Got a crazy forwarded political email from your family? Post them here.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Got a crazy forwarded political email from your family? Post them here.

«‹›2810 »

jmzero: Jul 24, 2007

quote:

Yeah, but his mission was in loving France, while poorer/non-douchey Mormons tend to have missions in third world nations, you know, actually helping people who need it.

To be fair, this wouldn't have been his decision - Mormons apply to serve a mission and leaders decide where they actually go; serving in France wouldn't have been a particularly plum assignment at the time (compared to, say, Hawaii).

Edit: To clarify a bit: at the time, finances would have been a consideration. Missionaries now pay a standard rate and then the church redistributes money as appropriate (so that people serving in New York City aren't out $2000 a month or something while those in Brazil are out much less). In Romney's day, your financial standing would have entered into the picture more as different missions had different set costs; so people with money would have been more likely to end up going somewhere expensive overseas than someone with less (who might end up in Idaho).

I grew up Mormon, and served a mission in England. The media in general doesn't have a very good handle on Romney's position or service within the church - I'm happy to answer general questions about this kind of thing (I don't know much in particular about Romney, but I know a lot about the Church and what it means to be a Stake President - I was Stake Executive Secretary a while back - or serve a mission).

jmzero fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Sep 7, 2012

# ? Sep 7, 2012 22:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 22:32

ZobarStyl: Oct 24, 2005; This isn't a war, it's a moider.

Bruce Leroy posted:

Mitt Romney is basically just a more intelligent and talented George W. Bush.

The physical manifestation of this was that Bush had a tiny genial and/or moronic facade covering up his life of utter privilege. Romney has no such thing. We've got pictures of Mitt stretching across his whole life, and each one shows the same soulless piece of poo poo smiling as he soaks in every iota of the spoils of privilege.

Unlike Bush, who was either too dumb to understand or too drunk to care (before he quit), Mitt is completely aware that the average person doesn't have the opportunities he was given; he just doesn't give a poo poo. It's only the practiced air of Mormonism that keeps him from launching into a tirade on national television about how he despises each and every American.

# ? Sep 7, 2012 22:51

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

jmzero posted:

To be fair, this wouldn't have been his decision - Mormons apply to serve a mission and leaders decide where they actually go; serving in France wouldn't have been a particularly plum assignment at the time (compared to, say, Hawaii).

Edit: To clarify a bit: at the time, finances would have been a consideration. Missionaries now pay a standard rate and then the church redistributes money as appropriate (so that people serving in New York City aren't out $2000 a month or something while those in Brazil are out much less). In Romney's day, your financial standing would have entered into the picture more as different missions had different set costs; so people with money would have been more likely to end up going somewhere expensive overseas than someone with less (who might end up in Idaho).

On the other hand ol Romney proudly counter-protested draft protesters and made a dumb 'if I could have gone I would have gone' comment about the war, so maybe we can keep calling him a big rich spoiled manbaby for biking around France no matter how rough the poor rich guy had it in the first world modern nation.

# ? Sep 7, 2012 23:19

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

jmzero posted:

To be fair, this wouldn't have been his decision - Mormons apply to serve a mission and leaders decide where they actually go; serving in France wouldn't have been a particularly plum assignment at the time (compared to, say, Hawaii).

Edit: To clarify a bit: at the time, finances would have been a consideration. Missionaries now pay a standard rate and then the church redistributes money as appropriate (so that people serving in New York City aren't out $2000 a month or something while those in Brazil are out much less). In Romney's day, your financial standing would have entered into the picture more as different missions had different set costs; so people with money would have been more likely to end up going somewhere expensive overseas than someone with less (who might end up in Idaho).

I grew up Mormon, and served a mission in England. The media in general doesn't have a very good handle on Romney's position or service within the church - I'm happy to answer general questions about this kind of thing (I don't know much in particular about Romney, but I know a lot about the Church and what it means to be a Stake President - I was Stake Executive Secretary a while back - or serve a mission).

You don't think France would be an awesome place to live for 30 months as a 19-21 year old, especially since he was "promoted" and got to live in the Mission Home while the rest of the missionaries his age had to live in the missionary quarters?

Romney has always been a person of considerable means, which is why he got to go to France and got to live in the Mission Home, while poorer Mormons couldn't afford something like that, nor did they have the influence to obtain anything better. My main point is that Romney paints this period as simply him doing his religious duty with these bullshit stories about how tough it was in loving France, but he and his family had enough wealth and influence that he could have arranged to go some place where a missionary would have actually been needed and desired, instead of going to France for what was the equivalent to any non-Mormon college student spending a few years abroad between years in college. I mean, what kind of proselytizing, charity work, and other missionary duties would have been necessary, useful, and effective in a country like France, as opposed to, say, Guatemala, Brazil, Nigeria, etc.?

