Mitt Romney: Bully?

[msduncan]

I actually put the quotes around "vicious bullying incident" because I was paraphrasing the gist of what Maxwell was claiming. It wasn't my intent to single that out as being not serious.

Impromptu language lesson: It's not appropriate to use quotation marks when paraphrasing, because in that case they're a visual cue that this is a precise statement of somebody else's words. If you have to alter something to make it grammatically correct within your own sentence, use [] to indicate your changes and ... to indicate words left out.

It's also important to make the source of a quotation clear so that it doesn't look like you're using "textual air quotes" (see what I did there?).

And thanks for clarifying.

Let me give this a try:

Obama is [a communist-sypathizing big government Keynesian] President.

Was that right?

[silverjon]

No. If you're paraphrasing, you don't need to [].

[Chrisoc13]

The homosexual angle is completely irrelevant, and that's probably why the family is so upset. There is nothing in the reported recollections to indicate that the "bullying" was about anything other than his hair color.

To assume that his homosexuality had nothing to do with bullying is to be naive. But regardless of why he was bullied, it was wrong.

Edit:

Asked if Lauber was targeted because he was gay, as reported by the Post, Maxwell said, “We didn’t know that word in those days … but there were other words that were used. We weren’t ignorant, we just didn’t use the current names for things.”

link

There is our good buddy Maxwell again. I really don't think that would have had anything to do with this if it did occur and trying to tie it in is just more of a smear campaign.

I don't know if Maxwell is a flip-flopper, or if it's merely that he aligns with the Democrats right now but has felt more affinity for Republican candidates in the past. The way your political party support works can be kinda foreign to me, because it is.

Well seeing as both of these quotes came within the last few weeks he either says whatever sounds good in the current interview or he is very confused about his political beliefs. It would be one thing if one statement was from 5 years ago, but both are very recent.

[msduncan]

No. If you're paraphrasing, you don't need to [].

Damn.

[Defiant]

I don't know if Maxwell is a flip-flopper, or if it's merely that he aligns with the Democrats right now but has felt more affinity for Republican candidates in the past. The way your political party support works can be kinda foreign to me, because it is.

One can be a registered independent while affiliating with Democrats. See: Senators Lieberman, Sanders, democrat-leaning moderates, etc.

[Rip]

I assume they are not willing to admit his homosexuality.

Ok, I got nothing. Except that Romney's camp should be chalking this up as a victory and moving on, if they haven't already. Let the other camp bleat about some hazing/bullying that crossed the line a billion years ago. Hell, when I reflect on it, this guy must be as squeaky clean as they come. Which is not to say he'd make a good president. I don't have strong feelings about him, pro or con.

Perhaps he wasn't homosexual at all? There is certainly no evidence to suggest if he were that it had anything to do with the hazing.

[Defiant]

I assume they are not willing to admit his homosexuality.

Ok, I got nothing. Except that Romney's camp should be chalking this up as a victory and moving on, if they haven't already. Let the other camp bleat about some hazing/bullying that crossed the line a billion years ago. Hell, when I reflect on it, this guy must be as squeaky clean as they come. Which is not to say he'd make a good president. I don't have strong feelings about him, pro or con.

Perhaps he wasn't homosexual at all? There is certainly no evidence to suggest if he were that it had anything to do with the hazing.

He came out as gay to his family and close friends and led a vagabond life

Asked if Lauber was targeted because he was gay, as reported by the Post, Maxwell said, “We didn’t know that word in those days … but there were other words that were used. We weren’t ignorant, we just didn’t use the current names for things.”

[Rip]

I assume they are not willing to admit his homosexuality.

Ok, I got nothing. Except that Romney's camp should be chalking this up as a victory and moving on, if they haven't already. Let the other camp bleat about some hazing/bullying that crossed the line a billion years ago. Hell, when I reflect on it, this guy must be as squeaky clean as they come. Which is not to say he'd make a good president. I don't have strong feelings about him, pro or con.

Perhaps he wasn't homosexual at all? There is certainly no evidence to suggest if he were that it had anything to do with the hazing.

He came out as gay to his family and close friends and led a vagabond life

Asked if Lauber was targeted because he was gay, as reported by the Post, Maxwell said, “We didn’t know that word in those days … but there were other words that were used. We weren’t ignorant, we just didn’t use the current names for things.”

