Why I'm a single-issue voter

ohioccw.org ^ | 25 August, 2010 | Philip Mulivor

[zeugma]

The first battle of the Texas war of independence from mexico was also over gun control. The battle crys after Goliad was “Remember Goliad!” and “Come and Take It!”

[Arrowhead1952]

There were a lot of single issue voters in 2008.

It was called “white guilt”.

Look at what that caused the past 1 1/2+ years.

[Mouton]

Fine by me, take a moral high road, you can live with the alternative. I am more pragmatic, I don’t want any one in office who supports anything that stumble bum does in DC.

I have one question you may wish to consider, if he was so guilty, why was he not indicted? Simply put, they did not have the evidence. By the time this case came up, the government had reinforced the laws to include charges based on “should have known”, making knowledge of what was going in a business a duty. Translation, the government had a less severe presumption to overcome.

Besides the 2A stance, I believe it was shown without refute McCollum believed and said we did not need an Arizona style law in Florida. Whether we do or not is debatable but what is not debateable is he said he was against it....then as soon as the mood of the populace became known, it became a priority for him to push for such a bill. Too little, too late and then to lie about what was his prior stance is almost Crist like. We don’t need an other political weasle.

[Robbin]

if he was so guilty, why was he not indicted? Simply put, they did not have the evidence.

You ignore the 1.3 BILLION DOLLAR REASON. Had they been innocent, they would have refused to pay a 1.3 BILLION, thats BILLON WITH a B, the largest medicare fraud fine in the history of our country. Then we would have seen the evidence in court. But they weren’t innocent and choose to pay the largest fine in history. BECAUSE they agreed to pay the largest medicare fraud fine in history, Scott got to slink away with his tail between his legs and his ill gotten gains in the bank.

And you just voted for him…

[Mouton]

Criminal cases precede civil settlesments, not the other way around. Or are you saying they offered a 1.3B settlement to the government to go away? There was also disagreement at the board over whether to pay or fight the charges, obviously they felt they had no choice but to pay but that alone is not evidence against Scott. No finger prints on this one from him, case dismissed.

BTW, in case you do not already know, Scott was forced out by the BOD early in the investigation over the objections of one of the original partners: Richard Raintree. Some managers of HCA did go to jail I believe but seems to me the government would have been happy to have been able to lock scott up too but could not overcome the fact they had no proof on him. Oh I know, the FBI did a poor job right as probably Reno interceded on his behalf.

[oldfart]

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I think I’m right and you think I’m wrong. So be it.

[Robbin]

Many times the government allows fines in lieu of criminal cases. Happens all the time, because they get the punishment they are looking for and don’t spend the time, money and effort required for a criminal conviction. The simple fact that no one was indicted, does not mean no criminal activity took place. I would argue that the 1.3 BILLION dollar fine is proof positive of criminal activity. Then you’ve got the fact that he won’t release his deposition. Why would that be?

This man made 300+ million dollars while running a company that was defrauding medicare, and paid the largest fine in history. It’s really that simple.

You will learn a lot more about the facts in this case from the DNC as they run their commercials leading up to the election.

Scott will get killed over the deposition thing, its’ the only thing that could prove that he a least claimed to be completely innocent and was willing to risk perjury charges to say it. But he won’t release his deposition. Because when you take the fifth under oath, people KNOW you are hiding something.