PDA

View Full Version : Liberals Are the New McCarthyites—and They’re Proud of It



Peter1469
04-04-2015, 12:23 PM
Harry Reid is McCarthy 2.0 (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416397/liberals-are-new-mccarthyites-and-theyre-proud-it-john-fund)


Harry Reid took to the floor of the Senate during the last election and claimed that Romney hasn't paid his taxes. Reid knew this was a lie. But he said it anyway.

Last week a reporter actually confronted Reid about this lie that helped turn the election.

Reid responded: "He didn't win, did he." Even worse, some in the "media" defended Reid. Basically stating that politicians lie and it is the media's job to sort it out. The first point is a cop out. The second is a joke. The MSM supported Reid's lie at the time because they are on the same side. Anti-America.


Harry Reid, the top Democrat in the Senate, was asked by CNN’s Dana Bash this week if he regretted his 2012 accusation on the Senate floor that GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney “hasn’t paid taxes for ten years.” Reid presented no evidence at the time and claimed he didn’t need any: “I don’t think the burden should be on me. The burden should be on him. He’s the one I’ve alleged has not paid any taxes.”

Reid’s response in the interview was fascinating. When asked by Bash if his tactic was McCarthyite he visibly shrugged on camera, smiled, and said “Well, they can call it whatever they want. Romney didn’t win, did he?” White House spokesman Josh Earnest refused to criticize Reid for his comment because it “was three years old,” when in reality Reid’s televised reveling in it was only three days old.

Las Vegas journalist Jon Ralston, who has observed Reid over the latter’s 30-year career in the Senate, has had enough. He revealed that he had written a harshly critical column in 2012 about Reid’s “ruthless, Machiavellian politics” in response to the senator’s accusation against Romney but saw it spiked by the Las Vegas Sun because its editor wanted to protect Reid.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416397/liberals-are-new-mccarthyites-and-theyre-proud-it-john-fund

Bo-4
04-04-2015, 12:29 PM
Reid SUSPECTED that Mittens didn't pay his paltry 13% of capital gains in all those tax years he refused to make public (George Romney provided 12 years worth of his).

So yes, the burden was on Willard to prove him wrong and he has yet to.

Nice stretch though, comparing Reed to McCarthy and suggesting that all Dems are "anti-American". :rolleyes:

zelmo1234
04-04-2015, 12:32 PM
The only good part of this is that he is not in the open.

Harry is finished, He pissed someone off and they took him to the wood shed. for a good old fashion ass whooping

Unless treadmills have figured out how to smash you in the side of the face several times.

And with the cover up with the lost emails with learner and now Hilary clearing her server before people could find our what the truth was?

Most Americans are looking for an alternative. other than the true believers that approve of these type of tactics.

Mister D
04-04-2015, 12:34 PM
Reed SUSPECTED that Mittens didn't pay his paltry 13% of capital gains in all those tax years he refused to make public (George Romney provided 12 years worth of his).

So yes, the burden was on Willard to prove him wrong and he has yet to.

Nice stretch though, comparing Reed to McCarthy and suggesting that all Dems are "anti-American". :rolleyes:

Wait...what? Did you really just say that?

zelmo1234
04-04-2015, 12:34 PM
Reed SUSPECTED that Mittens didn't pay his paltry 13% of capital gains in all those tax years he refused to make public (George Romney provided 12 years worth of his).

So yes, the burden was on Willard to prove him wrong and he has yet to.

Nice stretch though, comparing Reed to McCarthy and suggesting that all Dems are "anti-American". :rolleyes:

NO it is real clear because Reid himself admitted that he lied, and knew the truth before he hit the Senate floor.

that is the character of the people on the left?

GrassrootsConservative
04-04-2015, 12:40 PM
Lol somebody lies about you the burden is on you to prove them wrong?

Liberal "logic."

Bo-4
04-04-2015, 12:41 PM
NO it is real clear because Reid himself admitted that he lied, and knew the truth before he hit the Senate floor.

that is the character of the people on the left?

NO, he didn't admit he lied.. here is what he said:

“They can call it whatever they want. He didn’t win, did he?”

And here's what he said at the time:

“He didn’t pay taxes for 10 years,” Reid said then. “Now do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain."

Bo-4
04-04-2015, 12:42 PM
Lol somebody lies about you the burden is on you to prove them wrong?

Liberal "logic."

Reed admitted at the time that he didn't know whether it was true or not. He was simply trying to get Willard to do what his father had the integrity to do - release 10 or 12 years worth of tax returns.

sachem
04-04-2015, 12:45 PM
NO it is real clear because Reid himself admitted that he lied, and knew the truth before he hit the Senate floor.

that is the character of the people on the left?One of them.

Peter1469
04-04-2015, 12:45 PM
Reed SUSPECTED that Mittens didn't pay his paltry 13% of capital gains in all those tax years he refused to make public (George Romney provided 12 years worth of his).

So yes, the burden was on Willard to prove him wrong and he has yet to.

Nice stretch though, comparing Reed to McCarthy and suggesting that all Dems are "anti-American". :rolleyes:

Anyone who says Reid was acting in good faith is a partisan or a filthy liar. Real filthy.

Peter1469
04-04-2015, 12:46 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if Reid's face today was a direct result of his deliberate and filthy lies back then. He got beat down. And now he is retiring. I guess he learned his lesson.

Peter1469
04-04-2015, 12:47 PM
Reed SUSPECTED that Mittens didn't pay his paltry 13% of capital gains in all those tax years he refused to make public (George Romney provided 12 years worth of his).

So yes, the burden was on Willard to prove him wrong and he has yet to.

Nice stretch though, comparing Reed to McCarthy and suggesting that all Dems are "anti-American". :rolleyes:

Mitt paid more taxes in 2012 than you are your entire family will pay in your collective lifetimes. Take your hatred of the wealthy back into the closet.

Bo-4
04-04-2015, 12:49 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if Reid's face today was a direct result of his deliberate and filthy lies back then. He got beat down. And now he is retiring. I guess he learned his lesson.

He's 75 years old Peter. That's enough for most people, and he'd have retired at same time even if he was still Majority Leader.

zelmo1234
04-04-2015, 12:53 PM
Well let us look at what Bo Said, maybe he is right.

So The Burden of proof is on the accused, that is a little different that innocent until proven guilty, but this is politics not a court of law. So even though he accuse him of a felony, should Romney have had to prove that he did not cheat on his taxes?I think that I am safe is saying that most of the members on the left would say that in politics this would be fair. and I am sure that they would say that in a court it would be the opposite.

So lets see if they really believe what they are saying or are they running cover for Senator Reid?

Hilary was accused of a lot of things including but not limited to. Knowing about Benghazi before it happened. Illegal communications as Sec of state. Fund raising with foreign governments in exchange for favors.

So is the burden of proof on Hilary? or is that different. And if the Burden of proof is on Hilary, way delete the information?

GrassrootsConservative
04-04-2015, 12:55 PM
Well let us look at what Bo Said, maybe he is right.

So The Burden of proof is on the accused, that is a little different that innocent until proven guilty, but this is politics not a court of law. So even though he accuse him of a felony, should Romney have had to prove that he did not cheat on his taxes?I think that I am safe is saying that most of the members on the left would say that in politics this would be fair. and I am sure that they would say that in a court it would be the opposite.

So lets see if they really believe what they are saying or are they running cover for Senator Reid?

Hilary was accused of a lot of things including but not limited to. Knowing about Benghazi before it happened. Illegal communications as Sec of state. Fund raising with foreign governments in exchange for favors.

