Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Why does that matter?
Hopefully it doesnt. This kind of crap goes on all the time in prep schools, fraternities, sororities/ social clubs, etc.Would you all start hating barack if this was his stunt? I doubt it.This incident shpuld only change the vote of the most idiotic naive moron.
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

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.
It would be interesting to look up how marriage was first instituted. By a religion or state.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be interesting to look up how marriage was first instituted. By a religion or state.
I suspect that what you would find is that at the time the two were so intertwined that it would be impossible to say.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I suspect that what you would find is that at the time the two were so intertwined that it would be impossible to say.
Back when most civilizations worshipped heathen gods, or none at all, was there such a thing as mariage.
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
Why are you treating this like he was a little kid? Sure, we all did things in kindergarten that wouldn't reflect well now. Bit kicked, called names, etc. But when we were 18? I can honestly say I did not refer to someone by a hateful name or physically assaulted anyone after the age of about 14 or so. And if I did, it was something I did with at least a fair amount of adult knowledge. Like I said, I don't think it should change anyone voting for the guy. It was almost 50 years ago, and most of us don't know what things were like in that environment. But I hold a rich, educated 18-year old violent offender to a higher standard than 'boys will be boys.'
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.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.
I think this was well said in that it reflects the reason a lot of non-religious people are that way. We do not feel 'touched' enough by the religious spirit that doing anything for the sake of religion seems forced and unnatural. I think many of us feel that for religious people to act the way they do, they must simply feel what they believe more strongly than us, because we could never imagine acting the way they do without a more deep sense of reason to do so.
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.....
This was funny.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that Romney did cross a line back in prep-school, but can this be used to judge how he will act going forward?Other than this the guy is far too squeaky clean which in itself may be problem because, there could be suppressed issues that may come to the surface.This election looks like another case of none of the above

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if he's dirty..he's unfitAnd if he's clean..he's repressed and could ignite.Okay with me if we outlaw all people who want to be politicians.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The ironic part of the story is that all the people coming forward telling about this are saying they regret this, but we are to assume of course that Mitt doesn't regret this at all.A guy in 1965 wears his hair really feminine and peroxide bleached blond....sounds like he wanted the negative attention.
This is where the story sounds fishy.I talked to my dad.and he is a big obama guy, but 18 year olds in 1965 woiuld never have bleqched their hair. The big hair statement back then was mohawks.Also isnt the supposed victim denying this story.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Also isnt the supposed victim denying this story.
The supposed victim is deceased, and never denied the story.Also I'm pretty sure that mohawks were not being worn in 1965.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is where the story sounds fishy.I talked to my dad.and he is a big obama guy, but 18 year olds in 1965 woiuld never have bleqched their hair. The big hair statement back then was mohawks.Also isnt the supposed victim denying this story.
He died in 2004 I think.but his family is.
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.
So he's really a Kennedy? (or a Bush/Kerry/Edwards/Rockefeller/Feinstein/Corker/Snowe/etc...etc...etc...)
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is where the story sounds fishy.I talked to my dad.and he is a big obama guy, but 18 year olds in 1965 woiuld never have bleqched their hair. The big hair statement back then was mohawks.Also isnt the supposed victim denying this story.
Yeah, you could get your ass kicked for bleaching your hair back then, so no one did it. Also, didn't romney supposedly sodomize the guy too?
Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems that Romney did cross a line back in prep-school, but can this be used to judge how he will act going forward?Other than this the guy is far too squeaky clean which in itself may be problem because, there could be suppressed issues that may come to the surface.This election looks like another case of none of the above
That makes absolutely zero sense. Firstly, someone acting in a certain way is a fantastic judge of how they will act going forward. That's why we put murderers and rapists in jail, right?The second sentence is worse than gibberish.The third sentence is gibberish.
This is where the story sounds fishy.I talked to my dad.and he is a big obama guy, but 18 year olds in 1965 woiuld never have bleqched their hair. The big hair statement back then was mohawks.Also isnt the supposed victim denying this story.
You are insane. I guarantee at least ONE PERSON IN THE WORLD bleqched their hair in 1965.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, you could get your ass kicked for bleaching your hair back then, so no one did it.Also, didn't romney supposedly sodomize the guy too?
The victim has not denied being sodomized. He also has not spoken against the accusations that Romney and his posse strung him up by his thumbs, slice at him with knives, then played pagan tunes on the accordian while chrewing on his feet. My dad told me that was the popular way to deal with guys bleaching their hair at the time, so thats obviously what Romney did.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems that Romney did cross a line back in prep-school, but can this be used to judge how he will act going forward?Other than this the guy is far too squeaky clean which in itself may be problem because, there could be suppressed issues that may come to the surface.This election looks like another case of none of the above
That makes absolutely zero sense. Firstly, someone acting in a certain way is a fantastic judge of how they will act going forward. That's why we put murderers and rapists in jail, right?The second sentence is worse than gibberish.The third sentence is gibberish.
Having a bad morning Danny ?You're being awefully aggressive against statements that are pretty reasonable.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Having a bad morning Danny ?You're being awefully aggressive against statements that are pretty reasonable.
On re-reading, I'll acknowledge that the third sentence does make sense if you assume that it is unrelated to the first two. Which is a silly way to post, IMO.I am having a bad morning, yes, but those statements are far from reasonable. Please, defend the statements. In the first one, he suggests you can't judge future actions by someone's past. Which is nonesense. If his intention was to question how/why we can use that specific incident to judge Romney's future, well that's exactly what we've all been discussing, so simply summarizing the initial question (which no one would've needed to have summarized) on page 4 of a thread is completely absurd.The second sentence is just indefensible, so I won't even bother to further discuss.
Link to post
Share on other sites