I haven't seen where his family say he came out as gay to them. Please point me to where THEY have said that.

[Enough]

Wait, you absolutely question the negative testimony from the get go but you are willing to take the family or any other positive spin at its word? Even though Romney has apologized for going maybe a bit too far in his pranks? Wary winterwesting.

Nope.

Does anybody even read all of my posts before just replying to one? Seriously? Does anyone? Did you enough? Honest question because from this post it seems the answer would be that you skimmed to the last page and found something to hit reply to. I said from the very beginning it was of course possible that it happened. My statement all along has been that I don't think the actions of an 18 year old should be taken too heavily into account when talking about a 65 year old man. But if you had read my posts you would already know this.

I have no idea what happened because I am half the age of Romney and wasn't there. I will tell you the same thing as Ale, go back and read my posts if you want to discuss this seriously.

I think it very well could have happened, I also think it very well might not have happened. Or at the very least it could be blown up. I certainly and 100% question the intentions of Mr. Maxwell.

I will admit I don't read every single one of your RP posts, but I do read the ones I reply to (I probably read most of your posts actually) and I think my history here hopefully indicates I am a thoughtful/serious poster. And fwiw, I find you a thoughtful poster as well.

Your post and MSD's read to me like you immediately bought into the family's point of view when you say things like "whoops" and "good work research team!" and MSD says the whole thing "is a political hit job" and "Who is the bully here?" My view is that it's very likely some sort of bullying went on given the five witnesses testimony and YK is certainly right one guy's bullying is another person's prank. But I also feel any reasonable standard would find an 18 year old with a gang of his buddies holding down a guy and forcibly cutting off his hair isn't just bullying, that's straight up assault and battery by someone that could have been charged as an adult.

I'm absolutely willing to agree that the story came up because of politics and there are axes to grind, that's what happens when one runs for POTUS, welcome to the microscope. Character issues are a squishy subjective thing influenced as much by looks and preconceived notions as by any real facts and it's a shame so many decide their ballots that way, but here we are. So sure it's a political story.

Oh and full disclosure: when I was in 4-6th grade I was horribly bullied on a daily basis and regularly got held down by ganged up bullies and badly beat up, so I do have a dog in this hunt and my own preconceived notions. Also, I was friends with a Republican congressman's family growing up and got to see his son's "youthful indiscretions" first hand when he and a group of his friends accosted an acquaintance of mine on the street calling him a longhair and then beat down on him until he recited the Pledge of Allegiance properly. The guy who was attacked filed assault charges but the police didn't file charges for months and then the whole thing blew up into a particularly nasty civil trial (here's the only reference I could find on this old story for the doubting). So I will grant my perception is a bit colored on this issue, but knowing that I am waiting to see if we get any more actionable facts to counter-balance my bias coming in. Are you claiming you are immune from such self-referential pull coming from your own life experiences and passionate beliefs?

[Smutly]

If there is a pattern of him bullying then I expect we'll hear more soon. If not, then zzzzzzZZZZZzzzZzZzZzzzzz.

[Chrisoc13]

I will admit I don't read every single one of your RP posts, but I do read the ones I reply to (I probably read most of your posts actually) and I think my history here hopefully indicates I am a thoughtful/serious poster. And fwiw, I find you a thoughtful poster as well.

Your post and MSD's read to me like you immediately bought into the family's point of view when you say things like "whoops" and "good work research team!" and MSD says the whole thing "is a political hit job" and "Who is the bully here?" My view is that it's very likely some sort of bullying went on given the five witnesses testimony and YK is certainly right one guy's bullying is another person's prank. But I also feel any reasonable standard would find an 18 year old with a gang of his buddies holding down a guy and forcibly cutting off his hair isn't just bullying, that's straight up assault and battery by someone that could have been charged as an adult.

I'm absolutely willing to agree that the story came up because of politics and there are axes to grind, that's what happens when one runs for POTUS, welcome to the microscope. Character issues are a squishy subjective thing influenced as much by looks and preconceived notions as by any real facts and it's a shame so many decide their ballots that way, but here we are. So sure it's a political story.

