Romney the Bully

Agreed, let's explore what that something is... From the victims perspective, I'm sure it was a traumatic event but why are you assuming it was necessarily memorable for Romney? Why would this stick out from his perspective to the point where there was no possibility that after 40 years, he could not have forgotten? I chose my words with the intent to avoid conflating with the other conversation on this thread. If you are unable to continue this discussion without attacking my character, then you have nothing of worth left to offer. Your assesment of my word choice is disingenuous and frankly childish.With all due respect, grow up.Edited by Evlreala, : No reason given.

Ok I can’t help myself and it’s Friday so I have to jump in on this whack logic. Your cluelessness in what Oni is saying is amazing. It is almost as if you are taking him out of context on purpose (I hope so, cause if not you are really ignorant).It’s not pussy to fight a mob who want to cut your hair. Its pussy to be a rat afterwards. It’s a bitch move. I didn’t read it that way at all. I think you are way off. Calm down girl, don’t get your panties in bind here. You should try and argue against what Oni said instead of jumping to these tangents you have in your head. Calm down, your cussing a lot and misspelling all kinds of stuff (and you come off as really crazy) I am guess Nancy here has never been in a fight? What are you so scared of? Hate crimes are such PC-Bullshit. Hey Oni, I think you just got assaulted on the internet! In the real world I live in, 40 years is well past the statue of limitations, so I will not prosecute this man over something that happened 40years ago. And using scissors to cut hair is not a deadly weapon. Using scissors to stab someone is, but we all know what happened here. Holy shit, I think I just found the craziest motherfucker on EvC. Coo-Coo. The Liberal Rage in this post is definitely funny as hell though. But 40 years later, it aint shit, just like your pussy ass argument. The gross inaccuracies of what you posted is why I finally had to post something. I find nothing about your last 5 post to being anything close to honest or accurate. Please keep your weakness in Maryland. BTW: nobody fights for man points, some of us here are men, and some of us aren’t, and it’s very obvious who is who isn't in this one. Ooh an internet tough guy. Yeah right I know you are going run screaming "HELP ME!" to the copsEdited by Artemis Entreri, : i should proof readEdited by Artemis Entreri, : i should proof read the proof reading

Well, that's quite an accurate description. But maybe a little too accurate for comfort, so let's start parsing it. It wasn't because he was gay, it was just because he appeared to be gay. Unless you have a signed affidavit from your victim stating that he's gay and signed by a notary public, then technically you are not doing it "because you hate gays", you're doing it because you hate people whom you suspect of being gay.See, Romney would have done exactly the same thing even if his victim was in fact completely straight and Romney just thought he was gay --- so how can Romney's actions be construed as homophobia? which involves hating on people who have been proven gay beyond reasonable doubt.Why, you might as well accuse a man of being anti-semitic because he beat up a guy whom he thought was Jewish. Unless before the beating the victim showed his attackers a certificate of his judaism signed by his rabbi, that's not anti-semitism at all. Perhaps his attackers were motivated by his hebraic nose, his olive complexion, and the fact that his name was Joshua Goldstein, but they weren't anti-semitic unless he proved to them, before they attacked him, that he was Jewish. Mere circumstantial evidence may have been enough for them to beat the crap out of him, but it's not enough to prove that they're anti-semitic.

Sometimes I make an effort to mock an idiot, and sometimes I just need to quote him.

You're right; labeling things as "hate crimes" is stupid.

Psychopaths are always outraged when their victims complain. This is because psychopaths are mad in the head. "I only led a mob to assault the bitch, and now s/he dares to tell people that I did so. This is so unfair on me. Boohoo! Boohoo!"This attitude does not lead normal people, such as myself, to cry: "OMG, a psychopath's feeling have been hurt! Call a whaaaambulance immediately! Let us give the poor little psychopath the tenderest care, because his delicate self-esteem has been so severely damaged by someone accurately describing what he did."

I am. I usually am: my record on being right is good, though I say it myself. And yet that was not what I said, as you would know if ... well, if you were able to read things written in the English language, a faculty which you appear to have abandoned in the course of your quest to exonerate a criminal assault.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Qué?

What I said was: "And yet that was not what I said, as you would know if ... well, if you were able to read things written in the English language, a faculty which you appear to have abandoned in the course of your quest to exonerate a criminal assault."I might be able to put some of that into shorter words, if necessary. Which bits of it are giving you trouble?

