Video: Romney tears up
posted at 3:43 pm on December 16, 2007 by Michelle
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Here’s the vid of Gov. Mitt Romney getting misty-eyed on MTP this morning:
Background here.
A few other reasons to reach for the Kleenex here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »
Every word you write here is important. Please don’t abandon your passion, because for every challenge and insult you attract, someone out there is learning or being influenced by your voice. Please, speak as much as you want, for you are welcome.
RushBaby on December 16, 2007 at 11:31 PM
Nah, its good to hear Mormon perspective.
Bad Candy on December 16, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Never give a
swordsward to a man [or woman] who can’t dance.- Confucius
MB4 on December 16, 2007 at 11:42 PM
Thanks RushBaby and Bad Candy! I’m a long time lurker, but will occasionally come out of the shadows for a comment or two. Hot Air is one of my must-reads every day.
Good night ya’ll!
drflykilla on December 16, 2007 at 11:46 PM
Thanks for that insight.
Spirit of 1776 on December 16, 2007 at 11:47 PM
If I recall correctly, this is the second time you have aimed this particular Confusian quote at me. Seems like a good time to point out that, also according to Confusius:
RushBaby on December 16, 2007 at 11:50 PM
Silence is a true friend who never betrays.
- Confucius
MB4 on December 17, 2007 at 12:03 AM
A complex mind. All great criminals have that.
- Holmes
MB4 on December 17, 2007 at 12:05 AM
I like both of you a lot, RushBaby and MB4. I’d be so much happier if you’d get along a little bit better.
Entelechy on December 17, 2007 at 12:23 AM
Entelechy on December 16, 2007 at 11:05 PM
You’re so bad MB4 :) - I had corrected the “sward” :(
Entelechy on December 17, 2007 at 12:24 AM
I hope dinner was good. I appreciate your consideration herein.
The Race Card on December 17, 2007 at 12:25 AM
Sweet precious E. From my perspective, what you are witnessing is not a failure to get along. It is, rather, a sharpening.
RushBaby on December 17, 2007 at 12:27 AM
The Race Card, a big e-embrace. Sincerely,
Entelechy on December 17, 2007 at 12:29 AM
Thank you for your clearly heartfelt explanation. It is appreciated.
aero on December 17, 2007 at 12:29 AM
Neither does a dog.
Entelechy on December 17, 2007 at 12:33 AM
Markets are going to be down big tomorrow.
MB4 on December 17, 2007 at 12:38 AM
If man could be crossed with the cat, it would improve man but deteriorate the cat.
- Mark Twain
The dog, not so much.
MB4 on December 17, 2007 at 12:41 AM
300,000, but now most are gone, or have died.
Entelechy on December 17, 2007 at 12:44 AM
Thought so, I knew there were some, so I was kind of surprised to run into a German from Romania. You’ll note I say German from Romania, I’ve heard about that distinction.
Bad Candy on December 17, 2007 at 12:48 AM
My mother’s mother’s father, Peter Heinrich Theodor von der xxxxx left Germany for Norway. I guess he wanted to beat the rush.
MB4 on December 17, 2007 at 12:52 AM
Bad Candy on December 17, 2007 at 12:48 AM
Mother’s family were Saxons, from what is today Northern-Germany, in Transylvania for over 1000 years. Father’s family were from the Stuttgart region, moved to the region under Maria Theresia. Long story but must get back to topic. None were Mormon.
MB4 on December 17, 2007 at 12:52 AM
What a beautiful name, even without the completion. The XXXXXs probably represent the name of a river. Never been to Norway, but would like to go, as it is such a beautiful country.
Entelechy on December 17, 2007 at 1:08 AM
MB4 on December 17, 2007 at 1:12 AM
What are your indicators?
Entelechy on December 17, 2007 at 1:12 AM
Thank God, or you would be a sister to the devil!
MB4 on December 17, 2007 at 1:14 AM
My third MicroBrew.
That and Asian markets and American futures are down.
MB4 on December 17, 2007 at 1:16 AM
La hermana del diablo, or as some call me “la diabolita” anyway. I like it because it always keeps them guessing.
Entelechy on December 17, 2007 at 1:17 AM
OT, but the other day whan you mentioned stagflation, I wanted to respond “how many people do you think even know what that means?” - for another thread, though.
Entelechy on December 17, 2007 at 1:18 AM
s/b “when you mentioned” - and I had no alcohol whatever.
Entelechy on December 17, 2007 at 1:20 AM
The American magic carpet made of invisible money is starting to come unraveled.
There will be a lot of threads on it in a few months.
MB4 on December 17, 2007 at 1:23 AM
Dat’s whut dey all say. Slap mah fro!
MB4 on December 17, 2007 at 1:25 AM
For now one indicator which keeps stagflation in check is the low unemployment.
Some of the “carpet” will frazzle but on the other hand the housind situation is by far not as bad as it was in the say latter days of Jimmy Carter. It s/b left alone to sort itself out. I’m more scared if the politicians stick their noses into the economic normal ups and downs.
