Sen. Harry Reid Got $1M in Land Deal

Uh-oh! This doesn't look so good....

It's worth reading the entire story.

 

Now Carpro... I would say something about us thinking alike...

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=34327


but I won't.. I just post the link instead.


Jamie

 

Carpro

Does this mean that they are in agreement that this would be a wrong thing for a politician to do?

Wayne

 

Reid's pending dificulties pale in comparison to the evil deeds of Dennis Hastert. We simply must try to run Hastert out of office.........at least until the elections are over. Reid has done nothing any other Damnolcrat wouldn't do if they could get away with it.

 

Yea, it's all those dirty democrats fault.:sleep:

 

Why, of course, Terry!!

Regards,
BiR

 

So lying on a financial report about $1,000,000 pales in comparison to not having an investigation about something you apparently didn't know about?

And people wonder why this country is so messed up ... It is because of this kind of moral equivocation where lying is okay and telling the truth is not, depending on what side of the aisle you are on.

 

The entire state of politics in the United States is so sad right now.

 

Or, to put it another way, being careless about paperwork pales in comparison to covering up a criminal act in order to maintain a political advantage?

Back at 'cha.

 

Notice the bias at work. You assume Reid was careless. If he was a Republican, you would likely assume that he was covering up his connections with a shady financial deal with a lobbyist.

You assume Hastert covererd up a criminal act was. There is no evidence of that as of yet. I have routinely appealed to wait until the full story is known.

I say the same thing about Reid. This news was out several days ago, but we need to find out what the whole deal is before we cast judgment.

Why won't you join me in that plea?

Your bias seems to routinely cause you to defend Democrats while lambasting Republicans. The truth is that there are a good number on both sides that need defending, and a greater number that needs lambasting. But let's do it on facts, not on assertions and presumptions. Let's wait until all the evidence is in.

 

In fact, I had noticed.

You don't get it - it's not my assumption that Reid was careless, it's what he said about himself in his own defense. It's your assumption that he's lying, without all evidence being in.

But you already cast judgement in the above quote. "Lying", you said. Now you're backtracking.

[sarcasm]Yeah, I jumped right to his defense in my first post to this thread.[/sarcasm] I didn't like your unfair comparison which you know very well is what I was responding to.

I was mocking your bias. Take your own advice and you'll appear less hypocritical.

 

No Pastor Larry. My tongue was firmly planted in cheek. I was using absurdity to illustrate a point. or trying too

 

I thought he was worse than that.

Abramoff caused Democrats problems, too. The Reid story is still new, not yet a week old, and the facts and implications are still rolling in.

Be a little patient; I'm sure the Republicans will get a lot of mileage out of this. I wouldn't be surprised if Reid were soon ousted.

 

I wasn't assuming anything. I was mkaing a point about the way that assumptions and biases come into play. Sorry I didn't make that clearer for you. I don't know if Reid lied or covered anything up. As I said, let's get the whole story.

No, I didn't backtrack. Again, I was trying to make a point and didn't write clearly on this matter.

As is common, it is very hard to anticipate all the ways in which people will not understand what I am thinking. I should have been clearer. My apologies for not being clearer.

I do not know if Reid lied or tried to cover somethign up. We need to get all the facts.

I lean towards the right because ... well, it's right.

Seriously, my bias is slightly towards the right, but primarily towards the truth and fairness. It is clear that you and others will tend to give some on the left an almost free pass on some issues, while vehemently attacking those on the right. That shouldn't happen. If you think I am hypocritical because I call for us to withhold judgment until we have the facts, then so be it. But in most places, that isn't considered hypocritical.

 

Oh. I thought when you said that Reid lied, you must have either known he had or assumed he had. Or are you going to claim that you weren't refering to Reid at all?

How are you going to weasel out of "So lying on a financial report about $1,000,000 ..." and "It is because of this kind of moral equivocation where lying is okay..."?

So when you said "lying" you didn't really mean "lying" or that anyone, such as Reid, had actually lied? I can't imagine why you would choose a word and repeat it in the same post when that was not what you meant.

If your point was that you & your kind are morally superior to me & my kind, you failed to prove it. If that wasn't your point, then you are correct that you are not clear.

No, that's my bias, substituting left for right.

That's just your bias against me and other liberals totally overwhelming your self-proclaimed but otherwise inevident tendency towards truth and fairness.

No, I think you're hypocritical for lecturing others for what you do yourself (mote, beam).