So is the burden of proof on Hilary? or is that different. And if the Burden of proof is on Hilary, way delete the information?

Thanks, zel, for exposing more double standards on the left.

zelmo1234
04-04-2015, 12:56 PM
He's 75 years old Peter. That's enough for most people, and he'd have retired at same time even if he was still Majority Leader.

What ever the ass whooping that Harry took is the reason that Harry is stepping down.

He would never have left on his own, he is addicted to power.

del
04-04-2015, 12:58 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if Reid's face today was a direct result of his deliberate and filthy lies back then. He got beat down. And now he is retiring. I guess he learned his lesson.

:rofl:

good thing you're not one of them partisan types, pete

Bo-4
04-04-2015, 12:58 PM
Well let us look at what Bo Said, maybe he is right.

So The Burden of proof is on the accused, that is a little different that innocent until proven guilty, but this is politics not a court of law. So even though he accuse him of a felony, should Romney have had to prove that he did not cheat on his taxes?I think that I am safe is saying that most of the members on the left would say that in politics this would be fair. and I am sure that they would say that in a court it would be the opposite.

So lets see if they really believe what they are saying or are they running cover for Senator Reid?

Hilary was accused of a lot of things including but not limited to. Knowing about Benghazi before it happened. Illegal communications as Sec of state. Fund raising with foreign governments in exchange for favors.

So is the burden of proof on Hilary? or is that different. And if the Burden of proof is on Hilary, way delete the information?

It's politics Zelly, and all is fair in love and politics. If i had but one thin dime for every accusation Rs have leveled with no proof at Ds - i'd be a wealthy man.

Poster's note: I have no love for Harry Reid. Long past time for him to make his exit.

zelmo1234
04-04-2015, 01:02 PM
It's politics Zelly, and all is fair in love and politics. If i had but one thin dime for every accusation Rs have leveled with no proof at Ds - i'd be a wealthy man.

Poster's note: I have no love for Harry Reid. Long past time for him to make his exit.

Is the burden of proof on the accused or not? If so why are you guy letting Hilary get away with destruction of evidence

Or are you a Hypocrite?

GrassrootsConservative
04-04-2015, 01:02 PM
:rofl:

good thing you're not one of them partisan types, pete

Cast-iron skillet calling the cookie sheet black.

Mister D
04-04-2015, 01:09 PM
Cast-iron skillet calling the cookie sheet black.

I like that variation.

Peter1469
04-04-2015, 01:10 PM
He's 75 years old Peter. That's enough for most people, and he'd have retired at same time even if he was still Majority Leader.

The ass beating was a coincidence.

Peter1469
04-04-2015, 01:10 PM
:rofl:

good thing you're not one of them partisan types, pete

Right. I am anti-crook with both parties and independents alike.

GrassrootsConservative
04-04-2015, 01:11 PM
I like that variation.

Fitting. :)

Bo-4
04-04-2015, 01:14 PM
Is the burden of proof on the accused or not? If so why are you guy letting Hilary get away with destruction of evidence

Or are you a Hypocrite?

I'll be outraged at Hilly for doing such as soon as i see you outraged over Jeb Bush doing the same damned thing.

zelmo1234
04-04-2015, 01:17 PM
I'll be outraged at Hilly for doing such as soon as i see you outraged over Jeb Bush doing the same $#@!ed thing.

I am sorry I was not aware Yes if Jeb Bush deleted emails from his time as Secretary of State when an attack happened and????

When was Bush Sec of State?

????? Thought so.

:) You need to stop digging

Bo-4
04-04-2015, 01:19 PM
I am sorry I was not aware Yes if Jeb Bush deleted emails from his time as Secretary of State when an attack happened and????

When was Bush Sec of State?

????? Thought so.

:) You need to stop digging

Care to try again? :D

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-governor-jeb-bush-used-e-mail-to-discuss-security-troop-movements/2015/03/14/0d7fae16-ca49-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html

zelmo1234
04-04-2015, 01:26 PM
Care to try again? :D

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-governor-jeb-bush-used-e-mail-to-discuss-security-troop-movements/2015/03/14/0d7fae16-ca49-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html

Yeah! I am guessing that my security clearance is higher than his! So unless Florida has a military that I am not aware of ?

It is not the same. And you and I both know that if Hilary was clean, that server would have been at the FBI long time ago.

She is dirty and everyone knows it. she will face questions through out the primary and general elections and she will refuse to answer and people will understand that she is crooked

Crepitus
04-04-2015, 01:36 PM
Harry Reid is McCarthy 2.0 (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416397/liberals-are-new-mccarthyites-and-theyre-proud-it-john-fund)


Harry Reid took to the floor of the Senate during the last election and claimed that Romney hasn't paid his taxes. Reid knew this was a lie. But he said it anyway.

Last week a reporter actually confronted Reid about this lie that helped turn the election.

Reid responded: "He didn't win, did he." Even worse, some in the "media" defended Reid. Basically stating that politicians lie and it is the media's job to sort it out. The first point is a cop out. The second is a joke. The MSM supported Reid's lie at the time because they are on the same side. Anti-America.
That you can even bring this up after the multiple Benghazi accusations actually made me LOL.

Green Arrow
04-04-2015, 01:49 PM
Reed SUSPECTED that Mittens didn't pay his paltry 13% of capital gains in all those tax years he refused to make public (George Romney provided 12 years worth of his).

So yes, the burden was on Willard to prove him wrong and he has yet to.

Nice stretch though, comparing Reed to McCarthy and suggesting that all Dems are "anti-American". :rolleyes:

Couple things, Bo-4.

1) It's "Reid." Reed is a whole different Senator.
2) Reid pretty much admitted that he lied just to make sure Mitt Romney lost the election.

And a separate point for the rest of the forum:

3) This is why I say partisanship is like a cancer. What I've never said is that the type of cancer is brain cancer, because it makes you act like an idiot.

The Sage of Main Street
04-04-2015, 01:50 PM
Reed SUSPECTED that Mittens didn't pay his paltry 13% of capital gains in all those tax years he refused to make public (George Romney provided 12 years worth of his).

So yes, the burden was on Willard to prove him wrong and he has yet to.

Nice stretch though, comparing Reed to McCarthy and suggesting that all Dems are "anti-American". :rolleyes:

We better back
Rom, boys!
He's the one who'll
Beat McCarthyite
Tomboys!

Bo-4
04-04-2015, 01:51 PM
Yeah! I am guessing that my security clearance is higher than his! So unless Florida has a military that I am not aware of ?

It is not the same. And you and I both know that if Hilary was clean, that server would have been at the FBI long time ago.

She is dirty and everyone knows it. she will face questions through out the primary and general elections and she will refuse to answer and people will understand that she is crooked

This will have an influence on ONE group of folks only. People who wouldn't have voted for Hillary anyway.

Peter1469
04-04-2015, 01:52 PM
That you can even bring this up after the multiple Benghazi accusations actually made me LOL.

Not sure why. The truth about Benghazi is still being covered up because it doesn't look good for the regime.

Plus, you are weaving and dodging from the topic.

Why? Got something (else) to hide?

Bo-4
04-04-2015, 01:53 PM
That you can even bring this up after the multiple Benghazi accusations actually made me LOL.

Me too.. every damned one of them turned to dust, and yet most Republicans can't ... nay WON'T let go.

:rofl:

Bo-4
04-04-2015, 01:55 PM
Not sure why. The truth about Benghazi is still being covered up because it doesn't look good for the regime.

Plus, you are weaving and dodging from the topic.

Why? Got something (else) to hide?