Entelechy on December 17, 2007 at 1:29 AM
The dollar has been crashing, although it will probably bounce for a while.
Mortgage meltdown just getting started.
The ATM called the home is running out of gas.
Lots of money lending institutions are close to functional bankruptcy.
Americans head over heals in debt.
Close to “perfect storm”.
I see bad times coming our way.
MB4 on December 17, 2007 at 1:37 AM
It doesn’t look like many of you have attended an LDS fast and testimony meeting. It’s on the first Sunday of the month. Mormons are supposed to come fasting and everyone has the opportunity to stand up and speak about their feelings for the gospel and each other. Gratitude to God for Christ’s atonement and His many blessings are a frequent theme. Tears are occasionally shed. If you would attend one of these meetings you would see that what Romney is doing here is not far off from it. And maybe you wouldn’t be such a bunch of cold-hearted bastards.
WasatchMan on December 17, 2007 at 1:37 AM
Don’t run to the
bunkerbarn quite yet.Entelechy on December 17, 2007 at 1:41 AM
In one day we were called “swine” and “cold-hearted bastards”, or I could say in two days, as on the HA time it’s already tomorrow. Nice, however.
Entelechy on December 17, 2007 at 1:43 AM
Personally I am not worried as I am mostly in cash and gold.
MB4 on December 17, 2007 at 1:48 AM
Yeah, but do you think anybody is really going to criticize a black church or scrutinize a (half) black candidate?
Tzetzes on December 17, 2007 at 1:48 AM
If I were Mormon I think that I would think that someone had painted a “kick me sign” on my back too.
Huckabee, the Great Divider.
MB4 on December 17, 2007 at 1:52 AM
Gold goes up, but the dollar not so mighty these days. Not worried either, for many reasons.
On that positive note, Gute Nacht gnaediger Herr, until we banter ideas around again. Must work for another week and then off until Jan. 07, with lots of time to hotair.
Entelechy on December 17, 2007 at 1:55 AM
Sweet dreams.
MB4 on December 17, 2007 at 1:58 AM
Great, except people know nada about Mormonism, and nobody is gonna make that connection. I’m not trying to be cold here, but look how clueless people are about Mormonism, how many easily debunked myths about Mormons get repeated and are still believed by people who haven’t heard different? Lots! You’ve probably experienced it here yourself!
People aren’t gonna make that connection, but they will make the connection to Muskie. If nothing else, I hope that Mormons can take this opportunity to explain Mormonism to people, and let them know what good folks they are.
They’ll never reverse the haters, but they can reach out to people who have had little to no contact with Mormons, and know nothing about them, and leave a positive impression.
Bad Candy on December 17, 2007 at 2:05 AM
I’ll be honest, I’ve never been to a LDS event, ever, I had a chat with mission guys in the white shirt and black tie dealie(I about froze, I don’t know why they pick the worst weather days to do missionary work). I don’t even know if we have a local LDS church to be honest, and I’m sure there are plenty who have never met a Mormon.
Bad Candy on December 17, 2007 at 2:13 AM
What is with the LDS missionary uniform? Is there a reason for it?
Bad Candy on December 17, 2007 at 2:15 AM
Wow, I didn’t even know there was an LDS church in town…I’ll be damned. See what I mean? You guys are a bit low key.
Bad Candy on December 17, 2007 at 2:20 AM
From William F. Buckley, Jr.:
Hilaire Belloc was asked jeeringly, while running for a seat in the House of Parliament, whether it was true that he was “a Papist.” “Madame”, he replied, reaching into his pocket and taking out a rosary, “Do you see these beads? I say them every morning when I rise, and every evening when I go to bed; and if you object to that, madam, I pray to God that he will spare me the ignominy of representing you in Parliament.” Belloc went on to election…
(me again) I wish it were politically possible for Romney to say such a thing today.
WasatchMan on December 17, 2007 at 2:27 AM
Almost to 250 like I predicted!!! Granted, the tone has dramatically changed thanks to a select few good posters who stepped in and stopped the crap. That’s nice to see. Though these haters are relentless and never change and never learn, so if there is a post about Mitt tomorrow–can I say with some confidence that we’ll hit 250 again, with similar early rhetoric? Where was bnelson today here? right2bright? Maybe too busy preaching their unchristian bigotry from the pulpit, who knows…but hope to see you folks tomorrow, the world just isn’t quite right without getting my daily dose of mormon bashing on the conservative blogosphere.
