out does not mean they were deceitful. Dems and Repubs liberals and conservatives say things and sometimes they don't pan out. Read my lips. I don't believe President Bush was being deceitful when he said that and when he negotiated later on on deal that included new taxes, well I don't think that made him a fraud. I think too many of us are too quick to label everything the other side says that turns out wrong as meaning they are some sort of con artist. I'd vote to be gentler. Sometimes leaders have lied to us. Clinton did regarding Lewinsky. And I have no compunction saying so. But in our polarized world I'd still wish we'd tone it down. Peace out.

[tww]

The forgoing logic of, maybe they didn't know therefore they might not have been lying, doesn't work for me. People that have more access to information and more responsibility to know, that at the same time are touted as the smartest and most capable, don't get a "get out of lying, get out if jail" card for being blatantly stupid. First of all I do not believe they are that consistently stupid but if they were they should not be in office. If they are lying they should not be in office. It makes no difference. If you have access to information and a responsibility to know and you say something counter to fact then intent is not a factor.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

You at least missed my point, which Is that not everything a public or private figure says that doesn't pan out does not mean they were deceitful. Dems and Repubs liberals and conservatives say things and sometimes they don't pan out. Read my lips. I don't believe President Bush was being deceitful when he said that and when he negotiated later on on deal that included new taxes, well I don't think that made him a fraud. I think too many of us are too quick to label everything the other side says that turns out wrong as meaning they are some sort of con artist. I'd vote to be gentler. Sometimes leaders have lied to us. Clinton did regarding Lewinsky. And I have no compunction saying so. But in our polarized world I'd still wish we'd tone it down. Peace out.

I don't think I missed your point so much as I kind of talked passed your point. I do agree that the dialogue can get ugly pretty quick especially online. That is unfortunate but I don't think it is going to get easier as I suspect that more people will feel like they have gun to their head. I don't have as much time to spend here as I used too but I appreciate my CC brothers even if we duke it out occasionally. I do have a desire to be gentler here but not so much with public officials that don't respect the trust we must have toward them. I see a major difference between those that are habitual liers and those that misspeak.
Peace to you my brother.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[SpiffCoug]

And I would definitely place the current white house resident in the habitual liar category.

[BoiseBYU]

The forgoing logic of, maybe they didn't know therefore they might not have been lying, doesn't work for me. People that have more access to information and more responsibility to know, that at the same time are touted as the smartest and most capable, don't get a "get out of lying, get out if jail" card for being blatantly stupid. First of all I do not believe they are that consistently stupid but if they were they should not be in office. If they are lying they should not be in office. It makes no difference. If you have access to information and a responsibility to know and you say something counter to fact then intent is not a factor.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

You at least missed my point, which Is that not everything a public or private figure says that doesn't pan out does not mean they were deceitful. Dems and Repubs liberals and conservatives say things and sometimes they don't pan out. Read my lips. I don't believe President Bush was being deceitful when he said that and when he negotiated later on on deal that included new taxes, well I don't think that made him a fraud. I think too many of us are too quick to label everything the other side says that turns out wrong as meaning they are some sort of con artist. I'd vote to be gentler. Sometimes leaders have lied to us. Clinton did regarding Lewinsky. And I have no compunction saying so. But in our polarized world I'd still wish we'd tone it down. Peace out.

I don't think I missed your point so much as I kind of talked passed your point. I do agree that the dialogue can get ugly pretty quick especially online. That is unfortunate but I don't think it is going to get easier as I suspect that more people will feel like they have gun to their head. I don't have as much time to spend here as I used too but I appreciate my CC brothers even if we duke it out occasionally. I do have a desire to be gentler here but not so much with public officials that don't respect the trust we must have toward them. I see a major difference between those that are habitual liers and those that misspeak.
Peace to you my brother.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Peace to you too...

[BoiseBYU]

And I would definitely place the current white house resident in the habitual liar category.

