Gay-Bashing Bully for Prez 2012!
http://feministing.com/2012/05/10/mitt-romney-anti-gay-bully/
The Washington Post has a rather lengthy report up today on Mitt Romney’s time at the prestigious prep school Cranbrook. The report details Romney’s years as a high school senior in 1965 and his reaction to a new student, John Lauber, who Romney felt looked too gay.
[QUOTE]Mitt Romney returned from a three-week spring break in 1965 to resume his studies as a high school senior at the prestigious Cranbrook School. Back on the handsome campus, studded with Tudor brick buildings and manicured fields, he spotted something he thought did not belong at a school where the boys wore ties and carried briefcases. John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.
“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenaged son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled.
A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school’s collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.
The image of a scared teenage boy being tackled and forced to the ground while classmates chop his hair off doesn’t sit well with me. It’s torturous behavior. It’s cruel behavior. As a Romney classmate said, “
it was vicious.” And it matters.
There are some who are making the argument that Mitt’s youthful transgressions have no impact on the here and now. I could not disagree more. It would be one thing if Romney had a long record of compassion and supported policies now that worked to advance equality and understanding. But that is not the case. It was just two weeks ago that a openly gay spokesperson was forced to step down after anti-gay groups virulently attack him. Romney did not utter a single word in his defense. Clearly, since his youth Romney has not “evolved” that much.
That Romney was a high school bully is important in context (ya know, how most things should be viewed). Assaulting a fellow classmate is more than a youthful prank; maybe not to the bully, but the children attacked live with it for the rest of their lives. John Lauber died in 2004, but in the piece one of other students who was present during the assault saw Lauber in Chicago’s O’Hare airport in the mid-1990s and apologized to him for the incident. Lauber told him, “It was horrible…It’s something I have thought about a lot since then.”
We must fight the urge to dismiss actions of children and teenagers as youthful transgressions. The trauma from childhood bullying lasts a lifetime for those victimized. With such high numbers of young people
committing suicide as a result of bullying it’s long past time for us to take this deadly serious.[/QUOTE]
On the one hand I think bullying really should be taken far more seriously, and greater recognition given to the longterm impact...
On the other hand, I do think it needs to be seen in the context of a 1965 school environment.
Yes, he caved under pressure from the Xtian right and allowed his spokesperson to step down undefended. But he also hired the guy in the first place which suggests at least an openness to pragmatic acceptance.
Don't get me wrong, I think it is quite likely that he still holds some horrible views about gay people. But they may well have softened along with the views of the world around him across several decades. And yes, sometimes being a bully as a young man can be seen as an early indicator of a particularly nasty mindset...but not necessarily.
I don't think it's entirely fair to bring in schooldays behaviour from decades prior and apply it to the adult now.
The fact that he hasn't yet made any public statement other than writing it off as a "prank" speaks volumes, though.
Oh i agree. As I say, I think he probably does still hold some unpleasant views. Though, I suspect it has more to do with what his base will think and be prepared to support.
I can't get past this:
“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!”
Crazy. I can't imagine thinking like that.
Due to the multiple sources, and Mitt's non-denial denial and nonpology, I don't have much dought that the story is accurate, but if there's anything that would kindle doubt, it's the sheer over-the-top Hollywood-high-school-movie-bulliness of that line.
Please don't make me want to move to canada again. It's too cold.
Anyone but the this most fuked up Canidate in 2012
The fact that he hasn't yet made any public statement other than writing it off as a "prank" speaks volumes, though.
Not really. Politicians rarely comment on stuff like this one way or the other. Whatever he says is unlikely to improve the situation and will keep the topic alive longer and detract from what he wants to be heard saying, so saying nothing is the way to go.
Mitt says he does not remember doing this, a lot of old people can't remember what they did 47 years ago. He probably does not know what escalade he left his dog strapped to, the one in Nantucket or the one at the Park City ski resort.
Most likely the only thing that's changed is Mr Romney's desire to keep those sorts of views to himself these days.
