Reid takes lead in NV Senate polling

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
Drat, if that weasel wins this Nov,, I'm hanging my flag upside down....

I think it is more that the republican lost than anything. Somewhat of an own goal here.

Originally posted by sh76
Whodey can tell me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe that Whodey would support a law that "would have required doctors to inform women seeking abortions about a controversial theory linking an increased risk of breast cancer with abortion."

That's a statist requirement if there ever was one.

I would have to know more about the theory. After all, if you went to your doctor and they withheld information that might change your mind wouldn't you want to know about it? It's like the controversy over global warming. Simply put, you have to be wary of data being snubbed or promoted as fact when so much is riding on it politically and economically. This reminds me of the cigarette companies as well as they were hiding data for decades about the harmful effects of smoking. There is simlpy too much money at stake for the truth to be easily accessable. After all, the abortion industry probably makes more money than the smoking industry annually.

Having said that, I am outraged that people are shuffling chairs on deck when the ship is sinking. Talking about abortion is exacly what the left wants conservatives to do. Any distraction from the fiscal nighmare of the US will suffice.

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
Drat, if that weasel wins this Nov,, I'm hanging my flag upside down....

This is just insanity. After all, the man had an 8% approval rating in March!! How can this be? The man had scandels coming out of his pores. He collected $1.1 million dollars from a land deal for property he had sold 3 years prior from a "lawyer friend". He then payed bonuses with campaign money instead of his own personal money. Now he is involved in the Blagojevich scandel because he was caugt on tape trying to pull strings to have someone appointed to Obama's seat. The only question now is what did he offer the man? And lastly, he was the engineer for Obamacare and under the table deals in which he probably sold his soul to pass and legislation that was unpopular to boot.

If Dirty Harry wins, it will either be because elections are fixed or the people of Nevada are all insane. Then again, God forbid we elect someone who is against aboriton. As we all know, these are the ones on the fringe, not the ones who rape and pillage the American taxpayer with impunity. What is even crazier is that Senators are powerless to overturn Roe Vs. Wade yet that is appartently what everyone is focused on. Oh yea, and they are focused on abortion providers telling young women that there MAY be some undesirable side effects to having abortions. Meanwhilse we just turn the country back over to these clowns.

If Reids opponent has an issue with abortions, why not start with minors who are allowed to have abortions without parental notification? In fact, I have heard of girls dying from the procedure and their parents had ZERO notification or legal recourse. In addtion, you have underage girls going in these places who often times have been raped without their parents knowing anything about it, or it is their parents who are doing the raping.

Originally posted by whodey
This is just insanity. After all, the man had an 8% approval rating in March!! How can this be? The man had scandels coming out of his pores. He collected $1.1 million dollars from a land deal for property he had sold 3 years prior from a "lawyer friend". He then payed bonuses with campaign money instead of his own personal money. Now he is involved in ...[text shortened]... he ones on the fringe, not the ones who rape and pillage the American taxpayer with impunity.

Maybe his vociferous opponents spew infantile invective, rather like you do, and this has alienated ordinary levelheaded mainstream voters in Nevada, and bolstered Reid's chances for November?

Originally posted by FMF
Maybe his vociferous opponents spew infantile invective, rather like you do, and this has alienated ordinary levelheaded mainstream voters in Nevada, and bolstered Reid's chances for November?

Infantile? I suppose picking on Rangel is infantile as well for his ethics violations. The only difference beteen the two is Obama is hell bent on getting Reid back into power, not Rangel. The way I see it, Obama gets what Obama wants. No one stands in his way.

Originally posted by whodey
Infantile? I suppose picking on Rangel is infantile as well for his ethics violations. The only difference beteen the two is Obama is hell bent on getting Reid back into power, not Rangel. The way I see it, Obama gets what Obama wants. No one stands in his way.

Yes. Your invective is infantile. And alienating. I doubt your kind of tirades persuade - or indeed show much respect to - wavering voters. Which means you're screeching insensibly at your own choir. Just my penny's worth. As for me, I don't care whether Reid gets re-elected or not. But from my place on the outside of U.S. politics, looking in, I'd say the likes of you [and the mewling skirl that you seem to think is 'commentary'], are your own worst enemies in the context of your democracy's public discourse and vying visions for the future your public domain.

Originally posted by whodey
I suppose picking on Rangel is infantile as well for his ethics violations.

No. Picking on Rangel for his ethics violations is necessary and essential. I am talking about your often unhinged and seething rhetoric. That's what's infantile (or adolescent, perhaps). I also reckon it's politically counterproductive. Who wants to be associated with your silly rants about the government "raping" people?

Originally posted by FMF
Yes. Your invective is infantile. And alienating. I doubt your kind of tirades persuade - or indeed show much respect to - wavering voters. Which means you're screeching insensibly at your own choir. Just my penny's worth. As for me, I don't care whether Reid gets re-elected or not. But from my place on the outside of U.S. politics, looking in, I'd say the likes of your democracy's public discourse and vying visions for the future your public domain.

You may be right. All of this lack of respect for someone like Reid may have the opposite effect. Then again, who else is going to hold the man accountable? Congress perhaps?

