Posted on 05/17/2012 6:58:03 PM PDT by conservativeforpalin
Mitt Romney tied one arm behind his back today when he repudiated efforts to make an issue of the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his connection to a former member of his congregation, Barack Obama.
Running a campaign much like that of failed 2008 Republican nominee, John McCain, Romney has taken an important issue off the table this election cycle. It is an issue that goes to the deep roots of Obama's character.
Wright is arguably most famous for saying, “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America!"
(Excerpt) Read more at communities.washingtontimes.com ...
Yes - this is the same idiotic reasoning as RuPaul’s that if we’re nice to Iran et al and just mind our own business, they’ll leave us alone.
I do agree that if Romney’s people are as cunning and ruthless against BHO as they were to other Republicans, much of this dirt can come from other sources than Mittens himself - they just better make sure it does.
McCain's problem was that he was John McCain. Bob Dole's problem was that he was Bob Dole.
Mitt Romney is neither John McCain nor Bob Dole. As a rabid conservative I certainly don't align fully with Romney, but I do think he'll probably win, and I do believe he'll do a much better job than the professional golfer we have in the White House today.
Well, I can: The original 9/11 domestic terrorist activity on U.S. soil didn't occur in 2001; it occurred in 1857.
A wagon train -- the cross-state mode of transportation of its time -- was hijacked by Mormons and a few Indians...and on Sept. 11, 1857, 120 children, moms & dads from Arkansas were slaughtered by Mormons -- most unarmed and at point blank range.
The more active slaughterers included about 42 known Mormons...including an Lds bishop, an Lds "to be" bishop, two stake presidents, a counselor to a stake president...
Do you want the actual names, dirtboy, or were you just engaging in empty rhetoric???? And if it was empty rhetoric, why don't you hold the Mormon terrorists to your same standard of Muslim terrorists? Did God frown on Mormon terrorists less because they were Mormon?
Plus dozens of Mormons more (and who are also named even by Lds sources) -- these are ones who had probable "lesser" accomplice/perp roles.
One of the stake presidents had been in that role about a year when the massacre occurred...as a "reward" for his part in the slaughter, Lds "prophets" Brigham Young and John Taylor left him in that role. He (William Dame) wound up serving 24 years as an Lds stake president (1856-1880).
The Mormons kidnapped about 17 children and held them hostage for about two years until the Army had to come and rescue them...Notice, no effort was made by these Mormons or Mormon leaders to return the children over all that time...nor were these Mormons arrested for kidnapping.
The Mormons took the prize horses and everything...the clothes were stripped off the corpses and were worn by the Mormons. Open theft where even the corpses were stripped. Do you condone that Dirtboy & Jeff Head????
Some people think the Mormons of Cedar City, Washington City, Ft. Clara and Parowan -- the places where the slaughterers were from -- and their families -- are cursed for the territorial pollutant of spilt innocent blood for which only one man was ever held accountable on this earth.
Oh, and Btw, Dirtboy, per Mormonism, one of those 9/11 2001 hijackers you reference could be a Mormon even now! Per Helen Radkey, who until recently had access to the Mormon baptism of the dead database...: ...Radkey answered in the affirmative, saying that she has confirmed tha baptism of one 9/11 hijacker and multiple attempts to baptize Islam's prophet, Muhammed.
(No telling how many Muslim terrorists -- terrorists thru the day they died -- now deceased -- are "converted" Mormons)
Source for Radkey info: MSNBC: MORMONS BAPTIZED 9/11 HIJACKER: Will Mainstream Media destroy Romney over his Religion?
1857? You're a joke and a bad one at that. All kinds of bad things happened in the 1800s in this country. Using your 'logic', then I guess all of us whites owe reparations to blacks now living, because their ancestors were enslaved in 1857.
Seriously, get a grip. Mormons are not terrorists. Islamists are. The fact that you can't seem to grasp that fundamental fact without scurrying for a history book shows just how bankrupt your arguments are.
Read up on Sand Creek and get back to me with your idiocy. You really need to get your meds checked, I think you're having a bad interaction and don't realize it.
Some historians have said that more people died in wars, holocausts, genocides, persecution, crime, etc. -- all in the 20th century -- than any similar grouping of events previously.
Compared to the 20th century, the 19th century was a piece of cake...
20th century: Stalin. Lenin. The millions they killed. Pol Pot in Cambodia. More millions. Idi Amin in Uganda...Plus Rwanda in the 1990s. Civil wars. Half a million or more starved in Biafra (Nigeria) in the 1960s.
Hitler & the Holocaust. Germany invading numerous countries. Japan invading the U.S. & the Pacific War. Japan invading China in the 1930s. The Korean conflict in the 1950s. Vietnam throughout the 1960s into the 1970s. WWI.
The mob's operations from the 1920s on.
So...now...with your illogical thinking...we're to write off everything that happened in the 20th century, too...And why, per dirtboy "logic"? Because "all kinds of bad things happened" in that century.
