Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Dem Governor: "Not saying Mitt would have a problem with women due to his dad being born in a polygamy commune, but Mitt would have a problem with women due to his dad being born in a polygamy commune"   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 105
    More: PSA, polygamy, dad being born, polygamy commune  
•       •       •

1511 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Apr 2012 at 11:02 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



105 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-19 08:01:44 PM  
I thought family is off-limits.
 
2012-04-19 08:07:21 PM  
Do you know what Mitt is short for? Aliens.
 
2012-04-19 08:17:15 PM  
Oh for f*cks sake.
 
2012-04-19 08:19:29 PM  
Well, that's KINDA like 'two chicks at once' and I'd think the dems would be cool with that.
 
2012-04-19 08:20:19 PM  
I vote for Democrats almost always and seriously cannot stand Mitt Romney and most Republicans.

But what this Dem Governor said is just farking stupid. What a dick.
 
2012-04-19 08:23:04 PM  
Ok, so having a dad who was born in a polygamy commune makes you ineligible for presidency, but having a dad who was born in kenya doesn't, right?

/Malia 2036!!
 
2012-04-19 08:26:14 PM  
Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D)

There are Democrats in Montana?
 
2012-04-19 08:32:38 PM  
I would have liked to have seen Montana

/and not heard from it
 
2012-04-19 08:35:28 PM  

GAT_00: Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D)

There are Democrats in Montana?


Maybe Canada got to them?
 
2012-04-19 08:42:40 PM  
I'm shocked that what he said makes perfect sense and was twisted into something it isn't.

Schweitzer suggested R-Money would have some problems with Hispanic voters. The reporter (?) said that he might be able to claim Hispanic ancestry since his family lived in Mexico. Schweitzer then noted that would require him to talk about his family's polygamous past, which would run the risk of damaging his support with women.

But hey, the Dems are attacking his religion... so go ahead and run with that.
 
2012-04-19 08:56:57 PM  
His dad was a communist!
 
2012-04-19 08:58:12 PM  
Mitt has a problem with women that has nothing to do with wherever he was born.
 
2012-04-19 09:04:06 PM  

serial_crusher: Ok, so having a dad who was born in a polygamy commune makes you ineligible for presidency, but having a dad who was born in kenya doesn't, right?

/Malia 2036!!


I was going to note that Obama's dad was a non-seekrit Muslin, which should, by that logic, place the President squarely in the "problem with women" column. But that's ridiculous. And so is this.

There are TONS of reasons not to support/vote for Mitt Romney. His dad being a polygynist isn't one of them.

/NOT polygamist
//that suggests multiple spouses of either gender, and the Mormons ain't into that multiple-husband perversion
///dum dum dum dum dum
 
2012-04-19 09:11:04 PM  

dahmers love zombie: There are TONS of reasons not to support/vote for Mitt Romney. His dad being a polygynist isn't one of them.

/NOT polygamist
//that suggests multiple spouses of either gender, and the Mormons ain't into that multiple-husband perversion


Polygynist is more precise, but polygamist covers it fine. Nobody likes a pedant.
 
2012-04-19 09:15:10 PM  
That's just his religion. Give them a break, they started considering black people to be humans way back in the 1970s.
 
2012-04-19 09:29:38 PM  
Mitt has a problem with women because he is running on the "Stop Being Such a Whore" Party nomination
 
2012-04-19 09:51:05 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Mitt has a problem with women because he is running on the "Stop Being Such a Whore" Party nomination


Unless he is offered $300k to keynote the "National Pimps Federation" annual conference. In which case he will have a charming selection of witty anecdotes about how he doesn't use prostitutes right now, but he does have several friends who own Pimpmobiles R Us....
 
2012-04-19 09:55:32 PM  

Mugato: That's just his religion. Give them a break, they started considering black people to be humans way back in the 1970s.


i.imgur.com

Must be. That's why Joseph Smith personally ordained Black people like Elijah Able into higher eschelons of LDS authority, like the Quorum of Seventy.
 
2012-04-19 10:06:35 PM  

Somacandra: Mugato: That's just his religion. Give them a break, they started considering black people to be humans way back in the 1970s.

