Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipline?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipli

Post by _Kishkumen »

Joey wrote:And Third:  I would seriously suggest some anger management counseling.


Oh, I am sure that it makes you quite angry when people don't bow their heads in submission to the gospel you just shared with us. LOL!

Joey wrote:I get the impression that you may be unemployed or have a serious resentment for those who are proud to invest in providing jobs.


    1) Wrong. I am employed, and have been consistently since the age of 14, with the only break being for my mission.
    2) Wrong. My mother is a small business owner (and has been for decades), who is a "job creator." She has employed numerous people over the years.
    3) Not only does your free-market gospel drive your assumptions, but it has provided you with a definition of 'heretic' that you reflexively apply to anyone who is not cowed into submission by one of your sermons.

Joey wrote:Anyway, hope it all works out for you.  Still looking for clarification on your question if you were serious about a response.


If you were truly interested, you would have already figured it out. I was really quite clear about it.

Joey wrote:Up here in Utah on my annual pilgrimage for the Tour De Utah.  Sponsoring a team again.  I love this sport and this event.  Some of the best routes for rides.  But capitalism is responsible for funding this event so the devil must be near!!!


Good for you! Since you don't really understand what I think and why, we can pretend that your joke was clever and let it pass.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Joey
_Emeritus
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:34 am

Re: Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipli

Post by _Joey »

2) Wrong. My mother is a small business owner (and has been for decades), who is a "job creator." She has employed numerous people over the years.


That's very admirable.  Does(did) she find satisfaction and enjoyment in engaging in the challenges of the free market of  capitalism and providing jobs for others?

Did you support her efforts in that venture?

Sounds like a dedicated and remarkable woman.
"It's not so much that FARMS scholarship in the area Book of Mormon historicity is "rejected' by the secular academic community as it is they are "ignored". [Daniel Peterson, May, 2004]
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipli

Post by _Kishkumen »

Joey wrote:That's very admirable.  Does(did) she find satisfaction and enjoyment in engaging in the challenges of the free market of  capitalism and providing jobs for others?

Did you support her efforts in that venture?

Sounds like a dedicated and remarkable woman.


Joey, let me cut to the chase here. My point was one of meta-discourse. You seem to have missed it completely, and I am not interested in discussing my relationship with my mother with you so you can use it to BRT, resolve concerns, and convert me to your wonderful gospel of free market capitalism.

In any case, enjoy your time in Utah. It has a beautiful landscape, in my opinion.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Joey
_Emeritus
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:34 am

Re: Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipli

Post by _Joey »

and I am not interested in discussing my relationship with my mother


Well son, then why did you bring her into the conversation to begin with???  You seem to be all over the place, angry and emotional when asked for logical accountability in your positions/arguments.  

Still, thought your mother sounded like a true entrepreneur.  Hard to find that today.
"It's not so much that FARMS scholarship in the area Book of Mormon historicity is "rejected' by the secular academic community as it is they are "ignored". [Daniel Peterson, May, 2004]
_krose
_Emeritus
Posts: 2555
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:18 pm

Re: Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipli

Post by _krose »

Joey wrote:... can members now openly and publicly support polygamy for political reasons and remain temple rec holders?

Unless people are being punished for their personal opinions and philosophies now, rather than their actions, why would publicly advocating for the legal right to marry multiple partners (assuming it doesn't translate to action, of course) be a worthiness problem?

Is there a temple question that addresses that sort of thing? More generally, is there a precedent for punishing or marginalizing members for their (non-doctrinal) public opinions?

I realize that a few years ago a BYU instructor did not get his contract renewed after writing an op-ed piece in support of gay rights (BYU denied any connection, by the way), but I never heard anything about him being barred from temple entry or any other sanctions.
"The DNA of fictional populations appears to be the most susceptible to extinction." - Simon Southerton
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipline?

Post by _moksha »

Joey wrote:Still, thought your mother sounded like a true entrepreneur.  Hard to find that today.


