Would you sustain Harry Reid

valleus wrote:
Reading this post has been surreal.



"I have heard he made deals the rest of us couldn't make."

Well, I've heard all sorts of outrageous things about Joseph Smith. Surely we should not trust him. Since when is is hearsay grounds for, well, anything?



"My cousin claims that there are people that leave the temple when Reid shows up."

How Christlike of these temple workers! Always heartwarming to see the devout who can spend 80 hours a week in the temple but are incapable of reading Matthew 5-7.

In any event, what does this statement demonstrate beyond phariseeism? If Harry's at the temple, doesn't this mean he has a recommend? I'm sure he lied on all the interview questions, so it is of no matter.



"I have always said that some leaders are called to guide and help us while others are called to test our faith and patience."

In other words, when a man or woman is called whose assumptions and analysis on economics I find disagreeable, this must mean he/she was called to test my righteous faith and patience. Of course, it is possible you are one who tries others faith and patience and he is one called to guide, but such a thought would not be ego-syntonic.



"I think this man is pure evil"

Based upon what? What evidence that he is evil? Good grief.



"...Most prominent among its disciples was Hugh Nibley. If ever there was a socialist dummy it was him"

Nibley, a socialist dummy? I've read about 30 books by Hugh Nibley, and this claim is laughable. He was not a libertarian conservative, but he was certainly not a socialist. Even in Approaching Zion. Endorsing a progressive taxation scheme does not make one a socialist.



I have yet to see one post demonstrate, beyond hearsay, that this man is an unworthy LDS. Most of you have no idea just how much Harry has done for the Church behind the scenes. I have been in this man's ward for four years, I have heard his testimony. He believes. I do not vote democratic, but I have seen nothing and have read nothing to convince me that he is not a man of personal integrity. The scriptures are a guide for personal living. They do not obviously or explicitly comment on 21st century government. It goes against the teachings of Christ to deign to not sustain a brother because his opinions and assumptions on relatively unimportant, wordly, transient items of government and economics are different from your own. One dec 22 2012 how many of you would've eagerly sustained Mike Crapo?

Does constant lying count or half-truths or deceptive truths count?



2013 "we have already cut 2.3 trillion from the debt" We all know this isn't true. I can't even imagine how he spun it in his mind.



2013 "Speaker Boehner and his band of tea party radicals have done the unthinkable — they’ve shut down the federal government" an out and out lie. They passed numerous CR's but HR would not take up a single one. He himself was responsible for the 13% governemtn shutdown.



2009 "In fact, one of our core principles is that if you like the health care you have, you can keep it" We now know that those in charge knew for a fact that this was not true.



2007 "this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything" And the terrorists were heartened to hear such talk.



2013 "The only people who feel there shouldn’t be more coming in to the federal government from the rich people are the Republicans in the Congress. Everybody else, including the rich people, are willing to pay more. They want to pay more" Every democrate, conservative, liberal, libertarian, and independent wants to pay more taxes? Really?



These are just a few of his deceptive truths. My exboss,the one described above, was also great at this. For example one day he left work early saying he was going down the street to check on his ward building because they were refinishing the bball floor. The next day he came back with a tan. One of the guys poked fun and asked how golf went. He asked what he meant and when the guy pointed out his tan he said "I got that on Sunday". His words exaclty. So he left them to think he played a round on Sunday. We know he didn't, but as I explained to the guys after he left these types use deceptive truths. They don't see something as a lie if it is exactly true. He played on Monday but the sun was out so it was technically a sun-day. HR is the same. He will say something that may be technically true but is meant to deceive or distort (Someone told me Romney didn't pay any taxes"). To me this deception is the same if not worse than lying. Everybody thought he meant on Sunday the day and in reality he meant on a sunny day. Complete dishonesty with a factual statement.

You never see a no vote on these but there are times, though rare, that it would be appropriate. An example is a man called to be Bishop that is later excommunicated.

scott715 wrote:
You never see a no vote on these but there are times, though rare, that it would be appropriate. An example is a man called to be Bishop that is later excommunicated.

When exactly would you do a no vote on that? Before he is excommunicated?

