He claims that when he heard the news about blacks being allowed to hold the priesthood he was drivbing in his card. He pulled over and wept. Do you really think he did that? Who does that? Maybe he was really happy about it, but really? That sounds like a politician making up stories to me.

No.

...I can't really argue one way or the other on that. Maybe he is making it up, maybe not. I heard that there were a lot of members who thought the priesthood ban was stupid for years, and he may have been one of them.

For my part, there's plenty of other more obvious lies to make me hate Mitt RMoney.

A lot of us wept. My family rejoiced when the announcement was made. Given George Romney's beliefs on the priesthood ban, I'm sure his family would have rejoiced as well.

Just because I don't agree with Mitt Romney's politics, it doesn't mean I have to think the worst of him in all things.

I dunno. Back when I was TBM, I wept over all kinds of things that today, I would not.

I used to cry in sacrament and F & T meetings and conference all the time. I was kind of confused and emotionally needy, so it was a natural reflex.

I'm much more confident and sure of myself now, and cry only when my kids are hurt or if I am in serious pain. And when I miss my loved ones.

...not to pin down and cut the hair of any black kids, as he had once done to a gay classmate.

Of course, he didn't. It's another of his made-up statements that he uses to fit a given situation.

As for politicians crying - it's interesting that Ed Muskie was pilloried and ridiculed for appearing to cry during his presidential campaign against Nixon:

"Muskie made an emotional defense of his wife in a speech outside the newspaper's offices during a snowstorm. Though Muskie later stated that what had appeared to the press as tears were actually melted snowflakes, the press reported that Muskie broke down and cried, shattering the candidate's image as calm and reasoned." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Muskie

That incident apparently cost him a lot of support. Now, it seems that "crying" is good (John Boehner and Glenn Beck come to mind). Now, crying means that you just love this country so much...

Thus, Romney claims he cried because he just loves the less-valient-in-the-preexistence so much...

In the true Mormon tradition he's lied about every inconvenient truth that he's ever spoken, and I think he's probably sociopathical in that he believes his lies.

So the truth as far as Romney is concerned is completely subjective. Does he believe it at this moment? Yes, therefore for him it's true. Did it really happen, at least in this universe? Doubtful.

And Mittens wept.


The problem is that Mitt has no credibility. No one (probably not even Mitt himself) knows if he's telling the truth or fantasizing.

I recall a Mormon telling me a detailed story that happened to him which I later read in some LDS literature. This story took place a long time ago, so my Mormon friend only thought it happened to him.

I've also read numerous accounts of Mormons weeping in 1978, so maybe Mitt just borrowed the story. The point is, who knows?

Does the White House own a polygraph machine?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2012 05:14PM by canadianfriend.

I call B.S.
I heard a similar story from a mission president from Idaho who said he stopped his tractor and wept when he heard the news came on the radio.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone did a search of talks by G.A.'s and found they all had some version of this stopping whatever they were doing and weeping for joy. It's a copycat thing to convince people just how colorblind and unprejudiced they are, or were at the time.

BLATANT LIE!! check this out from Sean Faircloth


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEyc2Qw83aE

All the people he helped were elite, connected "brethren."

He cares about them.

His treatment of women and the poor shows he does not care.

People cry when they care. There is not a shred of evidence Mitt Romney cares about the suffering of black Americans under the Mormon curse.

I call BS that he cares about people not in his powerful peer group. And that's the point that Sean Faircloth made.

Romney supported and praised powerful Clean Skousen, who called black children "pickaninnies" and worse. Why didn't he weep over that?


Anagrammy

a) it didn't exist

b) they NEVER read -or published- it, they just announced it (assuming it DID Exist!).

I haven't seen any evidence that Willard is/was a racist, we don't need to invent things about him.c



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2012 04:31PM by guynoirprivateeye.

Given that his father was an outspoken advocate of the Civil Rights movement and was chastised for his position by the GAs, I would be astounded if Mitt didn't share his father's beliefs. I don't know for sure, but I don't see any reason to believe he's a racist.

OTOH, I think he wept because the "unchanging gospel" suddenly changed and it was just too much for his cog-dis to handle. But hey, that's just my opinion.