Oh and full disclosure: when I was in 4-6th grade I was horribly bullied on a daily basis and regularly got held down by ganged up bullies and badly beat up, so I do have a dog in this hunt and my own preconceived notions. Also, I was friends with a Republican congressman's family growing up and got to see his son's "youthful indiscretions" first hand when he and a group of his friends accosted an acquaintance of mine on the street calling him a longhair and then beat down on him until he recited the Pledge of Allegiance properly. The guy who was attacked filed assault charges but the police didn't file charges for months and then the whole thing blew up into a particularly nasty civil trial (here's the only reference I could find on this old story for the doubting). So I will grant my perception is a bit colored on this issue, but knowing that I am waiting to see if we get any more actionable facts to counter-balance my bias coming in. Are you claiming you are immune from such self-referential pull coming from your own life experiences and passionate beliefs?

Frankly I don't expect anyone to read all of my R&P posts, but I do expect someone to actually keep up with what I have already posted in a relatively short thread. I have addressed nearly every issue you have brought up already. I simply have repeated myself several times in this very thread as a result of people not actually reading what has already been posted.

To repeat myself once more:
Yes I am biased. I have stated such from nearly the very first post in this thread. I absolutely said pages ago that:

Our perception of Mitt Romney clouds our judgement of the situation just like it does for every politician.

My perception is shaped by many things which I have gone deep into in this thread.

Look no further than here to see me already answering your question before you even asked it.

I do not know what occurred that day. It could have happened for all I know, but the axes to grind make me question if it went down as written in the article not to mention other inconsistencies already pointed out.

Regardless of if it happened or not though I think it is irrelevant. I have been clear about this since the very first page of this thread. I even brought research to show why people should probably think twice before assuming Mitt Romney is the same person he was when he was 18.

To quote myself again:

This incident in no way makes Mitt Romney less qualified to be President of the United States. It in no way changes who he is today. He is in his 60s and those opposing him have to go all the way back to high school to find something on this level that he did to hurt someone else? That sounds like 48 years of clean living, 48 years of proof that he is a different man today than the kid who pinned that kid down and cut his hair. If 48 years of a life lived contradictory to this example are not enough to show a change and maturation in a person I don't know what is.

Quite honestly we aren't being asked to choose whether 16 year old [edit: 18 year old] Mitt Romney would be a better leader of our country than 16 year old President Obama. To think that either man is the same now as they were when they were 16 is a ridiculous presumption. Biology says they are not. Life experience says they are not. Common sense says they are not.

So to give a Reader's Digest version:
1. I do not know if this alleged incident happened
2. Yes I do doubt the intentions of Mr. Maxwell
3. Yes I do think this article is politically motivated
4. If this alleged incident happened I do not think it is acceptable behavior
5. That being said the fact that it happened 50 years ago make is a bit irrelevant in my eyes (see above)
6. If it indeed did happen I think 50 years of a life lived in a completely different manner is enough to show change of heart. If not I don't know what is.

[Enough]

Frankly I don't expect anyone to read all of my R&P posts, but I do expect someone to actually keep up with what I have already posted in a relatively short thread. I have addressed nearly every issue you have brought up already. I simply have repeated myself several times in this very thread as a result of people not actually reading what has already been posted.

To repeat myself once more...

I read your posts in this thread. If you have to keep repeating yourself could it possibly be that perhaps you might want to look at what you are posting that is causing so much confusion for me and apparently others? Saying whoops and good job defense team! is pretty bombastic stuff. It looked like a celebratory post, are you saying I just simply can't take any of your posts at face value?

Regardless, thanks for the reply and thanks for admitting you are human/biased (again).

[RunningMn9]

Dude. He was 18. Boys are idiots at 18 -- some just more than others.

What a difference a few months makes.

17-year old Trayvon Martin was a thug and a man (while walking to a relatives house with skittles and ice tea).

18-year old Mitt Romney was just a boy when he was leading a group of students to hold down and torment a fellow student that they didn't like because he was different.

I don't particularly care what Mitt Romney did 46 years ago. But come on msduncan - even you have to see the absurdity of your comment given how you treated the Martin story.