He seems to me to be the same sort of person now as he reportedly was then.
Muckraking at it's finest.
If people held high school behavior against ME now, I would never have a job and probably should just be shot.
There are many things to dislike about Romney, but this isn't really one of them.
Of course not.
UNTIL YOU LOOK AT IT IN THE CONTEXT of what he purports to stand for today. Certainly not gay rights.
From the article, one more time:
There are some who are making the argument that Mitt’s youthful transgressions have no impact on the here and now. I could not disagree more. It would be one thing if Romney had a long record of compassion and supported policies now that worked to advance equality and understanding. But that is not the case. It was just two weeks ago that a openly gay spokesperson was forced to step down after anti-gay groups virulently attack him. Romney did not utter a single word in his defense. Clearly, since his youth Romney has not “evolved” that much.
People do really mean stuff sometimes. When I think back to my childhood, I participated in teasing at least a few times. But I wasn't in high school, I was in grade school. And I didn't pin anyone down while they cried and assault them like he did.
The article in the Post today was saying that his campaign is pointing to his fun loving antics in his youth to make him seem less wooden. I'd be willing to take his bullying in the context of a childhood in a different time, except that his own campaign is apparently trying to paint him as a fun loving guy back then. If they open the door to his behaviour back then as some indication of who he is today, then I think it's fair to look at the whole picture from back then.
Still, I don't think he is a borderline sociopath the way Bush was. I think he's just a guy who did some messed up stuff when he was younger.
Oh, no way he's the socio Bush was.
But I think it needs looked at, as you say, and they opened the door.
Then again, serial killers often have histories of abusing critters in their youth. We're not all like "I don't think his chopping the legs off the family dog and eating its heart when he was 14 has any relation to the fact that he killed, dismembered, mutilated 27 people. It was just child's play!" Yeah, I know there's a word for that sort of debate tactic but it was just too good to not put to 'paper.' ;)
We've all done and said stupid stuff, for sure. I don't have any recollection of pinning anyone down or assaulting anyone though, for funsies...snotty little rich boy throwing his shit around. Such a cliche, right out of the movies, as HM said. THAT speaks volumes to me.
He would have benefited from a Captains Courageous experience.
I don't think you can judge too much of Romney's current character from this. It was absolutely horrible and possibly shows sociopathetic tendencies (he does love firing people) but it also happened 47 years ago when he was in high school. Supposedly this was an isolated event as well.
I really doubt Romney holds the exact same views as he did 47 years ago but is just more controlled. It is more likely he was just a cocky prick as a high schooler.
Wow. :headshake
Really? You all really think ASSAULTING someone is OK because he was just a cocky little teenager? Get real people. Why do people make excuses for this kind of behavior?
I guess I can only assume that MOST of us held people down, cut their hair as they struggled and cried. You know, just growin' up stuff. Jebus.
OK. Imma go decapitate some cats.
Later.
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 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.
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.
People do really mean stuff sometimes. When I think back to my childhood, I participated in teasing at least a few times. But I wasn't in high school, I was in grade school. And I didn't pin anyone down while they cried and assault them like he did.
The article in the Post today was saying that his campaign is pointing to his fun loving antics in his youth to make him seem less wooden. I'd be willing to take his bullying in the context of a childhood in a different time, except that his own campaign is apparently trying to paint him as a fun loving guy back then. If they open the door to his behaviour back then as some indication of who he is today, then I think it's fair to look at the whole picture from back then. Still, I don't think he is a borderline sociopath the way Bush was. I think he's just a guy who did some messed up stuff when he was younger.
Oh, no way he's the socio Bush was.
But I think it needs looked at, as you say, and they opened the door.
Then again, serial killers often have histories of abusing critters in their youth. We're not all like "I don't think his chopping the legs off the family dog and eating its heart when he was 14 has any relation to the fact that he killed, dismembered, mutilated 27 people. It was just child's play!" Yeah, I know there's a word for that sort of debate tactic but it was just too good to not put to 'paper.' ;)
We've all done and said stupid stuff, for sure. I don't have any recollection of pinning anyone down or assaulting anyone though, for funsies...snotty little rich boy throwing his shit around. Such a cliche, right out of the movies, as HM said. THAT speaks volumes to me.
