Romney the Bully

Ah, but the issue is deeper than that.Romney led a group of teens to make an attack on another teen they thought was gay. Every single person involved remembers the incident right down to the detail... every single person except Mitt Romney. He continues to deny remembering anything about it or if it even happened.That's what I'm judging him on. I don't care if he raped and murdered a 12 year old girl back then. What I care about is whether he has the balls to admit it nowadays.For example, I fully admit that I was a bully back in my young age. While I was still a cop, about half the guys I worked with admitted to being a bully back in school.Romney, on the other hand, refuses to admit anything. It says a lot about his character.

Hi, Rahvin. Yes, and I have already conceded that, in a court of law, it would be perfectly appropriate to seek a charge of "assault with a deadly weapon" in this case.But, this isn't a court case: this is an online discussion about Mitt Romney's character and suitability for the Presidency. I do not believe that the technical classification of scissors as a "deadly weapon" makes any difference at all when deciding what this incident means about Romney's character or suitability for the Presidency; and I seriously doubt that you believe that, either.If Romney had left the scissors at home and assaulted the boy with just his fists, then responded to the accusations in the same pathetic manner, you and I would still both regard this as indicative of the same, exact character flaw that we see in him now. The term "deadly weapon" therefore adds nothing but rhetorical value, and, by inference, many readers (myself included) will conclude that the term was being used, not for technical accuracy, but to score rhetorical points.Since I do not like to watch perfectly reasonable arguments about social concerns get lost in exaggerated rhetoric, I thought it would be helpful to plea for some moderation*. *That's moderation, as in "being more moderate"; not moderation, as in "wanting Percy to get you."

You're making quite a large assumption there. Are you able to demonstrate that Romney recalls the incodent?Is there any evidence to that effect? You're claiming that you are judging his character based on this fact, but you've, without evidence* determined he is guilty of lying before assessing his character.Judging his character before applying the criteria you are claiming to evaluate it from? Isn't that.. backwards?Perhaps I missed something said in an earlier post that I'm just not seeing...

What matters is the fact that he hates homosexuals to the degree that, as a late-teenager, he assaulted a boy with scissors because he was gay.The fact that a deadly wepon was involved is relevant because it's what actually happened. It's not just a technical classification. As Ive stated, intent to kill is not required for the charge of Assault with a Deadly Weapon - the charge is intended to convey that the accused was being not only violent, but recklessly endangered the life of his victim by using a weapon instead of just his fists.That is what happened.Close. The fact that he was stupid and reckless enough to bring a deadly weapon into his assault says something about his character in general, and the degree of his hate for homosexuals in particular. If any "rhetorical points" are scored, they are scored through an accurate representation of what actually happened. There's no exaggeration going on here. There's no rhetoric. Mitt Romney assaulted a boy with scissors because he thought the boy was gay, full stop. Nobody is suggesting that Romney tried to stab the boy with the scissors, just that he assaulted him using them; an accidental stab is one of the reasons the charge of Assault with a Deadly Weapon exists, because by bringing a potentially lethal weapon into an assault Romney created a significant risk to the victim's life even though no murder was actually intended.How, precisely, can an accurate representation fo what actually happened in any way ever be considered an exaggeration?!In fact, if I were to "tone down" the description of events, would that not actually make me guilty of minimizing the actual events that occurred? Moderation is useful, but that doesn;t mean we should call a cigar anything other than a cigar.To the point, the truth does not lie somewhere between Assault and Assault with a Deadly Weapon.Assault with a Deadly Weapon actually accurately describes the precise event as it occurred.This is not a situation where finding a Golden Mean better conveys what happened.There is an accurate description of the events as they occurred, and there are inaccurate descriptions, both exaggerating and minimalizing what actually happened.I choose to convey the facts as accurately as I am able. Because telling the truth is somewhat important to me. Apparently, it's not important to you.

Yes there is evidence. That evidence includes the fact that the others involved seem to have no problem remembering the event.I find it highly unlikely that the other involved perps recall the incident while Romney does not. I personally find the probability low enough that I don't give Romney a pass.You are demanding a standard of proof that would not be required even during a criminal trial. We don't let fences escape prosecution for knowingly receiving stolen goods, because we cannot read their minds or catch them in admitting what they knew. We don't require that intent/criminal disregard/neglect and other states of mind be determined using telepathy. Those things are determined by inference from testimony and circumstantial evidence.Is there absolute proof that Romney isn't a lying, unrepentant bully? No. But we don't demand absolute proof before we execute convicts.

First off: Fuck Romney. I don't care to defend him. It doesn't read like that at all to me.From the article in the OP:

quote:

---

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

​

...

​

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.

---

He assaulted the guy to conform his appearance, not just because he was gay. Its not obvious that it was because he hated gays. And the scissors were there to cut his hair.When I read the dialog between you and Bluejay before I read the article in the OP, you were making it seem like they beat the guy up and stabbed him with scissors in a gay bashing incident. That's not what happened at all.I'm with Bluejay on this one, you're making it out to be worse than it is. How else were they going to cut his hair? Seriously, the scissors were brought for a specific reason. Um, no. What does scissors have to do with being gay? He assaulted a boy with scissors to cut his hair because he didn't like the way he looked. Too, he was gay.The way you describe it is very misleading.

You seriously believe that Romney and his posse simply hated bad hair cuts?I think it is clear that they singled out a person for assault because he was different. It hardly matters much whether or not being gay was what it was about.How would making the incident be about gay bashing make it any worse.