Patriot33 on December 17, 2007 at 2:53 AM
Wrong in point, as Mormons denied blacks the priesthood, (Aaronic/Melchezidik)a requirement for men to enter the temple in order to get endowed to enter God’s presence. Mormons would baptize willing blacks, but not allow them to go to their heaven, as their CELESTIAL KINGDOM requires/required temple ordinances/endowments. Without the priesthood, blacks could not bless or pass “the sacrament” (holy communion eucharist), blacks could not lay hands upon the ill and anoint them to heal (no pun), blacks could not bless their infants with a father’s blessing after birth, blacks could not give patriarchal blessings to any one, blacks could not lead the membership in any way, blacks could not serve missions, blacks could not attend priesthood meetings to voice concerns, etc. Blacks COULD join the Mormon church and pay tithes and offerings, and obey the white brethren.
maverick muse on December 17, 2007 at 8:44 AM
Congratulations to Mitt.
The word “brainwashed” was avoided.
Once upon a TIME wrote that sank George’s candidacy.
As per non-citizen-resident’s birthing baby US citizens, Mitt’s family has personal experience with dual citizenship Mexico/USA as Mexican colonists. That response was interesting; family matters belong to the family, not a government.
maverick muse on December 17, 2007 at 8:53 AM
That’s like saying the blacks can ride the bus, but they have to sit in the back. What a racist remark by buydanish.
right2bright on December 17, 2007 at 9:05 AM
Describing history is racist?
RushBaby on December 17, 2007 at 9:08 AM
Ok, idiot, point out where I made any false statements about Mormons. You won’t find any. Any one who disagrees with Mormon doctine is a “basher”…but they (Mormons) can knock on your door and tell you that your religion is wrong. Chutzpuh, and plenty of it.
This supposed candidate, wept, but he won’t call the segregation policies wrong. Why? Because the Mormon’s can’t do wrong, by definition. They just “prophezise” that God is now telling them to change course, it was right when God told them to segragate, it is right for them not to. Don’t look at history, it is what they believe today that is important…so they say.
*
So Mitt wept, but doesn’t have the courage to fight for what was right…just what we don’t need as a leader.
*
If he can’t stand up to wrong policies in his church, then how is he going to defend us as President? He’ll weep.
*
This is a perfect example of why he can’t lead as President, his conviction to the church is stronger then his conviction to his fellow man and country…so he lied when he said his country comes first.
Well at least he is following the successful play book of the Clintons…
right2bright on December 17, 2007 at 9:16 AM
Maybe r2b is really a red diaper baby who was trained to rewrite history, or just erase it altogether! That would explain how he came to be such an ardent propagandist too.
right2bright,
Virtually every time you type one of your angry rants, your uncontrolled emotions overtake what little reason and intellect that you were born with. As such, I don’t think you are in any position to judge others for their emotions. Further, since yours flow out of ill-will while Mitt’s come from an abiding love and respect for his fellow human beings, you only manage to look all the worse in comparison.
Buy Danish on December 17, 2007 at 10:25 AM
Oh boy, when do we start bashing Rudy over the head with the Catholic Church’s refusal to allow women to be priests? Maybe not since Rudy doesn’t have control over that, just as Mitt has/had no control over this issue. However, I do hope Russert has an EEOC policy and will bring up troubling issues within all the candidates’ religions.
moonsbreath on December 17, 2007 at 11:03 AM
Those were tears of joy over how much money he was cheating this government out of taxes by establishing companies in the Cayman Islands.
tommylotto on December 17, 2007 at 12:24 PM
May I infer that you’re a proponent of a 35% tax rate, even on non-profits? Is that Rudy’s position? I’d be surprised to hear that.
Buy Danish on December 17, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Geez, I was right: sure enough, like clockwork, Right2bright, tommylotto, and maverick muse showed up. Only one missing is the guy who is raring to shoot Mormons, NRA4freedom.
I really appreciated the two other LDS members who posted here earlier in this thread. Here’s the deal: no one knows WHY the priesthood was restricted. As well ask why did God make Aaron’s tribe, the Levites, the only ones who could hold the priesthood in the Old Testament? And why not women, either?
Still, I’m glad that you guys hold us to a higher expectation–”you claim to be God’s church, so I will criticize you. My church doesn’t claim that, so we get a lower standard.” Seems to me if you really don’t think you belong to God’s church, you should ponder why you are in it, if it doesn’t belong to God. And if you DO think you belong to God’s church, well…. look at your own church history before casting stones at mine.
As for the accusations that “The LDS church is preventing black people from going to heaven!!!!” frothing at the mouth that some are doing, that’s not true at all. The same possibilities exist for those people as it does for everyone else who never heard of or had the opportunity to join the LDS church or hear of Christ. All blessings are open to them, just as much as I have today. But I forget: the LDS church doesn’t believe that Christ will damn everyone who never heard of Him in this life; the “tolerant types” like right2bright, on the other hand, are more than willing to say that they are doomed to hell permanently. It’s kind of hypocritical, don’t you think?
Vanceone on December 17, 2007 at 1:02 PM
Umm, that was your quote. You think denying blacks all the privileges of being part of a faith is ok. I do not. The Mormons allowed blacks to join the church, give money to the church, but denied them the opportunity to become priests, join the priesthood, and never enjoy the fruits of the priesthood. You think that is ok, I think it is being separatist.