He would have benefited from a Captains Courageous experience.
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.
I know, I was teasing you.
I have the same issues on my phone. It's hard to get really 'into' it. :)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/11/1090837/-Mitt-Romney-s-defenders-speak-out
[YOUTUBE]lB0W4Zhn64o[/YOUTUBE]
According to Ann Romney, Mitt is still the "crazy" guy from high school who loves "playing jokes" on people. And according to his high school friend Gregg Dearth, Romney probably was merely acting "jokingly" when he bullied John Lauber. Dearth, who didn't witness the attack, imagined it was probably a barrel of laughs, the kind of thing that might "traumatize" or "scare" somebody, but "no harm, no foul."
So there you have it, folks. Mitt Romney was a crazy jokester who liked to traumatize and scare people unfortunate enough to be his lesser, but there's nothing wrong with that. And he's still the same guy today that he was back then. No harm, no foul.
With defenders like that, who needs critics?
With friends like that, who needs enemas, even? :)
Sheesh. But yeah, you keep saying why it isn't relevant.
Once again, you really need to stop assuming my thoughts on this.
First of all, I in no way endorse what Romney did. It wasn't a prank. It wasn't just childish fun. It was an attack on someone who acted and looked differently than Romney considered acceptable.
But yet, this is something that happened 47 years ago. It is entirely possible that this action shows an underlying mindset that has been maintained for his entire life. Or, it is also possible that he grew up and a few years later and would never even think about doing something similar to another person. Right now, my guess is on the second. He is still an asshole but I doubt those actions reflect the person he is now.
Although, I don't feel sorry for him at all. As glatt mentioned, he opened up his childhood to try to improve his appearance but it ended up hurting him. I just doubt that action is reflective of him now.
It's my contention that many, nay, MOST of our childhood inclinations and tendencies, like loving to read, or being athletic, liking broccoli, exhibiting abusive behavior, do not just disappear. You do not just grow out of it.
Again (and quit saying I'm assuming stuff, you're hell bent on finding some sort of relief for him in this situation and I'm hell bent on trying to make you see your folly) we wouldn't be having this discussion if he had abused a woman.
Sissy gay boy should have been able to fight, right?
Really. It's not justifiable. There's no reason to assume that amid all the things he is and all the things he purports to stand for (and just as important, things he chooses NOT to stand for) this one itty bitty incident is probably just a one time thing and is no indication of any sort of REAL abusive gay-hating tendency.
How can you logically make such a self-contained leap? He's an asshole and blah blah blah, but this was probably OK? I don't get that. yeah, it was just the one time.
No.
Nobody in this thread has said it's OK. Go back and quote anyone who did.
I don't think that today, Romney is any more accepting of people who don't fit into his idea of right, good, and God-fearing than he was 47 years ago. I've seen nothing to pursuade me otherwise.
It's OK enough that we are supposed to overlook it and dismiss it.
Don't play classic semantics games, k? What the fuck dude. I'll go cherry pick some words just as we're supposed to cherry pick Romney's character.
I really like how people who are typically heroes of the people turn on a subject depending on what side I'm on.
IF HE HAD ABUSED A GIRL...
Think about it. That argument was completely used against me recently. Yet here, me saying it? Fuck you monkey, you're stupid.
Here we go again.
Once a bully always a bully?
I dont believe that. Lots of kids and even teenagers act out a bunch of stuff around their own sense of personal status and power that would appall their adult selves.
I don't agree.
You know how they tell women that if a man (or in this case a teenage boy) hits you once he will hit you again?
Yeah. Like that.
This boys will be boys crap is ridiculous.
