The Game Changer?

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

Well, it looks like Mitt Romney has been playing the "Selective Family Album" game and kinda/sorta/oppsies forgot to tell everyone he is 1/4 Mexican.

And just did why did Mitt's father flee Mexico for the safety of the US?

In his public life Mitt Romney has said and written little about his ancestors' history in Mexico.  In one oft-repeated quote he said his family left the U.S. for Mexico to escape persecution for their religious beliefs.

In fact, Romney's great grandfather, Miles Park Romney, led that first expedition to escape not persecution but prosecution for polygamy, or what Mormons called ‘plural marriage.’

Well, this is rather awkward, from a race standpoint. So we have the Southern US. There is a strong showing of rather simple minded voters who are Crusading Voters for Christ and All Other Things White™.

Who they going to vote for. Mitt the Mex? Barrak the Magic Negro?

Or maybe that white guy Gary Johnson, the only real social liberal/fiscal conservative in the race.

God DAMN I love Southern Idiocracy.

Question: Game changer? If Mitt embraces his SOTB roots, will this swing brown skins to his camp? WILL ANYONE DEMAND TO SEE HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

ETA: This just in! Cain demands to know more about this polygamy thing!

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's a yes or no question. If it's yes, I look forward to it. If it's no, let us know so we're aware of it.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Says the guy who brings up asylum while supporting the party that talks about "shooting on sight" and "building a wall and moat"


You realize how ... interesting... your objections are. Especially to your OWN points

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I think your attempts to equate political/religious asylum by Romney's grandparents with illegal immigration is kind of dumb, to be honest. That I've pointed out, quite clearly, why it's an issue and you're outright ignoring it for whatever reason you may have is not a reflection on me.

[awdrey-gore.livejournal.com]

It actually isn't a yes or not question because it refuses to take into account that I do, in fact, contribute to these discussions. So back to my question of whether or not this is a value judgment.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Then I look forward to those actual contributions.

[awdrey-gore.livejournal.com]

Then I thank you for your as always unique perspective.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

MY attempts to equate asylum with illegal immigration??

WHO brought up religious persecution as some "meaningful" difference between Romney's family and Mexicans at the border. I believe that person was you.


Right now, may I recommend you straighten out your story of WHO said WHAT in the discussion right above... and then re-evaluate if *your* words should be a reflection on *you*.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

You don't have to if you don't want, its simply a question, not a command. I'm not interested in your diversions though, they're pretty boring.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You already have your answer, then. A pleasure, as always.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

No I do not. I wonder what you think and asked you a simple question that can be easily answered with a yes or no answer. Yet you have done everything but answer, including wasting a whole lot of time on attempts at diversion. It provides the perception that this question is very hard for you to answer for some reason or other, which is also strange for me because i think it should be fairly simple for you to answer.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

WHO brought up religious persecution as some "meaningful" difference between Romney's family and Mexicans at the border. I believe that person was you.

In fact, you were the one who made the equation. FACT: Romney's grandparents fled from religious persecution. You keep wanting to make hay out of a different kind of immigration as if they're at all comperable.

So yes, please straighten yourself out here.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Real contributions, please.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Oh, the answer has been directed to you. If you spent less time complaining about me and more time reading, you could have figured it out by now.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Bottom line:
People in Mexico, today, are often trying to escape
escalating violence, blatantly corrupt government and
officials who victimize them as badly as any criminal, and
increasing poverty.

THOSE people are deemed criminals, leeches, and talk of building a fence to keep them out gets applause


HOWEVER
Romney's family flee the US in violation of laws that had been effect for years beforehand -- and not only is "OK", but is even spun as "fleeing persecution" and talks of asylum come up.


People fleeing for their lives = BAD. SHOOT THEM. BUILD A WALL.

People fleeing for a second wife = Those poor people, they're victims.


Notice the inconsistency in your stance there Jeff?

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

WHO brought up asylum? That was YOU.

If you're going to be mad at someone bringing up false equivalence arguments, may I suggest a mirror?

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I haven't been complaining at all. I'm not looking for some big meaningful answer, just in your own words a simple yes or no. That doesn't seem hard.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The entire reason Romney's family fled was religious persecution. Any other immigration stuff is a distraction from that point.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Not even a little. Religious persecution is religious persecution. Period.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Riiiiiiiiiight. You got your answer, so I'm moving on. I'm sure you'll say otherwise regardless, though.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

All I can say is the amount of effort you put in to not answering seems out of place and makes me wonder what giant chutes and ladders game is going on in your head.