I guess we might as well face the facts which is there is NO accountability for these guys. Their peers don't hold them accountable and if the voters attack them for their actions they become the "bad guy".


So how about it America? How about another 40 years of Reid/Pelosi?

Originally posted by FMF
No. Picking on Rangel for his ethics violations is necessary and essential. I am talking about your often unhinged and seething rhetoric. That's what's infantile (or adolescent, perhaps). I also reckon it's politically counterproductive. Who wants to be associated with your silly rants about the government "raping" people?

So why is it essential to hold Rangel's feet to the fire but not Reid?

BTW: Rangel walks even if he is forced into retirement. These guys are untouchable.

Originally posted by whodey
So why is it essential to hold Rangel's feet to the fire but not Reid?

I couldn't care less. If you've got corrupt elected officials in your country, deal with them. But people like you with your politically counterproductive chip-spitting ranting probably allow more people to get away with it than you help to nail.

Originally posted by whodey
You may be right. All of this lack of respect for someone like Reid may have the opposite effect. Then again, who else is going to hold the man accountable? Congress perhaps?

I guess we might as well face the facts which is there is NO accountability for these guys. Their peers don't hold them accountable and if the voters attack them for their actions ...[text shortened]... come the "bad guy".


So how about it America? How about another 40 years of Reid/Pelosi?

Maybe the people who want to hold them accountable are let down - tainted even - and ultimately rendered toothless by people like yourself babbling on about Marxism, the U.S.S.R., Hitler, Death Panels and how taxes "rape" people.

Originally posted by whodey
So why is it essential to hold Rangel's feet to the fire but not Reid?

BTW: Rangel walks even if he is forced into retirement. These guys are untouchable.

Unbelievable as it might seem to you, supporting health care reform is not sufficient reason for the Senate to expel members. None of the vague allegations you have screeched regarding Reid amount to any type of ethical violations; certainly it has not been shown that congressional Democrats are unwilling to bring charges against those in their party who do violate ethics rules.

So scream on, whodey; the Nevada Republican candidate is a poster child for the Tea Party types like yourself and it seems probable she's going down to the Senate Democratic leader in a State with the highest unemployment rate in the nation. Whatever the perceived failings of the Democratic party, it does not appear that people in any but the reddest states are responsive to these fringe types (I would love a Republican candidate for President in 2012 to declare that Social Security and MediCaid should be abolished, however).

Originally posted by no1marauder
Unbelievable as it might seem to you, supporting health care reform is not sufficient reason for the Senate to expel members. None of the vague allegations you have screeched regarding Reid amount to any type of ethical violations; certainly it has not been shown that congressional Democrats are unwilling to bring charges against those in their party who r President in 2012 to declare that Social Security and MediCaid should be abolished, however).

Ok, so lets pretend Reids land deal never took place nor his dealings with Bloggo or his using campaign money to give bonuses to his employees. You then use Rangel as a shining example of how "just" the Dems are in bringing people to justice. As I said, however, even if he is forced out he will walk. So how much would you like to wager?

As for Reids opponent, I personally think it unresponsible to say that she is going to come in and change everything overnight. What she should be saying is that Washington needs to be fiscally responsible, so those things that force them to be fiscally irresponsible need to be dealt with. In other words, legislation like Medicare and social security should not be targeted in and of themselves, rather, the issue should be that a Congress needs to live within their means. Therefore, those things prohibiting them from doing so must either be reformed or scratched.

Would you agree that they need to pass a law requiring a balanced budget? If not, why not?

Originally posted by FMF
Maybe the people who want to hold them accountable are let down - tainted even - and ultimately rendered toothless by people like yourself babbling on about Marxism, the U.S.S.R., Hitler, Death Panels and how taxes "rape" people.

The bottom line is that those in charge are for the most part unaccountable. As their power and authroty increase so does their arrogance and level of corruption. This is why I find those on the left championing increased power to Big Brother as just plain nuts. 🙄

Originally posted by whodey
Ok, so lets pretend Reids land deal never took place nor his dealings with Bloggo or his using campaign money to give bonuses to his employees. You then use Rangel as a shining example of how "just" the Dems are in bringing people to justice. As I said, however, even if he is forced out he will walk. So how much would you like to wager?

As for Reids opp ...[text shortened]...

Would you agree that they need to pass a law requiring a balanced budget? If not, why not?

No, I don't. See John Maynard Keynes; balancing budgets in either depressionary or inflationary periods would lead to an aggravation of economic evils. In normal times, it might be a good idea to balance budgets, but history is replete with economic periods that are not normal and require countercyclical policies.

What do you mean "walk"? If he is forced out of the House, that's all they can do. I have no idea if any of his alleged acts warrant criminal prosecution but that decision will not be taken by Democratic congressman. You do realize that, don't you?

In other words, you'd like Reid's opponent to hide her radical ideas as much as possible and voice platitudes. I like the way she did it better; if you Tea Partiers really want to gut Social Security and MediCaid as part of your crusade against "Big Government" you should have the balls to say so and let the voters decide if that's the path they want to go down. But you know what they would say to that, so you want to mislead them. Pathetic.