Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipline?

[_krose]

But in what I'm sure is a surprising turn of events for readers of this board, Droopy's assertions are not correct.

I'm shocked at the possibility.

But there's a first time for everything, I suppose.

[_Bob Loblaw]

The gospel is not a big tent and life is not a cabaret..

Pretty soon it will be a two-person pup tent for you and bcspace. Maybe you can put on your own drag shows.

[_Darth J]

Pretty soon it will be a two-person pup tent for you and bcspace. Maybe you can put on your own drag shows.

Careful, Bob. Who knows what can happen between two guys in a tent?

[_Kevin Graham]

I'm laughing my arse off that these guys are upset with Harry Reid for basing his information on the same kinds of flimsy sources we find in these Right Wing bog posts Droopy and bcspace keep throwing up at us.

The fact is Romney is a despicable liar and this has been proven already. That Droops and bcspace refuse to acknowledge this is just par for the course. I mean really, what did you expect?

The fact is we don't know if Reid's claim is true or not because Romney won't produce the evidence. It is difficult to imagine that NO ONE besides Romney knows the truth to this. I mean, doesn't the IRS know? And isn't the IRS controlled by that evil dictator Obama? You'd think he'd be able to get that information about this claim, as would Reid, with or without Romney's consent. If so, then Obama knows if this is true. Which means he would be setting himself up for a massive embarrassment in the event that Romney reveals his tax returns and proves them all wrong.

This is Romney's golden opportunity to prove Obama and Reid are a bunch of liars who have no clue what they're talking about.

Yet, he still chooses to sit on the evidence.

The stakes have been raised to a new level, and Romney still wants to hide the truth.

What an idiot and a hypocrite. Remember this is the same guy who attacked Ted Kennedy for not releasing his tax returns, and said he would release his tax returns only after Kennedy did. And then when Kennedy did, Romney changed his mind and decided not to. This is the same guy who demanded that his opponent's spouse's tax returns be released. This is teh same guy who accused others of having something to hide if they refused to release tax returns.

Like a typical Mormon brain, Romney's operates on the assumption that standards don't apply to them; only to everyone else. The burden of proof is eternally on the shoulders of everyone else. Hence, the idiotic "put up or shut up" approach to the fact that it is Romney who refuses to "put up."

Just look at how Droopy addresses the fact that Romney lied about Obama's attempt to suppress military votes. He says it isn't a lie because standards don't apply when people in his ideological cult are the culprits. They only apply to those outside it.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Just look at how Droopy addresses the fact that Romney lied about Obama's attempt to suppress military votes. He says it isn't a lie because standards don't apply when people in his ideological cult are the culprits. They only apply to those outside it.

Unfortunately this is a known phenomenon. People are OK with their own candidate lying or shading the truth but not the other candidate.

http://danariely.com/2012/07/30/partisa ... of-ethics/

[_dougreese]

You haven't read up on your swifties in the time since 2004, have you? And the only things you seem to know about John Kerrey are the things you hear from Republican approved media (Fox "Fair and Balanced", the talk shows, maybe) sources. It would be like someone going to the Tanners to learn about Joseph Smith.

Their claims regarding Kerry's medals and other aspects of his conduct while in Vietnam still stand as evidentially substantive and unrefuted, if not directly proven claims, and more importantly, his pivotal role in the Winter Soldier political theater, his friendly liaisons with the North Vietnamese leadership against his own country and in their behalf while the war was still in progress (and while he was still in the navel reserves), and his association with the most extreme anti-American, pro-communist elements of the New Left at the time are historical facts beyond serious argument.

He chose his own path then, and it came back to haunt him, no matter how he tried to sanitize his own history.

Harry Reid is not doing anything different than a Repub would be doing, if the tables were switched.

Except that no Republican presidential candidate or president in recent memory has or is doing such stuff. This kind of behavior is confined almost exclusively within the Democratic party, which raises serious questions regarding the entire moral condition of that party and the ideology that drives desperate power madness of this kind.

(The only difference is, you wouldn't be whining about it now, you'd be applauding.)

I'm not a Republican, and not particularly a fan of Mitt Romney. You're already running on fumes.

You see the "swifties" as having been only telling the truth, doing their patriotic duty, etc., etc., and T. Boone Pickens, who funded the whole thing, as a patriot. Why, because you are a right wing Republican and this is the right wing Republican narrative re: the "swifties". The Democrats, for their part, accept a different narrative. Which narrative you accept depends on what your prejudices are, which party you identify with.

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about, haven't done any substantive reading on the subject, and have nothing to bring to the table but ad hominem circumstantial innuendo.

The head of that group, John O'Neill, a black Vietnam Veteran and lifelong Democrat, debated Kerry in 1971 on the Winter Soldier agitprop and his association with the radical Left. O'Neill started the Swift Vets for Truth, with other vets, many conservative but containing some clear Democrats as well, because Kerry was an utter phony who, like many on the Left at that time, had openly supported and shilled for America's enemies during that war, and had become a legitimate fifth column within America seeking the defeat of the United States and the conquest and subjugation of South Vietnam by the Stalinist North.

John O'Neill and the Swift Boat Veterans for "truth" were hardly concerned with the truth. I could give you many examples.

But one thing that can't be argued is . . . . . . . O'Neill is a white guy, not black.

Doug Reese

[_Valentinus]

To assert that a Democrat cannot be a good Mormon is merely D&C 88:81

I really think Droopy needs to read Matthew 7:3-5 and deeply ponder its profound message.

No, more like JST Matthew 7:1-2. Why are you defending an organization and philosophy that is dead set against the Gospel of Jesus Christ in almost every possible way? There is even a temple recommend question that directly precludes Democrats and anyone to the left of them (unless they lie or are impossibly ignorant).

It would make more sense if you were to refer to the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Jesus Christ is not necessarily synonymous with the Gospel of Jesus according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

You're a smart guy BC. I doubt you would make the mistake of conflating the two.

[_moksha]

The question is now "Can one be considered a faithful Latter day Saint and at the same time be Harry Reid?"

That is a meaningful question. Considering all the abuse Reid has taken from his fellow Mormons, what drives him to remain a faithful member of the Church? From the point of Nevada political expediency, Reid would be better off divesting himself of the Church. If he was bitter toward the Church, what better way to display the bitterness than to show the Church as a vested political entity that does not embrace diversity. This message would be very influential outside of the United States, where conservative political stances already cast us as being undesirable. But oh no, Reid insists on being a faithful Mormon. Time for benighted TBMs to take matters into their own hands!!!

[_IAMHERE]

Regarding the Harry Reid fellow, and if he were to be chastised or similar, by "the Church".
It is important to keep in mind that there is not actually an entity "the Church" but are in fact many separate corporations created by men, that claim to represent a Church entity.
Of late it appears "the Church" entity is in fact a complex of fictional creations from PR department to industrial strength corporate farming and seemingly all things peripheral thereto .
So if an so called Church entity, being a corporately glorified form and being, were to chastise Harry Reid, such entity does so chastise in the name of and on its own limited liability. Apart from the other church corp entities.
So if such an event transpired, it would have an out or retraction readily at tentacle by the mega corp church complex.
Interestingly, Jesus when confronted in the temple with the sort of people that demand worship to corporate beings and other graven images,,, he threw them out. He somehow was not beholden to nor dependant in any way to a corpse fiction to " spread the word",,,,,likely He remains walking in the same manner, eh.

[_Valentinus]

I am so grateful that nowhere in the TR interview is this question implied:

"Does your political leanings and principles stand in harmony with the same leanings and principles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"