Posted on 08/19/2012 9:25:25 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
so, is that what you're saying, ALL we should care about, is what is "mentioned" on MSNBCCNNABCCBSNBC?
because that would be really stupid
The Civil Rights Act was only signed 14 years prior (1964)to this. It’s my understanding that racism and segregation were quite common up until 1964. Hmmm. Even after this date.
Busing? Forced desegregation? 1972. George Wallace, Democrat Segregationist running for President. 1972.
Let’s see. Fourteen years ago we had Bill Clinton being impeached.
Eleven years ago were the 9/11 attacks.
I’ll let you in on a little secret smear boy, if the dems keep playing the race card over and over the american people will get very sick of it and it will start showing in the polls against your buddy Obama, that is if it already hasn’t.
It's mind-boggling that someone can hide his head in the sand and ignore LDS sourced facts about Mitt....OH....NO....WAIT!....
First of all, consider the source, NYT. That paper has no problem with other religions.....this is not exactly a hit piece but the propaganda resonates that way. The ‘usual crowd’ hates Catholics, ‘Born Again, Most Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Buddhists...and so on....you get the picture. Picking a fight with the Mormon beliefs is the politically correct thing to do during an election for Obamaites and Progressives....Obama was raised by Communists who didn’t like America and believed in a political religion....hummmmmm.
Nope. But it will be covered on the alternative conservative media ... e.g. Rush: Democrats: The Party of Racism ... and you'd think it would also be what you see on FR?
You obviously did not click the link to the Peterson article. I suggest you do so. You will find THIS:
The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a Negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. "No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood" (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the Priesthood marries a Negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the Priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a "Nation of Priesthood holders"....
(Try this one, Dengar)
Those were cultural beliefs of the time as much as they were part of their church. You can find statements from may American churches just like this; from Baptist to Pentecostal.
Why get into the liberals trick of guilt by association. They have used the same tactic against other Republicans because of past beliefs of their church.
Group damnation is just as much a liberal fallacy as group salvation.
Guilt by association??
Mitt has stated his 100% loyalty to his religion. He was an adult when this racist policy was in effect. He associated himself with this policy.
Hmmm...let me see....this article is in the NYT, will be seen by hundreds of thousands, will be picked up by other media...and FR is supposed to just ignore it? That would make you happy?
Got it.
Not ignore it, debunk the liberal crap. His family’s history fighting for Civil rights is more than enough to debunk this.
When have we just wanted liberal propaganda to pass as fact without taking it apart? No need to hide, we should treat it like anything else from the NYSlimes and debunk it like every other piece of liberal propaganda.
What would you have him do? Invite a black guy to dinner? Didn’t somebody already do that movie?
“... and not talk about Romneys history of racism.”
Well then you go ahead tell us his history of racism.
Everyday you clowns become as damn nuts as the left-wing source material you have to link to in order to back up your assertions.
yep and he did it a lot more recently than 1978
So we should just bow to the talking points of the MSNBCCNNABCCBSNBC instead of debunking them? This is the new media, that is the old media. We should be wrestling the truth from the propaganda of lies that the old media cultivates, not spreading the lies unchecked.
Debunk away. Start by providing sources that "debunk" the facts in the article.
I doubt your assertion that "His familys history fighting for Civil rights is more than enough to debunk this"....just how many media outlets do you honestly believe are going to join you in this "debunking" crusade?
I'm sorry that the facts are not to your liking.
Oh nooosssssss - quick run around in circles... Who gives a crap? Compared to what or whom?
George Romney pushed an aggressive civil rights agenda
::snip::ANN ARBOR, Mich. - In 1963, an explosive year in the quest for civil rights, George Romney appeared unannounced in the mostly white suburb of Grosse Pointe and marched to the front of an anti-segregation demonstration to stand beside black leaders. Letters from startled constituents poured into the office of the first-term Michigan governor, whose son Mitt was then 16. Supporters who had helped him win his narrow victory the previous November said his actions made him "a double-crosser" and a "Judas to the people that voted for you." Their diatribes were sprinkled with warnings that they would work against him: "You are a dead duck for 1964," one detractor typed above a newspaper photograph of a shirt-sleeved Romney walking shoulder to shoulder with civil rights activists. The elder Romney pressed ahead with an aggressive civil rights agenda that ultimately put him at odds with the leaders of his party. He refused to back Barry Goldwater as the 1964 Republican presidential nominee because, he told Goldwater in a letter, he was alarmed by indications that Goldwaters strategists "proposed to make an all-out push for the Southern white segregationist vote" and "exploit the so-called white backlash in the North." George Romney began pushing reforms to end discrimination toward minorities in housing soon after taking office in 1963 - work that would lead to his highly controversial effort to integrate the nations white suburbs as President Richard Nixons secretary of Housing and Urban Development. He launched his own 1968 presidential run after a 19-day tour of the ghettos of 17 cities, turning a spotlight on the decay and overcrowding that had contributed to riots in Detroit and elsewhere.
He’d be doing it to this day if they hadn’t taped those sermons.
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.