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

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)

What about me?

(deleted comment)

What derailment?

I'm not derailing. I'm responding to you in the only way I can that allows me to value my time in respect to the intellectual speciousness you engage in every time I see you name pop up here. You don't think my one-liner has any value in debate but given the tiresome effect your lack of good faith in debate has caused, it's the only way I can respond because there is no sense in engaging with a person whose beliefs occur in a vacuum depending on what the topic may be and who refuses to back down when he has shown to be wrong.

I am not the first person to confront you this way. I don't even think I am the first person to confront you this way this month. Most of us, when confronted in such a manner would wonder if, just maybe, we are engaging in intellectual dishonesty. At times I honestly wonder if you are trolling. You are a mod in this community and I wonder if you are trolling. So call this derailment if you want, Jeff, but given that it is impossible to engage with you any other way, your assessment means far less than you think it should, even if you are wearing your mod pants, SugarPants.

I don't think I'm the problem for the lack of effort you want to put in. Accuse me of a lack of good faith, and you are speaking incorrectly. If you do not wish to respond like a human being, do not respond at all. Otherwise, know that what you believe is false, and reconsider your point. Show yourself as better than the others, if you can. If those terms are impossible, then other considerations will have to be put into play. Sound good?

Because you are a mod and because you are omnipresent, it is very difficult to navigate this community without encountering you, though if you look back through your comments you may notice I did, in fact, refuse to respond to you for a couple of months. Silence tends not to convey discontent, it seems. I showed you how you are intellectually dishonest and you dismissed it. Others have shown you that you refuse to back down even when caught in a factual or logical inconsistency and you dismiss it.

I assert that your behavior has changed the tone of this community to the point that more often than not, debate centers around jumping through your hoops. Nothing is learned, nothing is gained and the overall tone of the community has suffered because so much time is spent trying to tell you that it is, in fact, a logical inconsistency to think that crossing a border one way sans any claims of religious persecution is in fact the same action as crossing the border the other way sans any claim of religious persecution.

That tendency toward logical inconsistency dogs every interaction with you. You can call me a liar all you want and you can put other considerations into play but you make the terms of honest engagement with you impossible. I'll probably go back to ignoring you but if everyone who is sick to death of your style of debate has no choice but to ignore you or be banned, that's gonna be an interesting prospect, don't you think?

And this really is my last word on this today. Do what you have to do as a mod but as of right now, I am ignoring you. Sound good?

(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.

Yet another thing you do all the time: claiming things are untrue because you think they're untrue. The fairly obvious observation, observed by many here on LJ, and observed by those that ran you off Wikipedia, is that you do these things all the time. The only constant is you, but it's always someone else out to get you, isn't it?

That you want to believe things that aren't true is your call at the end of the day, whether it be that I do anything "all the time" or that I was run off of Wikipedia. They're verifiably false statements, but you believe them anyway. Call it a "constant" if you'd like, but at the end of the day you're disbelieving what is in front of you in favor of trolls and lunatics. That's not a reflection on me, and I see no need to concern myself with it.

Jeff, that you want to believe things that aren't true is your call at the end of the day. Thank you for sharing your always unique perspective.

(no subject)

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com - 2012-01-10 17:40 (UTC) - Expand

*golf clap*

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only