Sen. Harry Reid Got $1M in Land Deal

Point taken. For some reason, people get more worked up about others enabling pedophiles than they do about land deals in Utah.

Go figure.

The only good that comes of this, is that the next few weeks should be interesting for politicians with skeletons in their closets.

 

As I said, I was trying to make a point and didn’t write clearly on the matter. It was a rhetorical point about accusations, that I did not make clearly. I was making no assertion. I think I explained this the first time, but perhaps you didn’t read it, or perhaps read it and decided to disregard it in favor of attacking me.

Question for you: Why didn’t you say, “Okay, you misspoke,” and leave it at that? Why attack me when I admitted I didn’t speak clearly about what I was trying to say?

My point was that some people are quick to cast aspersions at people like Dennis Hastert for “enabling pedophiles” (what an absurd assertion) without knowing the facts, while at the same time they defend people like Harry Reid for what appears to financial misdealings.

My point is that we should always wait for the facts before making accusations.

I have never seen you particularly insistent on the truth, but that may be because I don’t read everything here.

Do you have any evidence of that my “tendency towards truth and fairness” is inevident? Or did you make a false accusation? I have routinely appealed for us to find out facts about Hastert, and now about Reid before we make accusations.

You would be correct, if I did this. But I didn’t. I have now explained it twice. Let me say it again, as clearly as I can. I do not know if Reid lied. I have no idea. I think we should wait to find out the facts. I have never intentionally accused or defended someone without the facts. I have tried to be consistent in saying “Let’s get the facts before we judge.”

My point was about accusations of covering things up (whether knowledge about emails or land deals). Perhaps I should have put “lying” in quotation marks in my original post. That may have made it clearer about how I was using the word: "So “lying” on a financial report about $1,000,000 ..." (I am not sure that would have helped, given what seems to be your penchant for misreading things, and then not accepting explanations, but it may have helped).

Sorry for any confusion that I caused.

 

Case in point: Galatian, without benefit of actual facts, has decided that Hastert "enabled pedophiles."

Why not wait until we know what happened? So far, there is no evidence that he did this, only accusations.

I have asked you several times why you don't want to wait for evidence, and each time, you simply ignore the question.

So tell us ... Why don't you want to wait for facts to emerge before casting judgment?

Are you worried that an election issue will be taken off the table?

Are you worried that you won't be able to attack a Republican if your current view is proven false?

What exactly is your reason for not wanting to wait for facts?

 

Just one, actually. If he had taken action when he first learned there was a problem, then some of those kids would not have been exposed to Foley. Oh, and telling a pedophile to "stop it", and leaving him contact with kids, is as effective as locking an alcoholic in a wine cellar, and telling him not to drink.

People from his own party have come forward. Denial isn't going to help you.

Rather, we should ask why you continue to be in denial about the evidence.

What do you hope to gain by defending these people?

 

3-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 2:30 a.m. ET by one of the moderators.

Lady Eagle,
Moderator

 

Apparently, based on what we know as of now, there was no evidence of pedophilia. There were "friendly emails" that the parents wanted stopped, but nothing else done. Perhaps there is more to be known, but let's let the facts come out.

You don't know that what Hastert knew, so don't pretend like you do. Wiat for the facts.

Have come forward with what?? Accusations? Again, let the investigation run its course, and then let's proceed. As I have said from teh beginning, if Hastert or anyone else covered anything up, they should be gone. But they should first be shown to have done something wrong. And the kangaroo court in your mind doesn't count.

Ask ... I am not in denial. I have seen no evidence that shows conclusively that Haster did anything wrong yet.

Overall, Hastert has been pretty poor as a leader. He hasn't done anything to help the budget. But on this topic, let's see what actually comes out of the investigation.

I am not defending them. YOu are being dishonest if you think I am. I am saying, Let's wait for the facts. Again, notice how I am the one trying to insist on truth and fairness, on getting the evidence; you are the one disinterested in truth apparently.

But I notice that you didn't actually answer the questions I asked. Why not?

 

Barbarian on Hastert enabling Foley's pedophilia:
Just one, actually. If he had taken action when he first learned there was a problem, then some of those kids would not have been exposed to Foley. Oh, and telling a pedophile to "stop it", and leaving him contact with kids, is as effective as locking an alcoholic in a wine cellar, and telling him not to drink.

Not quite. If you learned that a middle-aged man was sending "overly friendly" emails to your teenaged son, what would you think? You'd have to be a complete idiot to miss that one. Hastert didn't want to rock the boat, so he did nothing but "stop it."

We have statements from others in the GOP leadership. Look at it this way; do you want someone in Congress stupid enough to not understand what "overly friendly" meant?


Barbarian observes:
People from his own party have come forward. Denial isn't going to help you.