Absolutely right. Seems like you need to either sit by the telephone waiting for marketers or else turn or the Home Shopping or Christian Broadcast Networks. Not like the old days when you could go to your local carnival and enter the fortune teller's tent.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipli

Post by _Kishkumen »

Joey wrote:Well son, then why did you bring her into the conversation to begin with???  You seem to be all over the place, angry and emotional when asked for logical accountability in your positions/arguments.  

Still, thought your mother sounded like a true entrepreneur.  Hard to find that today.


Uh, because I was refuting your silly, ignorant contention that I have something against all people who engage in business. Is this really all that hard to understand?

Come on, you seem like a somewhat intelligent fellow.

And, you have never asked for "logical accountability" in the argument, nor have you engaged in any real argument in the first place. Instead, you have regurgitated the truisms of your ideology as though they were self-evident. When someone indicated that they didn't buy into that, you moved from preaching to insult.

I'm not very impressed, nor do I find your continued attempts at dismissing through insult all that persuasive.

Finally, I am sure you will find more female entrepreneurs like my mother today than you would have in the mid 20th century.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Aug 08, 2012 9:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipli

Post by _Kishkumen »

moksha wrote:
Joey wrote:Still, thought your mother sounded like a true entrepreneur.  Hard to find that today.


Absolutely right. Seems like you need to either sit by the telephone waiting for marketers or else turn or the Home Shopping or Christian Broadcast Networks. Not like the old days when you could go to your local carnival and enter the fortune teller's tent.


Nicely done, moksha. You didn't even bring up the female independent contractors who have worked the cities of civilization for thousands of years.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipli

Post by _EAllusion »

I'd like to chime in and point out the military voting issue is pretty disgustingly brazen in that it not only is a lie, but that it is a lie that is meant to provide cover for Republicans trying to make it easier specifically for Republican leaning demographics to vote over others. The law gives extended in-person absentee voting to members of the military, and ends it for others. Ohio has had early voting since 2005. People could show up and cast their vote for three days leading up to election day. But the Republican-controlled Ohio legislature changed that so that only members of the military can vote early in a blatant attempt to juice the voting numbers. That's not only unconstitutional, it's deeply immoral. I'd be appalled if the Obama DoJ didn't challenge it. The challenge simply requests a return to allowing all eligible voters early voting. To portray that challenge as an effort to prevent military servicemen and women from exercising their voting rights is really beyond the pale. It's defending voter suppression by wrongfully accusing others of voter suppression. If our journalistic system hadn't imploded, Romney would've been rightfully crucified for his (or rather his ghostwritten) comments. But, as it is, really serious lies like this get a pass and are treated with all the gravity that slips of the tongue get.
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipli

Post by _Droopy »

My OP mentions nothing about political differences.


Nor does my comment. This is what I said: "Let's note the underlying assumption of the OP: an elected official of the United States government should be subject to ecclesiastical discipline for taking political positions contrary to what church leaders think he should be doing in the scope of his office." You are proposing that Harry Reid should be ecclesiastically disciplined because church leaders would find his political actions to be sinful.


The OP makes no such "underlying assumption." That would imply a logical inference made from the propositions and/or arguments in the OP which the body of the claims in the OP cannot support. The OP clearly calls Reid out on what is clearly his grossly immoral, unethical, and un-Christian behavior, not on his political ideology.

You claim that there is an "underlying assumption" in the OP about ecclesiastical discipline related to ideological matters is purely your own concoction, and purely a rhetorical device to create a psychological impression, while circumventing the logical structure of the text.

This is, yet again, a form of argument that works in the courtroom, but not in the real world.

In fact, your rant about life not being a cabaret or a circus tent or whatever is all in the context of what public policies a person supports.


That has nothing to do with Reid's defamation of Romney in claiming him to be a felon, based on an unnamed source within Bain that, if true, would make that source a felon as well and Reid an accomplice in a conspiracy to slander and criminally implicate Romney.