Honestly, it wouldn't be much of a problem for me if Romney wasn't such an ardent supporter of the Vietnam War and wasn't so critical of the opposition during this same period. If he had just gotten his student deferments before and after his missionary work in France and not really said or done anything about the Vietnam War like other entitled rich kids I wouldn't really have much cause for criticizing him any more than some other draft dodgers like Bill Clinton, who at least were outspoken opponents of the war.

This is also another great example of Romney lying out of his rear end when it's politically advantageous and convenient.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/06/05/495310/romney-military-vietnam/

In 2007, an election year, he said:

Mitt Romney posted:

I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there, and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam.

This is completely the opposite of what he said when he ran for Senate in 1994:

Mitt Romney posted:

I was not planning on signing up for the military.

...

It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam, but nor did I take any actions to remove myself from the pool of young men who were eligible for the draft.

Once again, he takes two antithetical positions on the issues when it helps him or when he's confronted with a challenge, but he's also explicitly lying here because he did pursue four student deferments, two before and two after his France mission, contrary to his claim that he didn't, "take any actions to remove myself from the pool of young men who were eligible for the draft." Furthermore, note the logic he uses here, that he did the minimum of what he had to do, i.e. be registered for the draft and thus be eligible to be drafted if his number ever came up. This is similar to the logic he uses about his tax returns, yeah he only paid 13% and not a penny more or less, but that's all he was legally required to do by the IRS so he wasn't going to take fewer deductions, exemptions, or anything else that lowered his effective tax burden unless he was legally required to. It's all part of this selfish, legal literalism he keeps falling back on, where Mitt does the absolute minimum he has to if something doesn't garner an advantage or benefit for him. There's no selflessness, altruism, consideration for others, abiding by the spirit and not just the letter of the law, thoughtfulness about the ramifications of his actions, etc.

# ? Sep 7, 2012 23:26

jmzero: Jul 24, 2007

quote:

You don't think France would be an awesome place to live for 30 months as a 19-21 year old, especially since he was "promoted" and got to live in the Mission Home while the rest of the missionaries his age had to live in the missionary quarters?

I think you've really got a wrong perception of all of this.

To be clear, I'm not trying to tell you Romney is a good person or comment on everything else he's done, I'm just telling you how things work in a Mormon mission. I have a lot of personal experience with this (I served in the office for a chunk of my mission to Europe), and if you're going to judge him based on this period you might as well know what it's like.

If Romney lived in the mission home, it was because he worked hard and was thoroughly committed as a missionary. His relations and money would have made it less, not more, likely for him to be put in this kind of leadership position. There's a very real chance he didn't want to be in the mission home. Time spent training other missionaries (and other leadership chores) would have reduced the time he had in the field - and without time in the field you don't convert people (and converting people is how you keep score, especially at the time Romney served in). He would have almost certainly been kick-in-the-balls disappointed by the call to France, and for the same reason: France is and was a slow mission for baptisms. It wouldn't have been what he wanted.

There's certain stuff he would have got away with - I'm sure he had nice suits that he brought with him - but he wouldn't have got significant extra money from home during his stay. The allotment of money you get on a mission is absolutely tiny and he would have lived on it faithfully and according to mission rules. He would have essentially lived in poverty - and he would have spent 12 hours every day proselyting; if he hadn't, he wouldn't have been put in leadership.

You can believe this or not, but a mission is seen as a rite of passage - and Romney and everyone else involved would have bought into this. They would have seen extra money or influence as disrespecting him and cheating him of his experience. While I was in my mission we had rich (WordPerfect heir, probably richer than Romney was at the time), famous (to Mormons anyway - an Osmond), and otherwise influential (grandson of a prophet) in my mission. They all served the same as everyone else. Really.

If you want something to worry about, it should be precisely the opposite: just how committed Mitt is to the church, and what he'd do to make it succeed. A Stake President (like Romney was) is someone has fully bought in; he has a serious commitment to obey church leaders. The current leader, President Monson, is suffering accelerating dementia and grew up in a time when the Mormon church was much more off-the-wall on many issues (black people are those whose spirits were wishy-washy during the war in heaven, Catholics are the church of Satan, etc..). Monson could say anything, and Mitt would heed his counsel louder than any other voice in the world. The media is playing it like Mitt is Mormon the same way JFK was Catholic or something (ie. that's the Church they happen to go to). Mitt is not just a member of the Church, he's a committed follower and it's an important part of who he is.

Sorry for wall of text. Oh wait, a bit more:

quote:

I mean, what kind of proselytizing, charity work, and other missionary duties would have been necessary, useful, and effective in a country like France, as opposed to, say, Guatemala, Brazil, Nigeria, etc.?