You live in an alternate universe Peter. The one where a REPUBLICAN led committee didn't say there are no smoking guns on Benghazi.

Bo-4
04-04-2015, 02:01 PM
Couple things, @Bo-4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1297).

1) It's "Reid." Reed is a whole different Senator.
2) Reid pretty much admitted that he lied just to make sure Mitt Romney lost the election.

And a separate point for the rest of the forum:

3) This is why I say partisanship is like a cancer. What I've never said is that the type of cancer is brain cancer, because it makes you act like an idiot.

"Pretty much" admitting something and actually ADMITTING something is oft times a highly partisan leap in logic.

Which is probably why i question anyone who claims to be a non-partisan.

Green Arrow
04-04-2015, 02:05 PM
"Pretty much" admitting something and actually ADMITTING something is oft times a highly partisan leap in logic.

Which is probably why i question anyone who claims to be a non-partisan.

Simple logic would tell you that he was obviously lying about it, even before the interview.

And of course you question my claim of non-partisanship. You are a partisan, and I am presently speaking against your party. Ergo, says twisted partisan logic, I must be a partisan for your opposition party.

Crepitus
04-04-2015, 02:06 PM
Not sure why. The truth about Benghazi is still being covered up because it doesn't look good for the regime.

Plus, you are weaving and dodging from the topic.

Why? Got something (else) to hide?
Nope, it was a silly thing for reid to say. But McCarthyism? Really? After all the republican witch hunts?

I know which party I think is deserving of that handle.

The Sage of Main Street
04-04-2015, 02:10 PM
Care to try again? :D

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-governor-jeb-bush-used-e-mail-to-discuss-security-troop-movements/2015/03/14/0d7fae16-ca49-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html Doesn't that make Jebbers a "new McCarthyite" too? How about the House Majority Whip, Kevin McCarthy the bodysnatcher?

Bo-4
04-04-2015, 02:12 PM
Doesn't that make Jebbers a "new McCarthyite" too? How about the House Majority Whip, Kevin McCarthy the bodysnatcher?

Shhhh, everyone knows that Joe McCarthy was a left wing ideologue! ;-)

Crepitus
04-04-2015, 02:18 PM
The new McCarthyism


McCarthy tactics then and nowFrom 1953 to 1955, McCarthy held 117 hearings and even more closed-door interrogations, witch hunts for subversives that thrived on guilt by association: someone had worked for a union, dates a communist, been in a book club that read a book by Marx. Author Johnson writes that reviewing the transcripts of those sessions made it clear that McCarthy, in addition to guilt by association and character assassination, was engaged in an “obsessive hunt for homosexuals,” hounded writers, artists, and composers, attacked the reputations of military leaders.
Today’s McCarthyism has many faces and voices, including the household names of right-wing cable television, a plethora of radio hosts, Religious Right leaders, right-wing organizations and the bogus “grassroots” campaigns they generate – and Members of Congress and other Republican Party officials. Together they engage in character assassination and challenge the loyalty and patriotism of their targets.
Fox's Glenn Beck, who reaches millions of Americans with his televised tirades, has become an almost cartoonish McCarthy clone, with his guilt-by-association charts supposedly detailing the communist connections of White House officials.

read more here: http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/rise-of-the-new-mccarthyism-how-right-wing-extremists-try-to-paralyze-government-throug

Bo-4
04-04-2015, 02:30 PM
But everyone knows that McCarthy was a wild-eyed liberal .. sheesh!!

Note: This Pee Wee tactic of theirs is really getting old isn't it?

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/400x/55837788.jpg

Peter1469
04-04-2015, 02:50 PM
You live in an alternate universe Peter. The one where a REPUBLICAN led committee didn't say there are no smoking guns on Benghazi.

It is a cover up.

PolWatch
04-04-2015, 02:56 PM
The only good part of this is that he is not in the open.

Harry is finished, He pissed someone off and they took him to the wood shed. for a good old fashion ass whooping


let me guess...the Mafia? or do you believe the brother dun it? sheesh....

Ransom
04-04-2015, 02:58 PM
Anyone who says Reid was acting in good faith is a partisan or a filthy liar. Real filthy.

Filthy=knowing

PolWatch
04-04-2015, 03:00 PM
If Reid lied, all Romney had to do was provide proof. Isn't that what everyone is saying about Hillary & the e-mails? Why is it different for one party than the other? Partisan perhaps?

Ransom
04-04-2015, 03:00 PM
This will have an influence on ONE group of folks only. People who wouldn't have voted for Hillary anyway.

Baaaaaaa

del
04-04-2015, 03:00 PM
Cast-iron skillet calling the cookie sheet black.

go get your shinebox

del
04-04-2015, 03:02 PM
Right. I am anti-crook with both parties and independents alike.

lol

you just never seem to notice when it comes from the right

make an appointment with dr paul to get your eyes checked

Ransom
04-04-2015, 03:03 PM
If Reid lied, all Romney had to do was provide proof. Isn't that what everyone is saying about Hillary & the e-mails? Why is it different for one party than the other? Partisan perhaps?

Left....left, left right left.

Oh we love, the O one

del
04-04-2015, 03:04 PM
Shhhh, everyone knows that Joe McCarthy was a left wing ideologue! ;-)

like hitler, amirite?

Ransom
04-04-2015, 03:05 PM
Del, you out today too? Who left pasture gate ajar?

Best whistle for Lassie

del
04-04-2015, 03:05 PM
It is a cover up.

yeah, everyone knows issa and trey gowdy are just carrying hillary's water.

jebus

del
04-04-2015, 03:06 PM
Del, you put today too? Who left pasture gate ajar?

Best whistle for Lassie

lead paint chips aren't a snack food, montcalm

Peter1469
04-04-2015, 03:14 PM
lol

you just never seem to notice when it comes from the right

make an appointment with dr paul to get your eyes checked

Incorrect.

PolWatch
04-04-2015, 03:15 PM
Since Reagan was an informer & supporter of McCarthy, does this mean you believe he was a liberal?

Ransom
04-04-2015, 03:20 PM
lead paint chips aren't a snack food, montcalm

Graze on whatever they feed ewe, del. There's a good Dem.

zelmo1234
04-04-2015, 03:26 PM
This will have an influence on ONE group of folks only. People who wouldn't have voted for Hillary anyway.

Actually it is not because they would not have polled for her in the first place.

It is having an effect on one group but it is the independent voter. She is falling every week and we are not even running for anything yet.

That is a bad thing.

zelmo1234
04-04-2015, 03:33 PM
You live in an alternate universe Peter. The one where a REPUBLICAN led committee didn't say there are no smoking guns on Benghazi.

No smoking guns with the IRS scandal just a few computers that lost all of their Emails. Nothing to see here.

With Benghazi there is nothing to see, just rest assured that Hilary turned over everything like she said that she did, and just to make sure that you can sleep easy she had her server wiped clean So nobody could check to verify. Nothing to see here.

And Fast and Furious there was nothing to see, just because the President made a speech in Mexico City Promising to stop the guns coming into Mexico, you know the ones he was selling them and just to make sure you don't think there is any scandal he blocked congress with executive privilege to keep it hidden.

And now we have the Treaty with Iran he sad he would let congress look and debate, but I don't believe him, I wonder why!

If you keep hiding things people really start to wonder, it takes a lot of faith to believe that they are not up to something.

zelmo1234
04-04-2015, 03:34 PM
"Pretty much" admitting something and actually ADMITTING something is oft times a highly partisan leap in logic.

Which is probably why i question anyone who claims to be a non-partisan.

