talkpolitics | The Game Changer?

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!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

"A majority of Americans of faith consider me the lowest of scum"

Even considering this is the internet, I think that's a bit hyperbolic! I mean, I doubt quite seriously that the majority of Americans of faith even know you. Not to mention out of the scores (if not hundreds) of atheists I have known over the years, I can only think of maybe two that I thought of as scum, and atheism didn't even enter the equation.

Yes, I was being a bit hyperbolic. I was referring, though, not to how people view me, but how they view atheists and agnostics in general. The picture ain't pretty (http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist8.htm):

In her book, "The Last Taboo," Author Wendy Kaminer referred to an unidentified survey published in the 1980's. It showed that almost 70% of Americans agreed that freedom of religion applies "to all religious groups, regardless of how extreme their ideas are." But only 26% agreed that Atheists should be given freedom of speech to ridicule religion and God, "no matter who might be offended." 71% believed that Atheists "who preach against God and religion" should not be permitted to rent or otherwise use civic auditoriums i.e. lecture halls supported by general taxation.

(I emphasized.)

And that was from a religious website after a quicky Googling.

I see this as an echo chamber effect. People gather together and discuss. Those who aren't in the gathering don't get a place at the discussion, and are therefore absent to defend their position when topics pertaining to them arise. The more people chat within their groups, the less dissenting voices even enter their worldview. This is how demonization starts, IMNSHO.

That's why I speak up, not to be a prick, but to represent views many have never considered. That's also why the current kerfuffle over the New Atheists is largely missing the point: Yes, they're vocal and abrasive, dismissive and the like. But their points need to be considered whether or not others feel they need to consider them.

The Game Changer?

no subject

no subject