talkpolitics | The Game Changer?

Entry tags:

mitt romney

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

Well, THAT's Romney's excuse

[citation needed]

Thanks for sharing your always unique perspective.

[no citation needed]

Do you have any intention on contributing to these discussions?

Is this a value judgment on what I am bringing to the table? I think a polite response should pass muster but if it doesn't, please elaborate as to why it does not. I think I'm making myself pretty clear even if I am not responding in a manner you find pleasing, but you never know. Best to be clear in such matters.

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.

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.

Then I look forward to those actual contributions.

Then I thank you for your as always unique perspective.

Real contributions, please.

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.

Edited 2012-01-08 20:27 (UTC)

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.

(deleted comment)

No one is forcing you to read this exchange.

(deleted comment)

You'd have to ask awdrey.

(deleted comment)

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

(deleted comment)

(no subject)

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com - 2012-01-08 21:09 (UTC) - Expand

(deleted comment)

(no subject)

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com - 2012-01-08 21:18 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

awdrey-gore.livejournal.com - 2012-01-08 21:18 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com - 2012-01-08 21:28 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

awdrey-gore.livejournal.com - 2012-01-08 21:47 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com - 2012-01-08 21:52 (UTC) - Expand

Jeff, I am not jumping through your hoops to participate in the sort of discourse you consider debate but I do find it interesting that you have just engaged in the behaviors I criticized in order to show you don't engage in the behaviors I criticized.

You are the reason I find it often impossible to be productive in this community because you are intellectually dishonest AND because you are a mod. I'm letting this go for now but believe me, I have no intention of continuing to behave like a trained dog because you think that is the way debate goes and because you can set the tone because of your official role in this community: Jeff can never be wrong even though he is completely unwilling to engage in intellectual consistency and the rest of us, given that paradigm, have to argue the same damn cloying posture over and over, topics changing as the posts change, because Jeff demands it. That's what you want and no intellectually honest person would want that.

Jeff, I am not jumping through your hoops to participate in the sort of discourse you consider debate but I do find it interesting that you have just engaged in the behaviors I criticized in order to show you don't engage in the behaviors I criticized.

If being called out on your misstatements, if not outright lies, is the type of behavior I'm supposed to fix, I'm glad I'm pissing off the right people.

If I'm wrong, prove it. If I'm not wrong, accept it. If you cannot participate here without complaining about my existence, let us know. It ain't hard. Contribute like a normal human being.

Why do you always talk down to people?

Why do people need to lie and obfuscate about me? Are you asking them why they believe things that are false, or only concerned with how I choose to defend myself?

What makes you think people are lying and obfuscating about ou?

Well, when they're saying things that are untrue and that are known to be untrue, it's a fairly obvious observation. Pretty simple stuff.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only