Obviously God rethought his position, and changed his mind also…
If you are trying to convince people that having a “cast” system in church is the right thing to do, then have at it. If calling me a “rewriter” of history. Then show me where the Mormon’s accepted blacks into priesthood and all of the benefits accorded (prior to their prophets revelation that God has changed his mind).
Now we will see who is rewriting history…you or me.
Oh, and just in case you need a history lesson:
Though never “canon doctrine”, it was “official doctrine” and “authorative doctrine”, and the least important “folklore doctrine”.
So, here is the challenge buydanish, show me where the Mormon church, prior to the “revelation”, allowed blacks the priesthood and all that can be obtained from priesthood. This is your chance…
right2bright on December 17, 2007 at 1:02 PM
No, but if you do not like a tax, you change it through the political process, you do not avoid it. It may be a good move by a businessman (using a loophole to avoid paying millions in taxes), but not a wise move if you want to be POTUS. Using a Cayman Island Corporation to cheat the government out of taxes!!!!! That is right up there with Fred’s defending of terrorists.
tommylotto on December 17, 2007 at 1:09 PM
The defenders are saying that the Mormon Church was not segregationists, glad too see that you do also think they were.
They are trying to re-write history, they may consider the truth a knock, but it is setting the record straight, as you have. The Mormon Church was wrong…so were their prophets. All churches have made similar mistakes, and most admit it. Too bad Mitt can’t come to grips with it.
I never said that blacks can’t go to heaven, I said they were denied all of the trappings of priesthood. Buydanish thinks they were, thanks for setting her straight.
Blacks were second hand citizen (as they were in the rest of society), probably no more or no less. Lester E. Bush, Jr., and Armand L. Mauss (Mormon scholars) agree. However, if you read Mormon blogs, many deny that racism existed. I think it is healthy to face the wrongs in the church, to hold leaders accountable for mistakes (biblically that is what we are demanded to do). That is how you don’t fall into that circle of “God told me, so we must do it” stuff that so many churches and cults are burdened with.
What is wrong, is burying the past just to make your leaders look good. Or pretending that the wrong was really “God at work”. Is that the type of person we need for President?…I don’t think so.
right2bright on December 17, 2007 at 1:18 PM
Oh buydanish, you challenged me about re-writing history. Where are you?
*
Or an apology would do.
right2bright on December 17, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Good luck with that! Hospitals and the like would be 35% poorer in the process, and since Romney has never been in a position to change tax policy there is nothing he could have done about it.
r2b2,
You said that I made a “racist comment” which was and is blatantly false. I put that in the “re-writing history” category.
(Note that I am not jumping up and down, and demanding an apology. I prefer to laugh at your abject stupidity and poor imitation of Islamic Rage Boy instead).
Now you want me to refute something I never said or even implied, namely:
I am familiar with this part of the church’s history, but do not present this as an answer to your truculent demands, just a point of interest:
Buy Danish on December 17, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Sorry, link failed.
The quotes come from here.
Buy Danish on December 17, 2007 at 2:16 PM
EXCEPT PAY IT
We can fight all we want about what is the right tax rate. I want it low, others want it high. We argue, then a tax law is passed. Then it is the law. Once its the law, you pay it. Romney apparently thinks he’s too good to pay American taxes. He’s too smart to pay the taxes we all have to pay. He can set up some sham corporation which is nothing more than a post office box in the Cayman Islands and avoid millions in US taxes.
I am surprised that AP has not picked up on this story. This is almost disqualifying behavior in my book for a potential candidate.
I was listening to Rush on the drive to work and he was ripping Hillary on this Bloomberg story, because Bill was in a partnership with Burkle, and Burkle had Cayman Island accounts. Well, Bill and Hillary’s involvement is no where near as deep at Mitt’s. He (Mitt) was the guy who set up the sham companies for the obvious purpose of avoiding taxes. The LA story says this is legal, but I don’t know. Any sham organization set up for the sole purpose of avoiding taxes is supposed to be disregarded by the IRS as a tax avoidance scheme.
tommylotto on December 17, 2007 at 2:36 PM
I note that the neutrality of that article is in question….
They are also doing amazing things in native American DNA research at BYU.
tommylotto on December 17, 2007 at 2:39 PM
I wish Mitt’s faith wasn’t an issue. But to be honest, that’s not a good analogy and just reinforces my point, people knew or were somewhat familiar with Catholics in your examples, most don’t know Mormons, its a total unknown to people.
Truthfully, I probably know more about Buddhism and Hinduism than Mormonism. Most of my knowledge of Mormon church history comes from the Mormon episode of South park.
But you’ll note, I don’t judge Mitt on his faith, I judge his policy.
Bad Candy on December 17, 2007 at 2:44 PM
R2B: no more talk about personal attacks, okay?
Tzetzes on December 17, 2007 at 2:47 PM
Right2bright: We were NOT segregationist; there was no “white only” drinking fountains, etc. that I’m aware of.
