Harry Reid won't run for reelection

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I don't believe his story about his recent injury. Seems weird.

Of course you don't.

Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist, has been personally assisting Reid with his eye damage.

I hope you're joking.

Why would you say this?

because I would assume Rand would probably blind him

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe he tripped over one of the Downton Abbey furniture replicas in his office, or got his ass kicked when he propositioned some guy in a Minnesota airport bathroom. Something like that, I'm sure.

except that those were republicans that did those exact things idiot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe he tripped over one of the Downton Abbey furniture replicas in his office, or got his ass kicked when he propositioned some guy in a Minnesota airport bathroom. Something like that, I'm sure.

except that those were republicans that did those exact things idiot

SarcasmFilter *myfilter = [[SarcasmFilter alloc] init];

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe he tripped over one of the Downton Abbey furniture replicas in his office, or got his ass kicked when he propositioned some guy in a Minnesota airport bathroom. Something like that, I'm sure.

except that those were republicans that did those exact things idiot

SarcasmFilter *myfilter = [[SarcasmFilter alloc] init];

(I am enough of a nerd to get this)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harry Reid not only lied about Romney (and who knows what all else), he also lied about how he got the recent injuries to his face:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/04/what-really-happened-to-harry-reid-part-3.php

The story does not sound that far-fetched. If Harry Reid got into a fist-fight with his drunk brother, possibly when Harry was also drunk, it seems like a sufficiently embarrassing incident that I can understand his wanting to keep it private. And it also seems to me to be personal enough that I think he has the right to privacy.

For political balance, I also sympathized with Larry Craig. I guess I'm a softy who dislikes gotcha politics, although I think Sarah Palin is off-base in claiming that every press question she can't answer is gotcha politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harry Reid not only lied about Romney (and who knows what all else), he also lied about how he got the recent injuries to his face:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/04/what-really-happened-to-harry-reid-part-3.php

The story does not sound that far-fetched. If Harry Reid got into a fist-fight with his drunk brother, possibly when Harry was also drunk, it seems like a sufficiently embarrassing incident that I can understand his wanting to keep it private. And it also seems to me to be personal enough that I think he has the right to privacy.

For political balance, I also sympathized with Larry Craig. I guess I'm a softy who dislikes gotcha politics, although I think Sarah Palin is off-base in claiming that every press question she can't answer is gotcha politics.

"Right to privacy"??!? You have got to be fucking kidding.

There is NO privacy. It's dead. Harry himself helped kill it. "Collect it ALL."


And the government, LEAST of all, deserves privacy, let alone have a supposed "right" to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harry Reid not only lied about Romney (and who knows what all else), he also lied about how he got the recent injuries to his face:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/04/what-really-happened-to-harry-reid-part-3.php

The story does not sound that far-fetched. If Harry Reid got into a fist-fight with his drunk brother, possibly when Harry was also drunk, it seems like a sufficiently embarrassing incident that I can understand his wanting to keep it private. And it also seems to me to be personal enough that I think he has the right to privacy.

For political balance, I also sympathized with Larry Craig. I guess I'm a softy who dislikes gotcha politics, although I think Sarah Palin is off-base in claiming that every press question she can't answer is gotcha politics.

"Right to privacy"??!? You have got to be fucking kidding.

There is NO privacy. It's dead. Harry himself helped kill it. "Collect it ALL."


And the government, LEAST of all, deserves privacy, let alone have a supposed "right" to it.

Okay. So the NSA and now the public knows how Harry Reid got his injuries. It wasn't a fall from exercise equipment. Does it matter? He's planning on retiring. So who cares?

[Anonymous]

So the scandal is that 75 year old Mormon Harry Reid maybe got into a fistfight with his drunken 73 year old brother on New Year's Eve? That's frankly kind of boring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harry Reid not only lied about Romney (and who knows what all else), he also lied about how he got the recent injuries to his face:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/04/what-really-happened-to-harry-reid-part-3.php

The story does not sound that far-fetched. If Harry Reid got into a fist-fight with his drunk brother, possibly when Harry was also drunk, it seems like a sufficiently embarrassing incident that I can understand his wanting to keep it private. And it also seems to me to be personal enough that I think he has the right to privacy.