[Chrisoc13]

Frankly I don't expect anyone to read all of my R&P posts, but I do expect someone to actually keep up with what I have already posted in a relatively short thread. I have addressed nearly every issue you have brought up already. I simply have repeated myself several times in this very thread as a result of people not actually reading what has already been posted.

To repeat myself once more...

I read your posts in this thread. If you have to keep repeating yourself could it possibly be that perhaps you might want to look at what you are posting that is causing so much confusion for me and apparently others? Saying whoops and good job defense team! is pretty bombastic stuff. It looked like a celebratory post, are you saying I just simply can't take any of your posts at face value?

Regardless, thanks for the reply and thanks for admitting you are human/biased (again).

Were you really confused about me saying I was biased on this case? Honestly. Because I answered it almost word for word at least 3 times. I think I have been extremely clear on this. I brought actual research to the table in terms of frontal lobe development, I stated my position clearly multiple times.

What parts exactly are confusing at this point? Was it one post where I said good job research team? I honestly think this was a politically motivated piece and I think in the process of trying to smear Mitt Romney the opposition research may have unintentionally smeared others along the way. Whoops indeed. The family of John seem to be collateral damage in this. Whoops. I don't think that is acceptable. I don't think it is ok. Whatever they took offense to they clearly are not happy with how this went down. When their statement is released we will know more. I am intrigued by what they have to say.

I also find it humorous that another article in a non-political outlet (the auto mag one) interviewed the exact same people and came away with a completely different outlook on who Mitt Romney was when he was growing up. To the point where one said he didn't have a car at 16 and wasn't spoiled by his Dad to the other saying he had a car at 16 and was spoiled and entitled. Oddly enough it may be that the Auto Mag did a better job of non-partisan journalism here. Auto mags, a bright shining light of non-partisanship

[GreenGoo]

I assume they are not willing to admit his homosexuality.

Ok, I got nothing. Except that Romney's camp should be chalking this up as a victory and moving on, if they haven't already. Let the other camp bleat about some hazing/bullying that crossed the line a billion years ago. Hell, when I reflect on it, this guy must be as squeaky clean as they come. Which is not to say he'd make a good president. I don't have strong feelings about him, pro or con.

Perhaps he wasn't homosexual at all? There is certainly no evidence to suggest if he were that it had anything to do with the hazing.

Perhaps he wasn't. Who gives a shit?

[GreenGoo]

Dude. He was 18. Boys are idiots at 18 -- some just more than others.

What a difference a few months makes.

17-year old Trayvon Martin was a thug and a man (while walking to a relatives house with skittles and ice tea).

18-year old Mitt Romney was just a boy when he was leading a group of students to hold down and torment a fellow student that they didn't like because he was different.

I don't particularly care what Mitt Romney did 46 years ago. But come on msduncan - even you have to see the absurdity of your comment given how you treated the Martin story.

I live in fear that someone will do to me what you just did to msd. Hopefully I can be more consistent, but I doubt it.

[RunningMn9]

And of course, Ralph-Wiggum did the exact same thing in the other direction. Consistency people!

As to the story, I'm awfully suspicious of the timing. It's hard to get motivated to care. Had I known him at the time and witnessed it, maybe I wouldn't vote for him because of it. But damn near 50-year recollections from people that probably haven't thought about it in decades? Meh.

[GreenGoo]

As to the story, I'm awfully suspicious of the timing

Oh, there's nothing suspicious about the timing. It is clearly negative PR during an election year. This is the time when candidates table manners are examined for evidence they are russian sleeper agents who prefer bread lines to a honest day's work.

[Enough]

Frankly I don't expect anyone to read all of my R&P posts, but I do expect someone to actually keep up with what I have already posted in a relatively short thread. I have addressed nearly every issue you have brought up already. I simply have repeated myself several times in this very thread as a result of people not actually reading what has already been posted.

To repeat myself once more...

I read your posts in this thread. If you have to keep repeating yourself could it possibly be that perhaps you might want to look at what you are posting that is causing so much confusion for me and apparently others? Saying whoops and good job defense team! is pretty bombastic stuff. It looked like a celebratory post, are you saying I just simply can't take any of your posts at face value?

Regardless, thanks for the reply and thanks for admitting you are human/biased (again).