[i.imgur.com image 241x286]

Must be. That's why Joseph Smith personally ordained Black people like Elijah Able into higher eschelons of LDS authority, like the Quorum of Seventy.


The quorum has had a token non-white over the course of Church history. I think they just selected a Native American recently.

Call me when they are members of the 12.

Oh and he was right, btw. They didn't get the higher priesthood until 1978.

Here it is- right from the church itself:

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

Salt Lake City, Utah, September 30, 1978.

lds.org even
 
2012-04-19 10:16:38 PM  

dahmers love zombie: I was going to note that Obama's dad was a non-seekrit Muslin, which should, by that logic, place the President squarely in the "problem with women" column. But that's ridiculous. And so is this. There are TONS of reasons not to support/vote for Mitt Romney. His dad being a polygynist isn't one of them.


historytogo.utah.gov
"Utah Suffrage Leaders with Susan B. Anthony"

Agreed, except that his father wasn't a polygynist, even. And the Governor's assumption about women and polygyny isn't even historically accurate. Many of the staunchest defenders of plural marraige were activists like Harriet Cook Young--women also active in the feminist movement at the time. The Utah legislature was ahead of its time in granting women the right to vote in 1870 (second to Wyoming). The Federal government was so incensed that Utah's women dared support polygyny that they revoked the right of women in Utah to vote in 1887. Basically, he has no grasp of the history of marriage in the West and he's taking a cheap false accusation at Romney's family, which makes him an asshole who needs to apologize.
 
2012-04-19 10:18:02 PM  
If you think a normal marriage sucks, imagine having two or three.

And no liquor, coffee, or cigarettes.
 
2012-04-19 10:23:01 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Oh and he was right, btw. They didn't get the higher priesthood until 1978.


i.imgur.com

If you are counting the receipt of specific Church-wide revelation, then that is technically correct although that was decades in the making under President David O. McKay and others. But it entirely obscures the complex history of Black Mormons in the Church. By patronizing Black people you aren't helping them. And honestly, you don't care if Blacks are in the Quorum of the 12 or not. You're just taking a superficial shot at Romney's religious tradition without digging any deeper, like pretty much everyone else when Mormons come up on Fark.
 
2012-04-19 10:30:55 PM  

Somacandra: dahmers love zombie: I was going to note that Obama's dad was a non-seekrit Muslin, which should, by that logic, place the President squarely in the "problem with women" column. But that's ridiculous. And so is this. There are TONS of reasons not to support/vote for Mitt Romney. His dad being a polygynist isn't one of them.

[historytogo.utah.gov image 258x181]
"Utah Suffrage Leaders with Susan B. Anthony"

Agreed, except that his father wasn't a polygynist, even. And the Governor's assumption about women and polygyny isn't even historically accurate. Many of the staunchest defenders of plural marraige were activists like Harriet Cook Young--women also active in the feminist movement at the time. The Utah legislature was ahead of its time in granting women the right to vote in 1870 (second to Wyoming). The Federal government was so incensed that Utah's women dared support polygyny that they revoked the right of women in Utah to vote in 1887. Basically, he has no grasp of the history of marriage in the West and he's taking a cheap false accusation at Romney's family, which makes him an asshole who needs to apologize.


Now you are playing with history.

In sharp contrast to the long fight for women's suffrage nationally, the vote came to Utah women in 1870 without any effort on their part. It had been promoted by a group of men who had left the Mormon church, the Godbeites, in their Utah Magazine, but to no immediate effect. At the same time, an unsuccessful effort to gain the vote for women in Utah territory had been launched in the East by antipolygamy forces; they were convinced that Utah women would vote to end plural marriage if given the chance. Brigham Young and others realized that giving Utah women the vote would not mean the end of polygamy, but it could change the predominant national image of Utah women as downtrodden and oppressed and could help to stem a tide of antipolygamy legislation by Congress. With no dissenting votes, the territorial legislature passed an act giving the vote (but not the right to hold office) to women on 10 February 1869. The act was signed two days later by the acting governor, S. A. Mann, and on 14 February, the first woman voter in the municipal election reportedly was Sarah Young, grandniece of Brigham Young. Utah thus became the second territory to give the vote to women; Wyoming had passed a women's suffrage act in 1869. No states permitted women to vote at the time.