For political balance, I also sympathized with Larry Craig. I guess I'm a softy who dislikes gotcha politics, although I think Sarah Palin is off-base in claiming that every press question she can't answer is gotcha politics.

"Right to privacy"??!? You have got to be fucking kidding.

There is NO privacy. It's dead. Harry himself helped kill it. "Collect it ALL."


And the government, LEAST of all, deserves privacy, let alone have a supposed "right" to it.

Okay. So the NSA and now the public knows how Harry Reid got his injuries. It wasn't a fall from exercise equipment. Does it matter? He's planning on retiring. So who cares?

To the extent another democrat relies on the argument "at this point, what difference does it really make??!?" , yes, you have a point I suppose.

It does seem to bolster the idea of a pattern of dishonesty. What does it say about a lawmaker's career when his work amounts to a body of lies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harry Reid not only lied about Romney (and who knows what all else), he also lied about how he got the recent injuries to his face:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/04/what-really-happened-to-harry-reid-part-3.php

The story does not sound that far-fetched. If Harry Reid got into a fist-fight with his drunk brother, possibly when Harry was also drunk, it seems like a sufficiently embarrassing incident that I can understand his wanting to keep it private. And it also seems to me to be personal enough that I think he has the right to privacy.

For political balance, I also sympathized with Larry Craig. I guess I'm a softy who dislikes gotcha politics, although I think Sarah Palin is off-base in claiming that every press question she can't answer is gotcha politics.

"Right to privacy"??!? You have got to be fucking kidding.

There is NO privacy. It's dead. Harry himself helped kill it. "Collect it ALL."


And the government, LEAST of all, deserves privacy, let alone have a supposed "right" to it.

Okay. So the NSA and now the public knows how Harry Reid got his injuries. It wasn't a fall from exercise equipment. Does it matter? He's planning on retiring. So who cares?

To the extent another democrat relies on the argument "at this point, what difference does it really make??!?" , yes, you have a point I suppose.

It does seem to bolster the idea of a pattern of dishonesty. What does it say about a lawmaker's career when his work amounts to a body of lies?

No. Keeping family affairs private is not a pattern of dishonesty and says nothing about his work being a body of lies. Get a grip.

[Anonymous]

But let's be clear about the claim.

A blogger cited "Easton Elliot", a pseudonym for an addiction life coach.

An addiction life coach who felt no compunction about violating the Anonymity Pledge of Alcoholics Anonymous, and has expressed his willingness to go on television to discuss this further.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I don't believe his story about his recent injury. Seems weird.

Of course you don't.

Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist, has been personally assisting Reid with his eye damage.

I hope you're joking.

Why would you say this?

because I would assume Rand would probably blind him

This is a really sad statement of your views. Do you not know the doctor’s Hippocratic Oath - Do No Harm?
This is a man who selflessly provides treatment to those who cannot afford it.
Yet, you fear that he would blind Reid. Why? Because they are from different parties?
Such a sad, sad, view of the world. Such a cynical view of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I don't believe his story about his recent injury. Seems weird.

Of course you don't.

Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist, has been personally assisting Reid with his eye damage.

I hope you're joking.

Why would you say this?

because I would assume Rand would probably blind him

This is a really sad statement of your views. Do you not know the doctor’s Hippocratic Oath - Do No Harm?
This is a man who selflessly provides treatment to those who cannot afford it.
Yet, you fear that he would blind Reid. Why? Because they are from different parties?
Such a sad, sad, view of the world. Such a cynical view of people.

Yet, such a typical way the left views the right. Sad and pathetic indeed.

[Anonymous]

Thank goodness this man is not running for reelection.
I do believe he is going senile. He has told whoppers in the past.
But, now, he is being downright cruel and hateful.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out, Harry (because your frail body cannot afford it).

The 75-year-old Nevada Democrat — who announced last month that he will not seek re-election next year, ending a three-decade congressional career — was asked who he believes will be the likely 2016 GOP nominee.

“I don’t really care,” Reid said in an interview with CNBC. “I think they’re all losers.”

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/harry-reid-assesses-2016-republican-field-i-116469477761.html