Romney the Bully

Or maybe about what someone they knew or know tangentially said or did. Or maybe what the minister of a church they attended said.The hypocrisy is amazing isn't it.

It was a hate crime regardless of whether it was gay bashing.

Unless you are trying to claim that the assault never happened, the above quoted particular line of reasoning is completely spurious.It is indeed relevant that everyone else recalls the incident. The ease with which others remember is evidence that Romney's claim to not remembering is not credible.

In my opinion, bullying is magnitudes worse than doing shit like heroin/crack/Oxycontin, unless the process of doing those things for you necessitates that you need to be bullying someone. In fact, it's usually the sellers of those sorts of things, who typically do it in necessarily nefarious environments, that are the bullies of the transaction - not the drug addict buyers.And this point would make me want to refer everyone again to Naked Lunch, by WSBurroughs, to measure Mittens against the rubric of our sense of decency. Sadly, far too much, this country revels and enjoys being bullies and canonizing their bullies. They grin with each other, as they ride down their hatedogs of torture, gleefully filming every event of their escapades for their comrades - I say no! ....Duh....but.......The kind of mind that would plan and lead his team of like friends to commit ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON has no business being allowed to run for POTUS. This kind of mind would eventually cheer on the same kind of human travesties seen at Abu Graib and going all the way back to Mai Lai, even back to the Holocaust itself. Or Nero. Etc.When your morality that you have grown up with has made it somehow excusable to do what Mittens did, we have to change his name to Willard of the rats, indeed. Poor Mitt - to have been brought up the way he was - a human being wasted by his idiot parents. One can only hope there is some way to save the existant souls of his offspring, while at the same time maintaining their own chosen religion.IMHO

Character is an issue. I mean, what else is there? Romney can't be judged on his record, because he has a record of taking both sides of all positions.I dunno, I guess I don't see how you can argue that the fact that a Presidential candidate formed a mob to assault a teenager for appearing to be gay is just some trivial issue. You know, most people manage to get through their teenage years without fomenting a hate crime.

His most recent response to the incident also highlights his character.Sure, some might excuse this as a 40+ year old youthful transgression. But for him to laugh & chuckle about it as he 'apologizes' for something he claims not to remember, shouldn't that give one pause?I think a man of good character would respond better.

The word play is beautiful, but as per usual, it's total bullshit.A presidential candidate did NOT form a mob, an 18 year old Romney did. It was also done 40 years ago when the normal opinion of gay people was unfavorable to say the least. So he wasn't a radical gay basher, he was a normal, opinionated male (or female since it doesn't really matter one way or the other, right?) acting in accordance with the social norm.Granted, I get all my information of the 60's from Mad Men.- Oni

I'm with Romney on this one! Agreed. But then again it is Rahvin so it's par for the course with his usual ridiculous conclusions and exaggerated interpretations.Seems like Romney, an 18 year old Romeny, wanted to cut his hair and make a point. Interpreted by today's standards it comes off as a hate crime. But if anything, it was the hatred of the Boy George look and not the sexual orientation of the kid. Although I wouldn't hold it against him if 40 years ago he didn't like gay people. He is a by-product of the culture as was everyone else. Most of us would probably dislike gay people back then too. I know when I was a kid in school I didn't like them either. I was raised that way being the son of a Cuban, and this was the 80's.As a grown up I've of course changed my opinion. Mostly because I love girl-on-girl action.- Oni

It's also normal primate behavior, which is what we are after all. The bigger ones dominate the weaker ones. The only problem today is, the weaker ones invented the internet.Bullying leads to Woody Allen, Bill Gates and iPhones. There is a reason for it. It's part of our growth.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

There were lots of people I didn't like back in the 70s. I couldn't stand people who tried to call charging fouls when we were playing pickup basketball. I thought such behavior was babyish. But I didn't assault any of those playground weaklings.I can remember witnessing a few instances of bullying during my high school years, and I regret that I attempt to stop only a very few of them. On the other hand, Romney's background was apparently so replete with bullying that he cannot remember, let alone feel bad about a particular incident in which he himself participated. I see you are still saving the funny stuff for your paid gigs.

Sure you did, you kept charging them, right? Is that really such a big deal? I don't remember that incident, to me, is a better answer than trying to explain the emotional opinion he had when he was 18 years old and hopefully letting this theatrical mess aimed at distracting from real issues go away. Now who's being the bully?- Oni

Did I?Is it your position that all physical contact prohibited by the formal rules of a game should be considered assault? That when a basketball referee makes a charge/block call, that he is actually determining which player has assaulted the other. Because otherwise, your assertion is not worth considering.If we want to be legally correct, we should point out that an assault is merely an intentional overt action that threatens harm, and a battery occurs when the overt intentional action causes contact and harm. Generally speaking, out of the countless thousands of collisions that I've seen on a basketball court, only a few of them include the mens re necessary to be legally considered assault and battery. Better in what way? I believe that the entire question would go away quickly if Romney simply admitted to a current regret for his actions. His denials simply are not credible and as a result allow Romney to be painted as both a bully and a liar. How is that better?To answer your question. It is Romney's current dissembling that I find to be the bigger deal? Seriously dude. Yet another men dig lesbians joke?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Well that's what you said, that they kept calling foul when you charged them. What formal rules and referees? I thought you were talking about a pick up game at a playgroud where, like we all know, you DON'T CALL FOULS LIKE A BITCH. I thought you meant they upset you because in street ball you don't call fouls you just take the charge like a man. The weaklings called foul and the next play got charged harder.I've seen dudes get hit hard in street ball by bigger guys driving in, elbows out, ready to break your nose if you stay in front of them. You needed to get out more. Doesn't allow for further delving into the subject and squashes the issue a lot faster in my opinion. Nonsense like what he did when he was 17 or 18 should not be a topic we need to discuss. When he was 18! Christ who didn't lie and bully a few weaker dudes when they were that age? Who gives a shit. The American political system is a joke because of issues like this.Do you want to know how many women he tried to get drunk so he could fuck when he was in college too? This is too easy already...- Oni

typical leftist character assassination.you are really grabbing at straws to go back so far.thanks for the hilarious thread.

Great, but Mitt Romney isn't running to be the President of 40 years ago, he's running to be the President of 2013. And plenty of people 40 years ago never formed a mob to assault a kid for looking like he was gay. In fact, the vast majority of people did not do that. And in particular, Barack Obama did not do that.A President who had, 40 years ago, formed a lynch mob to kill a black man accused of rape would certainly have been following the social norms of the time, as well. But having done such a thing 40 years ago would be inherently disqualifying for the Presidency in 2013. There's only one President and 375 million Americans; I don't have any problem restricting the office to those whose sense of equality and social justice has been ahead of the curve.