When there's stuff that the priesthood leader doesn't know about. Like fraud or moral issues. It shouldn't be 100% sustain. Just 99.999% sustain.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

imuakahuku:



It is extraordinary difficult to prove dishonesty. You have to prove knowledge to the contrary and intent to deceive. The quotes you have listed do not meet this standard. They seem more like standard politician speech, the type of thing all politicians say. From Harry's perspective, his conclusions naturally flow from his assumptions and his analysis. You might disagree with his assumptions - and the assumptions we make are unprovable, liberal or conservative - and there might be flaws in his logic or analysis, but this doesn't mean some is guilty of dishonesty.

valleus wrote:
imuakahuku:



It is extraordinary difficult to prove dishonesty. You have to prove knowledge to the contrary and intent to deceive. The quotes you have listed do not meet this standard. They seem more like standard politician speech, the type of thing all politicians say. From Harry's perspective, his conclusions naturally flow from his assumptions and his analysis. You might disagree with his assumptions - and the assumptions we make are unprovable, liberal or conservative - and there might be flaws in his logic or analysis, but this doesn't mean some is guilty of dishonesty.

This exemplifies what is wrong with our political landscape. Because they're only partially dishonest, we don't call them dishonest. Because they didn't "intend" to decieve, they weren't really deceitful. Sure, they can't help what we inferred from their implications, but those things just happen sometimes.



If you're not honest, by definition you're dishonest. Like James E. Faust said, "You can't tell little white lies without becoming progressively color blind."



Our nation is completely color blind because we tolerate all the white lies, all the half-truths, statements of "fact" based on faulty assumptions, etc.

SpiffCoug wrote:

imuakahuku:



It is extraordinary difficult to prove dishonesty. You have to prove knowledge to the contrary and intent to deceive. The quotes you have listed do not meet this standard. They seem more like standard politician speech, the type of thing all politicians say. From Harry's perspective, his conclusions naturally flow from his assumptions and his analysis. You might disagree with his assumptions - and the assumptions we make are unprovable, liberal or conservative - and there might be flaws in his logic or analysis, but this doesn't mean some is guilty of dishonesty.

This exemplifies what is wrong with our political landscape. Because they're only partially dishonest, we don't call them dishonest. Because they didn't "intend" to decieve, they weren't really deceitful. Sure, they can't help what we inferred from their implications, but those things just happen sometimes.



If you're not honest, by definition you're dishonest. Like James E. Faust said, "You can't tell little white lies without becoming progressively color blind."



Our nation is completely color blind because we tolerate all the white lies, all the half-truths, statements of "fact" based on faulty assumptions, etc.

Spiff, i know where you are coming from, at least I think I do, but i think it is dangerous to see too many things too black and white. I'm not saying this to defend Reid or any other politician, but to wonder where your position gets played out amongst all of us. By your definition, could any of us get a temple recommend, given we are asked if we are honest in all our dealings? Do we call deceitful the person who says he obeys the law of the land and then drives five miles over the speed limit? How about the person who says he sustains the brethren and then never gets around to doing all his home teaching every month? Is he deceitful? Deceit is to a large degree a matter of the heart and that we cannot discern, at least for me in most cases. I suspect you are a much better man than I and these things do not trouble you like me, but I guess I am willing to say that at least some things a public figure (lor any of us for that matter) says and it turns out not to be so, may be due to error, lack of execution, etc. and not dishonest or deceitfulness.

Happy New Year all--and I really mean that!

BoiseBYU wrote:

valleus wrote:
imuakahuku:



It is extraordinary difficult to prove dishonesty. You have to prove knowledge to the contrary and intent to deceive. The quotes you have listed do not meet this standard. They seem more like standard politician speech, the type of thing all politicians say. From Harry's perspective, his conclusions naturally flow from his assumptions and his analysis. You might disagree with his assumptions - and the assumptions we make are unprovable, liberal or conservative - and there might be flaws in his logic or analysis, but this doesn't mean some is guilty of dishonesty.

This exemplifies what is wrong with our political landscape. Because they're only partially dishonest, we don't call them dishonest. Because they didn't "intend" to decieve, they weren't really deceitful. Sure, they can't help what we inferred from their implications, but those things just happen sometimes.



If you're not honest, by definition you're dishonest. Like James E. Faust said, "You can't tell little white lies without becoming progressively color blind."