The LDS church isn’t going to admit we made a mistake–we didn’t. No one knows the reason behind the exclusion of black’s from the priesthood, but since one of the main reasons we got driven out of Missouri was that the people in Missouri were afraid that the LDS church members would swing the state anti-slavery, I doubt very much that the LDS church is and was a hotbed of racism–nothing like the KKK burning at the cross stuff.
In fact, Joseph Smith’s idea to solve race relations would, most likely, have prevented the civil war. He proposed that the US government buy the slaves from the slave holders and set them free, while forbidding any new slaves. Thus, the slaveowners would have received fair compensation for their “property” as it were, and yet the slaves would have become freemen. Too bad that idea was never tried.
I personally think the reason God took the Priesthood away from African-Americans (since Joseph Smith DID ordain black members, as Buy Danish cites above) is because the world wasn’t ready. Not many people back then would have let their servant or what have you also be their minister. It’s an unfortunate commentary on people in the past, but that’s the way I think it was. Just listening to my grandparents, and even my dad, there’s a lot more “racist” remarks than I’d be comfortable with. And they are great people, and if you asked them, they’d deny they were racist at all–and they aren’t. But it’s a cultural thing. Just like Pollack jokes used to be bigger, but they aren’t now, as far as I know.
A truth is that God will not demand of His people more than they can bear. In much the same way that Moses instituted the law of carnal sacrifice, instead of the higher law that Christ instituted (after all, Christ could have easily given Moses the Sermon on the Mount), because the Israelites were not in a position to live a higher law. Not after their time in idolatrous Egypt. It’s also why the Lord repealed the law of consecration in our day–it’s simply too hard a law to live for the vast, vast majority of people. At some point, when the human race has progressed to the point of living such laws, those will be reinstated.
Vanceone on December 17, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Eh, don’t worry about it, the haters aren’t gonna change, and you’re preaching to the choir on the rest of it.
Bad Candy on December 17, 2007 at 2:55 PM
LOL, there’s ol’ right2bright! I knew you couldn’t help yourself. Come on Allah, get up a new fresh Mitt thread, these folks need to tell us all how evil Mormonism is, cause we still just don’t get it. LOOOOOOOL I’m now to the point where I can’t even take this seriously…it’s at such a profound depressing and sad level.
Patriot33 on December 17, 2007 at 3:13 PM
I actually think it would be funny if Allah posted a “We’ve not had enough Mormon bashing, so here’s a thread for the Mormon haters to tell us how 1) they(the Mormon haters) know all about Mormon beliefs (better than Mormons do, in fact), 2) It’s the most vital question in the race today, and 3)Mormons are all going to hell and why that’s relevant to this political election” thread. Subtitled the “Huckabee’s favorite thread” or something, since as far as I can tell, that’s the only reason anyone would vote for Huck over Mitt.
Vanceone on December 17, 2007 at 3:20 PM
It’s the non-profits who would have to pay it, not Romney. Did you even read your own link?
As for your other comment, Wiki can always be considered iffy, but it is convenient. You’ll note that I preceded the quote with “it’s just a point of interest”.
If you want to dispute it though, knock yourself out, especially since you seem inclined to disbelieve it. I don’t claim to be an expert on Mormon history and I never, ever discuss theology.
Buy Danish on December 17, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Oh, Tommylotto, I forgot to mention. It is not Republicans who are demanding that we raise taxes on the “rich”. That is why Hillary and Bill, who thrive on this theme, are fair game for criticism.
Buy Danish on December 17, 2007 at 3:27 PM
I guess not. I must have been distracted by this quote from the article:
And this quote:
Mitt is as bad as Paul LoDuca, not only is he doing steroids, but he got them for Gagne too. Not only is Mitt making money on avoiding taxes, he his helping others (I don’t care if they are non-profit) avoid taxes too. And don’t be so naive to thing that just because they are designated as non-profit they are goodie two shoes charities just helping orphans. All they need to do is zero out their books with high management salaries to be non-profit.
tommylotto on December 17, 2007 at 3:45 PM
I’m not really involved in the Mormon bashing in this thread, I just pointed out that your link to wiki was not reliable. It read like propaganda from an aggressive proselytizing religion trying to white wash history, which it course it is.
tommylotto on December 17, 2007 at 3:52 PM
Non-profits invested in Bain Capital and by doing it through the Cayman Islands the non-profit avoids a 35% tax. Bain Capital profits by attracting investors, but that is not the same thing as Mitt getting a tax break himself!
The alternative is for the non-profits to have to pay that tax, which you must think is a great thing for hospitals and the like to be burdened with. I certainly hope that Rudy (whom I also support) doesn’t run on this idea.
If it is historically correct, then it’s not ‘white washing history’ now, is it? Do you, or do you not, have anything to offer which disputes the facts as laid forth in the section I quoted, or not?