Were you really confused about me saying I was biased on this case? Honestly. Because I answered it almost word for word at least 3 times. I think I have been extremely clear on this. I brought actual research to the table in terms of frontal lobe development, I stated my position clearly multiple times.

What parts exactly are confusing at this point? Was it one post where I said good job research team? I honestly think this was a politically motivated piece and I think in the process of trying to smear Mitt Romney the opposition research may have unintentionally smeared others along the way. Whoops indeed. The family of John seem to be collateral damage in this. Whoops. I don't think that is acceptable. I don't think it is ok. Whatever they took offense to they clearly are not happy with how this went down. When their statement is released we will know more. I am intrigued by what they have to say.

I also find it humorous that another article in a non-political outlet (the auto mag one) interviewed the exact same people and came away with a completely different outlook on who Mitt Romney was when he was growing up. To the point where one said he didn't have a car at 16 and wasn't spoiled by his Dad to the other saying he had a car at 16 and was spoiled and entitled. Oddly enough it may be that the Auto Mag did a better job of non-partisan journalism here. Auto mags, a bright shining light of non-partisanship

What I found confusing is that you said some fairly reasonable stuff earlier in the thread and then at the first sign of an article supporting Romney your posting style seemed to go into celebratory mode and you came across as if your mind is all made up/you were right all along. I guess that's the risk. Write a short bombastic post and chances are everyone will read it, remember it and they will hold you to your stronger statements rather than previous more serious reasonable posts. I've certainly over the years had short posts go bad on me, welcome to the club.

[Enough]

And of course, Ralph-Wiggum did the exact same thing in the other direction. Consistency people!

As to the story, I'm awfully suspicious of the timing. It's hard to get motivated to care. Had I known him at the time and witnessed it, maybe I wouldn't vote for him because of it. But damn near 50-year recollections from people that probably haven't thought about it in decades? Meh.

Yeah, our conversation here could literally go on longer than the story stays relevant in the news cycle.

[Chrisoc13]

What I found confusing is that you said some fairly reasonable stuff earlier in the thread and then at the first sign of an article supporting Romney your posting style seemed to go into celebratory mode and you came across as if your mind is all made up/you were right all along. I guess that's the risk. Write a short bombastic post and chances are everyone will read it, remember it and they will hold you to your stronger statements rather than previous more serious reasonable posts. I've certainly over the years had short posts go bad on me, welcome to the club.

I see what you mean. I thought the family's take was fascinating and probably should have written more about it but I was in a hurry and have already spent way too much time here today ha

I do support Mitt Romney though, and if things don't change will be casting my vote for him in November so to be honest my mind is more made up than it should be on the matter.

I don't actually think the statement from the family says much to help Romney though. My reading of the article made it seem more like they were more collateral damage in it. In retrospect that post was very unclear.

By the way since I don't think it has been linked to yet, here is the article referring to the sister's reaction to the article. Side note- it has a very misleading title.

[Chrisoc13]

I live in fear that someone will do to me what you just did to msd. Hopefully I can be more consistent, but I doubt it.

Be careful what you post, we are being watched

I'm positive I'm not as consistent as I should be. Sometimes I will make a moral stand and then realize I'm not even sure I agree with myself on the matter .

[silverjon]

I haven't seen where his family say he came out as gay to them. Please point me to where THEY have said that.

Do you want a transcript of all the interviews conducted in the writing of the article? The family isn't talking right now, even to clarify. And they shouldn't have to if they don't want to.

The bit about Lauber coming out may have been a summary of several conversations, or may have been obtained from one source who wished to remain anonymous. But the lack of a statement from Betsy Lauber saying her brother told her he was gay on X date doesn't mean such a thing never happened. But she certainly doesn't seem to want to talk about it anymore.

We don't know the specifics of what has upset the family. Note there are three sisters but all the available media has only named two of them, which is kinda interesting, but not conclusive of anything.

Whatever they took offense to they clearly are not happy with how this went down. When their statement is released we will know more. I am intrigued by what they have to say.

I think their official statement was that they're not making any more statements. Unless there was a new development in the time it took me to get home.

[Chrisoc13]

Whatever they took offense to they clearly are not happy with how this went down. When their statement is released we will know more. I am intrigued by what they have to say.

I think their official statement was that they're not making any more statements. Unless there was a new development in the time it took me to get home.