The part where I said that's what you said. The semicolon was intended to seperate independent clauses.You're right.Because of the things that you did say, that were right, it is stupid to label things as "hate crimes", even though you didn't say that it was.Does that help?But regardless, you're arguing against a strawman anyways. I know that technically/legally its accurate to say they assaulted the guy with a deadly weapon and have already admitted that. I've already further explained my reasoning in the susequent posts to the one you replied to. You can quote me from those in your reply to this.

I cannot explain your own statements to you. You're on your own there. No.What I said was (let me provide subtitles for the hard of thinking) that it is stupid to exonerate a man of a hate crime on the grounds that he was not absolutely certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that his victim was a member of the group that he was attempting to victimize.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

That's neat... not quite sure why you're saying it to me though.

That has not been your claim; You are being dishonest.
You seem to have an issue with being consistant. You have said it once, and what you said is that it was not absolute proof, not that it isnt proof. accordingly [ ə kwrdinglee ]
1.correspondingly: in a way that is appropriate
2.in consequence: in accordance with what has been said or with a principle or practice
Synonyms: appropriately, suitably, correspondingly, fittingly.So, appropriately utilizing a word within its intended meaning doesn't advance my argument or address yours? No, I would imagine not, however, the joint effort of multiple appropriatly utilized words arranged to form coherant sentences would likely do the trick.If you are going to try and talk down to me, I would advise that you do so in a manner that doesn't make you look dumb. It's counter productive. That is not nor has it been the issue. Stop listening to strawmen, they are not your friends.I'll make this easy for you..
How is the fact that others remember the incident evidence in determining whether Romney is lying?

(1) There were 6 boys involved, including Romney. The other 5 boys remembered the event right down to the detail, and all their detailed accounts agreed with each other independently.(2) This should have stuck out in his memory because leading a gang of boys to assault another boy during senior year of high school is not an ordinary everyday thing that normal people do.(3) I can accept that Romney indeed do not remember the event because to him it was too ordinary to remember. How many assaults did Romney lead?

quote:

---

I chose my words with the intent to avoid conflating with the other conversation on this thread. If you are unable to continue this discussion without attacking my character, then you have nothing of worth left to offer. Your assesment of my word choice is disingenuous and frankly childish.

​

With all due respect, grow up.

---

With all due respect, I've been taking great offense to your efforts at minimizing aggravated gang assault with your choices of words.Back when I was a cop, there was a scene I showed up to to assist. I ended up not getting involved because there were plenty of other officers too eager to get involve. From my observation, it went like this. It was a guy who had ran into a tree. He was so drunk he didn't know what was going on. He was refusing to get out of the car. A young body builder type officer lost patience, went up to the car, yanked him out of the car, and threw him down to the concrete. The guy ended up with a broken nose, a broken jaw, a broken collar bone, and a concussion.When I finally got my hands on the official police report, I was totally surprised. It said the guy was "escorted" out of his car, "placed" on the ground, and "arrested". On his way down, he broke his own nose, jaw, collar bone, and gave himself a concussion.Technically speaking, every word of it was true. I thought long and hard about it.The point is you, sir, or mam, is what's wrong with our society. To you, gang rape is just a "personal dispute", plowing through a car and killed a family of 5 because you're too drunk to know any better is just a "traffic accident", and leading a gang of boys to assault a suspected homosexual is just "something".I've dealt with your type before I was a cop, while I was a cop, and after I quit that career.You ask me to grow up. I ask you to do the same thing. Besides adults who have no conscience, I can think of plenty of kids who regularly minimize what they or others did to attempt to downplay the seriousness of the situation. Real responsible adults refer to things specifically for what they are, not use an overly generalized term to downplay a serious event.I've been refraining from saying these things because you guys just seemed too involved with this discussion. But now that you think you've called me out on something, then I'm calling you out on this.The reality of the situation is this. Leading a gang of boys to assault a suspected homosexual is not an everyday thing. And to normal people, it should have stuck out. It's not just "something". If anything, this whole Romney "can't remember" thing reminds me of what often happens when rape victims confront their rapists in court. Most of the time, the rape victims expect the rapists to remember them. To the rape victims' surprise, the rapists often times have no idea who the hell the rape victims were. Rapists are sociopaths. They don't consider the rape (or someone like you would like to call it a "personal dispute") that big of a deal. That's why often times they forget the victim. Some of them even can't remember specifically when, where, how, etc. We would call these people sociopaths.So, we're down to 2 possibilities here.Either Romney is lying about not remembering as a political dodge or he truly can't remember which would make me question his sense of right and wrong.

Your state of bewilderment would be of more concern to me if I was a member of your family or a close friend.