Our nation is completely color blind because we tolerate all the white lies, all the half-truths, statements of "fact" based on faulty assumptions, etc.

Spiff, i know where you are coming from, at least I think I do, but i think it is dangerous to see too many things too black and white. I'm not saying this to defend Reid or any other politician, but to wonder where your position gets played out amongst all of us. By your definition, could any of us get a temple recommend, given we are asked if we are honest in all our dealings? Do we call deceitful the person who says he obeys the law of the land and then drives five miles over the speed limit? How about the person who says he sustains the brethren and then never gets around to doing all his home teaching every month? Is he deceitful? Deceit is to a large degree a matter of the heart and that we cannot discern, at least for me in most cases. I suspect you are a much better man than I and these things do not trouble you like me, but I guess I am willing to say that at least some things a public figure (lor any of us for that matter) says and it turns out not to be so, may be due to error, lack of execution, etc. and not dishonest or deceitfulness.

Happy New Year all--and I really mean that!

Excellent points with which I agree.



But I think our politicians tend, too often, to speak in such a manner that they're not decietful. They don't learn things so what they say or knew can't be wrong.



Sure, they could have known no one would have been able to keep their health plan, but since they didn't read the bill before it was passed what they wasn't wrong or deceitful or incorrect. It was just misinformed.



Sure Susan Rice didn't intend to mislead the American public about Benghazi, she only repeated what she was told. How was she to know she wasn't getting the full scoop?

SpiffCoug wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:

imuakahuku:



It is extraordinary difficult to prove dishonesty. You have to prove knowledge to the contrary and intent to deceive. The quotes you have listed do not meet this standard. They seem more like standard politician speech, the type of thing all politicians say. From Harry's perspective, his conclusions naturally flow from his assumptions and his analysis. You might disagree with his assumptions - and the assumptions we make are unprovable, liberal or conservative - and there might be flaws in his logic or analysis, but this doesn't mean some is guilty of dishonesty.

This exemplifies what is wrong with our political landscape. Because they're only partially dishonest, we don't call them dishonest. Because they didn't "intend" to decieve, they weren't really deceitful. Sure, they can't help what we inferred from their implications, but those things just happen sometimes.



If you're not honest, by definition you're dishonest. Like James E. Faust said, "You can't tell little white lies without becoming progressively color blind."



Our nation is completely color blind because we tolerate all the white lies, all the half-truths, statements of "fact" based on faulty assumptions, etc.

Spiff, i know where you are coming from, at least I think I do, but i think it is dangerous to see too many things too black and white. I'm not saying this to defend Reid or any other politician, but to wonder where your position gets played out amongst all of us. By your definition, could any of us get a temple recommend, given we are asked if we are honest in all our dealings? Do we call deceitful the person who says he obeys the law of the land and then drives five miles over the speed limit? How about the person who says he sustains the brethren and then never gets around to doing all his home teaching every month? Is he deceitful? Deceit is to a large degree a matter of the heart and that we cannot discern, at least for me in most cases. I suspect you are a much better man than I and these things do not trouble you like me, but I guess I am willing to say that at least some things a public figure (lor any of us for that matter) says and it turns out not to be so, may be due to error, lack of execution, etc. and not dishonest or deceitfulness.

Happy New Year all--and I really mean that!

Excellent points with which I agree.



But I think our politicians tend, too often, to speak in such a manner that they're not decietful. They don't learn things so what they say or knew can't be wrong.



Sure, they could have known no one would have been able to keep their health plan, but since they didn't read the bill before it was passed what they wasn't wrong or deceitful or incorrect. It was just misinformed.



Sure Susan Rice didn't intend to mislead the American public about Benghazi, she only repeated what she was told. How was she to know she wasn't getting the full scoop?

Well said and voters should hold them accountable for their actions whether deceitful or just incompetently ignorant.