But I seem to remember the Bush lied people died? what about that? It would seem that your side should have been defending Bush?

Howey
04-04-2015, 03:39 PM
Wait...what? Did you really just say that?
Before I pass out in a drug induced sleep (as opposed to a self induced wink) can I ask a question?

How 8's this any different than the accusations Hillary destroyed emails when 5her is absolutely no proof?

And really Peter1469? All liberals all McCarthy it's because Reid made a stupid election year lie?

First, when I come to would you like me to pull out all the lies spread by republican candidates in 2012?

And second, we're not the ones accusing members of the opposite party of being commie infiltrators. Look at every other post by your fellow teabaggers on here. Hell just look at just the Obama claims, tail gunner Peter!

zelmo1234
04-04-2015, 03:40 PM
let me guess...the Mafia? or do you believe the brother dun it? sheesh....

What I can tell you is his injury did not come from a fall. I would guess that he promised a political favor and cold not come through. or he might have tried blackmail someone like X's

But there is not enough force in his small body size to cause that injury even if he was hanging from the ceiling by his feet. and slipping we would assume that he would have tried to break his fall and that sure did not happen.

Try not to over think it, because it involves facts and those are really hard for the left to understand.

Howey
04-04-2015, 03:41 PM
Let's start here tail gunner Peter1469

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jan/23/fact-checking-tampa-republican-debate/

Peter1469
04-04-2015, 03:41 PM
Yes really.

Wishing you the best Howey.
Before I pass out in a drug induced sleep (as opposed to a self induced wink) can I ask a question?

How 8's this any different than the accusations Hillary destroyed emails when 5her is absolutely no proof?

And really @Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10)? All liberals all McCarthy it's because Reid made a stupid election year lie?

First, when I come to would you like me to pull out all the lies spread by republican candidates in 2012?

And second, we're not the ones accusing members of the opposite party of being commie infiltrators. Look at every other post by your fellow teabaggers on here. Hell just look at just the Obama claims, tail gunner Peter!

zelmo1234
04-04-2015, 03:44 PM
lol

you just never seem to notice when it comes from the right

make an appointment with dr paul to get your eyes checked

Del you could be right, we are all blind to our own beliefs.

Would you mind pointing out what investigations the Republicans are blocking evidence from coming before a committee. by any means. Or if there is a situation where a republican had their server wiped clean when they were under investigation, or did Bush use executive privilege on something, I am sure that he did. Or are there lost emails.

I promise you that I will ask for the republicans to be held accountable too.

PolWatch
04-04-2015, 03:51 PM
What I can tell you is his injury did not come from a fall. I would guess that he promised a political favor and cold not come through. or he might have tried blackmail someone like X's

But there is not enough force in his small body size to cause that injury even if he was hanging from the ceiling by his feet. and slipping we would assume that he would have tried to break his fall and that sure did not happen.

Try not to over think it, because it involves facts and those are really hard for the left to understand.

I hate to tell you this but as an older person, we injury differently than younger people. I ended up with a black eye & bad bruises all over my body from a fall on my steps....without any assistance from another person. If you want to believe & spread silly rumors, continue.

I have tried to explain why the left isn't paying much attention to the e-mail issue. Non-issues and rumor mongering like this is exactly why. The right is trying so hard to spread mud that they just look silly. Things like this have an air of desperation about them....

donttread
04-04-2015, 05:35 PM
Harry Reid is McCarthy 2.0 (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416397/liberals-are-new-mccarthyites-and-theyre-proud-it-john-fund)


Harry Reid took to the floor of the Senate during the last election and claimed that Romney hasn't paid his taxes. Reid knew this was a lie. But he said it anyway.

Last week a reporter actually confronted Reid about this lie that helped turn the election.

Reid responded: "He didn't win, did he." Even worse, some in the "media" defended Reid. Basically stating that politicians lie and it is the media's job to sort it out. The first point is a cop out. The second is a joke. The MSM supported Reid's lie at the time because they are on the same side. Anti-America.

That's why we have to take the money out of politics

del
04-04-2015, 08:44 PM
Incorrect.

lol

del
04-04-2015, 08:47 PM
What I can tell you is his injury did not come from a fall. I would guess that he promised a political favor and cold not come through. or he might have tried blackmail someone like X's

But there is not enough force in his small body size to cause that injury even if he was hanging from the ceiling by his feet. and slipping we would assume that he would have tried to break his fall and that sure did not happen.

Try not to over think it, because it involves facts and those are really hard for the left to understand.

were you there?

are you a doctor? a forensic specialist?

at least you're in no danger of over thinking it.

del
04-04-2015, 08:54 PM
Del you could be right, we are all blind to our own beliefs.

Would you mind pointing out what investigations the Republicans are blocking evidence from coming before a committee. by any means. Or if there is a situation where a republican had their server wiped clean when they were under investigation, or did Bush use executive privilege on something, I am sure that he did. Or are there lost emails.

I promise you that I will ask for the republicans to be held accountable too.

i don't engage in *ma, he did it too*, but since you asked, i'll point out that bush issued over 160 signing statements to circumvent acts of congress that he didn't like and 291 executive orders.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/

and then there's the 18 minute gap from watergate...

Dr. Who
04-04-2015, 11:06 PM
NO it is real clear because Reid himself admitted that he lied, and knew the truth before he hit the Senate floor.

that is the character of the people on the left?
This is the character of ambitious politicians. It has little to do with ideology. There is nothing particularly ideological about party politics. They simply superficially pander to the population and do what they want when no one is looking. The voting public is so naive. RINO and DINO are really the tells. There is no difference between the two. Minimal hot button issues to appease the public's need to perceive a difference, but at the end of the day, they are serving the same masters and it's not the public.

Dr. Who
04-04-2015, 11:18 PM
What I can tell you is his injury did not come from a fall. I would guess that he promised a political favor and cold not come through. or he might have tried blackmail someone like X's

But there is not enough force in his small body size to cause that injury even if he was hanging from the ceiling by his feet. and slipping we would assume that he would have tried to break his fall and that sure did not happen.

Try not to over think it, because it involves facts and those are really hard for the left to understand.
The elderly suffer from osteoporosis and bruise like bananas. You cannot compare the degree of injury that a simple fall can cause to an elderly person to that sustained by someone who is younger. I'm no fan of Harry Reid, but I won't infer that he was attacked by mobsters or other nogoodniks, because if he were, he would have been in far worse shape and his injuries would not be concentrated to various points on one side of his face alone.

zelmo1234
04-05-2015, 06:52 AM
The elderly suffer from osteoporosis and bruise like bananas. You cannot compare the degree of injury that a simple fall can cause to an elderly person to that sustained by someone who is younger. I'm no fan of Harry Reid, but I won't infer that he was attacked by mobsters or other nogoodniks, because if he were, he would have been in far worse shape and his injuries would not be concentrated to various points on one side of his face alone.

Yeah! I am pretty good with injuries and that happened from a series of descending blows, so unless he was walking in his hands, that is BS

And calling someone that would attack Harry Read a no good nik ?????? Are you sure. maybe that is exactly what the little kids posing as adults in DC need a good spanking :)

Dr. Who
04-05-2015, 05:56 PM
Yeah! I am pretty good with injuries and that happened from a series of descending blows, so unless he was walking in his hands, that is BS

And calling someone that would attack Harry Read a no good nik ?????? Are you sure. maybe that is exactly what the little kids posing as adults in DC need a good spanking :)
And if an elderly person falls and one side of his face hits the gym equipment, he would have bruising and damage to the bones on one side of his face, whereas if he was being struck by a malevolent party the damage would likely be inflicted bilaterally to the eyes, nose and mouth as well as to the rib and abdominal region. I've never seen anyone take blows on one side alone in a fight. Perhaps if he was struck once by an oddly shaped object, he could have two separate areas of damage on one side of his face, but a fall against gym equipment is more likely.