Not saying he's racist.
I think it was/is a one-upmanship kind of thing and/or trying to show how worthy & spiritually "in tune" you were/are by crying. Mormons know that if you don't cry any time the prophet speaks then you probably don't have the spirit with you, and we all know what that means...someone's not following all the mormon commandments perfectly!

Sure he wept. He wept the crocodile tears of a man whose life is paid up in advance.

No...I don't think he did...And -IF- he DID weep or proclaim something such as ..."It's about time"....that just shows his cog dis...since he KNEW...THEN....that dicscriminating against black people for their skin color and what they supposedly did in the "pre-life"...is wrong and most likely, Romney (and other mormons) don't even BELEIVE in the whole "pre-life story...

Maybe. Civil rights appeared important to his father. Probably persecution in his own family at one time made it more important to them. It's possible.

Certainly not.

Susan

No.

The only thought that went through his head was:

"How will this affect ME ME ME!?"

It's hard to say. His father was known to stand up to the church on the issue, an example I wish Romney would follow on Gay Rights. I do know there were people in rural mountains of Tennessee who wept for the decision, but not for the reason Romney sites.

I agree that to Mitt, what he said was a spiritual pissing contest. I think it was trite, insincere, and hardly believable.

Mitt doesn't agree with his father on everything. He said so himself with regard to his lack of transparency with his tax returns. I'm not jumping to the conclusion that he's insincere, based on that alone, but on his track record for not standing up for the right thing on numerous issues involving underdogs:

His very own gay foreign affairs guy was encouraged to step down by outside pressure. Did he stand up and say that's wrong? No....he gave em crickets. Did he answer swiftly and affirmatively when asked if he would uphold Lily Ledbetter act? No. Did he stand up for his sick dog on vacation by moving around some luggage so the dog wouldn't be so terrified? No! He hosed the poor thing off, re-
strapped him to the car and finished the drive! On racist issues, did he stand up to Donald Trump on the racist birther talk and say that's wrong? Nope. And then there's the matter on his very own Mormon colleague who planned to block Obama from the ballots because of the northern stuff....do we really need more evidence that Romney is a prick?

Romney was 31 years old at the time the Church lifted the ban which means that for a significant portion of his adult life he accepted his church’s teaching that blacks are inherently inferior.

Does he still believe that he is more "valiant" or “worthy” than blacks by virtue of being born white? If he didn't believe that people of color were inferior during his adult life before the ban was lifted, then why did he tacitly support the ban and its doctrinal underpinnings? Did he counsel members not accept this church teaching when he was a church missionary, bishop or stake president? He never publicly questioned or protested this racist doctrine and the policy it supported.

Why not?

That's pure BS, concocted by Mitt and/or his PR machine to counter what he well knows is a huge black mark in the eyes of the American public (ESPECIALLY potential black voters) against the cult to which he's well known to have devoted his life. He couldn't deny the existence of the ban, so this is what he came up with.

We're talking about the same guy who, in addition to abusing gay students, was abusive to a visually impaired teacher, who Mitt referred to as "The Bat". Mitt told the teacher he was opening the door for him, but deliberately didn't, and laughed hysterically when that poor teacher slammed face first into the door. This, according to the same men who outed Mitt on the gay-bullying incidents.

He's also the same guy who called the tale of tying the dog onto the roof of the car a "family joke".

Sorry, but a narcissistic sociopath and pathalogical liar of his magnitude doesn't pull the car over to "weep" over of something like that. My ass.

+1

...so that he could humiliate him and cut his hair off? The bully who says that he can't remember the incident now? I would remember. His buddies remember it.

I thought that he was lying the moment he said he cried. It is much more acceptable now to shed tears. He will say anything to get elected.

He is a liar. He didn't weep. It is telling that he says he was alone when it happened. No witnesses.

No Mo

Mitt knows the question is coming in the debates regarding his church's history of bigotry against african americans. If he has to address that question on national TV he needs that story like a crack addict needs cocaine to help distance himself from his own true church.

It sounds more like brilliant PR than anything else. It cleverly puts him on the offense rather than the defense.

A lot of us wept out of sheer relief that we wouldn't have to explain and be embarrassed by that stupid crap anymore.

Really? NO