The meaning of what you are saying is that recognizing a person's freedom to make choices you do not agree with is the same as endorsing the choices they make with that freedom. In other words, people only have the right to act in accordance with your cherished beliefs and religious dogma.


I have some books on freshman logic and critical thinking, Darth, that you would do well to take a look at and take seriously. My entire point is that Reid has, ostensibly, if he is found to be lying, involved himself in felonious character assassination involving private, confidential IRS data, data his source at Bain is going to have to explain as to how it fell into his hands. It has nothing to do with his politics, save to the degree that the utter moral corruption of the Democratic party (brought to maturity by the Clintons in the 90s and now ethically normative in that party) and the leftist political ideology to which he subscribes, which is thoroughly Nietzschean and relativist in nature regarding means and ends, has taken possession of him.

Reid is clearly falling-down drunk with his own power and mindless partisanship, and his behavior here is simply the symptom.

You are changing your assertion now. At the beginning of this thread, you claimed that Harry Reid's political speech may be criminal:


No I didn't. You're a liar.

"Reid has committed a serious crime if he is knowingly lying to slander Mitt Romney in public, as is the person at Bain, if such exists."


You're also apparently a witless dolt, so infatuated with what you apparently believe to be your brilliant rhetorical skills that you've given up your reading comprehension and critical thinking abilities as the price you've had to pay for their refinement in the grand trial lawyer tradition. You didn't notice that you've just proven my case for me, even as I type. The OP was about Reid lying, slandering, and implicating Romney in felonious acts, not Reid's political ideology.

Now you've decided that actually Harry Reid committed a tort. This is amusingly ironic, by the way. You have no evidence that Harry Reid's statements are false (because you don't have Mitt Romney's tax records).


There's not a shred of evidence or reason to believe that there is anything amiss in Romney's tax records, or ever were.

Check

So if your assertions about the lawfulness of Harry Reid's statements were correct, then by your own standard Harry Reid could sue you for libel per se.


Reid can't sue me for my opinion about his claims (that they were lies). Romney could sue Reid for defamation based on Reid's claims that Romney actually committed certain criminal actions. Those are not opinions that Romney is a tax criminal, but empirical claims.

The irony of Droopy's OP is compounded because he is arguing that people should be able to go to court to quash political statements


Again, this logical shell game may work in the courtroom to line tort attorney's pockets and legislate through litigation, but in the real marketplace of ideas, where philosophical rigor demands its due and is not curtailed and artificially restricted by rules of evidence or courtroom procedural protocols, Darth can't just brazenly lie like this in broad daylight about a clearly articulated OP that had nothing to do with Reid's politics and mentioned only his behavior, and turn it into a fantasy counter-charge that I want the Church to silence Reid because of his politics.

Reid's moral vacancy is the problem, as my OP makes clear, not his politics (although his extreme leftist politics doubtless do, very much, condition his ethical orientation).

that they don't like, rather than letting political speech stand or fall on its own in the proverbial public square.


Exactly what I want. Stop lying and playing your cute little rhetorical games. Its a self-parody of lawyerly sophistry taken to absurd lengths in an attempt to circumvent the actual argument and release as many red herrings into the water as possible.

That is certainly an odd position to take for someone who is so vehemently opposed to the procedure over substance and Socratic inquiry he facetiously imagines to be the rule in a courtroom. Hardly the position we would expect from a self-styled conservative.


As you've concocted this cartoon caricature of my position out of your own imagination - an imagination quite obviously as morally handicapped as Reid's - we can just move along...

But in what I'm sure is a surprising turn of events for readers of this board, Droopy's assertions are not correct. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment protects even false, defamatory statements about public figures. For a public figure to prevail in a defamation case, it is not sufficient to show merely that the statements are false and defamatory per se (i.e., stating that someone has engaged in criminal conduct). The public figure must also show that the speaker acted with actual malice.


In Reid's case, that would doubtless be the least of the hurdles Romney would face in any legal action.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Aug 09, 2012 12:02 am, edited 3 times in total.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
Post Reply