It wasn't because mormons cared about women having the right to vote- they figured it would strengthen their voting block as more and more Gentiles moved into the territory.

Some non-Mormon delegates feared that Utah women would be used as pawns by their husbands and church leaders to threaten the rights of the non-Mormon minority...

Utah women probably succeeded in 1895 where women elsewhere had failed because their efforts were approved by leaders of the main political force in the state--the Mormon church.


My entire family is mormon. The woman is expected to do her duty to her husband, her family, her church and her god. She comes 4th or 5th on the list.

BUT, they are given equal opportunity for education, land ownership, rights, etc (render unto Cesar and all that) and other areas of life. They are, in terms of the religion, however, 2nd class to men.

The temple ordinances and oaths taken say just that. I remember time and again hearing them.
 
2012-04-19 10:32:47 PM  

Somacandra: Nadie_AZ: Oh and he was right, btw. They didn't get the higher priesthood until 1978.

[i.imgur.com image 509x522]

If you are counting the receipt of specific Church-wide revelation, then that is technically correct although that was decades in the making under President David O. McKay and others. But it entirely obscures the complex history of Black Mormons in the Church. By patronizing Black people you aren't helping them. And honestly, you don't care if Blacks are in the Quorum of the 12 or not. You're just taking a superficial shot at Romney's religious tradition without digging any deeper, like pretty much everyone else when Mormons come up on Fark.


That may have something to do with Mormonism being insane even by the standards of religions. And you can point to all the select few black Mormons you want, but the official position of the church until 35 years ago was they were less than human. That's a fact. What you've found are basically the equivalent to the Jews for Jesus, or Uncle Ruckus.
 
2012-04-19 10:35:59 PM  

Somacandra: If you are counting the receipt of specific Church-wide revelation, then that is technically correct although that was decades in the making under President David O. McKay and others. But it entirely obscures the complex history of Black Mormons in the Church. By patronizing Black people you aren't helping them. And honestly, you don't care if Blacks are in the Quorum of the 12 or not. You're just taking a superficial shot at Romney's religious tradition without digging any deeper, like pretty much everyone else when Mormons come up on Fark


Uh huh.

I've defended the religion over the years, here. Sure I've criticized it, too. I figure I know something about it since I spent the first 28 years of my life as a very devout member who studied quite a bit. I got over my anger at the religion years ago, and now try to look at it without emotion.

Honestly? I don't care if Mitt is mormon or not. I don't. He will have to answer questions about it over the next few months on the campaign trail, just as Obama had to answer questions about his race.

I do have to say, it is strange to have people suddenly leaping to the support of mormonism here on Fark. And revisionist history from any side doesn't work with me.
 
2012-04-19 10:37:50 PM  

Somacandra: Nadie_AZ: Oh and he was right, btw. They didn't get the higher priesthood until 1978.

[i.imgur.com image 509x522]

If you are counting the receipt of specific Church-wide revelation, then that is technically correct although that was decades in the making under President David O. McKay and others. But it entirely obscures the complex history of Black Mormons in the Church. By patronizing Black people you aren't helping them. And honestly, you don't care if Blacks are in the Quorum of the 12 or not. You're just taking a superficial shot at Romney's religious tradition without digging any deeper, like pretty much everyone else when Mormons come up on Fark.


I'm pretty sure I'd pull a Dick Cheney. ("the lawyer looked like a duck, so I shot him"). There *are* a buttload of ducks in the area. And the lawyer has bought and paid for those ducks, and provided the guns to shoot them, invited guests to shoot aforementioned ducks, and provided staff to poke those same ducks until they fly and are easy to shoot... now he's going to look all butthurt (ok, facehurt) because the ammo, prey, and environment he provided and nurtured came back to bite him in the .. well, face.

It's Duck Season, dude.
 
2012-04-19 10:38:56 PM  
As for black male members- they could hold the Aaronic Priesthood, could serve missions, could even become bishops of their churches. And I have no doubt that some were amazing examples of their religion (mormons love stories of how their own stood up in bad times and held to their beliefs- especially in time of war- and why not?) They could not, however, hold the Melchizedek Priesthood. That was denied them until the 1978 revelation from God. After that they could hold the fullness of the gospel and be full members of the church.
 
