Would you sustain Harry Reid

[Cougarfan87]

Every piece of legislation must cite the Article and Section of the Constitution authorizing the legislation.

I believe the House Rules already require this, and it's a complete farce. When in doubt, everyone just cites to the General Welfare Clause and moves on, Dems and GOPers alike.

Isn't the General Welfare clause in the preamble? I want a specific Article and Section. I know it's quibbling. But the preamble says what the intent of the document is. The articles spell out what the federal government is authorized to do to accomplish those ends.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

Also known as the "Taxing and Spending Clause," but no legislator is going to use the words 'tax' and 'spend' if he can avoid it, so it's referred to as the General Welfare Clause. Jason Chaffetz loves citing to the GW Clause for all his pork bills, so even the "Tea Party" guys are in on the act.

The other "catch-all" cite for authority is the all-encompassing (thanks to SCOTUS) Commerce Clause.

I was going to add that the commerce clause is the one most often used because everything is interestate commerce--according to the SCOTUS. If you really want to limit Congresses power, find a way to limit the definition of interstate commerce to what it was intended for--you know, like things that have a direct and predictable effect on commerce. That was the whole issue why the Supreme Court was striking down law after law at the start of the 20th Century, and FDR was going to pack more Supreme Court Justices on the court to get a majority since the Constitution does not say how many justices may sit on the court. Then WWII happened, and "a stitch in time saved nine." I may have the President and historical event wrong, but I know it was related to a Supreme Court packing plan.

[imuakahuku]

So Harry claiming that all the horror stories about Obamacare are all lies enough to convince the rest of humanity that Harry is a decietful, lying, dishonest person?

[mizzoucoug]

So Harry claiming that all the horror stories about Obamacare are all lies enough to convince the rest of humanity that Harry is a decietful, lying, dishonest person?

What's sad is that he simply sees himself as serving the greater good by deflecting criticism from the president and protecting his party. The end always justified the means with this man. I for one cannot wait to watch him burn in hell far below where even Ted Kennedy will be frying.

[valleus]

What's sad is that he simply sees himself as serving the greater good by deflecting criticism from the president and protecting his party. The end always justified the means with this man. I for one cannot wait to watch him burn in hell far below where even Ted Kennedy will be frying.

With an attitude like that you'll probably be able to fulfill this wish when you are assigned permanent nearby residence.

[mizzoucoug]

What's sad is that he simply sees himself as serving the greater good by deflecting criticism from the president and protecting his party. The end always justified the means with this man. I for one cannot wait to watch him burn in hell far below where even Ted Kennedy will be frying.

With an attitude like that you'll probably be able to fulfill this wish when you are assigned permanent nearby residence.

My attitude is one of righteous idignation and resentment. Reid is the appearance and personification of the adversary--even if that sounds harsh it's exactly what he is as a politician who believes it is permissible to lie when politically expedient. I don't know where I'll end up in the next life, but your condemnation is duly noted. I can remember the last time I straight up lied to or deceived another person and that was about 6 years ago. If that puts me close to Reid then so be it. I'll bring marshmallows and some chocolate-covered graham crackers.

[stuckinbig10country]

Harry Reid might be the best in history of serving 2 masters.

From all accounts, he's much more active in the church than former governor/ambassador Huntsman and other LDS members of Congress. He doesn't get drunk like Sen Crapo. He doesn't get drunk and get in hot tubs alone with a 16 year old YW when he's her bishop (state senator Garn). I mean, come on. Word of Wison, Law of Chastity, not to mention the reasonable laws of the land (DUI, child protection laws). I know lying is a sin, but WoW and law of Chastity I'm told are the big ones. I'm under the understanding that Reid even does his home teaching. He does everything that is asked of him in his ward. And he does this all while knowing his fellow members find him to be a deceitful and evil man who leave the temple when he shows up (not a very christian move, folks). And yes, I know about that one part and stuff.

Yet, he publicly makes statements with regard to same sex marriage, among other things, that are worse than what some people have said who have been excommunicated. He's a proponent of bigger government, limiting choices for individuals, etc. He's for limiting the rights of religious organizations and religious people to be conscientious objectors. At least he's somewhat honest about that being his vision for the country, unlike many other politicians (Dems or GOP) that think that the only bad government spending is any that is outside of their district, and that limit different freedoms and choices.

There is no such thing as being a social conservative. Everyone always wants to change the laws to match their perfect view of what a civilization should be, thus limiting choice. I'm also starting to think the current idea of being a fiscal conservative lacks any real meat to it. Heck, isn't it more fiscally responsible to try and increase revenue if you want to continue spending at this rate. There hasn't been a single reduction in spending by the government in approximately 50 years. There's been a reduction in the rate of increase in spending, which is not nearly the same thing.

Hugh B Brown and James E Faust were great men of God, yet both were very much liberal. And I can clearly see themes on that political platform that would fit very well into the gospel. Sure, you have to get rid of a bunch of crap to get there, but you have to say the same thing about the Republican platform. I think the government should promote the general welfare of all of it's citizens, including programs to help the poor. I vehemently disagree that the programs in place are actually doing the most to help the poor.

The most powerful and effective political leader this country have will be whoever can help the inner city ethnic family, the white lower class working group, and the middle class professionals realize they have more in common among themselves than they do with the politicians using buzz words to keep them in their camp. All the current political parties do is continue to divide and conquer.

Look, I don't know Reid. I have never met him. I've never lived in his state. I know he's been implicated in several questionable business transactions. I also know he goes to church, does his calling, attends the temple, and has been judged worthy by a judge in Israel to keep his membership and recommend. The only questions I have on that are his published quotes that when said by others have not resulted in the same treatment (but each case is different).

