Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:


And Romney spent just shy of a decade involved in work for his church, in addition to working his job full time. I'm not a big fan of Mormons but their clergy work hard for their communities and you see everyone in their churches from the lowest to the highest. Ann Romney has also been extensively involved with charity work for underprivileged children in Massachusetts and nationwide. I'm still not seeing much difference here. Both are rich, both are schmucks, both have put in time with the poor. One guy's just richer then the other guy. Both are out of touch, with reality at least if not the country.

That hits it right there. I have close friends who were and others who are currently Bishops in their wards as Romney was in his, and it is no picnic. It is a 5 year calling where not a lot of their life can they call their own. My friends days start working their regular jobs for sometimes as long as 12 hours, after which they make it home for an hour or so before going out for yet more hours to perform their calling. They can expect to be rousted at all hours, day or night to deal with any number of problems, such as helping with someone needing money for food or rent, or hospital care to comforting the families of someone who died or is in crisis. Pretty much any hardship a human can imagine going through, they have had to help with as well as deal with any situation they have going on at home. At the end of the 5 years, they may well again be asked to serve another 5 years, which I have seen happen more than once and they accept.
None of this is done for money, because there is no paid clergy in the LDS church, it's all lay people working in the various offices. It's definitely not done for glory. A friend of mine had members in his ward leave because he got called, and quite a few times a Bishop will have to make a descision that will upset people.
Even after the time as Bishop ends, there are always other responsibilities laid on, as most members will find themselves working in some capacity. Home teaching is something members universally get called to do. That involves being given families to take care of to make sure they have what they need in the way of material and spiritual support.
I'd say that Mitt Romney definitely is in touch with people and their problems just by virtue of the callings he has served in.

Relapse wrote:
It's definitely not done for glory. A friend of mine had members in his ward leave because he got called, and quite a few times a Bishop will have to make a descision that will upset people.

Any leadership position will involve making choices that are unpopular with some, and many of the people you are supposed to be leading will opt out as a result; yet people still seek (or accept) those positions for petty reasons like prestige and glory. What makes leadership in the Mormon Church any different?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I have friends who served wtih HMX-1 during the Clinton and Dubya years (Presidential Helo Squadron) and he said it was always his experience that the Clintons were always very distant and/or just on the edge of rude to any military personnel who might be around under flag rank, but the first time Dubya went out to Camp David the first thing he did was shake hands and jaw briefly with the Marine security and helo mechanics out there, then did little stuff like opening up the President's personal theater to the Marines and sailors, then at random he'd walk in, get some popcorn, grab a chair and just "hang out" very personable guy over all.

Cool. It had been like 12 months since I heard a 'Clintons are arrogant and rude to the military' story from a guy who knows a guy who said this guy he knows serves who met the Clintons and they were totally rude.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Good for them. Neither do a lot of people who make a lot more money then I do, which given my income level at present is pretty much everyone. I suppose I'm just failing to see the point. Obama and Romney as individuals both chose certain professional paths, and were financially rewarded for them. I doubt either man or his family has ever wanted for anything. What I do find interesting is that both are almost perfect representations of the two poles of America's upper class. The corporate executive and the career university man who went into politics. Neither understands the plight of the common individual.

True.

I mean, beyond money and connections there is a massive difference between someone like Romney or Obama that makes them and their life experience fundamentally different to our own - they are very successful individuals. The plight of the common man, on the other hand, is basically by definition mediocrity. Minimal achievements, modest job, no fame.

I mean, we can look at a president and think 'I'll never know what it's like to command armies, set policy that affects millions, and dictate the course of history' and if a president ever set himself to really think about our experiences they'll likely think 'I'll never know what it's like to reach middle age and realise that whatever I achieve, I am basically irrelevant to the course of human history'.

Which, you know, is okay. The problem comes with pretending that they are like us, and therefore the best person for the job is the one most like us. It doesn't just lead to very unexceptional individuals sometimes getting picked, it also leads to a culture in which some very talented people have to start pretending to be like us. And that really is a cult of mediocrity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, I have to agree it was clever of Romney to choose to be born the son of a top executive of a major corporation, and Obama was rather foolish to choose to be born the son of a black Kenyan immigrant.

Why doesn't everyone have the intelligence to choose to be born into a rich family? The world's problems would be solved overnight. It must be because only rich people are brainy enough to make such life choices.

I don't think there's much to be gained by trying to criticise people for simply being born in to wealth. I mean, Romney could simply by virtue of his birth led a comfortable life, but instead he worked to make his own money (albeit aided greatly by his Dad's connections), shift into politics and make a run at the presidency.