Mac-7
04-05-2015, 06:12 PM
This is the character of ambitious politicians. It has little to do with ideology. There is nothing particularly ideological about party politics. They simply superficially pander to the population and do what they want when no one is looking. The voting public is so naive. RINO and DINO are really the tells. There is no difference between the two. Minimal hot button issues to appease the public's need to perceive a difference, but at the end of the day, they are serving the same masters and it's not the public.

We try to be as perfect as you, Dr Who.

But it's not so easy as you make it sound.

Green Arrow
04-05-2015, 06:13 PM
I find it interesting that nobody was really questioning his exercise equipment accident story until Rush Limbaugh did. Even more interesting, Limbaugh's specific criticism was that it looked like someone beat the snot out of him, and that's the suddenly prevailing theory about the "true" story.

I'm sure there's no coincidence there.

Peter1469
04-05-2015, 07:21 PM
My first reaction was one of those Bow Flex machines - a band snapping. That can really hurt you, but leave a distinguished wound. Not only a black eye.

Mister D
04-05-2015, 07:23 PM
My first reaction was one of those Bow Flex machines - a band snapping. That can really hurt you, but leave a distinguished wound. Not only a black eye.

They suck. I snapped three bands in as many months.

maineman
04-05-2015, 09:21 PM
Anyone who says Reid was acting in good faith is a partisan or a filthy liar. Real filthy.
anyone who thinks that politics in America has EVER been a G-Rated upstanding enterprise needs their fucking heads examined. Politics has ALWAYS been dirty and both sides have ALWAYS gotten down in the gutter to practice it whenever they felt they could use it to their advantage. Grow the fuck up and quit acting like a baby.

zelmo1234
04-05-2015, 09:22 PM
And if an elderly person falls and one side of his face hits the gym equipment, he would have bruising and damage to the bones on one side of his face, whereas if he was being struck by a malevolent party the damage would likely be inflicted bilaterally to the eyes, nose and mouth as well as to the rib and abdominal region. I've never seen anyone take blows on one side alone in a fight. Perhaps if he was struck once by an oddly shaped object, he could have two separate areas of damage on one side of his face, but a fall against gym equipment is more likely.

Harry would not be fighting he is a liberal democrat and a coward. If I had to guess he was sitting in a chair! and the person striking him was over 6 feet tall and left handed.

Green Arrow
04-05-2015, 09:22 PM
anyone who thinks that politics in America has EVER been a G-Rated upstanding enterprise needs their fucking heads examined. Politics has ALWAYS been dirty and both sides have ALWAYS gotten down in the gutter to practice it whenever they felt they could use it to their advantage. Grow the fuck up and quit acting like a baby.

So we should just accept the dirtiness of it and go along with it?

Some of us have moral standards that we like to uphold.

Mister D
04-05-2015, 09:23 PM
So we should just accept the dirtiness of it and go along with it?

Some of us have moral standards that we like to uphold.

He'd be upholding them too if this thread was about a Republican. There is just no integrity here...

zelmo1234
04-05-2015, 09:24 PM
I find it interesting that nobody was really questioning his exercise equipment accident story until Rush Limbaugh did. Even more interesting, Limbaugh's specific criticism was that it looked like someone beat the snot out of him, and that's the suddenly prevailing theory about the "true" story.

I'm sure there's no coincidence there.

I did not know that Rush was the one that started it, but for me it was his timely decision not to run again.

Green Arrow
04-05-2015, 09:25 PM
I did not know that Rush was the one that started it, but for me it was his timely decision not to run again.

He's fucking old, dude, and a fading power. The fact that he has been forced to confront his own mortality is reason enough for him to decide to quit Congress. He doesn't want to end up like Pelosi, turning senile while still serving in Congress and constantly in the public eye.

maineman
04-05-2015, 09:32 PM
So we should just accept the dirtiness of it and go along with it?

Some of us have moral standards that we like to uphold.

but yet, you vote for one of the two party's candidates don't you?

Green Arrow
04-05-2015, 09:33 PM
but yet, you vote for one of the two party's candidates don't you?

Only if I find them morally acceptable. So far, if my option is going to be Hillary or Jeb, I won't be.

maineman
04-05-2015, 09:35 PM
Only if I find them morally acceptable. So far, if my option is going to be Hillary or Jeb, I won't be.

and you think that surrogates and operatives from both parties have not been playing dirty politics since before you were fucking BORN?????? And YET you somehow were able to find their candidates morally acceptable. How incredibly discerning of you!

Dr. Who
04-05-2015, 09:38 PM
Harry would not be fighting he is a liberal democrat and a coward. If I had to guess he was sitting in a chair! and the person striking him was over 6 feet tall and left handed.
I think that people are getting ginned up by wishful thinking.

Green Arrow
04-05-2015, 09:45 PM
and you think that surrogates and operatives from both parties have not been playing dirty politics since before you were fucking BORN?????? And YET you somehow were able to find their candidates morally acceptable. How incredibly discerning of you!

You are making a lot of assumptions when you have no idea who I vote for.

maineman
04-05-2015, 09:49 PM
You are making a lot of assumptions when you have no idea who I vote for.

you said you voted for one of the major party's candidates when you find them morally acceptable. The way that was phrased certainly implies that there were times when you did find them so. In which case, I ask you, if a candidate's campaign team spends all the time in the gutter and the mud so that their standard bearer can keep his shoes clean, that's perfectly OK with you?

Green Arrow
04-05-2015, 09:54 PM
you said you voted for one of the major party's candidates when you find them morally acceptable. The way that was phrased certainly implies that there were times when you did find them so. In which case, I ask you, if a candidate's campaign team spends all the time in the gutter and the mud so that their standard bearer can keep his shoes clean, that's perfectly OK with you?

No, I said I WOULD vote for one of them if I found them morally acceptable. "Would" as in I might in the future, but haven't necessarily done so already.

But no, I think I've made it pretty clear that I loathe dirty politics and have no intention of voting for someone who engages in it unless there is no other option.

gamewell45
04-05-2015, 10:28 PM
99% of all politicians lie in order to get elected to public office. It's the way it's always been and most likely the way it'll always be. I sure that most of you whom post in here must be aware of that, so it shouldn't come to anyone's surprise here.

Just another reason why I'd never sign up with any political party. These guys remind of vacuum salesman; they'll tell you anything to get you to buy their product.

Captain Obvious
04-05-2015, 10:35 PM
The average progressive has no idea who McCarthy is.

gamewell45
04-05-2015, 10:54 PM
The average progressive has no idea who McCarthy is.

The Senator was just a drunken buffoon who tried to create a name for himself and destroyed many lives with his delusion's of paranoia.

For those progressives and conservatives who want to be educated, I'm posting a link to the moron's biography.

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

zelmo1234
04-06-2015, 03:21 AM
I think that people are getting ginned up by wishful thinking.

I think that his wound is impossible form a treadmill, unless he was walking on his hands

Peter1469
04-06-2015, 04:12 AM
anyone who thinks that politics in America has EVER been a G-Rated upstanding enterprise needs their fucking heads examined. Politics has ALWAYS been dirty and both sides have ALWAYS gotten down in the gutter to practice it whenever they felt they could use it to their advantage. Grow the fuck up and quit acting like a baby.