Let me put it this way. I've probably done a lot of mean shit in my time. I remember once, a kid I thought i was good friends with one day flew off the handle and beat the tar outta me. I asked him what the fuck was up and he said he was sick of me picking on him. I had no idea that I had been, cause I'm a snide sarcastic prick who doesn't always realize when I hurt people. I'm bad at reading people and their social interactions - my landlord here is convinced, lacking any diagnostic qualification, that i have aspergers - and don't always realize when I'm hurting people.
But every time I'm confronted with having done so, i do NOT laugh at it. I do NOT call it a harmless prank. I've been bullied enough in my time that I would NOT laugh that kind of thing off. I try to make it right. One of my best friends in high school, i spent the first year or so i knew him poking what i thought was chummy fun, and what he thought was bullying. But when he confronted me with that, i changed everything about how we interacted, and we got very close. I tried to make up for what I did by reaching out and fixing it, not blaming the victim for blowing it out of proportion.
This VERY, VERY much speaks to Romney's character. Not because he's still necessarily exactly the same person. He could have changed. It speaks to his character because of how he has handled it NOW, as it's come to light, and as part of a pattern of things he has done NOW rather than in the distant past.
Totally agree Ibs. How he's responding now speaks volumes for how he sees the incident.
The thread made me think of Lou Reed's album 'New York' from sometime in the late 80s or thereabouts. I quote from the song 'Good Evening Mr. Waldheim' (a man with a bit of history himself) where Reed is talking about Jesse Jackson...
'If I ran for President
and once was a member of the Klan
wouldn't you call me on it
the way I call you on Farrakhan'
Don't know where you get the 'boys will be boys' from. Nobody has said that here.
If bullies are destined to always be bullies, that suggests people don't learn, and don't grow up. Lots of kids bully. Lots of kids who bully have themselves previously been bullied. Lots of bullies go onto be bullied. Lots of kids go through that stage and come out of it as normal, ordinary people, just like you and I.
It is not the same as 'once a man has hit you he'll do it again.' That's to do with a) adult relationships, by which time most people generally have become the person they'll be, and b) permissions and boundaries within that relationship.
People can and do change. Not all of them. Not always. But many. Even people who have done heinous things can change and become better people. Sometimes it takes intervention (for example, there are counselling and anger management courses for men who've been convicted of domestic violence) and sometimes it just takes the passage of time, a few important lessons and a couple of influential adults.
I in no way suggest that this is the case with Rommers, mind.
I don't agree.
You know how they tell women that if a man (or in this case a teenage boy) hits you once he will hit you again?
Yeah. Like that.
This boys will be boys crap is ridiculous.
No, boys in their teenage years abuse their girlfriends. These boys grow into men who abuse their wives.
I'm suspending my self-imposed Politics ban for one post, because this is too delicious not to add to the conversation.
From a Slate story on the Romney bullying:
...as a Yale sophomore in 1965, George W. Bush reportedly stuck up for a reputedly gay student. Bush heard the student being called “queer,” told the taunters to shut up, and apparently also said, “Why don’t you try walking in his shoes for a while?”
[levity]'walking in his loafers for a while'[/levity]
LOL. Sorry.
I disagree Infi. Some do, some don't. I don't believe anything is so set in stone when it comes to personal development, particularly when talking about the jump from kid to adult, and all that involves.
But without remorse, there can be no honest development, i believe.
Without at the least recognition that it is undesirable in oneself.
I've known a few who've changed a lot over the years. Angry, violent young men who became settled and calm middle aged men. But they did that for themselves.
One of them was a good friend, and not-quite-in-law relation via J. He went through some awful times and in the process put other people through the mill as well, including a couple of girlfriends. Lovely lad much ofthe time but turned into a total fuck periodically, and violent with it.
He really worked hard to not be the kind of person he hated and yet had somehow become. Clever man, but emotionally stupid when he was young.
I think possibly one saving grace with him, and possibly why it was something he was able to get to grips with, was that it was never that kind of secret, behind closed doors stuff. he had a temper problem, and anybody, including girlfriend might walk into the storm when he blew. But once he hit that ramp, he was a complete bastard. Cruel tongue on him at those times.