Oh, and guess what, dirtboy? "All kinds of bad things" have happened and will continue to happen in the 21st century...Guess with your "logic" you can write off this century, too!!!!!
Why even bother with responding with "logic" with you?
You’re a nutbar. I’m sure you can find a fly somewhere that needs its wings pulled off.
That's what you have to resort to when you use illogical arguments and get them stuffed right back in your face.
Since it's your last resort -- and apparently you're only one -- I invite more personal attacks.
Please. Continue showing the world that you and Jeff know how to engage in name-calling.
The only thing stuffed is your head up your arse.
You're a legend in your own mind, nutbar. You are pointing to something that happened over a century ago as some kind of proof that Mormons are terrorists? Well, Sand Creek was pretty horrible as well, but I don't paint modern White Americans with that brush the way you try to paint Mormons. Trying to inpugn the living with the pitfalls of the dead is a typical and lame liberal propaganda technique.
And Islamic bigotry? Only liberals and RINOs try that angle. What does that make YOU? Islam is inherently incompatible with western values. Whereas if I have a Mormon neighbor and I see him unloading bags of ammonium nitrate, I can reasonably believe he's gonna use it for fertilizer. Try that with an Islamist neighbor.
You seem proud of the ability to stitch together pointless points into a seamless tapestry of banality. And your stalking of Jeff - incluing in a thread where he hasn't even posted - shows someone in serious need of psychatric help. And that ain't a personal attack, that is an observation that should be obvious to anyone but yourself.
Stick with the program, Dirtboy.
The context we're talking about is how religion influences terrorist attacks. What has ever been claimed to have been done in God's name in the 1860s in Sand Creek?
YOU are the one who brought up the religious connection in post #51 when you said: Well, perhaps you can point me to the 9/11 hijackers who were Mormons...
So you can't even stick to your own premises to try to make some sorry point?
So, let's review so that you can actually follow the discussion this time:
YOU, post #51...Islam's influence of 9/11 terrorists, 2001...
ME, post #63, mention of Mormonism's influence of 9/11 terrorists, 1857...
YOU, post #65, mention of Sand Creek massacre from the 1860s...
Are you now claiming that the Sand Creek massacre, carried out by the Government, was done in "God's Name?" Really? Who claimed that? When? I thought it was the Govt -- doing what Govts have done at times -- overreached and committed a gross massacre. You think differently? How and why?
Secondly, no Christians that I know of rushed in to defend the actions -- or the leader of those actions (Chivington). [Unlike the Mormon leaders who defended and protected the Mormon slaughterers]
Thirdly, all kinds of former (& even some present) "preachers" have gone off the deep end. There are counterfeit Christians all over. Hey, just look @ Romney & the baby-killing he's advocated.
But you're up a dry creek if you think you can (a) link the Sand Creek governmental actions to being religiously motivated; and (b) if you somehow think the entirety or even most of the cavalry militia that acted that day were professed Christians. Beyond its leader, I would bet you have no proof.
Don’t get me wrong....I surely hope Obama doesn’t even come CLOSE to winning a second term. The problem will be when religion does surface. Romney will be hounded by the phony swiss cheese mormon fluff and Obama will come out of the fray as the only Christian in the Race.
Yes, the fact that Obama is the only Christian in the race doesn’t mean much.
Both of them stink.
I am disgusted with your stalking of Jeff Head.
Shame on you, you are trolling.
Like I said my friend. Background noise and a field mouse in the field during n Elk hunt.
What this individual will not tell you is the background of what occurred to the LDS People in the 1830s and 1840s at the hands of Missourians leading up to this.
it does not justify it in the least, but it helps one understand the emoptions and feelings that led to it. I;ll take just a minute because LDS men women and children were also killed in places like Hahns Mill, Far West, and then finally in Navouu.
That does not make right what those people in southern Utah did to the Arkansas and Missourian settlers who were passing through their territory...but at the time the US giovernment had sent an Army to Salt Lake to try and put the Mormons in their place again and there was a general unstelled and fervored feelings in the entire territoy.
There was talk that some of the Missourians who joined with this Arkansas Wagon Train were bragging about the rape and murder they had committed on Mormons back east as they passed through. If it had been me, and had my relatives had been raped and killed by mobsters a few years earlier, I would have found it hard not to enter their camp and ask for the people making the claims to step forward and had the teritotrial sheriff with me to arrest them.
But they did not do that, instead they killed them all except the very young. It was horribly wrong and ultimately the ring leader was hung for it. Other’s, LDS people should have been hung as well because of their involvement...just as bad as what had been perpetrated on them back in Missouri and Illinois.
But there was a background to it and this person will never tell the whole story.
A penny will get you a dollar that they come on now...or soon...and somehow lessen or justify what went on in Missouri and Illinoise when the LDS were driven out of those states by religious bigots of that day, and raped, and murdered, and all of their belongings taken. Let’s watch and see if they flock in here and tell you and me how terrible we are, how the LDS that were killed were somehow justified in being killed, or had it coming, or that their deaths really didn’t even happen at those places.