2012-04-19 10:47:17 PM  

Nadie_AZ: My entire family is mormon. The woman is expected to do her duty to her husband, her family, her church and her god. She comes 4th or 5th on the list.


Do the Mormons let women come at all?
 
2012-04-19 10:49:29 PM  

teto85: Nadie_AZ: My entire family is mormon. The woman is expected to do her duty to her husband, her family, her church and her god. She comes 4th or 5th on the list.

Do the Mormons let women come at all?


Sex is a 'personal' thing (in the marriage). There are no teachings on it outside of be celibate unless married and be faithful to your spouse. I was counseled once to copulate with the undies on, but that's not a normal thing. So the answer ... this isn't an issue.
 
2012-04-19 11:06:28 PM  

foo monkey: I thought family is off-limits.


I never signed any such binding contract. Did you?
 
2012-04-19 11:11:40 PM  

TV's Vinnie: foo monkey: I thought family is off-limits.

I never signed any such binding contract. Did you?


Technically this falls under religion, and the Republicans made it clear that religion is important. Hence all the talk about Obama being a Muslim because his father was one. So any talk about Romney is fair game, especially if it relates to his relations as well. The Republicans just don't want to talk about it because it ruins their marketing blitz of Romney and makes the Republican Base look like fools who biatch about wanting 'Christians' in charge yet are unable to nominate one.

The Republicans have quite the uphill battle. Every single thing they pushed on Obama for the last four years is now being used against them and they simply have no response.
 
2012-04-19 11:12:45 PM  
I don't think either guilt or virtue is hereditary. Mitt has enough problems without obsessing over the sexual proclivities of his ancestors.
 
2012-04-19 11:15:10 PM  
Republicans are America's cancer.
 
2012-04-19 11:16:00 PM  

skinnycatullus: I'm shocked that what he said makes perfect sense and was twisted into something it isn't.

Schweitzer suggested R-Money would have some problems with Hispanic voters. The reporter (?) said that he might be able to claim Hispanic ancestry since his family lived in Mexico. Schweitzer then noted that would require him to talk about his family's polygamous past, which would run the risk of damaging his support with women.

But hey, the Dems are attacking his religion... so go ahead and run with that.


This.
 
2012-04-19 11:16:21 PM  
Did his dad feed him dog? No? OK, let's move on before this discussion gets ruff.
 
2012-04-19 11:17:41 PM  

foo monkey: I thought family is off-limits.


Yeah, but the actual argument didn't attack the family, so...

Honestly it's still pretty irrelevant, Romney's "I R Mexican, I can haz hispanic vote plz?" argument is running pretty quiet last I checked, but then the rebuttal is coming from the governor of Montana, aka "flyover country." Nobody cares.
 
2012-04-19 11:18:12 PM  
Every time I read a thread like this I want to go back in time and punch Bruce R McConkie in the face for having the audacity to publish a book called "Mormon Doctrine" (without clearing the contents with the church presidency first) when large chunks of it were his own racist opinions.
 
2012-04-19 11:18:12 PM  

soy_bomb: Did his dad feed him dog? No? OK, let's move on before this discussion gets ruff.


Wow, you guys are really desperate to get that one to stick huh?
 
2012-04-19 11:19:39 PM  
From TFA:
"...I replied that was mildly ironic since Mitt's father was born in Mexico, giving the clan a nominal claim to being Hispanic."

Being "born in Mexico" does not make you Hispanic!
 
2012-04-19 11:21:13 PM  

moriarty23: Republicans are America's cancer ebola.

 
2012-04-19 11:22:58 PM  

Mrtraveler01: soy_bomb: Did his dad feed him dog? No? OK, let's move on before this discussion gets ruff.

Wow, you guys are really desperate to get that one to stick huh?


Seamus on you for displaying such butthurt in public.
 
2012-04-19 11:24:02 PM  
The comment was stupid and uncalled for. There are plenty of valid reasons to criticize Romney, but where his dad came from is beyond irrelevant. Idiotic commentary isn't the sole domain of Republicans.

Glad the Obama campaign already stated their disagreement with the governor.
 