Honestly never thought he'd get himself sorted out, but he did. Cut out the drugs and drink, went back and finished his education, went and taught abroad, came back and started his teaching career here, became a headmaster in a London school and now I think works in the local education department or something.
Does particularly well with troubled teens.
two failed marriages though . Second was an amicable split and they're still good friends. Kids seem well happy.
Romney is socially inept. He isn't socially adept. He isn't a "personable person."
Would I hang around with someone like him? (money aside) no.
Have I seen and/or done shitty things to people as a teen? absolutely.
Do I regret them, yup.
Do I believe this is relevant? nope. YMMV
(FTR - Romney and the other boys apparently didn't know the other boy was gay)
Will this factor into which candidate I vote for? About as much as the fact that Obama ate dog as a child. I'm not comparing the two, just saying that neither is relevant.
Talking of dogs, what is this thing about rommers tying his dog up or something?
I'd say, especially given the increasing visibility of bullying problems in our country, and Romney's
antipathy towards anti-bullying organizations, that a president who calls assault and battery pursuant to bullying a "prank" will be a terrible thing for bullied kids everywhere, and shows a fundamental flaw of character.
Yeah. It does show a singular lack of understanding.
Talking of dogs, what is this thing about rommers tying his dog up or something?
I could have sworn we had a thread on it. During a 12-hour family road trip to Canada, Mitt - illegally, as was later pointed out - put Seamus, the family dog, atop their car in his kennel the whole way. Even after Seamus shat himself in apparent terror, leaving doggie diarrhea all over the back window, Mitt pulled over into a gas station, hosed off the car and dog, and carried on. Then he bragged about it later as proof he's good at dealing with crises.
I disagree Infi. Some do, some don't. I don't believe anything is so set in stone when it comes to personal development, particularly when talking about the jump from kid to adult, and all that involves.
Most do.
It's why you hear these kinds of things as being the fault of the woman for going back and thinking he'd changed.
All right up until he killed her.
But this isn't completely relevant, just a tangent. But no. You can't really be saying this. What is it that we are to defend and not defend?
We've come a long way baby. Stand by your man 'cause he might not be a beater anymore. Pfffft.
I knnow you don't really think that, I think you just like to disagree with just about everything I say. ;)
No, you just misunderstood my point, or I didnt make it clearly enough. I absolutely would advise any woman to leave a man who hit her, because the chances are he will do it again. the only circumstances in which I can see staying being even remotely a good prospect is if the guy has sought help (or in the case of some men who've been convicted of spousal abuse, been offered) to better understand why he abuses and how to stop.
What I was saying is that it is not inevitable that people won't change. But more importantly, I think change is likely when we're talking about youngsters.
The alternative is that we feel able to effectively write off 10 and 12 year olds as never gonna change, never gonna learn.
The dog rode in the crate many times. According to the family, the dog enjoyed riding in the crate.
The dog defecated while in the crate during the trip.
(nowhere was " in apparent terror" mentioned except on extremely partisan sites)
Nor was it mentioned that he "bragged" about it, except on those same sites.
Ibs, I really don't care for the man either, but you need to stop buying into the ridiculous slant from the sites you read.
I would consider your post to be the equivalent of some of the biased inf from the "other side."
Please don't blindly accept their exaggerations as gospel. Instead try to filter out the BS and absorb just the facts.
This really has very little to do with politics. There are far more important issues at hand and wasting time on this crap is counterproductive.
By the way - I'd like to red Nirvana's take on this.
Healthy dogs don't tend to diarrhea all over themselves except in fear, hence the "apparent terror". The "bragging" comes from the fact that the story was actually brought up BY romney, and his handling of the poop situation, the problem-solving he showed while taking care of it, was his point in saying it. Whether or not Seamus enjoyed it, it's still illegal to put a pet, in a crate, on top of a vehicle, in the state of Massachusetts. I think it's not a political issue, I agree - but it is a personal issue with Romney. His destructive and far-right policy positions are what makes him a bad choice for President. His personal history is what makes him of ill temperament for the position.
it's still illegal to put a pet, in a crate, on top of a vehicle, in the state of Massachusetts.