[awdrey-gore.livejournal.com]

Jeff, "Thank you for your always unique perspective" is shorthand for:

You've yet again engaged in the same-old, same-old weird semantics you engage in when backed against a wall. You oppose illegal immigration yet have no problem with American citizens fleeing into Mexico to avoid prosecution for illegal actions. You've tried to make a quaint distinction between "persecution" and "prosecution" in an attempt to make it seem like fleeing the US for breaking the law is somehow okay in your book as long as there is a religious impetus, even though those who fled never asked for asylum but rather just left to avoid legal ramifications, but that's par for the course.

Also, you've shown how disgusted you are by people's focus on Romney's religion and family background but I don't recall such OMG OUTRAGE when the Tea Party and other assorted libertarians freaked the hell out over Obama's potential and completely unproven religious associations and the fact that his father was Kenyan. Again, it's strange that you have made such a stand but then again, you're very concerned about the historical abuse against Mormons. So maybe that explains the logical inconsistency. But wait, it sort of makes no sense when you've given virtually no care at all to other, similarly stigmatized religious group. But we all know there will be some extreme uber-rational gymnastic wherein you show how utterly logical your completely inconsistent stance is.

Even better, bringing these things up with you will bring no real resolution. There will be no introspection wherein you wonder if there maybe, just maybe, is a problem in how you address liberal versus conservative ideas. It will just be the same thing I experience every time I interact with you, and only you specifically.

So to sum up: Jeff says A, which makes no sense when one considers how he thinks about B and C. When confronted, Jeff makes a specious conflation as to how he is making sense, and perhaps it does make sense in a twisted, letter of the law sort of way, but violates the spirit of the law and leaves everyone involved feeling something akin to existential despair because engaging in such bad faith over and over again with people tends to make them think that perhaps putting effort into such dishonest debate is a waste of their time, given that the same thing happens over and over and over and over again.

So, in closing, if you get to say and do the same thing over and over again, why can't I engage in a bit of shorthand to make the ennui experienced from the sheer, unthinking repetition of it all a bit easier to swallow?

Just a thought. And I hope this contribution is real enough.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Hey, finally, a worthwhile contribution.

You oppose illegal immigration yet have no problem with American citizens fleeing into Mexico to avoid prosecution for illegal actions.

You have applied yet another position to be that I do not hold. Congratulations!

You've tried to make a quaint distinction between "persecution" and "prosecution" in an attempt to make it seem like fleeing the US for breaking the law is somehow okay in your book as long as there is a religious impetus, even though those who fled never asked for asylum but rather just left to avoid legal ramifications, but that's par for the course.

Actually, look up the history of United States/Mormon relations. The "law" was put in place specifically to persecute Mormons for their religious practices. Try, for example, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act. It's absolutely persecution. This is not a "quaint distinction," but rather the difference between the historical record and fantasy.

Also, you've shown how disgusted you are by people's focus on Romney's religion and family background but I don't recall such OMG OUTRAGE when the Tea Party and other assorted libertarians freaked the hell out over Obama's potential and completely unproven religious associations and the fact that his father was Kenyan.

I'm sorry you can't recall my disgust at birthers. That's not really my problem, but your problem, especially since this is the second time in as many paragraphs you've assumed something falsely about me.

But wait, it sort of makes no sense when you've given virtually no care at all to other, similarly stigmatized religious group.

Not that you can name a group that a) has been "stigmatized" the way Mormons have historically in this country or b) any evidence that I've "given virtually no care." Less assumption, more facts, please.

Even better, bringing these things up with you will bring no real resolution. There will be no introspection wherein you wonder if there maybe, just maybe, is a problem in how you address liberal versus conservative ideas. It will just be the same thing I experience every time I interact with you, and only you specifically.

Ah, yes, the "no introspection" argument. Because I'm not allowed to hold firmly held beliefs, nor question people on theirs. Others can, but not I. Correct?

So, in closing, if you get to say and do the same thing over and over again, why can't I engage in a bit of shorthand to make the ennui experienced from the sheer, unthinking repetition of it all a bit easier to swallow

Because people's tolerance for such activity, which would be considered trolling by some, is getting old. Not to mention that your entire basis for doing so is based on falsehoods and perhaps outright dishonesty, depending on what it is you actually know.

Engage me, challenge me, and we'll get somewhere. Continue being unproductive, and it's not going to end well for anyone involved.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No one is forcing you to read this exchange.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You'd have to ask awdrey.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I don't know why she feels the need to derail, its why I suggested she stop.