Getting pretty close to agreeing with you....BTW, is your new moniker or avatar or whatever you call it something you picked up from Colorado?

[SpiffCoug]

And I would definitely place the current white house resident in the habitual liar category.

Getting pretty close to agreeing with you....BTW, is your new moniker or avatar or whatever you call it something you picked up from Colorado?

No it's a game called Ingress. It's a smartphone gps-based game for Android devices that's a lot of fun.

[scott715]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room ... %20corrupt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Top 10 Most Corrupt Politicians List

[Ddawg]

The answer is very simple: No. Harry Reid is a duplicitous, deceitful, and dishonest man. There are those that post and excuse and defend Harry Reid, but, you can paint him any color you want, he's still the same old, dishonest politician. There is no one more partisan in Washington than Harry Reid.

A shining example of Reid's hypocrisy is the "Nuclear Option" that he exercised in Nov. '13. Let's look at Reid's comments back in 2005 when the Dem's were in the minority and the GOP majority was flirting with the idea of a "Nuclear Option" themselves.

Harry Reid in 2005: “Some in this chamber want to throw out 214 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power … They think they’re wiser than our founding fathers. I doubt that that’s true.”

And again, Harry Reid '05: “The Filibuster Is Far From A Procedural Gimmick. It’s Part Of The Fabric Of This Institution … Senators Have Used The Filibuster To Stand Up To Popular Presidents, To Block Legislation, And, Yes, Even, As I’ve Stated, To Stall Executive Nominees.” SEN. HARRY REID: “The filibuster is not a scheme and it certainly isn’t new. The filibuster is far from a procedural gimmick. It’s part of the fabric of this institution we call the Senate. It was well-known in colonial legislatures before we became a country, and it’s an integral part of our country’s 214-year history. The first filibuster in the United States Congress happened in 1790. It was used by lawmakers from Virginia and South Carolina who were trying to prevent Philadelphia from hosting the first Congress. Since then, the filibuster has been employed hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times. It’s been employed on legislative matters, it’s been employed on procedural matters relating to the president’s nominations for Cabinet and sub-Cabinet posts, and it’s been used on judges for all those years. One scholar estimates that 20 percent of the judges nominated by presidents have fallen by the wayside, most of them as a result of filibusters. Senators have used the filibuster to stand up to popular presidents, to block legislation, and, yes, even, as I’ve stated, to stall executive nominees. The roots of the filibuster are found in the Constitution and in our own rules.”

Thomas Edison said: "There is far more danger in public, than in private monopoly, for when Govt. goes into business it can always shift it's losses to the taxpayers. Govt. never makes ends meet, and that is the first requisite of a business."

Dwight D. Eisenhower said: "I firmly believe that the army of persons who urge greater and greater centralization of authority and greater and greater dependance upon the Federal Treasury are really more dangerous to our form of government than any external threat that can possibly be arrayed against us."

Harry Reid tossed out 222 years of Senate tradition, and allows Obama to stack the courts. Reid is a man who does everything in his power to expand an invasive Federal govt. He has been a water carrier and chief architect for the biggest power grab and expansion of the Federal Govt. in modern history - under the guise of fairness and compassion. Reid talks out both sides of his mouth, and does not stand for, nor defend in reality, the founding principles which the founding fathers were inspired to establish this nation. Instead, Reid does the old Washington "Okie-dokie" - "we are here for you and are looking out for your best interests" in the name of "fairness" - then votes our freedoms down the drain.

Note, this is just 1 example, and the tip of the iceberg.

[BroncoBot]

Great example Ddawg.

[mizzoucoug]

Great reply. He truly is a vile and disgusting individual. I actually take pause in wondering if he has done more to damage America than Ted Kennedy was ever capable of doing. I'm not his judge, but his words and actions are in fact public knowledge. How does a person like this ever make it through a temple recommend interview? The only thing I can think of is a large dose of self-deception. That's how.