Currently, you are correct. I still can't see if it was 20 years ago.
Hell, seat belts weren't even required for HUMANS until 1984.
The Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals declined to comment on the legality
of Romney's actions, but noted that it is currently illegal in Massachusetts to transport a dog "in a way that endangers it."
I can only assume this would be deemed unsafe even though the crate was mounted onto the roof.
*Additionally, there were 7 passengers in the car. Mitt, Ann and 5 kids.*
There are many things that bring Romney as the President into question. This just isn't one of them.
And this is again a situation where, we fundamentally disagree what should be considered in a candidate. I think policy should be the MAIN issue, but I believe character counts. I think both the issues show a deep, deep lack of character.
He put the dog crate on top of the car? Wtf was he thinking?
I think the biggest danger here is the man is clearly a fucking moron.*
*:p
Any youse ever read the Book of Mormon? Fucking hysterical. I laughed so much I damn near pissed.
@ Ibs -
I NEVER said otherwise. I did however dispute your interpretation. With actual facts.
@ Dana - pretty much. He certainly isn't the guy I have caring for my pets while I went away.
Let me narrow it down for you then. I wouldn't support a man who would put a dog on top of a car to have any iota of responsibility over any single human being. I don't believe for a second that Seamus, whether or not he sometimes enjoyed short trips, would in any way have taken to twelve hours in a crate on a highway. I don't find it likely that he would have shat all down the back of the car unless it was in terror or severe discomfort. I think the kind of man who uses that story as a humorous anecdote, especially in the context of so many other incidents, is severely unfit to be president. You can dispute all of that, if you like, but that is my position on the relevance of the Seamus anecdote.
I got that the first 5 times... you still missed my point.
what the fuck point have i not responded to in full, yet?
The point that you get all worked up because you seem to buy into the extremist slant/emotional drama from your "news" sources.
Take their BS out (Which I did) and look at JUST the facts.
During a road trip to Canada, Mitt put the family dog in his mounted kennel atop their car.
[COLOR="Red"](How often did they stop? Was this unusual, for them?)[/COLOR]
After Seamus defecated, Mitt pulled over into a gas station, cleaned eveything up and carried on.
[COLOR="Red"](What do you suggest he do? Keep in mind there were seven people in the car.)[/COLOR]
- illegally, as was later pointed out - CITE
[COLOR="Red"]Was it illegal in 1983? [/COLOR] I have already shown otherwise.
-in apparent terror,-
[COLOR="Red"]Prove that.[/COLOR] Seems like nothing more than assumption.
-Then he bragged about it later as proof he's good at dealing with crises. -
Utter Bullshit. Media created crap. [COLOR="Red"]Cite the "bragging"[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]
How did he get home? Did the dog ride in the crate again?
Was there a problem on the way home?
Did the dog continue to willingly travel in this fashion the next week, month?
[/COLOR]
never mind. I really don't want to argue with you.
No, you just misunderstood my point, or I didnt make it clearly enough. I absolutely would advise any woman to leave a man who hit her, because the chances are he will do it again. the only circumstances in which I can see staying being even remotely a good prospect is if the guy has sought help (or in the case of some men who've been convicted of spousal abuse, been offered) to better understand why he abuses and how to stop.
What I was saying is that it is not inevitable that people won't change. But more importantly, I think change is likely when we're talking about youngsters.
I was especially cynical today. In my more relaxed mood I'm willing to concede this point. I've said many times that you hear the stories about the kid who made it out of the worst circumstances, rose above, worked hard, and succeeded. I believe those stories happen because someone or something made them see things in a new llight. I can't say that Rom might not have had something similar happen to make him see a different way. I hope so, but honestly I'm hanging my hat of hate on this. Not a right thing to do, though. :)
Ah that's probably fair enough. The man's clearly a complete twat.
