Jump to content

Mitt Romney Assaulted Student Who Was "different" In Prep School


Recommended Posts

I guess we might have different definitions of "picked on". I didn't ever hit, poke, tackle or bully anyone either. But I definitely teased people at some point from K-12. Did you not tease anyone either?
I don't recall ever teasing anyone (at least not to make them feel badly, I tease my friends all the time, that's different of course). Part of the reason was probably that I was at the bottom of the social chain. There weren't too many people below me to pick on even if I were inclined to do so.
Would you bet your life on that? Have you either done anything wrong? Are you a higher power? Is that why you're an athiest, because you KNOW the truth?
Don't really know why the notion that I wasn't a jerk in school is so hard for you to swallow. Only religious people can be nice I guess? As for the bolded, the key difference between a scientific point of view and a religious one is that we entertain uncertainty where religious people value conviction. I don't KNOW anything.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Source? Or are you being sarcastic? And Friedemann was objectively a close friend of Romney's, not just an acquaintance as you imply. Also, one of the 'friends' as you call them, "has served as a R

I agree with the viewpoint that it goes to further the idea that Romney came from an elitist background and is out of touch with most people and issues. Politicians flip-flopping on issues isn't suc

Source? Or are you being sarcastic? And Friedemann was objectively a close friend of Romney's, not just an acquaintance as you imply. Also, one of the 'friends' as you call them, "has served as a Republican county chairman in Michigan."
When you got the info on the guy who served as a republican county chair...was there anything else that might have given you a hint why I said a couple of them were Obama supporters???????HHHMMMMMMMMMM??Also, anyone else notice the convenient way the story on Mitt's past from 46 years ago broke just a few minutes after Obama changed his views on gay marriage?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Give Romney a break. He was just practicing his submission holds so he would know how to hold his dog down long enough to strap it to the roof of his car.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't really know why the notion that I wasn't a jerk in school is so hard for you to swallow. Only religious people can be nice I guess?
No, of course not, I think there are plenty of "good" atheists. I just know kids, and kids are generally mean to someone at some point in their entire life... that's all.
Link to post
Share on other sites
enjoy. it's completely true.
You have to admit that the BG sig from Tim is pretty funny though, right?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wake up you dolts, Romney WILL be the next president.Plans are already being drawn up to remodel the White House into a temple spaceship.EMBRACE THE NEW WORLD PLANETARY PRINCIPLE!inline-mitt-romney-good-for-tech-the-force.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought this was funny:Mitt is being accused of bullying a kid in 1965.You know what Mitt did not do?Mitt Romney was not at Chappaquiddick. Mitt Romney has not been accused of rape. Mitt Romney did not have an affair with a mob babe. He didn't have an affair with an actress who committed suicide later on. Mitt Romney did not father a child out of wedlock. Mitt Romney did not support the tapping of Martin Luther King's phone. Mitt Romney was never a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Mitt Romney did not lie about his law school grades.Mitt Romney did not bully a young girl and push her.

Link to post
Share on other sites
When you got the info on the guy who served as a republican county chair...was there anything else that might have given you a hint why I said a couple of them were Obama supporters???????HHHMMMMMMMMMM??
But, as is your wont, you're pretending you said they were Obama supporters. That's NOT what you said however. You said exactly: "Looks like a couple of the other 'friends' are working on the Obama re-election campaign."Supporting a candidate =| working on that candidate's re-election campaign. Try to keep up with yourself.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ive re-read this entire story and thread, whilst dining on a Mountain Dew Slurpie and dog jerky.I fail to find the relevance.
The primary relevance and focus of the article is just that he was insanely privileged. This would suggest that perhaps he cannot really relate to the average American.The secondary relevance (but primary headline-maker) is that he was a huuuuge dick to a shy kid way back when, and multiple other people who participated in or simply failed to halt this event not only recall it with ease but have felt decades of guilt over it. Romney simply, "has no recollection of the incident," which is some pretty weak shit. I would have oodles more respect for him if he came out and said that it was a childish prank and he feels terrible about what he did and long wished he could have taken it back.He either really doesn't remember it, which tells us that it probably wasn't a major source of guilt for him at any point, or he's lying. Neither of those reflect well on him.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Thought this was funny:Mitt is being accused of bullying a kid in 1965.You know what Mitt did not do?Mitt Romney was not at Chappaquiddick. Mitt Romney has not been accused of rape. Mitt Romney did not have an affair with a mob babe. He didn't have an affair with an actress who committed suicide later on. Mitt Romney did not father a child out of wedlock. Mitt Romney did not support the tapping of Martin Luther King's phone. Mitt Romney was never a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Mitt Romney did not lie about his law school grades.Mitt Romney did not bully a young girl and push her.
prove it!
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't read the title of this thread without thinking "two peanuts were walking down a dark alley..."

