...or the right?

3rd from the L or R in a field of 5...isn't that the same Sister Grandmother

They're having a hard time defending him.

I'm loving it.

Willard here has done plenty of stupid, deceitful, disqualifying shit all on his own. We're not lacking for ammo to fire at the guy. We don't need to fire the anti-Mormon salvo. Much less use the corpses of his dead great-grandmothers as ammo for that.

if you feel you need to take the high road then you go right on ahead. But don't come and chide people because they choose not to.

I mean hey, he's a total sellout asshole, and practically a republican on every issue anyway. Let's rev up that engine, I'm sure it'll take us on a nice trip, right?

When it comes to shit Romney himself has ACTUALLY DONE, by all means, fling all the shit you want. No holds barred. However, throwing out mass demonization of a whole religion and everyone under it, and digging up people who haven't been alive for the greater part of a century to try to tie their beliefs to the candidate you don't like isn't how we do things.

I find it troubling that we have elected leaders that believe in absurd shit like invisible men in the sky, talking snakes, ruling your own planet after death, virgin births, aliens inside our souls, etc, etc, etc.

In the same way that, in many current communities, atheists and non-believers are shamefully barred from holding office?

I think Mitt's "religion" should definitely be in play, especially when we get to ask "Christians" how they can vote for someone who is not exactly christian. It's a funny thing to watch fundies who purport to be religious support a cult follower over Obama (he's black) even though Obama goes to Christian church.

is demonstrably different, when he knows damn well polygamy has been a historical reality for "thousands" of years....

I didn't see it as a religious slam, more like an observation of his own idiocy.

I said you take the high road if you like but don't chide others if they don't. Not every trip one takes in life ends up being a nice one. Do you troll the conservative boards chiding those that attack Obama's religion? Probably not, so why do it here on behalf of Rmoney?






PS on a technical note, The Mormon church no longer believes in plural marriage in the worldly life. The LDS church gave that up in order to become a state in the union (I guess they wanted that more than they wanted to obey their god).

At least, when I can stomach being around them for more than twenty minutes. And it's not trolling, it's upholding standards.

One of Romney's great grandfathers had a second wife? Okay, how does that matter in the least now? Does Mittens follow great grandpappy's example? Is there another wife besides Ann? If not, then what bearing do his long-dead grandparents have on anything today? At the VERY MOST, we can surmise that one of those four grandads didn't exactly share his great-grandson's views. Well, whoopty-doo.

What i'm saying is we have plenty to pin on Romney, and I'm sure he's going to give us even more to play with in the next few months. All that efforts to gin up anti-Mormon sentiment against him are going to do is make us look like republicans - who as you so noted, love to play that game.

Pin Romney with his actual positions. Not the positions of some long-dead ancestors.

but I'm also not going to come here and give people a lesson in what is appropriate or proper. you are free to uphold your standards for yourself, but there is no need for a self appointed Standards Cop. If you feel that a post is inappropriate, you can alert and let a jury decide the outcome.

He said this is how it's been for 3 thousand years. Yet in his own family that's not how it was. He's got no issues going after MY family by saying my marriage isn't legitimate, I'm sorry, I have no issue showing him that his family ties are fodder for falsifying his own statements.

part your hair as it zoomed right over your head?

We can express that fact without digging up dead people and going "LOL MORMONISM!" I'm aware that Mormons generally don't vote Democratic, but it's still a really shitty, low tactic that appeals to the lowest common denominator.

I think we should be better than that.

full of real disasters and serious issues the ability to laugh at something ironic and stupid is priceless.

While you sit in the corner and contemplate how "we should be better than that" some of the rest of us will have a good laugh and probably sleep better for it.

Bishop Romney can handle being discussed.

If his parents and grandparents were in the sort of marriage that's "between a man and a woman", then he would have had four.

So what about the other 7000 years Mitt? Care to talk about it?

Only 3,000 years? Wow.



Bake

was!

Why should the Republicans run a candidate when they KNOW they will lose? I'm not an optimist, this is just speculation.

But I think it's possible. Every week that goes by, Romney & Co. look worse and worse.

Though in both cases, at least those guysh ad the "grumpy veteran" appeal, whereas Mitt's a worse draft-dodger than they ever accused Clinton of being...

Hmmmm. Good question, actually

This is little more than a joke about Mormon history. I don't see how Romney's great-grandparents are relevant in a discussion about Mitt's opposition to marriage equality. Mitt is not a polygamist, he was not raised by polygamists, and AFAIK, he has never given any indication that he supports polygamy.

Two months ago, the president was on the record saying that marriage is between 'one man and one woman,' which he said as late as 2008 in an interview with Rick Warren.

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/President/US/Barack_Obama/Views/Gay_Marriage/

For all of the much-deserved criticism the president got while he was 'evolving,' I can't ever recall anybody bringing up the fact that his paternal grandfather had multiple wives. Maybe some people did, but I don't think anybody would have considered it a 'gotcha moment.'

I'm not seeing how this any different. Mitt's opposition to marriage equality should be criticized on its own (lack of) merit. I don't see the need to bring up what his family was doing in the 19th century.

He said this is how it's been for 3 thousand years. Yet in his own family that's not how it was. He's got no issues going after MY family by saying my marriage isn't legitimate, I'm sorry, I have no issue showing him that his family ties are fodder for falsifying his own statements.

Wasn't that a big reason why Mormons bounced around from place to place and why Romney's family decided to move to the middle of the desert in Mexico? Their multiple marriages were not recognized as legal. Eventually they weren't even recognized as legitimate by the Mormon church itself.

I think what he's talking about here are legally recognized marriages. Of course he's fully aware that polygamy has always been around. But saying you're married to 5 people isn't the same as have all five marriages recognized by the state or a church. For most of recorded Western history, legally and religiously sanctioned marriages have indeed been between one man and one woman. I think that's what he meant. His great-grandfather may have lived like he had five wives, but from a legal standpoint he had one wife and four mistresses.

I certainly understand your hostility towards his opposition to marriage equality. I share it too. All I'm arguing is that his family history is no more relevant than the president's was when he was saying pretty much the same thing. Nobody was arguing that the president didn't have a leg to stand on because his grandfather had multiple wives. They were arguing he didn't have a leg to stand on because opposing marriage equality is unfair discrimination. I don't see why it should be any different with Romney.

right?

But these occurred before that. So I assume they were recognized.

I'm at work so don't have book in front of me. Spent time incarcerated because of it. I guess I shouldn't run for office either (although in fairness, i'm likely to make such a stupid statement as that. It's clearly been 6,000 years of recorded history, unless Mitt doesn't consider the Bible "recorded history." (actually I think that there should be no government marriage, no matter the genders of the people involved; civil unions should be granted to everybody, straight or gay, and they should be fixed to provide the same legal benefits that marriage provides currently)).

Bryant