Wow. :headshake

Maybe you should read what we write and not what you assume we mean. No one is justifying the action but stating how ridiculous it is to base a person's character from an incident 47 years ago. As BrianR said, it's muckraking, nothing else.

Some levity...I was re-looking at this page and this is the quote at the bottom (the cookie!)

I guess we were all guilty, in a way. We all shot him, we all skinned him, and we all got a complimentary bumper sticker that said, "I helped skin Bob."
- Jack Handey, "Deep Thoughts"

Oh it's a thoroughly shitty thing to do, that's for sure. And it isn't in any way 'ok' because he was a kid when he did it. And if he was a twenty-five year old man approaching his first political venture, I'd say it might be relevant.

But as PH said, it was 47 years ago. It may speak to some fundamental aspect of his nature. or it might not. But I don't think it can be safely used to read a man either way.

It may speak to the thoughts he harbours, but frankly, as long as they stay harboured that's his own affair. They're probably no different to those harboured by many religious conservatives. I'd honestly be more shocked to discover he has no negative views of homosexuality than otherwise.

I'm kind of with Pam on this one. On the one hand I agree with much of what the article says, but I don't think it should have been written if that makes sense? Some things should, I think, be off-limits. Unless there's a definate case to be made for public interest. If, for example, he was overseeing legislation that made it harder for gay kids to seek redress for bullying then this incident would be directly relevant and of interest.

Otherwise, I think the childhoods of public figures should be off-limits except by permission. Once that can is opened things can get ugly fast and I don;t think it helps the tone of political discourse.

I am starting to think I just don't LIKE Romney. ;)

Yeah, I'm probably a little too biased on this: I was certainly not raised to be a bully. I could also chalk some of my ire up to the fact that I'm not a boy.

I do think it needs to be considered, though. Perhaps it's status quo childhood shenanigans for some, and I am overreacting, but it really doesn't sit well with me.

Then again, I just don't like Romney! :lol:

I wouldn't like him if he weren't the republican pres candidate, if he were just the guy I waited on at the country club because dollars to doughnuts I bet he treats those people like crap, too, or at least shows dismissive thinly-veiled disdain. I've seen way too many of that ilk. ;)

Oh, I know I don't like him. :p

Wow. :headshake

Maybe you should read what I write and not what you assume I mean. Held down. Crying. Struggling. Cutting off hair...sure, normal stuff right there. He didn't pull the fucking legs off a spider, ffs.

Yeah, how much of that did you do? Be honest, I'd like to know who (what) I'm dealing with. Me? Nah. Never beat the fuck out of someone for being gay.

If'n I were runnin' for prezzie I'd gage how much MUCK there was to RAKE, and beating up gay people would never come up in my history.

Maybe all little boys are straight-up bullies, I dunno. Or is that learned in the military? *shrugs* I'm naive, I expect most children of high up politicians would have better access to good teaching and manners and societal decorum.

Sheesh. But yeah, you keep saying why it isn't relevant.

I call 'protests too much' and guilty conscience. :cool:

Last night's Rachel Maddow brought up a really good point.
When asked about this, when asked about harassing another closeted gay classmate by shouting "atta girl!" when he spoke in class, when asked about putting his dog on the roof of the car, when telling his story about his dad firing michiganders, romney repeatedly just LAUGHS.
what's so funny, mitt, about those things? if they were just youthful pranks, or previous mistakes you wouldn't repeat, say so. Why do you LAUGH about it while saying you don't remember it?

Because it's funny to him. Just childish pranks, nothing to take seriously.

I'm disgusted too, Ibram.

Let's say he'd abused his girlfriend in HS. Yeah, he smacked her right upside the face at a party, then threw her in the mud and went home. Just that 'one time' that we know of.

Would we chalk that up to youthful transgression? No, we would not. Well, I wouldn't. :mad:

But it's OK to abuse a gay guy and chalk it up to youthful transgression, in Penis World. mmmmmk.

As a Brit, I am well used to muck-raking by the press. Howveer shitty Fox news might be it pales to the work of amateurs when set against the filth that is our tabloid press.

We've seen some truly revolting stories paraded through the press. And, honestly, the claim to something being in the public interest has only occasionally been satisfactorily made. Several politicians have had their careers utterly wrecked by press stories that dug up stuff from their youth. And yeah, sometimes I've read them and thought, yah....bastard that you are, you clearly always were. But it still isn't fair, I don't think. Not unless it relates directly to something they're involved with in the present.

Because, whilst this time it's a truly horrible bullying incident, the next time it might be that teenage shoplifting incident, or the college DUI. Neither of which I personally consider anywhere near as troubling as the bullying but which could seriously damage a career nonetheless.

The thing is, a lot of the movies I've seen set in American high schools, there seems to be this very physical kind of bullying by the lads. particularly the 'jocks'. It's often used as the source for humour (the kid that got a wedgie for being a geek, the kid that got his balls taped up etc).

Now, to me that all sounds fucking hideous and I suspect to most of us here it just sounds like out and out assault. But there is something in that 'jock' school culture that thinks that shit is funny and a natural part of the school experience. That might be why he is seeing it as something to laugh at.

It's utterly reprehensible and shows his utter lack of class as an adult. he could do himself a lot of good if he copped to it and said, yes, it was an awful thing to do. That he was a little wayward as a young man, and didnt really think about consequences to those two young men. That obviously, the man he is now woulod never even dream of doing anything like that, but that the young man he was still had a lot of learning to do.

But no. Because in his heart he's still a fucking jock.

Romney has been getting a reputation for being a little too stiff. So his campaign pointed to his wacky hi-jinx years in high school to show that he likes to have fun just like the next guy.

If he is pointing to his past to show what kind of person he is, then it's perfectly fair to actually look at his past, warts and all.

The Washington Post has the whole story. Probably more than you want to read about Romney in high school.

Ahhh. I hadn't realised he'd opened the door. That's a whole other kettle of fish. Fair game.

:)

I admit, i skim read some of the posts :p Iphone doesn't lend itself well to deep reading.