Would you sustain Harry Reid

Ddawg-



While your quotes etc are damning of Harry Reid, and rightfully so, they are also indicative of the underlying problem with our political class. There are few, if any, elected officials in Washington who hold fast to principles regardless of the direction of the tides. Instead, most look only to secure their power base, which requires unflinching allegiance to the "Party," which for almost any Washington politician who has been in office 8 years or more means that they have argued vigorously for one side of an issue and claimed moral high ground, yet today they argue the opposite and again claim moral high ground, pretending not to notice they occupy the same ground their opponents held the last go-around.



While the quotes from Harry Reid and Obama are making the rounds among those who tend right, what is too often forgotten is that the only reason Reid and Obama had occasion to opine on the nuclear option in 2005 is because the Republicans running the show at the time (W, Frist, and McConnell) were at that time threatening to use the nuclear option themselves.....which 8 years later the GOP would unanimously issue hue and cry when Reid did what they had threatened to do themselves.



I'm not try to pick sides in the "nuclear option" debate--I do think Reid blatantly lied about it, most notably when he said that the rule change would not affect judicial nominations. My point instead is that the biggest problem in Washington is that our "representatives" in the Senate and House put Party and power ahead of principles and people.

Sno - I agree wholeheartedly with your post. I am familiar with the history of the "Nuclear Option" and the Repub's Bill Frist's threatening to use it during George Bush's administration.



The reason I focused on Harry Reid, is, the thread is about Harry Reid. Yes, a good percentage of politicians are dishonest - on both sides of the aisle. And yes, very few politicians are grounded in the principles that moved the Founding Fathers to establish this nation. Just the same, I stand by my sentiments that Harry Reid is a duplicitous man that lacks integrity. He cannot be trusted. The same can be said about some Republicans. Corruption and scandal rock both sides of the aisle. The longer politicians are in Office, the more self serving they become. The incredible amount of money, power, and privilege that flows through Washington DC is intoxicating. It takes a highly principled person to keep their integrity and principles intact in the heady presence of such power, perks, prestige, and money.



Regarding this stated objective/tenet of Obama, Reid, new NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio, and the Dem's to make everything more "fair" and equal. I found this quote interesting.



Aristotle: "It is the greatest inequality to try to make unequal things equal."



That's some "ponder" material.

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.

Just a point in fact. many of the quotes I included have been proven to be false when he made them. e.g. How did HR not know that he himself was shutting down the government when he refused to pick up any CR's? How can he claim everyone but repubs. want to pay more in taxes?



After all is said and done, HR is dispicable in his behavior as well as many others from both sides of the aisle. I wish we could institute term limits for the Congress. Lets get new blood in every 8 to 12 years.

One problem that must accompany term limit is similar limits on Congressional staffs. Otherwise, the seat holder becomes an empty suit to the bureaucrats behind the scenes.



Some changes I'd like to see.



12 years of elected service to be split up however you want between the House, Senate and Presidency.



100% change over of congressional staffs with each newly elected person.



Move election to the first Tuesday in December. No new laws can be passed after election day except by 3/4 majority. December is for outgoing and incoming members to move in/out of Washington offices. Inaguration day is the first week of January.



Members will read aloud the Constitution annually in their chambers. Every piece of legislation must cite the Article and Section of the Constitution authorizing the legislation.



Member of Congress will convene the first week of January to set up committees and other administrative responsibilities. They will then return to their home districts. They will return to Washington for the last week of January and first week of February. Then back home until the last week of March and first week of April and so on.



Each home district/state office will have access to secure communications so that any meetings, hearings, etc. that need to take place when members of Congress are not in Washington can still take place.



There will be a minimum of three months from the time a bill is proposed until it can be voted on. Any amendments to the bill reset the clock. This can be superseded by a 3/4s vote of the body.

SpiffCoug wrote:
One problem that must accompany term limit is similar limits on Congressional staffs. Otherwise, the seat holder becomes an empty suit to the bureaucrats behind the scenes.



Some changes I'd like to see.



12 years of elected service to be split up however you want between the House, Senate and Presidency.



100% change over of congressional staffs with each newly elected person.



Move election to the first Tuesday in December. No new laws can be passed after election day except by 3/4 majority. December is for outgoing and incoming members to move in/out of Washington offices. Inaguration day is the first week of January.



Members will read aloud the Constitution annually in their chambers. Every piece of legislation must cite the Article and Section of the Constitution authorizing the legislation.



Member of Congress will convene the first week of January to set up committees and other administrative responsibilities. They will then return to their home districts. They will return to Washington for the last week of January and first week of February. Then back home until the last week of March and first week of April and so on.



Each home district/state office will have access to secure communications so that any meetings, hearings, etc. that need to take place when members of Congress are not in Washington can still take place.



There will be a minimum of three months from the time a bill is proposed until it can be voted on. Any amendments to the bill reset the clock. This can be superseded by a 3/4s vote of the body.

I'd support these changes. Unfortunately those with the power will never let these types of changes occur and there are too many Americans that don't follow politics/current events closely enough to be bothered by a grass roots battle for change. Too much power, money and influence for the current powers that be to give it up without a prolonged battle.

SpiffCoug wrote:
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.

Back to the op. I'm in a quandary now; I'd have a difficult time sustaining HR as my bishop, but if I didn't, how do I get my temple recommend? I need to answer affirmatively that I support my local leaders of the church. How do you reconcile that?



On a different note, maybe I'd support him as bishop because it would keep him away from Washington.

snoscythe wrote:

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.

I want an amendment that Congress has to live under the same laws as we do and eliminate all of the exceptions that have been enacted. Of course Congress will not do this, so it has to come from the states. More likely it will come about only from a grass roots effort. Make it so guys.

SpiffCoug wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:
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.

:skeptic:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 wrote:
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.

snoscythe wrote:

snoscythe wrote:

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.

:skeptic:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 wrote:
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.

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?

imuakahuku wrote:
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.

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.

valleus wrote:

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.

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.

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/spending-and-the-deficit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

stuckinbig10country wrote:

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.

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





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nefN-QvOPXY

Ddawg wrote:





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.