The forgoing logic of, maybe they didn't know therefore they might not have been lying, doesn't work for me. People that have more access to information and more responsibility to know, that at the same time are touted as the smartest and most capable, don't get a "get out of lying, get out if jail" card for being blatantly stupid. First of all I do not believe they are that consistently stupid but if they were they should not be in office. If they are lying they should not be in office. It makes no difference. If you have access to information and a responsibility to know and you say something counter to fact then intent is not a factor.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

tww wrote:
The forgoing logic of, maybe they didn't know therefore they might not have been lying, doesn't work for me. People that have more access to information and more responsibility to know, that at the same time are touted as the smartest and most capable, don't get a "get out of lying, get out if jail" card for being blatantly stupid. First of all I do not believe they are that consistently stupid but if they were they should not be in office. If they are lying they should not be in office. It makes no difference. If you have access to information and a responsibility to know and you say something counter to fact then intent is not a factor.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

You at least missed my point, which Is that not everything a public or private figure says that doesn't pan out does not mean they were deceitful. Dems and Repubs liberals and conservatives say things and sometimes they don't pan out. Read my lips. I don't believe President Bush was being deceitful when he said that and when he negotiated later on on deal that included new taxes, well I don't think that made him a fraud. I think too many of us are too quick to label everything the other side says that turns out wrong as meaning they are some sort of con artist. I'd vote to be gentler. Sometimes leaders have lied to us. Clinton did regarding Lewinsky. And I have no compunction saying so. But in our polarized world I'd still wish we'd tone it down. Peace out.

BoiseBYU wrote:

The forgoing logic of, maybe they didn't know therefore they might not have been lying, doesn't work for me. People that have more access to information and more responsibility to know, that at the same time are touted as the smartest and most capable, don't get a "get out of lying, get out if jail" card for being blatantly stupid. First of all I do not believe they are that consistently stupid but if they were they should not be in office. If they are lying they should not be in office. It makes no difference. If you have access to information and a responsibility to know and you say something counter to fact then intent is not a factor.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

You at least missed my point, which Is that not everything a public or private figure says that doesn't pan out does not mean they were deceitful. Dems and Repubs liberals and conservatives say things and sometimes they don't pan out. Read my lips. I don't believe President Bush was being deceitful when he said that and when he negotiated later on on deal that included new taxes, well I don't think that made him a fraud. I think too many of us are too quick to label everything the other side says that turns out wrong as meaning they are some sort of con artist. I'd vote to be gentler. Sometimes leaders have lied to us. Clinton did regarding Lewinsky. And I have no compunction saying so. But in our polarized world I'd still wish we'd tone it down. Peace out.

I don't think I missed your point so much as I kind of talked passed your point. I do agree that the dialogue can get ugly pretty quick especially online. That is unfortunate but I don't think it is going to get easier as I suspect that more people will feel like they have gun to their head. I don't have as much time to spend here as I used too but I appreciate my CC brothers even if we duke it out occasionally. I do have a desire to be gentler here but not so much with public officials that don't respect the trust we must have toward them. I see a major difference between those that are habitual liers and those that misspeak.

Peace to you my brother.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

And I would definitely place the current white house resident in the habitual liar category.

tww wrote:

tww wrote:
The forgoing logic of, maybe they didn't know therefore they might not have been lying, doesn't work for me. People that have more access to information and more responsibility to know, that at the same time are touted as the smartest and most capable, don't get a "get out of lying, get out if jail" card for being blatantly stupid. First of all I do not believe they are that consistently stupid but if they were they should not be in office. If they are lying they should not be in office. It makes no difference. If you have access to information and a responsibility to know and you say something counter to fact then intent is not a factor.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

You at least missed my point, which Is that not everything a public or private figure says that doesn't pan out does not mean they were deceitful. Dems and Repubs liberals and conservatives say things and sometimes they don't pan out. Read my lips. I don't believe President Bush was being deceitful when he said that and when he negotiated later on on deal that included new taxes, well I don't think that made him a fraud. I think too many of us are too quick to label everything the other side says that turns out wrong as meaning they are some sort of con artist. I'd vote to be gentler. Sometimes leaders have lied to us. Clinton did regarding Lewinsky. And I have no compunction saying so. But in our polarized world I'd still wish we'd tone it down. Peace out.

I don't think I missed your point so much as I kind of talked passed your point. I do agree that the dialogue can get ugly pretty quick especially online. That is unfortunate but I don't think it is going to get easier as I suspect that more people will feel like they have gun to their head. I don't have as much time to spend here as I used too but I appreciate my CC brothers even if we duke it out occasionally. I do have a desire to be gentler here but not so much with public officials that don't respect the trust we must have toward them. I see a major difference between those that are habitual liers and those that misspeak.