Their deaths do not justify what happened at Mountain Meadows in 1857, but it does provide the background and context.
Fact is, all of it was wrong and bad...killing innocents in such a manner, out of spite, bigotry or revenge is never justified.
Like you said, a whole lot of that went on back then. It was a hard time as the nation and wilderness was settled, and much larger massacres occured. I hope and pray we are long past that sort of thing...but emotions, hunger, ideologs, mobocracy, and difficult times can awaken such terrible things. That’s why it is important to be close to like minded people in numbers and be prepared with food, shelter and arms and ammo with those folks...and be far enough away from the major urban areas where such things could easily get out of hand quickly if the society collapsed, that they cannot get to you in such times.
That’s one reason me and mine are in rural Idaho where we pretty much know everyone and most are prepared and will help one another should it get difficult.
Dirt, our door’s always open to you. Hope you remember that if the need ever arises.
Anyhow, once again, God’s speed to you my friend. And in the mean time...I’d just leave the field mouse alone during this Elk Hunt.
Jeff, thanks for the best example of poisoning the well that I have seen in years. Philosophers classify this as a type of ad hominem argument because it preemptively attacks any PERSON who raises an objection without considering the ARGUMENT.
Let me ask you this question: Why did the Amish, the Shakers, the Mennonites, the Hutterites, and other non-conventional religion groups have no such difficulties in the same areas?
Review the underlined portion of your quote. Isn't that exactly what you did when you brought up the LDS Missouri situation to "explain" the context of the Mountain Meadows Massacre (despite your self-serving claims in the earlier post of not trying to justify the MMM).
But...hmmm...it seems like you are somehow doing exactly what I talked about.
"Let me ask you this question: Why did the Amish, the Shakers, the Mennonites, the Hutterites, and other non-conventional religion groups have no such difficulties in the same areas? "Are you implying that because they didn't have as great a problem that somehow that justified what happened to the LDS? Because it sure sounds like you're leaning that way, otherwise why frame the question as you did? I mean, if they had such problems when others didn't, then they must have brought it on themselves, right? Those little kids, those women, etc.? That somehow they did something to deserve such treatment?
The deaths, murder, rape, and then driving the rest out in the dead of winter with nothing but the clothes on their backs by the thousands? Sorry none of it was right. And if you are going there with your loaded question...that dog don't hunt.
Apparently you are pretty much proving the very point I made that you described as so poisonous.
Well, I also meant what I said at the start of and the end of the comment namely:
Their deaths do not justify what happened at Mountain Meadows in 1857, but it does provide the background and context.NONE OF IT, neither the MMM was in any way justified or made right, or the killings of the LDS by the mobs in Missouri and Illinois. They were all abohrant.
Fact is, all of it was wrong and bad...killing innocents in such a manner, out of spite, bigotry or revenge is never justified.
That clear enough for you?
You have a great evening.
(quit stalking me)
I congratulate you AGAIN on properly executing a poisoned well. Anyone who responds, by implication in your argument, is proving your point. It is set up so that no one can respond without being discredited. That is why it is a logical fallacy because it doesn't deal with the argument but attacks preemptively any responder.
I mean, if they had such problems when others didn't, then they must have brought it on themselves, right?
Yes, to some degree. Somehow trouble always followed the Mormons from New York to Ohio to Illinois to Missouri. Given that these types of troubles didn't plague the other groups suggests that the claims of persecution without cause are exaggerated. Notice that I didn't say completely unfounded, just overstated. Historical documents, both Mormon and non-Mormon, suggest that there is some blame both ways.
Those little kids, those women, etc.? That somehow they did something to deserve such treatment?
EMPHATICALLY, NO. Even if the claims of those who attacked the Mormons were true, their response was totally inappropriate and they should have been charged with high crimes.
NONE OF IT, neither the MMM was in any way justified or made right, or the killings of the LDS by the mobs in Missouri and Illinois. They were all abohrant.
On that, we can agree. However, let's remember that it was you who opened this can of worms by providing the "context" of Mormon persecution to "explain" the MMM.
Thanks, Jeff - that is nice to know since I'm living a mile away from the border of Filth-a-delphia.
Anyhow, once again, God’s speed to you my friend. And in the mean time...I’d just leave the field mouse alone during this Elk Hunt.
I'm taking my dad's advice now - never wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it. I leave the pig to her filthy stye.
I gave context to dirtboy about a disucssion regarding MMM. In that context I readily admitted and still do that what happened at MMM was in no way justrafied by what went on earlier...but that things did in fact go on earlier where LDS people were also massacred.
That's all. You then came in and pontificated on my comments.
But, I am also willing to end it with the agrrement that you noted...because that was my point all along.
NONE OF IT, neither the MMM was in any way justified or made right, or the killings of the LDS by the mobs in Missouri and Illinois. They were all abohrant.
On that, we can agree.
So, with that agreemenmt, which was I was getting at...have a great weekend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.