The mistake I think people make is in thinking his wealth, or anyone else's wealth, is somehow an indicator that a person is more likely to succeed in politics. As if business success somehow means they have any understand at all of economic policy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Yeah... that's a fair point.... I've liken'ed the Presidency similar to "American Idol" now. And Obama just oozes Charisma...

But that really didn't bother me so much as folks were dinging Romney for being too rich/successful. He still had to work for his wealth and I don't know about you... but for all of Romney's faults, him being rich and how he acquired his wealth to me is a good thing.

It isn't a good thing or a bad thing. It isn't a thing at all when it comes to answering the question of whether a person will be capable as a President, and whether his policies are what the country needs.

It's funny that you liken it to American Idol, because that show loves to have those little life story moments, about their sick mum or their brother with irritable bowel syndrome or whatever. And I just sit there asking 'yes, but can they fething sing?'

Same thing with the presidency, all this nonsense about who's richer than who, and the question has to be asked 'yes, but can what are their policies?'

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It's definitely not done for glory. A friend of mine had members in his ward leave because he got called, and quite a few times a Bishop will have to make a descision that will upset people.

Any leadership position will involve making choices that are unpopular with some, and many of the people you are supposed to be leading will opt out as a result; yet people still seek (or accept) those positions for petty reasons like prestige and glory. What makes leadership in the Mormon Church any different?

A fair enough statement that I can only answer through the observations I have been able to make over the years along with similar stories I have heard from other friends. Perhaps there are some who have a strange notion of glory about what it is to accept such a calling, but they are few and far between, and in all my years, I have never met such. As I said, it's a rough position that would break a lot of people within the first year. That being said, I am also told there is no feeling like being in a position to help people that really need it.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:It's just such a stupid symbol of it. I'd own a horse right now if I didn't have to budget for my surgery this coming week and I'm a limbo dance away from the poverty line.

But you do have to budget for your surgery and you are a limbo dance away from the poverty line, so you don't own a horse. Romney does own a horse, and but tried to pretend like he'd ever known what it was like to be in your situation.

I think I mis-communicated, in the choice between a cosmetic surgery and the horse I chose the surgery, because being blind sucks.

Perhaps I miscommunicated. I'm not juding your choice for (what I would not to be mere consider cosmetic surgery). My entire point is that there was never an instant in Romney's life where he would have had to make an either/or decision like that; yet he tried to pass himself off as understanding what it would be like to do so.

whembly wrote:But that really didn't bother me so much as folks were dinging Romney for being too rich/successful. He still had to work for his wealth and I don't know about you... but for all of Romney's faults, him being rich and how he acquired his wealth to me is a good thing.

1. Romney did not have to "work" for his wealth; he inherited it.
2. Romney used his inherited wealth and connections to create a company that would turn other companies into chop shops, laying off American workers and sending their jobs overseas.
3. Nobody was throwing tomatoes at Romney because he was "too rich/successful". The Romney hate stemmed from the fact that his opinions were informed by an upbringing that had ensured he never once knew the sweet flavour of ketchup-packet soup, then went on to make a business career out of facilitating the need to eat that particular cuisine for the lower-working class, and finally would go on to act as though the very people he may have put out of a job were parasites on the system, despite Romney himself disappearing massive amounts of wealth from the US economy in the process.

Relapse wrote:
Perhaps there are some who have a strange notion of glory about what it is to accept such a calling, but they are few and far between, and in all my years, I have never met such. As I said, it's a rough position that would break a lot of people within the first year.

No offense, but the mere fact that it "...would break a lot of people..." makes the position a great opportunity for glory.

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:But that really didn't bother me so much as folks were dinging Romney for being too rich/successful. He still had to work for his wealth and I don't know about you... but for all of Romney's faults, him being rich and how he acquired his wealth to me is a good thing.

1. Romney did not have to "work" for his wealth; he inherited it.

That just jumps out at me that you really dislike the guy because his parents was rich. Don't you know discrimination is a bad thing?
He gave away his inheritance when his dad died (because he was already rich).

2. Romney used his inherited wealth

You probably means, his parents helped him go to school and all that jazz... what parent doesn't do this?

and connections to create a company that would turn other companies into chop shops, laying off American workers and sending their jobs overseas.

And you continually ignore the companies that they've rescued... cherry picking today...ain't ya.
Staples for one... A sporting company for another that I can't remember the name. Oh yea, the Olympics.

3. Nobody was throwing tomatoes at Romney because he was "too rich/successful".

Um... you haven't paid enough attention then.