Buy Danish on December 17, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Not sure if you are being obtuse in defending your man. Whether or not this tax is a wise tax or a foolish tax — it is a tax. It is the law of the United States that income from these types of funds is subject to tax — even if the income is earned by a non-profit organization. Congress in its infinite wisdom decided that this type of activity (investing in these types of funds) is not consistent with non-profit tax exempt status. I have no idea if that is a good idea, a bad idea, fair or unfair. All that is irrelevant. It is the law. Nevertheless, Mitt was determined to cheat this law of its intended consequence. Mitt decided to set up a sham corporation in the Cayman Islands (no office, just a PO box) for the sole purpose of taking advantage of a loophole so that non-profits could invest in these funds and not pay taxes — whereas they would have to pay taxes on this income if the company had been set up in Massachusetts where Mitt was located and all the decisions were really made, or anywhere else in the US for that matter. This business of Mitts — cheating the government out of tax revenue — was very profitable. In fact, he made over a million dollars on it just last year.
I do not have time to refute religious zealot propagandists. They have much more time and energy and have a greater interest in fooling the population. That is why LDS (and many other groups, of course) have their bizzy bees working Wikipedia attempting to spin or worse. To see the problems with the link you provided, just look at the talk back page. Also look at the sources for the information in the article, are they neutral or do they have an LDS bias? That is why I made the joke about the study of Indian DNA at BYU. Since DNA proves their religion to be a hoax, BYU started cranking out DNA experts refuting what the DNA proves and even finding mysterious mitochondria in Indian tribes around SLC. It is BS don’t fall for it.
tommylotto on December 17, 2007 at 5:50 PM
At last! Tommylotto has discovered that white nerdy liberals are in cahoots with staunchly conservative Mormons in a bid to control history by editing Wikipedia! It’s fiendish! It’s amazing!
It’s… completely idiotic. Take your conspiracy theories elsewhere tommylotto, before I feel the urge to tie Rudy’s crossdressing vid in with an attempt to ward off aliens.
BKennedy on December 17, 2007 at 7:57 PM
And this is what I wrote (from this article by the way):
Oh, look, all of you haters of me, this is from an official Mormon website. This is what I am saying. All churches, and most people had a “problem” with integrating blacks into society. Why hide it? At least this Mormon scholar is honest…now try calling him (one of your most noted scholars) a bigot. All of your kneejerk reaction to my posting, which was essentially this, has now put you in the position of dissing one of your most ardent and intellectual supporters, Armand L. Mauss.
*
This done to show that you don’t really think, but react to what is written. What I stated is in direct line with what this man, and the official LDSBlack.org thinks.
And buydanish, when you said (and vanceone backs you up) that the blacks were allowed priesthood, but you leave out that they could not obtain what “white” priest could, that is worse then riding at the back of the bus. Their bus never dropped them off…according to their prophets, and scholars.
So with all of your meanness and vitriol, where was I wrong? One of the most noted LDS scholars agrees with me. Back up, take a deep breath, and read and learn.
*
When you call them out for calling me a bigot, or a liar or a “rewriter of history” then I will back off. Funny how you overlook their insults.
I am not attacked for writing falsehoods, I am attacked for writing the truth, even when quoting official sources.
I posted this as an example of their narrow mindness. I used one of their most ardent supporters, agreed with his take, and look how they respond.
*
Now I am really hot water, I embarrassed them. They are arguing with themselves.
Now what do you do? Tell me I am wrong (which is the LDS) or man up and say you misunderstood, and then thank me for enlightening you.
Who are the bigots, re-writers of history, anti-Mormon’s, etc., now?
Life is good…
right2bright on December 17, 2007 at 8:57 PM
A simple response to this one:
What party supported slavery?
What party supported internment?
What party supported segregation?
it wasnt the republican party. :)
paulsur on December 17, 2007 at 11:04 PM
Again, he cries?
Romney Cries While Recalling Watching Soldiers’ Caskets Return From Iraq
Enough with men crying in public already. It’s pathetic.
MrC_5150 on December 17, 2007 at 11:50 PM
That website is not an official website of the LDS church. Read the about page.
Sebastian on December 18, 2007 at 12:14 AM
And, they were. Hired as financial advisor to the Romney camp.
Entelechy on December 18, 2007 at 12:22 AM
Did you take a look at the fairlds website? This isn’t a gotcha, you’ve just “exposed” an organized, political, self-described “apologetic” group.
RushBaby on December 18, 2007 at 12:27 AM
I know perfectly well who FAIRLDS is as well.
My point was that right2bright was throwing the word “official” around and I wanted people to know that these sites are not official LDS church sites.
While I’m sure the owners and contributors are probably very nice Mormon people who are trying to do something they believe in and the information on them is probably accurate, the bottom line is that the LDS church is not responsible for the content on these sites.
Sebastian on December 18, 2007 at 12:41 AM
Yeah, the person I quoted is just an average guy. He is one of their (LDS) “go to” guys regarding history and integration.