You've got the wrong idea about what a Mormon missionary is doing; they don't function like the typical Christian missionaries that I think you're imagining. While they do do some general service, the goal of missionaries is to grow the church and almost all of their time is spent doing that. They believe that's the most effective way to help people, and that people need that help everywhere. Because the goal was getting converts, most missionaries at the time would have served within the US and Canada, because that's where there was enough pre-existing Church members to absorb and help supply those new converts.

And to be clear, Romney would have loved to have served in Brazil, where they were baptizing 1000s of young people by making baptism a pre-requisite to join baseball teams (my brother served in Brazil many years later, and had some stories...). And there wasn't much going on in Nigeria because the church at the time didn't believe black people could hold the Priesthood. That meant the Church couldn't grow in places without enough white people, so why would many missionaries go to Nigeria? (By contrast, my father-in-law served in South Africa - which was actually a plum assignment: high baptism rates, and you were encouraged to employ maids/helpstaff in order to fit in with proper white society.)

Again, there's lots to be disturbed about.. but not the stuff you think.

jmzero fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Sep 8, 2012

# ? Sep 8, 2012 00:25

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

On the other hand, and the thing you're ignoring, is that living in 'poverty' in France is much nicer than the fates many of the guys he counter-protested faced, which was getting your legs blown off, and he only got that through being the wealthy son of a high ranking Mormon.

# ? Sep 8, 2012 00:47

jmzero: Jul 24, 2007

quote:

On the other hand, and the thing you're ignoring, is that living in 'poverty' in France is much nicer than the fates many of the guys he counter-protested faced, which was getting your legs blown off, and he only got that through being the wealthy son of a high ranking Mormon.

To be clear, I'm not ignoring that and I'm not actually defending Romney. I'm just clarifying some stuff based on my understanding of how the LDS Church works - specifically:

1. Mitt would not have felt he had a choice; it wouldn't have mattered what his feelings were about military service, he would have felt tremendous pressure to serve a mission if at all possible. He wasn't picking an escape route, he was doing what he and his family thought was their God-given duty.
2. Mitt also wouldn't have had a choice about where he went (France) or his living circumstances when he got there, and they would likely have been reasonably rough in most areas he served in (certainly compared to his home lifestyle).
3. He wouldn't have received significant special treatment due to his influence/money.

Edit: Sorry for all the posting; I'll certainly shut up about it unless there's other stuff people want to know.

jmzero fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Sep 8, 2012

# ? Sep 8, 2012 01:06

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

jmzero posted:

And to be clear, Romney would have loved to have served in Brazil, where they were baptizing 1000s of young people by making baptism a pre-requisite to join baseball teams (my brother served in Brazil many years later, and had some stories...). And there wasn't much going on in Nigeria because the church at the time didn't believe black people could hold the Priesthood. That meant the Church couldn't grow in places without enough white people, so why would many missionaries go to Nigeria? (By contrast, my father-in-law served in South Africa - which was actually a plum assignment: high baptism rates, and you were encouraged to employ maids/helpstaff in order to fit in with proper white society.)

Again, there's lots to be disturbed about.. but not the stuff you think.

You're assuming Romney was a good Mormon, or (if he was a good Mormon, anyway, because that would be required to see your behavior as good) a good person. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

# ? Sep 8, 2012 01:12

XyloJW: Jul 23, 2007

I think he's implying mormonism is more like a cult, where you either live it completely or you get out.

Considering to this day he doesn't drink caffeine and seems to still be closely affiliated with the Church, I'm inclined to trust an authority on the subject over my own preconceptions.

# ? Sep 8, 2012 01:20

FlapYoJacks: Feb 12, 2009

Glitterbomber posted:

On the other hand ol Romney proudly counter-protested draft protesters and made a dumb 'if I could have gone I would have gone' comment about the war, so maybe we can keep calling him a big rich spoiled manbaby for biking around France no matter how rough the poor rich guy had it in the first world modern nation.

First world? FIRST WORLD? Have you ever been to France man? Those animals hardly EVER put ice in their clean drinking water.

Savages.

# ? Sep 8, 2012 01:23

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

XyloJW posted:

I think he's implying mormonism is more like a cult, where you either live it completely or you get out.

This is incorrect. There are plenty of self-identified Mormons who don't go whole-hog.

# ? Sep 8, 2012 02:18

Sarion: Dec 24, 2003

VideoTapir posted:

You're assuming Romney was a good Mormon, or (if he was a good Mormon, anyway, because that would be required to see your behavior as good) a good person. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

No. I think he means he was completely sucked in, and like him or not he's driven to be at the top. I think it's reasonable to assume based on his personality that he would have wanted to do whatever mission would have scored the most baptisms. Not because he's a good person, but because he has to win.

# ? Sep 8, 2012 02:25

Sarion: Dec 24, 2003

jmzero posted:

Thank you, I found it all very interesting.