The Romney hate stemmed from the fact that his opinions were informed by an upbringing that had ensured he never once knew the sweet flavour of ketchup-packet soup, then went on to make a business career out of facilitating the need to eat that particular cuisine for the lower-working class, and finally would go on to act as though the very people he may have put out of a job were parasites on the system, despite Romney himself disappearing massive amounts of wealth from the US economy in the process.

Okay... we get it... you dislike really successful business folks.

Because that statement just there can be tweaked for just about ANY successful folks... gak, I can probably turn it around and make it fit with Obama's decision to shut down the WH tours because of sequesaggedon. o.O

 whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

1. Romney did not have to "work" for his wealth; he inherited it.

That just jumps out at me that you really dislike the guy because his parents was rich. Don't you know discrimination is a bad thing?
He gave away his inheritance when his dad died (because he was already rich).

As has already been said hundreds of times, the fact that he has a ridiculous amount of money isn't the issue, the fact that he has a ridiculous amount of money and kept on going on about how he knew what it was like to not have that money was the issue.

Your addendum emphasises the point. He had enough money that he could give away his entire inheritance and still be considered to be really rich, but still went on about knowing what it was like to be poor.

 Goliath wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

1. Romney did not have to "work" for his wealth; he inherited it.

That just jumps out at me that you really dislike the guy because his parents was rich. Don't you know discrimination is a bad thing?
He gave away his inheritance when his dad died (because he was already rich).

As has already been said hundreds of times, the fact that he has a ridiculous amount of money isn't the issue, the fact that he has a ridiculous amount of money and kept on going on about how he knew what it was like to not have that money was the issue.

Your addendum emphasises the point. He had enough money that he could give away his entire inheritance and still be considered to be really rich, but still went on about knowing what it was like to be poor.

So... to know what it's like... you'd have to experience it?

Do you see how utterly ridiculous that is?

And he was a bishop for his church helping people? Or even a couple to buy a house?

 whembly wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

1. Romney did not have to "work" for his wealth; he inherited it.

That just jumps out at me that you really dislike the guy because his parents was rich. Don't you know discrimination is a bad thing?
He gave away his inheritance when his dad died (because he was already rich).

As has already been said hundreds of times, the fact that he has a ridiculous amount of money isn't the issue, the fact that he has a ridiculous amount of money and kept on going on about how he knew what it was like to not have that money was the issue.

Your addendum emphasises the point. He had enough money that he could give away his entire inheritance and still be considered to be really rich, but still went on about knowing what it was like to be poor.

So... to know what it's like... you'd have to experience it?

Do you see how utterly ridiculous that is?

And he was a bishop for his church helping people? Or even a couple to buy a house?

Not really, not many white people living in Canada really notice institutionalized racism partly because they never experienced what it's truly like to be a minority for example, I genuinely believe you can't know what something is like until you've experienced it.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

1. Romney did not have to "work" for his wealth; he inherited it.

That just jumps out at me that you really dislike the guy because his parents was rich. Don't you know discrimination is a bad thing?
He gave away his inheritance when his dad died (because he was already rich).

As has already been said hundreds of times, the fact that he has a ridiculous amount of money isn't the issue, the fact that he has a ridiculous amount of money and kept on going on about how he knew what it was like to not have that money was the issue.

Your addendum emphasises the point. He had enough money that he could give away his entire inheritance and still be considered to be really rich, but still went on about knowing what it was like to be poor.

So... to know what it's like... you'd have to experience it?

Do you see how utterly ridiculous that is?

And he was a bishop for his church helping people? Or even a couple to buy a house?

Not really, not many white people living in Canada really notice institutionalized racism partly because they never experienced what it's truly like to be a minority for example, I genuinely believe you can't know what something is like until you've experienced it.

I guess what I'm saying you could attempt to emphasize another's loss or lack of 'whatever'.

But, I'm tired of the whole, "it never happened to you, so you don't know how I'm feeling" argument. While that's true if you want to get down to it, but saying a person, who's never gone through it, can never understand it... just baffles me.

In this case, it isn't like Romney was pushing the "bootstrap" thing on everyone. o.O

Misread, post edited

whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:But that really didn't bother me so much as folks were dinging Romney for being too rich/successful. He still had to work for his wealth and I don't know about you... but for all of Romney's faults, him being rich and how he acquired his wealth to me is a good thing.

1. Romney did not have to "work" for his wealth; he inherited it.

That just jumps out at me that you really dislike the guy because his parents was rich. Don't you know discrimination is a bad thing?
He gave away his inheritance when his dad died (because he was already rich).

