Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipline?

[_Jason Bourne]

I agree with Jon Stewart on this one:

http://blogs.rgj.com/factchecker/2012/0 ... -terrible/

[_Jason Bourne]

Droopy

The LDS Church would never Ex Harry. Too public. Bad PR. That Trump's discicplining Harry over most anything he is doing that you think worthy of giving him the boot. Excommunication is reserved for the lowly low profile persons in the Chuch. Oh I imagine if Harry were out cheating on his wife he would still get the boot. But not for being a political hack.

[_krose]

Don't feed me this tripe. Romney hasn't lied about anybody.

In Romney's very first national ad, he plays Obama's voice, saying "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose."

What Obama really said back in October 2008: "Sen. McCain's campaign actually said, and I quote, ‘If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose.’"


Then there's this one: "The president promised that unemployment would not rise above 8%."


There are so many more.

[_Boilermaker]

I think what he is doing should require church discipline, but the Mormon Church won't want to get into the middle of a political mess. Reid is obviously publicly lying about Romney and needs to get a grip on reality. It's as if he's trying to prove his church membership won't get in the way of his loyalty to the Democratic Party.

If its so obviously he is lying, please provide the quote from Reid that you claim is a lie.

Everything he has been saying about Romney's taxes is a lie -- he doesn't know so he should keep his mouth shut.

[_Drifting]

If its so obviously he is lying, please provide the quote from Reid that you claim is a lie.

Everything he has been saying about Romney's taxes is a lie -- he doesn't know so he should keep his mouth shut.

You don't know it's a lie.
Romney could prove it false if he wanted to...

[_Droopy]

What I said is exactly what your OP implies, Loran.

My OP mentions nothing about political differences.

But I would be thrilled to hear all about how protected political speech under New York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny is a felony. (Hint: you're suggesting that it's a crime for Harry Reid to exercise his right to freedom of speech---"who may himself have committed a felony in so doing.")

And I would also love to hear how political speech by a person who is not a member of the executive branch is in any way relevant to the presumption of innocence in a criminal case, and in what way Mitt Romney is being deprived of due process of law because of Harry Reid's political gamesmanship. Fire away, Droopy!

Reid can exercise all the free speech he so desires, but if Reid is lying about Romney, and is aware of his doing so, then the person at Bain, assuming he exists, who is the source of his claims, if he is lying about Romney, is a felon, and Reid is now an accomplice. This is on top of both very serious public slander (spoken and broadcast character defamation)

Yes, someone claiming I've committed felonious acts publicly is actionable. Nothing changes regarding free speech, but free speech, like all freedoms, has limits. When you yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or incite a riot, you are liable for that speech and its effects. If you defame someone publicly, and especially if you claim someone is guilty of felonious actions, and you are lying.and your purpose is to defame, you are liable for that action.

[_Droopy]

Harry Reid is a fighter and a tough campaigner--but no more so than the Republicans. I remember the Swift Boats ads in 2004, which sank John Kerrey.

Not a good analogy, I'd have to say, because the claims of the Swifties at that time were, for the most part, as a matter of substance, true, and remain so today. The Kerry campaign and his supporters in the mainstream media never even attempted a fact or evidence based refutation of the charges themselves, nor did Kerry ever bother to publicly refute them except in ad hominem terms.

Virtually the entire chain of command above Kerry with whom he had served opposed him during his presidential bid on the grounds of his conduct both in Vietnam and later in his activities among the radical anti-war, pro-communist left during the war, as did the vast majority of those who served with him, save four.

Keep in mind as well that the issues surrounding Kerry's medals and his erratic and incompetent performance during his oddly brief stint as a Swiftie was not at all the main point of contention regarding his fitness to be President. The center of that storm was his traitorous betrayal of his own country and fellow soldiers while still wearing the uniform of the military under which he served, his cavorting on friendly terms with the North Vietcong leadership on at least two occasion while the war was still in progress, his shilling in America for its terms of surrender and capitulation (the Paris "Peace" Plan), and his magnum opus, the fantastic piece of agitprop known as the Winter Soldier Investigation, in which, in concert with the most extreme elements of the American Left and acting as a tool of the North Vietnamese and their narrative of the war, Kerry undertook a gigantic operation of disinformation and propaganda that he knew perfectly well was a vast conglomeration of fabrications.

Harry Reid's accusations against Romney are mild, by comparison.

Except that, as stated above, the Swifties claims weren't lies, and most especially, their claims about his participation in the anti-war movement, the Winter Soldier agitprop, and the Christmas in Cambodia incident. The claims about Kerry's purple hearts and version of certain events, while pertinent, are minor by comparison. If Reid's are, then that represents an exponential moral and empirical difference.

But "accusations" is too strong a word. Reid says he doesn't know whether Romney paid taxes during the years in question, but he'd like to know. So would I, and so would a lot of other people. All Romney has to do, if he did pay these taxes, his produce his returns. What's the big deal?