assuming this is all true and 100 percent accurate, which i highly doubt, it was still 45 yrs ago....let the witch hunt continue.i stole a case of beer a couple times when i was 18...and nobody in this world who has dealings with me would ever consider me a thief... becuase i have a 25 record in business for being honest with them.i don't think believe an honest independant thinker will place any merit in this story. of course the libs in the news media will do their best to make a big deal out of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On re-reading, I'll acknowledge that the third sentence does make sense if you assume that it is unrelated to the first two. Which is a silly way to post, IMO.I am having a bad morning, yes, but those statements are far from reasonable. Please, defend the statements. In the first one, he suggests you can't judge future actions by someone's past. Which is nonesense. If his intention was to question how/why we can use that specific incident to judge Romney's future, well that's exactly what we've all been discussing, so simply summarizing the initial question (which no one would've needed to have summarized) on page 4 of a thread is completely absurd.The second sentence is just indefensible, so I won't even bother to further discuss.
Most societies are more lenient with juveniles than they are with adults for a reason.Have you never known or heard of what can happen to someone who suppresses there basic human desires over long periods? Think “celibate” priests. I know Mormons that have left the church and blow off a lot of pent up steam.It’s been a long time since any politician came along that excited me, Obama came close but I take that more as a red flag, that there was something other than reason at work.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Most societies are more lenient with juveniles than they are with adults for a reason.Have you never known or heard of what can happen to someone who suppresses there basic human desires over long periods? Think “celibate” priests. I know Mormons that have left the church and blow off a lot of pent up steam.It’s been a long time since any politician came along that excited me, Obama came close but I take that more as a red flag, that there was something other than reason at work.
Better, thank you. And good for you for speaking to the issues, rather than returning insults to me. Let's be honest, that would've been pretty easy.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That makes absolutely zero sense. Firstly, someone acting in a certain way is a fantastic judge of how they will act going forward. That's why we put murderers and rapists in jail, right?The second sentence is worse than gibberish.The third sentence is gibberish.You are insane. I guarantee at least ONE PERSON IN THE WORLD bleqched their hair in 1965.
sORRY, didnt realize I left out the teen boy part. And now to be even more insensitive. How do we know the kid didnt deserve it
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, phlegm wins.Sorry, colonel feathers, phlegm is like 2001 Barry Bonds lately. Everything he posts is a home run.Hey everyone, let's stop pitching to phlegm! Intentional walks all day long.Edit: Oh, I see you edited out some of the crazier things you said. I liked it when you suggested that maybe the "angelic gay preppie" was actually the school bully.

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...