Harry Reid was beyond the pale.

Peter1469
04-06-2015, 04:13 AM
So we should just accept the dirtiness of it and go along with it?

Some of us have moral standards that we like to uphold.

And some don't. Like the clown you responded to.

Dr. Who
04-06-2015, 07:39 AM
I think that his wound is impossible form a treadmill, unless he was walking on his hands
I heard that he was using those rubber bands for resistance training and the band snapped, presumably sending him flying.

Peter1469
04-06-2015, 07:41 AM
I heard that he was using those rubber bands for resistance training and the band snapped, presumably sending him flying.

If that were the case he would have a long bruise rather than a fist sized bruise. :smiley:

Dr. Who
04-06-2015, 07:49 AM
If that were the case he would have a long bruise rather than a fist sized bruise. :smiley:
He had two large bruises on the right side of his face - one on the right side of the orbital socket and upper cheek bone and one lower on the side of his jaw.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/02/25/260B913700000578-0-image-m-8_1424825518555.jpg

Peter1469
04-06-2015, 07:51 AM
Doesn't look like a thick rubber band. Looks like two left crosses.

Probably to teach him a lesson.

del
04-06-2015, 08:39 AM
^
walked by tulane med school more than once

forensics expert

texan
04-06-2015, 08:42 AM
Reid SUSPECTED that Mittens didn't pay his paltry 13% of capital gains in all those tax years he refused to make public (George Romney provided 12 years worth of his).

So yes, the burden was on Willard to prove him wrong and he has yet to.

Nice stretch though, comparing Reed to McCarthy and suggesting that all Dems are "anti-American". :rolleyes:


Really? Suspected? You gonna roll with this shit? I suspect you raped a girl in college.


See how lying and low character work? Well hell you evidently do since you are making excuses for it.

maineman
04-06-2015, 08:42 AM
And some don't. Like the clown you responded to.

I ain't no clown, asshole. I have my own moral standards regarding my own personal behavior and I do a pretty good job of upholding them. I am old enough and wise enough to know exactly how politics is played - and fought - and I know that Marquess of Queensberry's rules have never been used - a lesson you obviously have not yet learned. Politics has been dirty since the days of Weed and Polk or Sackville-West and Cleveland. EVERY election sees both political parties using whatever advantage they can garner or create. To suggest that one party does it and the other party doesn't is beyond silly. To say that either party has EVER refrained from it is equally silly.

texan
04-06-2015, 08:45 AM
Sometimes people are just wrong and sometimes they are wrong and just a bad person. This guy is both. Why anyone would want to defend his actions are mind boggling. Politics before all?????? Jesus liberals.

nic34
04-06-2015, 08:49 AM
The ass beating was a coincidence.

If it was an ass beating, and I don't think it was, it only shows the lack of civility of the right having to resort to violence. But what else is new with neocons....

Howey
04-06-2015, 08:50 AM
I ain't no clown, $#@!. I have my own moral standards regarding my own personal behavior and I do a pretty good job of upholding them. I am old enough and wise enough to know exactly how politics is played - and fought - and I know that Marquess of Queensberry's rules have never been used - a lesson you obviously have not yet learned. Politics has been dirty since the days of Weed and Polk or Sackville-West and Cleveland. EVERY election sees both political parties using whatever advantage they can garner or create. To suggest that one party does it and the other party doesn't is beyond silly. To say that either party has EVER refrained from it is equally silly.

This place is getting more and more like JPP every day, isn't it maineman?

Ignored insults and name calling by conservative members, hell even the conservative mods!
I came here because one used to be able to discuss politics without trolling by conservatives on a mission. Guess it's time to find a new forum, or rejuvenate mine.

nic34
04-06-2015, 08:57 AM
If that were the case he would have a long bruise rather than a fist sized bruise. :smiley:

You must have attended the Bill Frist school of long distance diagnosis.

nic34
04-06-2015, 08:58 AM
This place is getting more and more like JPP every day, isn't it @maineman (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1289)?

Ignored insults and name calling by conservative members, hell even the conservative mods!
I came here because one used to be able to discuss politics without trolling by conservatives on a mission. Guess it's time to find a new forum, or rejuvenate mine.

It's virtually the same everywhere....

maineman
04-06-2015, 09:00 AM
I ain't no clown, $#@!. I have my own moral standards regarding my own personal behavior and I do a pretty good job of upholding them. I am old enough and wise enough to know exactly how politics is played - and fought - and I know that Marquess of Queensberry's rules have never been used - a lesson you obviously have not yet learned. Politics has been dirty since the days of Weed and Polk or Sackville-West and Cleveland. EVERY election sees both political parties using whatever advantage they can garner or create. To suggest that one party does it and the other party doesn't is beyond silly. To say that either party has EVER refrained from it is equally silly.

bottom line Petey: if you have EVER voted for a candidate from an organized political party, you have voted for a politician whose campaign played dirty. You hands have NEVER been clean.

Peter1469
04-06-2015, 09:17 AM
^
walked by tulane med school more than once

forensics expert

That is not a safe part of town dude. :smiley:

Peter1469
04-06-2015, 09:18 AM
I ain't no clown, asshole. I have my own moral standards regarding my own personal behavior and I do a pretty good job of upholding them. I am old enough and wise enough to know exactly how politics is played - and fought - and I know that Marquess of Queensberry's rules have never been used - a lesson you obviously have not yet learned. Politics has been dirty since the days of Weed and Polk or Sackville-West and Cleveland. EVERY election sees both political parties using whatever advantage they can garner or create. To suggest that one party does it and the other party doesn't is beyond silly. To say that either party has EVER refrained from it is equally silly.

http://www.sanborns.com.mx/img/1200/7891010005047.jpg

del
04-06-2015, 09:18 AM
That is not a safe part of town dude. :smiley:

so you haven't even done that?

you're to forensics what ransom is to military science lol

Peter1469
04-06-2015, 09:19 AM
If it was an ass beating, and I don't think it was, it only shows the lack of civility of the right having to resort to violence. But what else is new with neocons....

Probably the mob or some lib he didn't come through for on a political favor.

del
04-06-2015, 09:20 AM
probably some nutball ex-military member of the tea party(ies), imo

Peter1469
04-06-2015, 09:21 AM
You guys still don't get it. If Reid can make up stories about Mitt, people can make up stories about Reid.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr9fAT58HvY

Peter1469
04-06-2015, 09:21 AM
:smiley:

del
04-06-2015, 09:22 AM
You guys still don't get it. If Reid can make up stories about Mitt, people can make up stories about Reid.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr9fAT58HvY

when did you stop cruising for rough trade?

is that why you're giving away all your ky jelly?

Peter1469
04-06-2015, 09:23 AM
wut?

maineman
04-06-2015, 09:25 AM
http://www.sanborns.com.mx/img/1200/7891010005047.jpg

why am I not surprised that you are quite familiar with that particular product?

The Sage of Main Street
04-06-2015, 02:32 PM
Shhhh, everyone knows that Joe McCarthy was a left wing ideologue! ;-) If Liberals are the "New McCarthyites," it must be because the Rethuglican fraternity-brother clique is the New Communism. They even call themselves "Red States."

The Sage of Main Street
04-06-2015, 02:55 PM
http://www.sanborns.com.mx/img/1200/7891010005047.jpg
why am I not surprised that you are quite familiar with that particular product? KY stands for "Keester Yowser."