Oh haha I think you are right in reading that again.

The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda. There will be no more comments from the family

I guess that was the statement? Well never mind guess I am not going to learn more about it.

For some reason I read it as they will be releasing a statement later. Whoops, reading comprehension failure.

[silverjon]

For some reason I read it as they will be releasing a statement later. Whoops, reading comprehension failure.

There was an interview with Christine Lauber (ABC?) where she said they'd later be releasing a statement through their lawyer. But yeah, the later statement was "no more statements".

[Pyperkub]

I do support Mitt Romney though, and if things don't change will be casting my vote for him in November so to be honest my mind is more made up than it should be on the matter.

If things don't change how? Is there a particular thing that he could say or do that, regardless of Right-Wing spin would flip you? Some position that he hasn't already flip-flopped on or some character defect out of his past? Or is this more of an anti-Obama/Democrat thing?

[silverjon]

If he doesn't get the nomination type-change?

[GreenGoo]

I do support Mitt Romney though, and if things don't change will be casting my vote for him in November so to be honest my mind is more made up than it should be on the matter.

If things don't change how? Is there a particular thing that he could say or do that, regardless of Right-Wing spin would flip you? Some position that he hasn't already flip-flopped on or some character defect out of his past? Or is this more of an anti-Obama/Democrat thing?

He's decided to vote for Romney unless something comes up to change his mind before the election. Nothing wrong with that. It's not like he can provide you with a list of all the possibilities that might cause him to change his mind. He'll know it when he sees it, if he does. Again, nothing wrong with that.

Of course lots of people vote along party lines and that's mostly ok too, especially if they are more ideologically in line with that party.

I mean, he can answer for himself but I'm not sure what you're looking for here.

[RunningMn9]

Sometimes I will make a moral stand and then realize I'm not even sure I agree with myself on the matter .

Conversations sometimes that strange turns and people say things in the moment that maybe they don't really believe. That's not what I was pointing out here.

This was the quote from msduncan that stuck in my mind grapes:

Just because he's under the magical age 18 doesn't make him some innocent kid that was minding his own business. We have 17 year old people that are hardened criminals. We have 17 year old people that are gang bangers, hijackers, suicide bombers, rapists, serial killers, muggers, thieves, pirates, and robbers.

While he was actually conflating two different cases, he does seems insistent that just being under the magical age of 18 doesn't make him some innocent kid.

Unless he happens to be running for President with the right letter attached to the end of his name. Then 18 is just a boy doing stupid things.

It's that changing editorialism that shifts with his political needs that I find curious.

[Rip]

Dude. He was 18. Boys are idiots at 18 -- some just more than others.

What a difference a few months makes.

17-year old Trayvon Martin was a thug and a man (while walking to a relatives house with skittles and ice tea).

18-year old Mitt Romney was just a boy when he was leading a group of students to hold down and torment a fellow student that they didn't like because he was different.

I don't particularly care what Mitt Romney did 46 years ago. But come on msduncan - even you have to see the absurdity of your comment given how you treated the Martin story.

That works both ways. If Mitt is a bullying thug perhaps Martin wasn't just a skittle clad child?

[Rip]

I assume they are not willing to admit his homosexuality.

Ok, I got nothing. Except that Romney's camp should be chalking this up as a victory and moving on, if they haven't already. Let the other camp bleat about some hazing/bullying that crossed the line a billion years ago. Hell, when I reflect on it, this guy must be as squeaky clean as they come. Which is not to say he'd make a good president. I don't have strong feelings about him, pro or con.

Perhaps he wasn't homosexual at all? There is certainly no evidence to suggest if he were that it had anything to do with the hazing.

Perhaps he wasn't. Who gives a shit?

Not me, but it certainly must have been to the story writer.

[RunningMn9]

That works both ways. If Mitt is a bullying thug perhaps Martin wasn't just a skittle clad child?

It does work both ways, which is why I immediately also criticized Ralph_Wiggum for doing the same thing, but in the opposite direction. I don't care which way you are consistent, just be consistent.

In other news, I saw a headline that referred to this nonsense as "Bulleygate". It made me want to hulk smash my monitor.

[Defiant]

I don't care which way you are consistent, just be consistent.