As for Romney specifically, I think people have gotten sidetracked. It doesn't matter where he went, why, or how he lived there. From 1965 till the end of the war, he was eligible to serve in the military and fight in Vietnam. He didn't, which would have been fine, except he protested in favor of sending a bunch of other poor kids to die in the jungles while he stayed out of it, and now claims how he wished he had the opportunity to serve. He did have the opportunity, he just didn't want to take it.

# ? Sep 8, 2012 02:31

Augster: Aug 5, 2011

From facebook:

sigh

# ? Sep 8, 2012 04:11

YouTubeTekReviewer: Apr 25, 2005

Not an email but I just got a spam text about this distilled :911:

in movie form which is appropriately being released on Patriot Day!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPlxKscaJWc

I wonder what it's like to live with a mindset which allows you to watch something like this and think, "yes, this is a wholly accurate portrayal of the world." It must be terrifying.

If it didn't mean giving money to the people behind it, I'd go see it simply out of morbid curiosity. If it's Chuck Norris Approved, it must be good!

# ? Sep 8, 2012 04:31

TinTower: Apr 21, 2010; You don't have to 8e a good person to 8e a hero.

Augster posted:

From facebook:

sigh

Buying a season ticket to an amusement park: constitutionally guaranteed right.

Also, you Americans really need ID to get train tickets? I'm getting on a train tommorow and all I need to do is pay money for my ticket, on the train itself.

# ? Sep 8, 2012 04:37

MC Nietzche: Oct 26, 2004; by exmarx

fippo posted:

Crazy video

I have no idea what this movie is about. Is it about small town mayor imprisoning his people until they truly believe in "FREEDOM" or is it about black people oppressing white people with the Constitution?

# ? Sep 8, 2012 04:40

CCKeane: Jan 28, 2008; my shit posts don't die, they multiply

Augster posted:

From facebook:

sigh

This is sigh and frustrating, but I've had pretty good luck explaining why this can be difficult to people by using my grandmother as an example. She is old enough to be effectively housebound, and trips out of the home are a big deal for her, and she avoids it as much as possible. She doesn't have valid photo ID. It's not that big of a deal for us, because a family member can take off to help her out, but if she didn't have a support system, it would be leagues more difficult.

I usually end with a method proposed by the state of new hampshire, where if an ID can't be provided, a state voter photo ID is produced at the polling place and the information is recorded (free of charge.) If you can get somebody to agree to that point, it's usually not too bad.

# ? Sep 8, 2012 04:58

constantIllusion: Feb 16, 2010

Augster posted:

From facebook:

sigh

Driving
Driving is not a Constitutional Right.

Boarding an Airplane
Not a Constitutional Right.

Applying for a Job
Unless you are applying at a temp agency, you don't have to show ID until you are hired .

Pharmacy
I guess if you were buying a controlled substance such as Oxycontin. :shrug:

Bank Transactions
No it doesn't, unless you're cashing a check.

Applying to School
No it doesn't.

Applying for store credit
Not a Constitutional right.

Establish a Utilities account
I was able to set up my gas and electric services over the phone. No ID needed.

Purchasing a Car
In New York State, the DMV needs to register your car and make sure you have a license and insurance.

Outpatient Testing
Not a Constitutional right.

Medicare/-aid
:ughh:

This plus fingerprinting (in New York State) was a consequence of 1996's welfare reform.

Open a Retirement account
Not a Constitutional right.

Vote in a Union
If he means a labor union, then a private organization can require ID to vote in their elections if they want, as this is a not a Constitutional right.

Donate Blood
I was never asked to show ID when I donated blood. Then again I donated at my liberal, elitist university where I got a liberal arts degree.

Buy a Firearm
:qq:

I have to have ID to buy a weapon capable of killing a human being! :qq:

Social Security Services
:ughh:

Pawn Shops
Not a Constitutional right. This says a lot about the creator of this macro.

Writing a Check
Not a Constitutional right, and who still writes checks in 2012 for in-person transactions?

Using a Credit Card
No it doesn't.

Buying Car Insurance
The insurer needs to make sure you're licensed to drive, and needs to be able to report lapses in coverage to the DMV (New York State).

Buying Train Tickets
No it doesn't and it's not a Constitutional right.

Buying annual Amusement park tickets
This is a luxury and not a Constitutional right.

Volunteer at Non-profit orgs
No it doesn't, unless you need to have a background check done.

Check out a book at a library
No it doesn't. Since little kids can get a library card, an ID is not necessary.

Applying for a Professional License
Not a Constitutional right.

Buy a house
Not a Constitutional Right.

Apartment Rental Applications
No it doesn't unless you are applying for public housing.

Buy Cigarettes and Liquor
These are controlled substances.

# ? Sep 8, 2012 05:02

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

"Patriot Day?" Goddammit.

# ? Sep 8, 2012 05:33

Salvor_Hardin: Sep 13, 2005; I want to go protest.; Nap Ghost