Green Arrow
04-06-2015, 03:41 PM
del, I'm not surprised maineman is missing the point of Pete's posts, but you're usually sharper than that.

del
04-06-2015, 03:44 PM
@del (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=770), I'm not surprised maineman is missing the point of Pete's posts, but you're usually sharper than that.

frankly, i think he meant the crap he posted, despite his belated protestations to the contrary

*shrug

maineman
04-06-2015, 03:52 PM
@del (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=770), I'm not surprised maineman is missing the point of Pete's posts, but you're usually sharper than that.

Pete is suggesting that he doesn't vote for politicians who play the game other than by the Marquess of Queensberry Rules. If he truly believes that, he's either dumber than a sack of hair, or a liar, or he has never voted. I personally don't care which. But one of them is definitely a correct description.

See if you can avoid missing THAT point, mmmmmkay?

Green Arrow
04-06-2015, 03:56 PM
Pete is suggesting that he doesn't vote for politicians who play the game other than by the Marquess of Queensberry Rules. If he truly believes that, he's either dumber than a sack of hair, or a liar, or he has never voted. I personally don't care which. But one of them is definitely a correct description.

See if you can avoid missing THAT point, mmmmmkay?

I'm really not talking about that. I find your opinion on that matter to be pretty ridiculous, but that's beside the point.

maineman
04-06-2015, 03:59 PM
I'm really not talking about that. I find your opinion on that matter to be pretty ridiculous, but that's beside the point.

what part would be ridiculous? the part where I believe that politics in America has been played in the gutter since the dawn of the republic?

Bob
04-06-2015, 04:04 PM
If Reid lied, all Romney had to do was provide proof. Isn't that what everyone is saying about Hillary & the e-mails? Why is it different for one party than the other? Partisan perhaps?

Funny pitting one Mormon against another Mormon.

Green Arrow
04-06-2015, 04:07 PM
what part would be ridiculous? the part where I believe that politics in America has been played in the gutter since the dawn of the republic?

No, the part where you are aggressively belittling anyone that dares to suggest that you're right that politics is dirty, but we shouldn't be okay with that.

maineman
04-06-2015, 05:09 PM
No, the part where you are aggressively belittling anyone that dares to suggest that you're right that politics is dirty, but we shouldn't be okay with that.

how does "not being okay with that" actually play out in your daily life? Does it cause you to NOT vote for political candidates? Does it cause you to vote based primarily on which candidate is more "clean" in their approach to campaigning without caring much about what they actually stand for? What do you intend to actually DO about playing rough in politics beyond whining about it on a message board?

nic34
04-06-2015, 05:19 PM
how does "not being okay with that" actually play out in your daily life? Does it cause you to NOT vote for political candidates? Does it cause you to vote based primarily on which candidate is more "clean" in their approach to campaigning without caring much about what they actually stand for? What do you intend to actually DO about playing rough in politics beyond whining about it on a message board?

How in the world does anyone claim to vote solely for the "clean candidate" when money has all but engulfed politics?

Who was it that is planning on spending $889 billion in 2016?

Mister D
04-06-2015, 05:27 PM
I'm sure it would go over well if anyone tried to excuse a Republican by claiming "that's just politics". The threads about American politics on this forum are a joke. No offense to anyone. They just are.

Green Arrow
04-06-2015, 05:47 PM
how does "not being okay with that" actually play out in your daily life? Does it cause you to NOT vote for political candidates? Does it cause you to vote based primarily on which candidate is more "clean" in their approach to campaigning without caring much about what they actually stand for? What do you intend to actually DO about playing rough in politics beyond whining about it on a message board?

Let's see if we can turn this into a productive discussion. First, start by defining what, to you, "dirty" means when applied to American politics. Let's first make sure we agree on that much.

maineman
04-06-2015, 07:27 PM
Let's see if we can turn this into a productive discussion. First, start by defining what, to you, "dirty" means when applied to American politics. Let's first make sure we agree on that much.

Well... since I am the guy who thinks that pretty much anything goes as long as no one loses an eye, why don't we start with YOU defining what dirty means to you insofar as it would, in and of itself, be enough to get you to vote for someone else or no one at all? For me... I will ALWAYS vote for the democrat, as long as the democratic party platform is more in step with my personal political philosophy than the GOP platform. It has been for the first 64+ years of my life, but I DO take the time, each election season, to read the platforms of both parties and decide, yet again, which party I will support in the presidential election - and I make that choice regardless of how "dirty" either party had been during the campaign.... and even THAT, I suppose, has limits. If the democratic party presidential candidate, it was discovered, had authorized a glass full of acid to be thrown in the face of his GOP challenger, I could see myself not voting for president that year. How's that?

MisterVeritis
04-06-2015, 07:31 PM
Reid SUSPECTED that Mittens didn't pay his paltry 13% of capital gains in all those tax years he refused to make public (George Romney provided 12 years worth of his).

So yes, the burden was on Willard to prove him wrong and he has yet to.

Nice stretch though, comparing Reed to McCarthy and suggesting that all Dems are "anti-American". :rolleyes:
Wait! All liberals, democrats, national socialists, international socialists, garden variety socialists, fascists, libertarian leftists and whatever other name statists periodically give themselves are not anti-American? What would you/they do differently if they/you were anti-American?

MisterVeritis
04-06-2015, 07:35 PM
Is the burden of proof on the accused or not? If so why are you guy letting Hilary get away with destruction of evidence

Or are you a Hypocrite?
Hypocritic Oath?

Yeah, they all take it. "Do all the wrong you can to the other guy. Just don't get caught."

MisterVeritis
04-06-2015, 07:38 PM
when did you stop cruising for rough trade?

is that why you're giving away all your ky jelly?
Rough trade? Is that a term of art?

Green Arrow
04-06-2015, 08:46 PM
Well... since I am the guy who thinks that pretty much anything goes as long as no one loses an eye, why don't we start with YOU defining what dirty means to you insofar as it would, in and of itself, be enough to get you to vote for someone else or no one at all?

To me, a dirty campaign is a campaign that brings family or physical maladies into the discourse. For example, Republicans calling Michele Obama "Moochele," Democrats making fun of Sarah Palin's retarded kid, Republicans mocking Tammy Duckworth's disability or Democrats mocking Greg Abbott's disability. A dirty campaign is also one that takes money from dubious sources.

zelmo1234
04-06-2015, 08:52 PM
Doesn't look like a thick rubber band. Looks like two left crosses.

Probably to teach him a lesson.

The boy was sitting in a chair and it would appear that the first blow did not get the point across.

I suspect that he promised a donor that he would retire and was going to go back on his word

Ransom
04-07-2015, 06:22 AM
Well... since I am the guy who thinks that pretty much anything goes as long as no one loses an eye, why don't we start with YOU defining what dirty means to you insofar as it would, in and of itself, be enough to get you to vote for someone else or no one at all? For me... I will ALWAYS vote for the democrat, as long as the democratic party platform is more in step with my personal political philosophy than the GOP platform. It has been for the first 64+ years of my life, but I DO take the time, each election season, to read the platforms of both parties and decide, yet again, which party I will support in the presidential election - and I make that choice regardless of how "dirty" either party had been during the campaign.... and even THAT, I suppose, has limits. If the democratic party presidential candidate, it was discovered, had authorized a glass full of acid to be thrown in the face of his GOP challenger, I could see myself not voting for president that year. How's that?

=Bergdahl innocent until proven guilty but Zimmerman should be in jail despite his acquittal. Same sh!t, different day hypocrisy. Moving on.

maineman
04-07-2015, 06:26 AM
To me, a dirty campaign is a campaign that brings family or physical maladies into the discourse. For example, Republicans calling Michele Obama "Moochele," Democrats making fun of Sarah Palin's retarded kid, Republicans mocking Tammy Duckworth's disability or Democrats mocking Greg Abbott's disability. A dirty campaign is also one that takes money from dubious sources.