Nope. Yup.I further suppose that they didn't like him waving the 'I'm Different' flag so much. You know how Preppies get... I guess they're trying to make it look like a "hate crime".

Is this for real? Do you honestly think such an incident is forgetable? If it is, then Romney is even scarier than I thought. This makes him a sociopath.Everyone else in his group of bullies remembers in detail about the incident. Their stories all match with each other. They regretted the event and so they remembered it.Romney, on the other hand, thought nothing of it and that's why he can't remember it.So, you're practically saying Romney never had any sense of remorse and so that's why he can't remember such a major event.Good job in demonizing Romney more than I ever did. You don't think trying to dodge responsibility for something you caused is a character flaw?So, if he doesn't remember it then Romney has memory problems and therefore he is not fit to serve as president of the US.

You have 20/20 hindsight and that's why you don't think anything of it.Imagine yourself walking down the hall way when half a dozen boys jump you, hold you down, and then one boy holds up a pair of scissors and is right on top of you.How about this. Imagine someone kidnaps you and prepares you to be gang raped in the ass. All they do is prepare and make sure that you know they're preparing. At the end of the day, you find out that they never really intended to rape you. But think of the time you were worrying over it.But again, I don't care what Romney did. Everyone involved remembers the event in detail. They all independently told their stories and all the stories agree with each other. Romney, on the other hand, can't remember anything. There are several possibilities here.(1) Romney never had a second thought about the event and so never had any remorse. That's why he can't remember.(2) Romney is trying to dodge responsibility. Then his character is in question.(3) Romney honest to god can't remember. Therefore, there is something wrong with his head and he is not fit to be president.

Mind-reading error; I do think something of it.I just don't think holding a gay guy down and cutting off his hair because you don't like the way he looks is accurately described as assaulting him with scissors because you hate gays.And I think he's lying when he says he doesn't remember it.

But that's not all of it. As far as the young man was concerned, half a dozen boys jumped him, held him down, and another boy stood over him with a pair of scissors.That's a horrifying experience, especially for someone who was gay during a time when it was still politically correct to hate fags.By the way, that's still assault with scissors even if it's just cutting down hair. You keep forgetting that while his hair was being cut, he was also held down by half a dozen boys.If it had happened to me, yeah I would have called it assault with a weapon.

That there are other people who have no problem remembering the event is irrelivant to the question of if Romney remembers.If I say I remember you downloading child pornography along with ten others, regardless of if you committed the offence or not, if you don't remember doing so then you don't remember doing so. No number of wittnesses will change this fact. And you think that an argument from ignorance is convincing.. Why? Would you provide the maths for that probability? How did you come to that conclusion? Do you have anything to back your incredulity or is this simply conjecture? I find it ironic that you, as an attorney, don't seem to understand how a trial works.The issue being raised is if Romney remembers the incident, the reality of his involvment is irrelivant. To use your example, in a criminal trial, if you are charged with a crime (in this case, remembering the incident) and go to trial, the law requires a judge or jury to consider you innocent unless the prosecutor proves you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You do not have to prove that you are innocent, in other words, Romney doesn't have to demonstrate he doesn't remember the incident, you have to demonstrate he does remember.Remember, strawmen aren't your friends. Nobody said anything about absolutes, what did I tell you about strawmen?One last thing, I also find it ironic that you don't seem to remember what we were discussing in the first place... It hasn't even been 50 years yet...

Hi, Rahvin. I do not contest your technical usage of "Assault with a Deadly Weapon," and I do not wish to have to repeat this again.The problem I have with your using it in this case is precisely because the charge ignores the perpetrator's intent. As far as the legal charge is concerned, attempting to stab somebody is the same as attempting to cut somebody's hair. Yet, when it comes to discussing somebody's character, the distinction between "intent to stab" and "intent to trim" is rather meaningful: most people will regard "intent to stab" as indicative of a much more serious and disturbing character flaw than "intent to trim."But, since "Assault with a Deadly Weapon" is a loaded phrase, people conflate "intent to trim" with "intent to stab," and bullies become murderers in their minds. This is how the armchair psychiatrists you mentioned end up flinging around words like "sociopath" and "psychopath." The easy remedy is to recognize when it's not necessary to pile on penalty enhancers, and focus specifically on the primary concern, which, in this case, is Romney's homophobia and lack of integrity.Incidentally, I would actually be somewhat more troubled by this incident if Romney had gone after the boy with just his fists, because that would imply "intent to harm," whereas the scissors do not.-----Also, I took the opportunity to read more into assault with deadly weapons, and I found this article, in which an assault ruling in which scissors were classed as a "deadly weapon" was overturned in 2008 by a state court because the deadliness of the scissors was never demonstrated conclusively. So, there is a (non-binding) precedent that scissors are not necessarily a "deadly weapon," even if they're being used to stab someone.----- It is a rare thing indeed for people to think {fill in the blank} is a situation in which finding a Golden Mean is a desirable outcome. I submit that this is the mechanistic explanation for Godwin's Law and your new armchair-psychiatrist law ("Rahvin's Law"?).-----As a matter of political expediency, I find it important to point out that I do not completely agree with Catholic Scientist. There is sufficient reason to believe that Romney's assault on Lauber was related to his homophobia.

But you are missing the entire point of all of this: the point is character assassination because of political differences. Rather than fight the battle over issues, it is easier to just attack an opponent's character. Most any charge will suffice, as long as it can be repeated often enough.We'll probably be hearing next about bed-wetting or nose-picking or something equally fatuous.