Read my earlier posts about the different standards. right2bright on December 17, 2007 at 1:02 PM re: “canon doctrine”, “official doctrine” and “authorative doctrine”. You will better understand.
right2bright on December 18, 2007 at 1:01 AM
Can’t say I’ve ever heard of Armand Mauss and can’t say I agree with his agenda. Too many times these Momon scholars believe they know more than the LDS leaders and feel like they need to get in front of a parade that doesn’t exist.
“We can see that the doctrine of revelation far transcends the doctrine of no revelation: for one truth revealed from heaven is worth all the sectarian notions in existence.” - Joseph Smith.
I think I agree more with Robert Millet, but would like to see more of what he said.
Sebastian on December 18, 2007 at 3:37 AM
Maybe to a true believer in LDS that may sound good, but to an outside observer its kinda freaky. “Hey, it was God’s will. We’re not sure why God wanted it that way then or wanted it this way now. All we know is that it is God’s will. Deal with it.”
Okay… Maybe God read the Bob Jones decision and didn’t want BYU to loose its tax exempt status.
tommylotto on December 18, 2007 at 7:52 AM
Let’s review, shall we? You posted a link to an article which you misinterpreted, which is evident by this unfounded allegation which you made earlier:
Yet, the article itself says:
Romney gained no personal tax benefit from the legal operations in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands…
You are complaining about a practice that is standard procedure.
But offshore companies are now “part and parcel” of America’s booming private equity and hedge fund business, said Kurt Schacht, managing director of the Centre for Financial Market Integrity at the CFA Institute, which represents chartered financial accountants, in Charlottesville, Va. He defended the practice.
“I don’t think they’re loopholes,” he said. “It’s not like they’re trying to break the law. It’s just taking advantage of what’s available under current tax laws.”
And -
Janne Gallagher, vice president and general counsel of the Council on Foundations, a nonprofit membership group of 2,100 charities and grant-making foundations, said the practice was “pretty prevalent” in her field as portfolio managers sought to spread risk through hedge funds.
Since this is standard procedure at this time, if a corporation did not set up an offshore address they might win on ethics but lose business to every other corporation who did this and was not in violation of law. Corporations cannot function that way and compete.
If you want the law changed, and since you think that Congress has ‘infinite wisdom’, I suggest you get on the horn and call your local Representatives.
There is no scandal here except for Dems like Hillary and Edwards who never saw a tax increase they didn’t love and are therefore exposed as hypocrites when they invest in these off-shore entities themselves.
Personally I’d chuck all tax law out the window and replace the IRS with the Fair Tax, but since the ‘infinitely wise’ congress enjoys the control and power the current system affords them, they won’t do so unless the American people, in the majority demand it.
Buy Danish on December 18, 2007 at 8:39 AM
In regards to the tax issue: the Supreme Court itself has said that trying to save taxes is legal, if you can find a way to do so, go for it.
That said, I find it somewhat incredulous that Tommylotto is bashing Mitt for trying to save taxes: Isn’t part of the Republican party platform that taxes are too high? Why on earth should any republican politician be bashed for saving money legally on their taxes, when they advocate cutting said taxes? It’s the Dems who have an issue here, not Republicans. I’m for Mitt, but if this was any other Republican candidate, and they had saved themselves lots of tax dollars–and other people lots of taxes dollars, I would say, “Good for them!”
I’m still somewhat puzzled as to why people have issues with living revelation. God is not a blind watchmaker–He didn’t just wind up things and leave. God, in the Old and New Testaments, changed things with regards to current conditions all the time: “drive out the Caananites; but Abraham, live with them peacefully. Don’t preach to the Gentiles, now, preach to the gentiles.” And so forth. What, exactly, do you think living with God actually speaking would be like? He certainly adapts to the times on Earth.
Vanceone on December 18, 2007 at 9:47 AM
I am still waiting for your proof that I re-wrote history. When you insult someone, have some facts to back it up or apologize.
right2bright on December 18, 2007 at 10:07 AM
This is the challenge that I presented to you the last time you were puzzled.
If your church leader came to your house and stated that God told him to marry your wife, what would you say? If he insisted and you resisted, how would that make you feel? It is “Gods desire” that he wed your wife. Now he turns his affection to your 14 year old daughter, would you relent? He can’t have your wife, so you “give” him your daughter, because he had a revelation that God told him to marry your 14 year old daughter (after being rebuked from marrying your wife). That is what Joseph Smith did. He attempted to marry several (at least 6) woman who were already married. Because “God revealed” himself to Smith (and of course God revealed it to him, but he didn’t reveal these trysts to his wife Emma).
That is why it is dangerous, the founder of your church, the one that gave birth, that was his “pickup line”. 33 woman (or so) and a few teenagers later, along with Young who had similar “revelations” and you have yourself a little harem of 60-70 women, and a few teens thrown in for good measure.