If you want to call them that. Why would his own leadership team lie to hurt him?

That's what went wrong the first time. They aren't capable of investigating each other.


Barbarian observes:
Rather, we should ask why you continue to be in denial about the evidence.

:laugh:

Barbarian asks:
What do you hope to gain by defending these people?

:laugh:

Have you stopped beating your wife, Larry?

 

What do you suggest Hastert should have done. Ground the man? Take away his computer privileges? Slap him around a little? He was dealing with a grown man who had broken no laws, as far as we know. What did Democrat leadership ever 'do about' Barney Frank and the prostitution ring operating out of his home.

 

I did at first, but then I reread your posts which accused me of bias, again and again, and I thought, "Hypocrite" and rewrote my reply. If you had left off attacking me, I would have accepted your "misspeaking" explanation without much question.

Your post named me specifically when I have not done either, except in parodying your response. I found that annoyingly hypocritical.

It's a good point when you can make it without being self-righteous and without accusing others.

Can you guess what "inevident" means? But nearly all your posts to this thread lack that tendency beyond your self-proclaiming. Your statements about me, in particular not only lack evidence of your claim but belie it completely.

When I countered your rhetoric with my restatement, you accused me of bias. I haven't noticed any recanting of that which would have been evidence of a tendency towards fairness. Instead, you chose to defend your own statements and to attack me further.

Yeah, in this post after you were called on your "lying" statements.

First, you said Reid was lying, twice. Then you called my pointing out your bias, bias. Then you went on to slander me further all the while touting your own moral goodness.

Yet you accused me of bias when I said the same thing in reverse. How does that work? Mote, beam, Larry.

 

He followed the wishes of the parents and the young man, so far as we know at this point. Due to what we actually know as of now, Hastert investigated, and found out that there was nothing overtly wrong. They were “overfriendly,” and the parents and young man did not want to go farther, but simply wanted it to stop.

Do you think Hastert should have disregarded the request of the victim anyway?

To protect themselves. Surely, with all your cynicism, you can see that. In fact, I am quite sure you know you are wrong to be saying the thigns you are saying, but you are an opportunist, who doesn’t want to miss the chance to beat up on a Republican. You know if the investigation proceeds and Hastert is shown to have done nothing wrong you will not be able to beat up on him then.

Yes, and you from your high seat in Dallas without knowing anyone at all are perfectly capable of investigating. What a joke …

The last resort of people who don’t want to answer legitimate questions is to ask stupid questions.

So why not answer the questions? Tell us why you won’t wait for an investigation. What do you lose?

Quit dodging and changing the subject. Quit attacking me with false accusations.

I have clearly said I am not defending Hastert. If he has done something wrong, he should go. But in the tradition of our constitutional processes, I believe that we should actually find out what he did before we hang him. It’s the old ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ With all your devotion to the Constitution, it is surprising that you don’t believe in that. On second thought, it isn’t all that surprising, because it appears that your first allegiance is to your own biases, and if you can use the Constitution to support that, you will. When the constitution gets in the way, you will just ignore it.

 

You do have bias. So do I. That’s no secret. That’s not an attack. But I wans’t being a hypocrite, and you know that now, if not before.

I think you have been on the side of accusing Hastert of wrongdoing. I haven’t gone back and looked specifically for the sake of time, but I believe you have been. If not, then please forgive me and clarify for us here that you think that the investigation should run its course before accusations are made.

Actually, it’s a good point no matter what. It’s better without self-righteousness and accusations. Fortunately, it is a better point when I made it since it had no self-righteousness. I make as many mistakes as most. I try not to publish them, but I do make them.

I don’t have to.

When I have said that we should wait on facts, I have given “evidence” (the opposite of inevident) that I am interested in truth and fairness. So your accusation was proven wrong. (An accusation which you made against me, while decrying me for making an accusation against you. And you call me a hypocrite.)

So when you said it was "inevident," you either forgot, overlooked, or ignored the evidence.

Nope, I have done it from the beginning in the numerous threads about Hastert.

Yes, and as I said, I did not speak clearly by indicating the manner in which I used “lying.” I didn’t slander you. You are biased. How can that be disputed?

How does it work? How is that confusing? You have a bias towards the left. I have a bias towards the right. I think the main difference is apparently that I will call for facts to come out before making judgments, and you appear to be slower in making that call. I will wait to see what comes of the Reid deal. My feeling is that probably nothing will come of it. But we will see.

Why do you post so much about me? The topic here was Reid and the land deal. Why not keep it on that? Every time we manage to turn the conversation to our own biases. My posting about you was drawn out by your comments about me. Admittedly, I should not have responded to it. It was silly to begin with. Some things are just too easy to pass up, and this was one of them.