Meh, consistency is overrated. At least when you're inconsistent, you're right half the time.

[Isgrimnur]

At least when you're inconsistent, you're right half the time.

[YellowKing]

Impromptu language lesson: It's not appropriate to use quotation marks when paraphrasing, because in that case they're a visual cue that this is a precise statement of somebody else's words. If you have to alter something to make it grammatically correct within your own sentence, use [] to indicate your changes and ... to indicate words left out.

I know how to write and don't need condescending grammar lessons from you or anyone else.

[Defiant]

I assume they are not willing to admit his homosexuality.

Ok, I got nothing. Except that Romney's camp should be chalking this up as a victory and moving on, if they haven't already. Let the other camp bleat about some hazing/bullying that crossed the line a billion years ago. Hell, when I reflect on it, this guy must be as squeaky clean as they come. Which is not to say he'd make a good president. I don't have strong feelings about him, pro or con.

Perhaps he wasn't homosexual at all? There is certainly no evidence to suggest if he were that it had anything to do with the hazing.

Perhaps he wasn't. Who gives a shit?

I care, because the article stated it, and even though he wasn't out and even if the bullies didn't realize he was attracted to men - and the quote makes clear that they did - it very likely did play a role in why he was picked on. There's a reason why nearly all gay kids experience bullying - even though many are in the closet. They're also more likely to experience more brutal bullying.

As I said before, it's wrong regardless of why someone is bullied. But that he was gay wasn't irrelevant.

[silverjon]

I know how to write and don't need condescending grammar lessons from you or anyone else.

Alrighty then. I'm sorry that I came across as condescending, but the error in using the quotation marks did create confusion in my interpretation of the post we were discussing.

[Defiant]

A clip of one of Romney's defenders who wasn't at the actual incident. He hypothesizes that the joke may have "traumatize[d] the guy a little" but "no harm no foul"

What an ass.

Lauber paused, then responded, “It was horrible.” He went on to explain how frightened he was during the incident, and acknowledged to Seed, “It’s something I have thought about a lot since then.”

[Combustible Lemur]

That works both ways. If Mitt is a bullying thug perhaps Martin wasn't just a skittle clad child?

It does work both ways, which is why I immediately also criticized Ralph_Wiggum for doing the same thing, but in the opposite direction. I don't care which way you are consistent, just be consistent.

In other news, I saw a headline that referred to this nonsense as "Bulleygate". It made me want to hulk smash my monitor.

Bulley for you.

As shitty as the news has been this week, oo has been the dogs bollocks.

Sent from mah Incredible'

[Pyperkub]

I do support Mitt Romney though, and if things don't change will be casting my vote for him in November so to be honest my mind is more made up than it should be on the matter.

If things don't change how? Is there a particular thing that he could say or do that, regardless of Right-Wing spin would flip you? Some position that he hasn't already flip-flopped on or some character defect out of his past? Or is this more of an anti-Obama/Democrat thing?

He's decided to vote for Romney unless something comes up to change his mind before the election. Nothing wrong with that. It's not like he can provide you with a list of all the possibilities that might cause him to change his mind. He'll know it when he sees it, if he does. Again, nothing wrong with that.

Of course lots of people vote along party lines and that's mostly ok too, especially if they are more ideologically in line with that party.

I mean, he can answer for himself but I'm not sure what you're looking for here.

I'm just curious what 'things' are in this context. Positions/Actions/War, etc. Have there been times when he has thought he was going to vote for an R before but switched to D? If so, why?

I've done so in the past - I thought I was going to vote D in the CA Gov election a few years back, but the eventual D was such an idiot and Schwarzenegger was actually decent enough on the environment that I voted for him. Unfortunately Schwarzenegger was undone by the R's in the CA legislature and things only got worse, instead of maybe a bit better.

But for now, I've seen nothing similar in any Republican Candidate. I'm wondering if there's a tipping point for Chrisroc.

IMHO, Romney is 'generic Republican' - which to me means no serious health care reforms (save repealing Health Care reform), more tax cuts (in addition to the Bush tax cuts), more military spending (with a higher chance of another war in the Middle East), more climate change denial (and more of the associated war on science), and more ultra-conservative Supreme Ct. Justices.