Link to post
Share on other sites
The primary relevance and focus of the article is just that he was insanely privileged. This would suggest that perhaps he cannot really relate to the average American.The secondary relevance (but primary headline-maker) is that he was a huuuuge dick to a shy kid way back when, and multiple other people who participated in or simply failed to halt this event not only recall it with ease but have felt decades of guilt over it. Romney simply, "has no recollection of the incident," which is some pretty weak shit. I would have oodles more respect for him if he came out and said that it was a childish prank and he feels terrible about what he did and long wished he could have taken it back.He either really doesn't remember it, which tells us that it probably wasn't a major source of guilt for him at any point, or he's lying. Neither of those reflect well on him.
Guess Romney lost your vote..... Damn
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting thread. I was actually sort of 50/50 in this election until this story came out, and now I am back to being a reluctant Obama voter.

I guess we might have different definitions of "picked on". I didn't ever hit, poke, tackle or bully anyone either. But I definitely teased people at some point from K-12. Did you not tease anyone either? Would you bet your life on that? Have you either done anything wrong? Are you a higher power? Is that why you're an athiest, because you KNOW the truth?
This is sort of what's so interesting about this topic. I never physically hurt anyone, and I certainly didn't attack people because they were weak or different. I was always a mouthy prick in school, so you can maybe say I am a bad person too, and I don't deny this. But I also don't think it's fair to look at our own history and personality, and then assume this is the way everyone should be, and expect no better from our leaders.There were tons of people in school, from all different outlooks, who were nice. Popular jock-type kids, abused nerds who easily could have been bitter, etc, none of whom would have beaten up a fag or a goth or whatever else, or even so much as talked shit about a cool kid. Because they were actual good people. These people do exist. We have no reason to assume Obama isn't one, and we know for sure that Romney isn't. If this is not a criteria that matters to you, I'm sure you'll vote for the team you have been rooting for, but I for one don't want someone like that making decisions that effect me.Side note: Brvheat, we are both shitty people. We laugh at ****ed up shit, have terrible values in general, etc. I don't know who here remembers, but I was a Christian until a few years ago, and acted even worse than I do now. I was a true, legit, born-again Christian. I remember in my phase of apostasy, I was pretty active here, and you made a post in a thread about It's Always Sunny that really hit home. Something about how it was funny, but you couldn't recommend it, because there was swearing or something totally meaningless to me. And I remember thinking how odd it was that we could admittedly like and laugh at a show that basically does nothing but display these absolutely atrocious humans and their atrocious, antisocial behavior and attitudes, but be turned off by some totally arbitrary neo-Christian bulletpoint complain. And it really hit me how shitty people like us -- strong Christians for so long -- were and always had been, and it was a really important moment for me recognizing fully how nonexistent the holy spirit really was for us.My point is, shitty people are shitty people, more or less. I wouldn't mind having a leader like Jimmy Carter or VB, and I would be terrified to have one like you, me or Mitt Romney. Just because we ourselves are terrible doesn't mean we shoulde excuse it in a position or power like that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
http://therumpus.net/2012/05/the-week-in-greed-6-to-behave-like-the-fallen-world/I don
I don’t mean to suggest that Romney is without compassion. I believe, for instance, that he loves his wife and his children, and that he believes in God and the flag. But there is something in his character that I am starting to get frightened about, an unwillingness, or an inability, to feel remorse, to simply own up to a moral failing, to apologize not just if “somebody was hurt” but because you know, deep down, that you hurt someone.Think about it: here are these half dozen men who took part in a savage act nearly fifty years ago. It has haunted all of them. And the ringleader, the guy who made the plan and led the mob and cut the victim’s hair off remembers … nothing?It’s just bullshit, total ****ing sociopathic bullshit. And it makes me sad that such an episode comes to light and all Romney can do—a guy who wants to be elected to our highest office—is nervously lie and make excuses, as if this were political problem. It’s not a political problem. It’s a moral problem. It’s a sin he committed for which any believer would seek atonement.