Mitt Romney Was A Bully

[treemom]

"Also, if we are going to address character, why would anyone want a President in office who knowingly broke a law by taking illegal drugs and smokes? Or a President who committed adultery while in office (this could be said for two of our former Presidents)? Where do you draw the line on what good character is?

Also, I agree that reactions to events of our past are important. That being said, Mitt did not respond well to this incident. He should have taken it more seriously and used the moment to speak about the harmful nature of bullying."

Well the thing about character is it is subjective, so if you want to bring it up bring it yp.

[Conuly]

I only dispute it because the family of the alleged has come out and said the story is factually incorrect (I posted a link to it earlier) and had no knowledge of the incident ever occurring. Also, the men only remembered the incident after reporters came looking for a story (I think this was in the story quoting the family, but if not I will try to find where I read that).

It happened (allegedly) at a boarding school. Not to put too fine a point on it, but my mother doesn't know half the stuff that happened at my public school. How are they going to know what goes on at boarding school if nobody tells them?

I just know that I personally would be appalled if something like this was brought it up without my family's permission as a character slam against a potential Presidential candidate. It's one thing if the family themselves brought it up- that's their right as their child was the victim. It's another for the people who said they were involved in the incident (all of whom are not being blasted and one of whom was not even present for the alleged incident as he had already graduated at the time it took place) to.

I would be appalled too! What sort of monster would I have raised/married? And if it truly didn't happen, he should say "That never happened" instead of "I don't recall that". The first is clear. The second makes it sound like he was such a horrible person that he truly can't tell what did and didn't go on anymore.

Also, if we are going to address character, why would anyone want a President in office who knowingly broke a law by taking illegal drugs and smokes? Or a President who committed adultery while in office (this could be said for two of our former Presidents)? Where do you draw the line on what good character is?

Taking illegal drugs is a victimless crime. Committing adultery while in office (which no doubt could be said for far, far, far more than just "two" of our former presidents - I can think of 5 without even blinking!) is not... but somehow it doesn't smack of the same cruelty that bullying does.

[Guest Anonymous]

By virtue of this, then, the little Duggarlings should all be their own person and not under mom and dad's control. The fact is, their parent's experiences have plagued them and caused them all to be part of an abusive organization that leaves them socially and financially crippled. Unless they have that moment of self-reflection to realize what their "beliefs" mean for them, it's unlikely they will change- and it's all because of the generation before them (i.e. JB and Michelle). Your past influences you in a big way whether you choose to see it or not.

Also, I never glorified my ancestor's behavior. I clearly stated it was wrong for them to own slaves. However, I am disinclined to call them scumbags because they had that moment of self-reflection to know that what they were doing was wrong and changed (and made restitution for their mistake by freeing their slaves, losing everything they had, and starting anew by campaigning for the rights of others).

Would everyone continue to call Josh a scumbag if he openly admitted his wrong-doings (i.e. doesn't own the car lot, doesn't own his home) and started anew by focusing on selling quality cars, allowing Anna to work if she so chose, and put his kids into public school?

No, that was not your argument. You said that the reason that they could not be called scumbags was because nobody could have known it was wrong (which is clearly untrue) and it was just to put food on the table. It seemed pretty clear that you were talking about the generations that owned slaves not the generation that freed them.

[OnceModestTwiceShy]

I only dispute it because the family of the alleged has come out and said the story is factually incorrect (I posted a link to it earlier) and had no knowledge of the incident ever occurring. Also, the men only remembered the incident after reporters came looking for a story (I think this was in the story quoting the family, but if not I will try to find where I read that).

I just know that I personally would be appalled if something like this was brought it up without my family's permission as a character slam against a potential Presidential candidate. It's one thing if the family themselves brought it up- that's their right as their child was the victim. It's another for the people who said they were involved in the incident (all of whom are not being blasted and one of whom was not even present for the alleged incident as he had already graduated at the time it took place) to.

Also, if we are going to address character, why would anyone want a President in office who knowingly broke a law by taking illegal drugs and smokes? Or a President who committed adultery while in office (this could be said for two of our former Presidents)? Where do you draw the line on what good character is?

Also, I agree that reactions to events of our past are important. That being said, Mitt did not respond well to this incident. He should have taken it more seriously and used the moment to speak about the harmful nature of bullying.