I liked Mitt Romney a lot. I feel bad that he had to compromise himself in the political muck that was the GOP primary to prove he was "conservative" enough. He actually understood what was really necessary to fix the problem. One example was throughout all the debates, Obama kept trying to get him to pin down how much of a tax break there was going to be and then went on to say that it would do this that or the other. Romney gave the best response by going back to the core 5 points in his message, and said, without really saying it "I don't know the the tax decreases are going to be, because I don't know how much spending we can cut first." He wasn't taking off the table leaving taxes unchanged, and to an extent maybe increasing them.

He never said to just repeal Obamacare, but always "repeal and replace". He understood that the system needed to change and that the people of this country wanted healthcare reform that really cut costs for individuals and families. But he was blasted for being uncaring.

The church had a major shift in political leaning mid to late 60's, due mainly to the social issues. And by social issues, I mean the ones that have almost entirely to do with sex. I could see in the next 10 to 15 years a shift back to a more evenly divided political church in America. My generation and those younger than me have already started viewing these things in a much different view than those older than me.

Now that I've rambled and touched on too many topics, given the original question, if asked to sustain Harry Reid as my bishop, I would sustain him. I would serve in whatever calling he gives me. I would visit those he asks me to visit. I would do all that Christ wants me to do as a member of his Kingdom. Thy will Lord, not mine be done.

[Brayden Green]

Well said, Stuck.

I do disagree with your feeling that there is no such thing as a fiscal conservative. I am not in office (though I am thinking of possibly running in the next decade or two) but as a libertarian I am very strict fiscally (most of us are. In fact, I think ALL of us are. Libertarians disagree about a number of things within the ranks, but fiscal responsibility isn't one of those. Libertarians believe that men should be free to choose for themselves how best to live, while not harming others, and passing debt onto future generations is in a very real sense selling them into slavery.)

Reduce taxes, spending, and eliminate controls on trade
To ensure the economic freedom and enhance the economic well-being of Americans, we would implement the following policies: dramatic reductions in both taxes and government spending; an end to deficit budgets; a halt to inflationary monetary policies; the elimination of all government impediments to free trade; and the repeal of all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates.
Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party , Jul 2, 2000

Abolish all regulation of banks in favor of free market
We favor free-market banking. We call for the abolition of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Banking System, and all similar interventions. Our opposition encompasses all controls on interest. We call for the abolition of the Federal Home Loan Bank System, the Resolution Trust Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, the National Credit Union Central Liquidity Facility, and all similar interventions.
Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party , Jul 2, 2000

Pass constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget
We support a constitutional amendment requiring the national government to balance its budget. A balanced budget amendment should provide: a. that neither Congress nor the President be permitted to override this requirement; b. that all off-budget items are included in the budget; c. that the budget is balanced by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes; d. that no exception be made for emergency.
Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party , Jul 2, 2000

I happen to be *classically* liberal in my social views. "I don't care what you do, as long as you don't harm me. And, at the same time, don't presume to tell me what to do as long as I am not harming another." Fiscally, I am stricter than a Reagan conservative. Everything needs to get cut across the boards. And, there are people out there in office that agree with that type of thinking. Governor Johnson, the former Republican NM Governor and Libertarian Presidential nominee is/was that person. People like Justin Amash, congressman, are like that.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/s ... he-deficit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ddawg]

Now that I've rambled and touched on too many topics, given the original question, if asked to sustain Harry Reid as my bishop, I would sustain him.

You spent a lot of time justifying why you would support a documented liar. I don't care what position a person holds, if they are deceivers and liars, I do not support them. Harry Reid is dishonest. Harry Reid is a scheming deceiver. Harry Reid is a liar. Harry Reid carries the water for a president that is accelerating the downward spiral of the USA.

I don't care what political philosophy you have, the single most important ingredient, or character trait is integrity. Whether you are a Liberal Democrat, a Socialist, adhere to the Tea Party, a Republican, or a Libertarian. If you have integrity, and are forthright in your dealings, I have no problem with you. We can disagree politically, or philosophically. But we will get along fine because we are dealing with each other honestly.

Harry Reid is deceitful and dishonest. It's that simple.

[Ddawg]

Hee is a recent and shining example of Harry Reid, the mild, pleasant natured, duplicitous, and deceitful liar. It doesn't get much clearer.

[Brayden Green]

I don't care what political philosophy you have, the single most important ingredient, or character trait is integrity. Whether you are a Liberal Democrat, a Socialist, adhere to the Tea Party, a Republican some fiscally conservative republicans that believe in balancing the budget INCLUDING cutting defense spending (most of these are Libertarian on the GOP ticket anyways), or a Libertarian. If you have integrity, and are forthright in your dealings, I have no problem with you. We can disagree politically, or philosophically. But we will get along fine because we are dealing with each other honestly.

Harry Reid is deceitful and dishonest. It's that simple.

Fixed yours for you There is no integrity in wanting something for nothing from the government, wanting socialized medicine or jobs/income, or wanting to push further (and current) generations into servitude because you want to spend money that you can't afford. There is no integrity in the military industrial complex (which Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address), putting people away in PRISON for non-violent crimes, or spanking your children (which according to all the data out there is no different than child abuse).

Most republicans are deceitful and honest, preaching spending cuts while not actually cutting anything and not wanting to touch defense (because of their large pro-defense donors) even though it is currently 3 times higher than it was in 2002, when we were pretty safe.