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the viewpoint that it goes to further the idea that Romney came from an elitist background and is out of touch with most people and issues. Politicians flip-flopping on issues isn't such a big deal as they all do based on polling numbers. I fail to see how Obama's coming out in favor of gay marraige helps him all that much though and likely hurts him. The over 65 crowd, and they actually vote more than the youth that supports gay marraige, are overwhelming in Romney's corner on this. I simply don't come down on a single social issue with Republicans. They have become so far right and strident on the issues that I don't know how anyone could vote for them, even if you strongly believed in their economic policy.They have introduced and in many cases passed so many laws that are outright scary, bigoted, anti-secular, anti- separation of church state, theocratic, anti-science etc, that they remind me more of Saudi Arabia than the US.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Side note: Brvheat, we are both shitty people. We laugh at ****ed up shit, have terrible values in general, etc. I don't know who here remembers, but I was a Christian until a few years ago, and acted even worse than I do now. I was a true, legit, born-again Christian. I remember in my phase of apostasy, I was pretty active here, and you made a post in a thread about It's Always Sunny that really hit home. Something about how it was funny, but you couldn't recommend it, because there was swearing or something totally meaningless to me. And I remember thinking how odd it was that we could admittedly like and laugh at a show that basically does nothing but display these absolutely atrocious humans and their atrocious, antisocial behavior and attitudes, but be turned off by some totally arbitrary neo-Christian bulletpoint complain. And it really hit me how shitty people like us -- strong Christians for so long -- were and always had been, and it was a really important moment for me recognizing fully how nonexistent the holy spirit really was for us.
Glad I could help.Expanded: I wasn't saying in that thread that Christians couldn't like IASIP, my point was that I have to be careful about other peoples issues. If I recommended that show to a Christian that had a problem with drinking and then the show triggered him to start drinking in some way, I would take that as my burden as well. Romans 14.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I agree that one action 46 years ago should be enough to decide that you know a person enough to say what his core character is.43 years ago Barack Obama was attending a muslim school and eating dog meat.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think our society's treatment of the rights of the GLBT community is our generation's Slavery. Changes are occuring relatively rapidly in terms of how society changes. Just at the beginning of this Century only a fraction of Americans supports GLBT rights, specifically Gay Marriage. I expect that in less than another decade we will see nearly universal such rights. This doesn't mean that everyone will accept homosexuality any more than we have eliminated racism. Also, there is going to be at least as much historical social revisionism and judgement of decades old behavior that was "acceptable" in Society at the time but is now unacceptable.I do think that part of the problem is usage of the term "Marriage" as legal shorthand for granting partner rights. In my opinion the term "Marriage" should remain a religious term and be the decision of a given religion whether to allow certain marriages within their own religious definitions and interpretations. The legal rights (Gay and Straight) should be defined as Civil Union. However, there are centuries of Common and Actual law to consider.In general I don't believe in Social Policy as one of the roles of Government. I am just as uncomfortable with a Santorum using the Government to enforce individual behavior as I am Obama doing the same thing.I do think it is important to recognize that Romney has stated his personal view on this matter, but hasn't said that he wants the Federal Government to dictate the definition of Marriage - similar to Obama's "brave decision". While I already stated that I don't think the Government should be setting social policy, I do think this is a Constitutional issue that needs to be addressed at the Federal level.I hate that Santorum defines Obama's "decision" as a "weapon" of the GOP. I think it is more of an opportunity for the GOP to support individual rights and show true leadership on the issue, rather than be driven by religious special interest groups.No, someone didn't hijack Pot Odds' account.

Link to post
Share on other sites
II do think that part of the problem is usage of the term "Marriage" as legal shorthand for granting partner rights. In my opinion the term "Marriage" should remain a religious term and be the decision of a given religion whether to allow certain marriages within their own religious definitions and interpretations. The legal rights (Gay and Straight) should be defined as Civil Union. However, there are centuries of Common and Actual law to consider.
Marriage is not a religious term even if some religious instituions think that they own it.My wife and I aren't religious but we are have a marraige and are married. We don't have a civil union we have a marriage without any religious or spiritual organization being involved. The institution of marriage is not the property of any religion or group of religions.I do think that religious organizations have the right to decide what they recognize as marriage for their own members but they have no right to define the term for others.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...