2012-04-19 11:25:40 PM  

tarkus1980: Every time I read a thread like this I want to go back in time and punch Bruce R McConkie in the face for having the audacity to publish a book called "Mormon Doctrine" (without clearing the contents with the church presidency first) when large chunks of it were his own racist opinions.


Not familiar with the book, but doesn't the Morman faith have it's own issues with race anyway? The whole no-blacks-before-1978 thing?
 
2012-04-19 11:25:54 PM  

soy_bomb: Did his dad feed him dog?


No. His dad fed him doggy style. With about six different mommies.

But I gotta say, at least 51% of you guys had better sense than to try to have the country run from the Vatican. Salt Lake City is a mayonnaise sandwich on white bread, but at least it's got American cheese on it. Kudos to you, I guess.
 
2012-04-19 11:25:58 PM  

soy_bomb: Mrtraveler01: soy_bomb: Did his dad feed him dog? No? OK, let's move on before this discussion gets ruff.

Wow, you guys are really desperate to get that one to stick huh?

Seamus on you for displaying such butthurt in public.


Q: Why are the windows brown?

A: Because there's a Vittler on the roof!

/thank you, I'm here all week.
 
2012-04-19 11:26:29 PM  

GAT_00: Somacandra: Nadie_AZ: Oh and he was right, btw. They didn't get the higher priesthood until 1978.

[i.imgur.com image 509x522]

If you are counting the receipt of specific Church-wide revelation, then that is technically correct although that was decades in the making under President David O. McKay and others. But it entirely obscures the complex history of Black Mormons in the Church. By patronizing Black people you aren't helping them. And honestly, you don't care if Blacks are in the Quorum of the 12 or not. You're just taking a superficial shot at Romney's religious tradition without digging any deeper, like pretty much everyone else when Mormons come up on Fark.

That may have something to do with Mormonism being insane even by the standards of religions. And you can point to all the select few black Mormons you want, but the official position of the church until 35 years ago was they were less than human. That's a fact. What you've found are basically the equivalent to the Jews for Jesus, or Uncle Ruckus.


Yup.

And I don't care what catholics do either, I'll still judge catholicism by the shiat the popes and cardinals run their mouths about.
 
2012-04-19 11:26:38 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Somacandra: Mugato: Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

Salt Lake City, Utah, September 30, 1978.

lds.org even


"AND IN 1978 GOD CHANGED HIS MIND ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE!" "BLACK PEOPLE!" "You can be a Mormon! A Mormon who just, BELIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEVES!" "BELIEEEEEEEEEEEEEVES" "OH I BELIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVE!"
 
2012-04-19 11:26:47 PM  
I don't care. However, I feel compelled to point out that if a Democrat's dad had been an admitted swinger with multiple partners, dontcha think the Republicans would bring THAT up?
 
2012-04-19 11:27:52 PM  

GAT_00: Somacandra: Nadie_AZ: Oh and he was right, btw. They didn't get the higher priesthood until 1978.

[i.imgur.com image 509x522]

If you are counting the receipt of specific Church-wide revelation, then that is technically correct although that was decades in the making under President David O. McKay and others. But it entirely obscures the complex history of Black Mormons in the Church. By patronizing Black people you aren't helping them. And honestly, you don't care if Blacks are in the Quorum of the 12 or not. You're just taking a superficial shot at Romney's religious tradition without digging any deeper, like pretty much everyone else when Mormons come up on Fark.

That may have something to do with Mormonism being insane even by the standards of religions. And you can point to all the select few black Mormons you want, but the official position of the church until 35 years ago was they were less than human. That's a fact. What you've found are basically the equivalent to the Jews for Jesus, or Uncle Ruckus.


How about Buddhism?
 
2012-04-19 11:27:53 PM  

Somacandra: Mugato: That's just his religion. Give them a break, they started considering black people to be humans way back in the 1970s.

[i.imgur.com image 241x286]

Must be. That's why Joseph Smith personally ordained Black people like Elijah Able into higher eschelons of LDS authority, like the Quorum of Seventy.


You're a liar and a dipshiat. What's next, claiming that Nazis didn't really hate Jews?
 
Displayed 50 of 105 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report