Do you really think God revealed himself and told Smith to go after married women? And if turned down, then take their daughter? This ain’t no old testament stuff from thousands of years ago, this is recent history.
Wise up…men speaking to God is scary stuff. Men seeking other peoples wives is scary stuff, and men marrying children is worse then scary.
If you don’t see that, well then you are a “good” Mormon.
right2bright on December 18, 2007 at 10:23 AM
Maybe it’s because of his judicial nomination record:
Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show. In all, he has nominated nine registered Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters, and 14 registered Democrats.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/25/romney_jurist_picks_not_tilted_to_gop/
EduardoOTI on December 18, 2007 at 10:39 AM
The problem is, he was in a heavy Dem state, so for any process to go through he would have to nominate Dems. I tend to give him a pass on that stuff, Mass is tough on Republicans.
right2bright on December 18, 2007 at 10:53 AM
You just don’t get it. He made millions of dollars cheating the US out of tax revenue. Just because Mitt paid tax on the millions that he made does not mean his hands are clean. His job in this enterprise was cheating the US out of taxes owed by others. The non-profit corps (the ones that paid Mitt millions) owed the US government tax on income derived from these funds. There was a loophole if the fund was from overseas. The problem was that Mitt was the Governor of Mass at the time — hardly an overseas entity. So, Mitt set up a few post office boxes and wha-la — he had a presence in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. These were sham businesses set up by an American for the sole purpose of avoiding US taxes owed by Americans and to profit thereby. The non-profits made money and avoided taxes owed. Mitt made millions. The US lost millions, maybe billions in tax revenue.
The expert in the article expressed the “opinion” that this was “legal” I have two comments on that: 1) he was expressing an opinion because there was no Court or IRS ruling definitively stating it was legal. It may not be legal. It is basic tax law that if a legal entity is set up for the sole purpose of avoiding taxes, it is consider a sham and will be disregarded by the IRS. Applying this rule, the sham off shore corp had no purpose other than to avoid taxes. Its legal existence can be disregarded by the IRS and Mitt’s non-profits could be taxed. 2) Even if its legal (and good business) it is not an ethical business for a politician to be in. A Us politician should not be figuring out ways to help American’s avoid the consequences of American law.
tommylotto on December 18, 2007 at 11:53 AM
Priceless
Sounds like it would be really cool to have a personal relationship with God such that his revelations were communicated to mankind through you. Great way to pick-up chicks!!!
tommylotto on December 18, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Right Backatcha, r2b2!
Without a single fact in evidence, you had the unmitigated gall to charge that I made a “racist statement” and that I approve of past LDS church policy, yet you imagine that I owe you an apology?
I suggest that you take your race-baiting complaints to the Justice Brothers and The Rainbow Coalition. Maybe they’ll take you and your bizarre hallucinations seriously, because I certainly don’t.
Buy Danish on December 18, 2007 at 11:59 AM
You linked to an article and proceeded to make false statements about what that very article stated or implied. Whatever your “opinion” is on the ethics of these off-shore business entities is irrelevant; the FACT is that, contrary to your statement, Mitt did not receive a “tax break” and it says as much right in the article.
I already told you what you can do if you disagree with existing law.
Buy Danish on December 18, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Your comment was that it is was alright for the blacks to be admitted to church, but not have the privileges afforded to white people. That is what you stated, that is what you believe, and I did have the gall to call you on it.
I gave you the positions of the church, by noted and honored scholars. I am the one who quoted the LDS, who happened to agree with me, and not you.
Calling me names to get you out of trouble won’t help.
Let me refresh your memory on what you believe:
Then my retort:
So it was okay for blacks to join the church, but not reap the benefits? Or did you mean, they could join the church but not be like the white bishops? Or did you mean that it was okay for them to join the church, now sit down and shut up and pray (and pay).
Enlighten us as to how you justify the separate policies for blacks and whites in the LDS. (and I did assume you believe what you argue for, since you so ardently defend)
The LDS was like any other organization of people at the time, blacks were second class citizen (as they admit to).
Want more quotes from their leaders?
I will assume you are to embarrassed to apologize…out of Christian benevolence I will grant you dispensation in lieu of the holiday season. (that’s the second time I have given you dispensation for your transgressions, one more and you will only be allowed to be a priest, and not a God…oh wait your a women, you can’t be either)
right2bright on December 18, 2007 at 12:26 PM
“Romney’s march with Dr. King the following year was to protest the mortgage lending practices in Grosse Point (a nice wealthy suburb). It should also be noted that Grosse Point is still incredibly segregated (only 45 blacks to the 5,670 whites as per the 2000 census)”
Here is the facts of Mitts fathers “march with King”, not exactly Selma, but what the hay, a photo op is a photo op. Of course, Dr. King could not become a full priest in the Mormon Church, but who cares, someone has to empty the trash.
right2bright on December 18, 2007 at 12:41 PM
BALDERDASH!!
Buy Danish on December 18, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »