Who Knows wrote:How about we talk about romney's claim that he's been a hunter all his life. Nevermind the fact that he joined the NRA only months before announcing his campaign. lol.
I'm not sure what the hell that has to do with the price of whips in Denmark, but I'll bite.
Not, that I'm a Romney supporter in any way, but what does joining the NRA have to do with hunting? With the exception of the last 4 years, I can't think of a year that I haven't gone hunting. . . and I'm not a member of the NRA.
Sethbag wrote:I'm unaware of where it's written that to be a "hunter" one must be a member of the NRA. I'm not a current member of the NRA. Do I still get to call myself a shooting sports enthusiast?
I didn't mean to link the 2 in the way that you read it.
He fudges his hunter claims, and joins the NRA only months before he starts his campaign. All to appease the conservative base. They're separate items, but related.
You see seth, it's all about patterns. Sure, you can look at any ONE of these individual cases, and rationalize it away. But take a look in total, and you'll see a pattern emerge.
heh. see something familiar...
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
Sethbag wrote:And, anyhow, the existence of the Apostle Delbert Stapley letter to George Romney tells me that Mitt's dad was more than likely on the right side of the whole black issue. He supported their rights, and kicked against the pricks in the Q12 hard enough to get an apostle to write to him to "correct" his attitude. If nothing else, Mitt's dad saw through the racist crap in the LDS church and was more progressive on the black issue in the church than a lot of other members, including members of the Quorum of the Twelve. I see that as being quite a credit to him.
And today, the same kind of LDS men and women of good faith are standing by silently in the face of overt sexism and bigotry (mostly towards gays) by the very same institution. Where's the courageous men and women principled enough to stand up to the thing they love when that which they love is so clearly on the wrong side of the moral fence? Mormons tend to display a distinct yellow streak where it comes to actually "standing for something" (unless, of course, that something has to do with the sexual practices of other people).
Which makes it all the more remarkable that George Romney would stand for black civil rights to a public enough, and substantial enough, degree, departing from then-accepted LDS doctrinal standards, to draw a private rebuke from a member of the Quorum of the Twelve.
Did Mitt ever publicly denounce the church over it? Apparently not. Neither did I. Probably neither did you, or anyone else here on this board.
No I did not, and I am ashamed that I did not. (I don't think it necessary to "denounce" the Church. One can take a stand against an organization's policies without denouncing the entire organization.)
Sethbag wrote:Mitt's a TBM. He believes in sustaining the leaders and not speaking evil of the Lord's annointed. I can't really blame him for not going public with his denunciation of the church's black priesthood ban. I find the evidence that he was at least raised by a guy who can demonstrate a departure from that racist belief system, and see no reason to suspect that his father's views weren't also his own.
I don't disagree. My point is that their commitment to higher moral principles was constrained. One can sustain the Lord annointed but still take a moral stand, particularly on such a clear cut moral issue. The LDS leadership was shamefully racist and the silent membership enabled their racism. Do you not believe that if a few, high profile, men or women such as Romney were to take a stand that the Church wouldn't take notice? I guarantee you that they wouldn't ex someone like Romney (as they might some obscure academics). All it might take is a few persons of high public standing to make a public, though still loyal stand (I don't buy into this "no loyal opposition" BS) that it might not have some effect? It would do more in shorter period of time than all the letters from Evergeen to the Brethren.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
I don't disagree. My point is that their commitment to higher moral principles was constrained. One can sustain the Lord annointed but still take a moral stand, particularly on such a clear cut moral issue. The LDS leadership was shamefully racist and the silent membership enabled their racism. Do you not believe that if a few, high profile, men or women such as Romney were to take a stand that the Church wouldn't take notice? I guarantee you that they wouldn't ex someone like Romney (as they might some obscure academics). All it might take is a few persons of high public standing to make a public, though still loyal stand (I don't buy into this "no loyal opposition" BS) that it might not have some effect? It would do more in shorter period of time than all the letters from Evergeen to the Brethren.
Maybe not a Romney but a me or you-we would be out on our keesters pretty darn quick.
I don't disagree. My point is that their commitment to higher moral principles was constrained. One can sustain the Lord annointed but still take a moral stand, particularly on such a clear cut moral issue. The LDS leadership was shamefully racist and the silent membership enabled their racism. Do you not believe that if a few, high profile, men or women such as Romney were to take a stand that the Church wouldn't take notice? I guarantee you that they wouldn't ex someone like Romney (as they might some obscure academics). All it might take is a few persons of high public standing to make a public, though still loyal stand (I don't buy into this "no loyal opposition" BS) that it might not have some effect? It would do more in shorter period of time than all the letters from Evergeen to the Brethren.
Maybe not a Romney but a me or you-we would be out on our keesters pretty darn quick.
Agreed. But then if there are enough people like you or me taking a stand, it would be much harder to put them all on their keesters. People have organized in the face of much more difficult circumstances and potentially much higher costs (imprisonment, torture, death), where are the principled Mormon rank and file standing up in opposition to racism, bigotry, sexism, lack of financial transparency, and the like?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
I don't disagree. My point is that their commitment to higher moral principles was constrained. One can sustain the Lord annointed but still take a moral stand, particularly on such a clear cut moral issue. The LDS leadership was shamefully racist and the silent membership enabled their racism. Do you not believe that if a few, high profile, men or women such as Romney were to take a stand that the Church wouldn't take notice? I guarantee you that they wouldn't ex someone like Romney (as they might some obscure academics). All it might take is a few persons of high public standing to make a public, though still loyal stand (I don't buy into this "no loyal opposition" BS) that it might not have some effect? It would do more in shorter period of time than all the letters from Evergeen to the Brethren.
Maybe not a Romney but a me or you-we would be out on our keesters pretty darn quick.
Agreed. But then if there are enough people like you or me taking a stand, it would be much harder to put them all on their keesters. People have organized in the face of much more difficult circumstances and potentially much higher costs (imprisonment, torture, death), where are the principled Mormon rank and file standing up in opposition to racism, bigotry, sexism, financial transparency, and the like?
guy sajer wrote:Agreed. But then if there are enough people like you or me taking a stand, it would be much harder to put them all on their keesters. People have organized in the face of much more difficult circumstances and potentially much higher costs (imprisonment, torture, death), where are the principled Mormon rank and file standing up in opposition to racism, bigotry, sexism, lack of financial transparency, and the like?
Indeed!
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
I think the substance of what Mitt Romney was trying to say here was so essentially correct that I don't really care to argue in what sense of the word "saw" his expressions should be judged, and call him liar if he recalled something hazily enough to have factually mis-spoken about things he was aware of his dad's doing 40 years previous.
People who want to be President ought not to be hazy, and this is a clear case of misrepresentation. If Romney is a bright as he claims to be, he knew full well that he was distorting the facts in the claim.
He’s also been less than genuine in hiw various flip-flops. Time and again, he has expoused positions that conflicted with views he had expressed previously – on:
Right of a woman to choose
Gay rights
Stem cell research
Immigration
Health care reform
He’s an opportunist. Instead of dropping his bid for the Republican nomination, Thursday, he insulted the patriotism of most of the American electorate and its intelligence as well.
He stated: “I simply cannot let my campaign be part of aiding a surrender to terror.”
Not one candidate of either party has remotely suggested that scenario. (straw man attack)
Romney went on to claim of Obama and Clinton that they: “have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror. They would retreat, declare defeat.”
For Romney to continue campaigning he claimed he would “forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it easier for Sen. Clinton or Obama to win.”
He is merely pandering to the right wing in the event that he wants to try again in 2012.
JAK wrote:People who want to be President ought not to be hazy, and this is a clear case of misrepresentation. If Romney is a bright as he claims to be, he knew full well that he was distorting the facts in the claim.
These kinds of mistakes are made all the time. The bigger mistake is that Romney misspoke on this particular issue. Mormons will always have an uphill battle proving that the LDS Church does not have a dubious history in terms of racial issues. That is just the way it is.
And Al Gore invented the internet.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”