Honestly, no. My dislike for him has little to do with being a weathy businessman (other than the fact that he's squandered his wealth, rather than doing "good" with it; but that's an entirely different conversation). Private weath is not the reason why I dislike Romney. My dislike comes from the fact that he tries to pass off his condescending self-righteousness as understanding what it's like to be poor (see: 47% speech or his use of social safety net "entitlements" in the pejorative).

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:But that really didn't bother me so much as folks were dinging Romney for being too rich/successful. He still had to work for his wealth and I don't know about you... but for all of Romney's faults, him being rich and how he acquired his wealth to me is a good thing.

1. Romney did not have to "work" for his wealth; he inherited it.

That just jumps out at me that you really dislike the guy because his parents was rich. Don't you know discrimination is a bad thing?
He gave away his inheritance when his dad died (because he was already rich).

Honestly, no. My dislike for him has little to do with being a weathy businessman (other than the fact that he's squandered his wealth, rather than doing "good" with it; but that's an entirely different conversation). Private weath is not the reason why I dislike Romney. My dislike comes from the fact that he tries to pass off his condescending self-righteousness as understanding what it's like to be poor (see: 47% speech or his use of social safety net "entitlements" in the pejorative).

Fair enough man... the opposition did a number on him during the campaign and a few foot-in-the-mouth episodes.

I'd suspect that if you knew him as the Governor of Massachusetts (and let's face it, that's how he'd be as Prez)... you'd actually like him.

It's not the wealth that's the problem, but more his attitude. An article from cracked sums up why some people have problems with wealthy people not because of envy, but because of the rich persons attitude towards that wealth

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/

Pretty sure the election's over, guys. The Obamaphone has rung, you might say.

Is he answering it, or is it like calling North Korea?

 d-usa wrote:
Is he answering it, or is it like calling North Korea?

barked out laughing there...

Did Team-UsA called?

 Seaward wrote:
Pretty sure the election's over, guys. The Obamaphone has rung, you might say.

You should tell Mitt Romney that, since this interview was just over a week ago.

By REID J. EPSTEIN | 3/3/13

What is are Religous cult leader upset,( sorry, Mormons you are still a cult.)that he not president.Well he should join the Illumanatis then he would have won.

I've never gotten the massive amount of bias against mormons besides the whole door to door jesus sales thing. No crazier then any one else who believes in an invisible best friend in the sky.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I've never gotten the massive amount of bias against mormons besides the whole door to door jesus sales thing. No crazier then any one else who believes in an invisible best friend in the sky.

Me neither... but, then again, the anti-mormon bias was institutionalized. gak... I think my own state (Missouri) had laws where it was allowed to shoot mormons on sight. o.O

EDIT: Yep: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Executive_Order_44

Yeah the famous Mormon Extermination Order

KalashnikovMarine wrote:I've never gotten the massive amount of bias against mormons besides the whole door to door jesus sales thing. No crazier then any one else who believes in an invisible best friend in the sky.

Well, the polygamy communes are a pretty terrible functioning practice that's worthy of dislike.

 azazel the cat wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:I've never gotten the massive amount of bias against mormons besides the whole door to door jesus sales thing. No crazier then any one else who believes in an invisible best friend in the sky.

Well, the polygamy communes are a pretty terrible functioning practice that's worthy of dislike.

That, and killing your peeps tend to rub you the wrong way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre

I guess I could see why people would be displeased with posthumous baptisms.

I wonder if he's going to keep giving these interviews whenever there is a significant political happening.

 azazel the cat wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:I've never gotten the massive amount of bias against mormons besides the whole door to door jesus sales thing. No crazier then any one else who believes in an invisible best friend in the sky.

Well, the polygamy communes are a pretty terrible functioning practice that's worthy of dislike.

So you have one practice that isn't even followed by the majority of the church? Cause all the mormons I know have explained that the polygamists have been excommunicated, and are considered extremist nut bars. I mean it'd be far more reasonable to condemn a much larger world religion for it's polygamist practices...

 azazel the cat wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:I've never gotten the massive amount of bias against mormons besides the whole door to door jesus sales thing. No crazier then any one else who believes in an invisible best friend in the sky.

Well, the polygamy communes are a pretty terrible functioning practice that's worthy of dislike.

Not to mention, part of their belief system is "We are better then you." My friend is mormon, and his family left Utah because of that mentality. My cousin converted and now has the mentality of that. Its a generalization ofcourse, but there are other things aswell. Such as, when i went to a babtising for my nieces, there where several men surronding them hoping they get married and have plenty of children.....when they where less then 1 year old.

DakkaDakka is not the appropriate place to debate the value of Mormonism.