So... would any of those instances - on their own - be enough for you to vote for the other guy, even if the other guy's politics were diametrically opposed to yours?

Green Arrow
04-07-2015, 08:09 AM
So... would any of those instances - on their own - be enough for you to vote for the other guy, even if the other guy's politics were diametrically opposed to yours?

If I thought the other guy was honest and consistent, yeah.

maineman
04-07-2015, 09:24 AM
so.... if the guy would enact laws that were against your beliefs on abortion, on the environment, on tax policy, on education, on foreign policy and every other hot button issue you might have, as long as he was honest and didn't name call, you'd want him to be your president?

Green Arrow
04-07-2015, 03:45 PM
so.... if the guy would enact laws that were against your beliefs on abortion, on the environment, on tax policy, on education, on foreign policy and every other hot button issue you might have, as long as he was honest and didn't name call, you'd want him to be your president?

He wouldn't be my first choice, but yeah, if he was honest and consistent I'd still vote for him even if I disagreed with him on every issue.

MisterVeritis
04-07-2015, 08:00 PM
To me, a dirty campaign is a campaign that brings family or physical maladies into the discourse. For example, Republicans calling Michele Obama "Moochele," Democrats making fun of Sarah Palin's retarded kid, Republicans mocking Tammy Duckworth's disability or Democrats mocking Greg Abbott's disability. A dirty campaign is also one that takes money from dubious sources.
Moochele is deep in politics. I am surprised you are not aware of her intrusive, unelected behavior.

Green Arrow
04-07-2015, 08:38 PM
Moochele is deep in politics. I am surprised you are not aware of her intrusive, unelected behavior.

I don't give a fuck. Every First Lady whose name anyone alive today remembers was involved in a political cause (that's why you know their names), including Laura Bush and Nancy Reagan. I wouldn't drag any of those women's names through the mud even if they supported a cause I was diametrically opposed to.

But then, I believe in class. You might not.

maineman
04-07-2015, 08:46 PM
He wouldn't be my first choice, but yeah, if he was honest and consistent I'd still vote for him even if I disagreed with him on every issue.

who would be this mythical first choice of yours that you would forsake for this honest and consistent man?

Green Arrow
04-07-2015, 08:49 PM
who would be this mythical first choice of yours that you would forsake for this honest and consistent man?

That is a question I can only answer with an actual election in front of me. But if we use the 2016 presidential election as a guide...my first choice of those running would be Rand Paul.

maineman
04-07-2015, 08:51 PM
That is a question I can only answer with an actual election in front of me. But if we use the 2016 presidential election as a guide...my first choice of those running would be Rand Paul.

and, were he to somehow garner the GOP nomination, and then, you found out that the RNC was playing dirty politics on his behalf, who would you vote for THEN?

Green Arrow
04-07-2015, 09:01 PM
and, were he to somehow garner the GOP nomination, and then, you found out that the RNC was playing dirty politics on his behalf, who would you vote for THEN?

If the RNC was playing dirty politics to try and help him win the election, but he did not support those dirty politics, I'd still vote for him. If he did support them playing dirty politics for him, I'd vote for whoever the Libertarian or Green Party nominees will be. Which probably means Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.

maineman
04-07-2015, 09:04 PM
If the RNC was playing dirty politics to try and help him win the election, but he did not support those dirty politics, I'd still vote for him. If he did support them playing dirty politics for him, I'd vote for whoever the Libertarian or Green Party nominees will be. Which probably means Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.

Do you honestly think that Paul could be SO independent of the party that nominated him that he would publicly condemn their nefarious efforts on his behalf?

maineman
04-07-2015, 09:04 PM
and see... we CAN have a civil and productive discussion.

Green Arrow
04-07-2015, 09:05 PM
Do you honestly think that Paul could be SO independent of the party that nominated him that he would publicly condemn their nefarious efforts on his behalf?

Considering the party brass has been doing everything they possibly can to take him down before his candidacy even began...yeah, I'm pretty confident they aren't on good terms.

maineman
04-07-2015, 09:11 PM
Considering the party brass has been doing everything they possibly can to take him down before his candidacy even began...yeah, I'm pretty confident they aren't on good terms.

not on good terms? of course not.... but if Rand pulls off the miracle and somehow navigates his way through the gauntlet of teabag strewn debates and primaries and - against all odds and against the wishes of the RNC - wins the republican nomination for president....... don't you think he's gonna wanna avail himself of the organizational power that the RNC brings to the table?

Green Arrow
04-07-2015, 09:17 PM
not on good terms? of course not.... but if Rand pulls off the miracle and somehow navigates his way through the gauntlet of teabag strewn debates and primaries and - against all odds and against the wishes of the RNC - wins the republican nomination for president....... don't you think he's gonna wanna avail himself of the organizational power that the RNC brings to the table?

Sure. That does not mean he would approve of every action they take on his behalf, but whatever. I already answered your question. If he did approve I'd likely vote for one of the third party candidates.

MisterVeritis
04-07-2015, 09:17 PM
I don't give a $#@!. Every First Lady whose name anyone alive today remembers was involved in a political cause (that's why you know their names), including Laura Bush and Nancy Reagan. I wouldn't drag any of those women's names through the mud even if they supported a cause I was diametrically opposed to.

But then, I believe in class. You might not.
If Moochele had class she would not be mandating what children in our schools are eating. Nice try though. I have read your posts. Class? Does someone with class have to swear to make a point? I think not.

Give Moochele a hug.

maineman
04-07-2015, 09:19 PM
Sure. That does not mean he would approve of every action they take on his behalf, but whatever. I already answered your question. If he did approve I'd likely vote for one of the third party candidates.

wouldn't he have to actively DISAPPROVE in order to maintain your support?

Green Arrow
04-07-2015, 09:28 PM
wouldn't he have to actively DISAPPROVE in order to maintain your support?

Nope. As long as he doesn't actively approve.

maineman
04-07-2015, 09:43 PM
Nope. As long as he doesn't actively approve.
tacit approval would be acceptable? I mean, really.... do you think his inner circle campaign staff wouldn't know and wouldn't tell him?

Green Arrow
04-07-2015, 10:04 PM
tacit approval would be acceptable? I mean, really.... do you think his inner circle campaign staff wouldn't know and wouldn't tell him?

Considering our political climate, tacit approval of something done by someone else is something I can overlook. It's not like I have a wealth of good options out there.

del
04-07-2015, 10:08 PM
that's a distinction without a difference, imo

Green Arrow
04-07-2015, 10:10 PM
that's a distinction without a difference, imo

And you have a right to that opinion. I value my right to vote very highly and unfortunately often have to be pragmatic, rather than idealistic, about how it is cast.

maineman
04-07-2015, 10:13 PM
which is why I will hold my nose and vote for the democrat, even if he or she is not my favorite or has not run the cleanest of campaigns. My team's platform and ideals are THAT important to me.

Green Arrow
04-07-2015, 10:15 PM
which is why I will hold my nose and vote for the democrat, even if he or she is not my favorite or has not run the cleanest of campaigns. My team's platform and ideals are THAT important to me.

Your platform isn't worth a hill of beans if the candidates do not act according to that platform. And what is ideological purity worth in the hands of a Hitler or Stalin?

maineman
04-07-2015, 10:40 PM
If MY party ever nominated a Hitler or a Stalin, I would be forced to confront that question. As it stands, nobody ever nominated by MY party comes close.