He put the dog crate on top of the car? Wtf was he thinking?
And then posted was this reasoning. It was legal. Therefore it is OK.
So it is legal for Wall Street to subvert the nation's and world's economy. That is also OK?
Regulations need not exist for industries, persons, etc who are responsible. Heavy regulations are created after and because that industry or person is irresponsible. The reasoning: "it was legal and therefore acceptable". Therefore some, using that logic, loved the financial corruption of the 2000s and even Mission Accomplished. Legal was to hide costs ($billions) of Mission Accomplished outside of the federal budget. Yes it was good to not show those expenses in the budget. Therefore the people would not know its real costs. 'Legal' says that lie was also good and acceptable.
It was legal to put the dog on top of a speeding car? Being responsible is about lying - as long as no law exists to ban the lie? That was the reasoning. And not just Romney's. Others here are using the same reasoning.
We have a serious problem. Many assume that because something is legal, it is quite acceptable. Legal was to lie about Mission Accomplished. Legal was to deregulate financial corruption. Legal was to put a dog on top of the car. That proves all were good and acceptable.
A president was not impeached for massacring almost 5000 troops uselessly in Mission Accomplished. He was not impeached. That also proves it was a good thing? It was legal. Therefore it was good?
And then posted was this reasoning. It was legal.
Correct.
Therefore it is OK.
Incorrect. That was never said. The rest of your post is just the same old tired, "mission accomplished" rant again which
you've done over 1000 times in
OVER 200 threads.Yeah.. you ignore (not miss, just disregard) his larger point that you, I, and the majority of Americans frequently make that *since* something is legal, it is OK. That is his point, I'm sure you saw that, and I know for a fact you understand the idea. Even by refuting it, you make his point. Sometimes something can be LEGAL and NOT OK.
You're absolutely dead right about his consistency and persistence regarding his "mission accomplished" broken record M.O. It's a bit tiresome.
Yeah.. you ignore (not miss, just disregard) his larger point...
Not at all. That was
NOT THE POINT. You mustn't have read all that transpired.
I questioned Ibs **version** of the truth. (and still do) The tangent we were on was one of reading facts versus conjecture and assumption. He claimed several things, quite forcefully, as *facts* One of which was that it was illegal. I countered with "prove it" I even went so far as to show where he was most likely incorrect.
tommyboy and you both missed
that point.
You're absolutely dead right about his consistency and persistence regarding his "mission accomplished" broken record M.O. It's a bit tiresome.
A **bit** ??? That is the understatement of the year.
[COLOR="White"]Retort on how he'll have to repeat it a 1000 more times for some to learn...
blah blah blah ... extremists .... blah blah blah...[/COLOR] :vomit:
:fuckingjesusgodinhellyoubeepingaboutsmilie:
Romney claims not to remember it but he apologizes if he hurt anyone.
I can't speak for him but I know I remember the names and incidents from everytime I was bullied. Funny how you never forget BEING hurt.
And...unless high/drunk/otherwise impaired, I generally remember being a total ass (aka bully) to someone. Unless that is, I am a total ass (aka bully) frequently, then it all runs together and I probably couldn't remember any specific episode.
That raises an interesting question. How would you know if people think you are a bully unless they tell you?
It's kind of like bad breath. Sure, there are times that you just know that your breath is kickin' huge, but there are also probably times that you are unaware that it's foul. And if nobody tells you, you are oblivious.
Just ask Don Rumsfeld. You've got your known knowns, etc. etc.
Dirt on your knees from holding the person down so your friends can kick him or her would be a good indication. Maybe some blood on the knuckles. I'm not sure how you wouldn't know you were being a bully.
Or, in Romney's case, freshly cut hair on the clothing.
I've recently been told about things I had done in the past of which I have no memory.
Some I was obviously impaired during and other - All I can claim is "old-timers."
Haaaaa... If we could only go back and see what Obamy was doing when he was eating Dog in Indonesia. Maybe we could use it as a talking point...... ;)