Peace to you my brother.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Peace to you too...

SpiffCoug wrote:
And I would definitely place the current white house resident in the habitual liar category.

Getting pretty close to agreeing with you....BTW, is your new moniker or avatar or whatever you call it something you picked up from Colorado? ;)

BoiseBYU wrote:

And I would definitely place the current white house resident in the habitual liar category.

Getting pretty close to agreeing with you....BTW, is your new moniker or avatar or whatever you call it something you picked up from Colorado? ;)

No it's a game called Ingress. It's a smartphone gps-based game for Android devices that's a lot of fun.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/weekly-update-dcs-most-corrupt/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Post&utm_content=01032014&utm_campaign=Most%20corrupt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Top 10 Most Corrupt Politicians List

The answer is very simple: No. Harry Reid is a duplicitous, deceitful, and dishonest man. There are those that post and excuse and defend Harry Reid, but, you can paint him any color you want, he's still the same old, dishonest politician. There is no one more partisan in Washington than Harry Reid.



A shining example of Reid's hypocrisy is the "Nuclear Option" that he exercised in Nov. '13. Let's look at Reid's comments back in 2005 when the Dem's were in the minority and the GOP majority was flirting with the idea of a "Nuclear Option" themselves.



Harry Reid in 2005: “Some in this chamber want to throw out 214 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power … They think they’re wiser than our founding fathers. I doubt that that’s true.”



And again, Harry Reid '05: “The Filibuster Is Far From A Procedural Gimmick. It’s Part Of The Fabric Of This Institution … Senators Have Used The Filibuster To Stand Up To Popular Presidents, To Block Legislation, And, Yes, Even, As I’ve Stated, To Stall Executive Nominees.” SEN. HARRY REID: “The filibuster is not a scheme and it certainly isn’t new. The filibuster is far from a procedural gimmick. It’s part of the fabric of this institution we call the Senate. It was well-known in colonial legislatures before we became a country, and it’s an integral part of our country’s 214-year history. The first filibuster in the United States Congress happened in 1790. It was used by lawmakers from Virginia and South Carolina who were trying to prevent Philadelphia from hosting the first Congress. Since then, the filibuster has been employed hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times. It’s been employed on legislative matters, it’s been employed on procedural matters relating to the president’s nominations for Cabinet and sub-Cabinet posts, and it’s been used on judges for all those years. One scholar estimates that 20 percent of the judges nominated by presidents have fallen by the wayside, most of them as a result of filibusters. Senators have used the filibuster to stand up to popular presidents, to block legislation, and, yes, even, as I’ve stated, to stall executive nominees. The roots of the filibuster are found in the Constitution and in our own rules.”



Thomas Edison said: "There is far more danger in public, than in private monopoly, for when Govt. goes into business it can always shift it's losses to the taxpayers. Govt. never makes ends meet, and that is the first requisite of a business."



Dwight D. Eisenhower said: "I firmly believe that the army of persons who urge greater and greater centralization of authority and greater and greater dependance upon the Federal Treasury are really more dangerous to our form of government than any external threat that can possibly be arrayed against us."



Harry Reid tossed out 222 years of Senate tradition, and allows Obama to stack the courts. Reid is a man who does everything in his power to expand an invasive Federal govt. He has been a water carrier and chief architect for the biggest power grab and expansion of the Federal Govt. in modern history - under the guise of fairness and compassion. Reid talks out both sides of his mouth, and does not stand for, nor defend in reality, the founding principles which the founding fathers were inspired to establish this nation. Instead, Reid does the old Washington "Okie-dokie" - "we are here for you and are looking out for your best interests" in the name of "fairness" - then votes our freedoms down the drain.



Note, this is just 1 example, and the tip of the iceberg.

Great example Ddawg.

Great reply. He truly is a vile and disgusting individual. I actually take pause in wondering if he has done more to damage America than Ted Kennedy was ever capable of doing. I'm not his judge, but his words and actions are in fact public knowledge. How does a person like this ever make it through a temple recommend interview? The only thing I can think of is a large dose of self-deception. That's how.