1. Its no one's business.
2. Let Reid lead by example
3. We still don't have Obama's college and university transcripts, or Kerry's military record.
4. Numerous Senators and congresspeople have never released their tax records.

I remember in 2000 when the then moderate John McCain threatened to derail George W. Bush's nomination in SC (or someplace like that) and then suddenly there were robo-calls going out to the Repub faithful that John McCain had fathered a child with a black woman, etc., etc. This was one of the nastiest political tricks in the history of politics, but it worked and John McCain faded from view and dubya won the nomination. McCain's wife was reportedly reduced to tears by the robo-calls and insinuations, as was the child he supposedly fathered (an adopted girl from India).

Whoever actually started those rumors, McCain lost because he was a lackluster candidate, bereft of ideas, widely and correctly perceived as an establishment Rino wholly inadequate to the problems facing the nation. The Republican base revolted, and we are living with the consequences.

McCain self imploded and took the entire party - and the country - with him.

And on the other matter, the gay marriage issue.... Lots of good active temple rec holding LDS hold the same views Harry Reid does on this issue,

That would require a CFR, because I think you're assuming and wishing here. Any "faithful" LDS who serious supports the redefinition of marriage, family, gender and gender roles, and the nature of human sexuality that is implied by and is inextricably linked with the concept of homosexual marriage is no longer faithful, and is in open revolt against the Church, the Brethren, the scriptures, and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Straight is the gate and narrow is the way, and few there be that find it. The Church is not a "big tent." it is a door, a gate, a "way;" narrow, strictly delimited, and straight, like the iron rod. The wheat and chaff are being sifted, separated, filtered, and disentangled from one another, slowly, but clearly and distinctly, as time moves on.

and their bishops and SPs are simply not interested in pursuing the matter and neither is the church....

CFR.

[_Droopy]

I cut a pic out of the news the other day. If I knew how to attach a pic here, I would attach it. It shows Romney in the early days of Bain Capital with 8-10 other Bain associates. The pic must've been part of a promotional brochure or something. The men are all standing in a room, and money is raining down from above, it is sticking out of their shirts and suit coats, their pockets. Romney is in front of the group, and he is clutching some of the money, and he and everybody around him are ebullient, happy, smiling.

A picture is worth a thousand words, I think the saying goes....

Class envy, being among the basest and most intellectually irrational and primitive of all human ethical debasements, meshes well with the rest of the general environment here at the Trailorpark.

[_Chap]

...

Straight is the gate and narrow is the way, and few there be that find it. The Church is not a "big tent." it is a door, a gate, a "way;" narrow, strictly delimited, and straight, like the iron rod. ...

No Droopy. The gate is is not 'straight', but στενη 'strait' (narrow, tight - as in 'straitjacket', appositely enough). See Matthew 7:14 in KJV. Sorry to mess up your analogy.

[_Droopy]

Well If Droopy had his way, the Church would be sure be a heck of a lot smaller.

I have nothing to say about it. The sifting process is natural and consistent, and it will eventuate, for the most part, in people moving of their own accord to where they feel the most comfortable. Only the wolves in sheep's clothing who remain within the Church after they have intellectually and spiritually left it, to bore from within, will be forced from its membership if their activities so warrant.

However, unlike Droopy I happen to believe that is not our place to suggest such a thing. I haven't been posting here long, but my impression is that people have been telling Droopy for years that it is not his place to question another member's standing with the Church, but he believes that the oath & covenant of the priesthood compels him to be like some sort of Grand Inquisitor of the Internet and act as judge and jury on the acts of his fellow Saints, and to issue his wise and omniscient pronouncements on the worthiness of his fellow Saints on internet chat boards. He seems to have a very hard time understanding things like priesthood authority versus priesthood keys. Thankfully, the Church doesn't operate that way since it actually lets each members LOCAL leaders act as judge and jury of the members of THEIR flock.

The problem you have is that I realized long ago that all of the above species of sophistry has one fundamental purpose, and that is to lubricate the gears so that the process of the sowing of subversion, dilution, and careful corruption of the Church from within can go on unimpeded and unchallenged in peace; so the process of secularization and the transformation of the Church into a classic "progressive" mainline Protestant-like organization (or into the gaseous mush of Unitarianism) can move forward without dissent or criticism.

Alas, its not to be.

In just two months here, I have seen hurl all sorts of cruel invectives at John Dehlin, Jason Bourne, me, David Bokovoy, now Harry Reid, and his favorite target Kishkumen.

I have never said a single "cruel" thing about David Bokovoy or Dehlin. Nor have I "hurled invective" at them. I have strongly criticized each, for a long time, in intellectually substantive terms for intellectually substantive reasons. David Bokovoy, for all his solid contributions to apologetics in specific areas, is his own worst enemy in others, for which he has received legitimate criticism from me and a number of others over the years.

As to Kishkumen and Jason, just take a look at what they dish out first. That, of course, doesn't excuse anything I may have said, but this place does not bring out the best in people. And it never will.