Because not all laws are created equal? Because illegal does not necessarily mean immoral? Because there are some stupid laws, like (IMHO) the law against smoking marijuana, and as an advocate of legalization I would be MUCH more likely to vote for a guy who was honest about smoking? Because we have set up a false equivalency in this country between law-breakers and bad people, and have brutalized and imprisoned millions for no good reason, and a president with true character should understand that? And finally, because despite what your church teaches you, smoking is only a bad habit, not a moral failing?

Also, if you really believe that only 2 of our former presidents committed adultery in office, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd love to sell you.

[Dhani_C]

No, that was not your argument. You said that the reason that they could not be called scumbags was because nobody could have known it was wrong (which is clearly untrue) and it was just to put food on the table. It seemed pretty clear that you were talking about the generations that owned slaves not the generation that freed them.

My mistake, then. I should have phrased it differently.

[Dhani_C]

Because not all laws are created equal? Because illegal does not necessarily mean immoral? Because there are some stupid laws, like (IMHO) the law against smoking marijuana, and as an advocate of legalization I would be MUCH more likely to vote for a guy who was honest about smoking? Because we have set up a false equivalency in this country between law-breakers and bad people, and have brutalized and imprisoned millions for no good reason, and a president with true character should understand that? And finally, because despite what your church teaches you, smoking is only a bad habit, not a moral failing?

Also, if you really believe that only 2 of our former presidents committed adultery in office, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd love to sell you.

Haha. I was only thinking off the top of my head (I've been up since 5 this morning, give me a break).

[Conuly]

Haha. I was only thinking off the top of my head (I've been up since 5 this morning, give me a break).

So have I. Sick kitty in relative isolation decided that sunrise is "jump on Connie's face!" time. Sheesh. Which two were you thinking of, anyway?

[debrand]

Dhani,

I just noticed that you said that you worded your response badly. I'm surrounded by southern apologists and the older I get, the less patience I have with their views. Sorry, if I lumped you in with them(sadly, some of them are from my own family)

edited: I should know how to spell surrounded

[Dhani_C]

So have I. Sick kitty in relative isolation decided that sunrise is "jump on Connie's face!" time. Sheesh. Which two were you thinking of, anyway?

I've been dealing with a mother who just had a double knee replacement (dad is out of town for work) so I'm her primary caregiver at the moment.

I was thinking of Bill Clinton and JFK. They were the first two to pop into my head and I neglected some of our dear forefathers. I remember my high school history teacher telling us about our first President who carried on an affair with a woman across the pond via letter so I'm well aware that affairs are nothing new, lol.

[Dhani_C]

Dhani,

I just noticed that you said that you worded your response badly. I'm surrounded by southern apologists and the older I get, the less patience I have with their views. Sorry, if I lumped you in with them(sadly, some of them are from my own family)

edited: I should know how to spell surrounded

No problem, I certainly don't agree with what they did (even if they did it to keep food on the table) and I'm just thankful they realized their wrong-doing, freed their slaves, and made restitution for what they did (lost everything and changed their viewpoints).

I'm also sorry this entire thread has spiraled out of control. I was offering up a take on what happened (just trying to give the benefit of the doubt before condemning anyone) and it exploded. I should probably head back to lurkdom now.

[OnceModestTwiceShy]

I've been dealing with a mother who just had a double knee replacement (dad is out of town for work) so I'm her primary caregiver at the moment.

I was thinking of Bill Clinton and JFK. They were the first two to pop into my head and I neglected some of our dear forefathers. I remember my high school history teacher telling us about our first President who carried on an affair with a woman across the pond via letter so I'm well aware that affairs are nothing new, lol.

Fair enough! Honestly I didn't think you were that naive either. :lol:

[Guest Anonymous]

No problem, I certainly don't agree with what they did (even if they did it to keep food on the table) and I'm just thankful they realized their wrong-doing, freed their slaves, and made restitution for what they did (lost everything and changed their viewpoints).

I'm also sorry this entire thread has spiraled out of control. I was offering up a take on what happened (just trying to give the benefit of the doubt before condemning anyone) and it exploded. I should probably head back to lurkdom now.

It might seem as if I have been taking this very seriously but, for the most part, I make no judgements (I just felt like pointing out an inaccuracy). But every time you mention that it was "to keep food on the table" I feel like I've been kicked in the soul.

(I am aware that that is melodramatic).

[Dhani_C]

Fair enough! Honestly I didn't think you were that naive either. :lol:

Nope, went to the ebil public school and had some old and very crass guys teach my history courses. My American History teacher made us watch this old series called Centennial and he would always say to us "Only the rocks live forever..." every time we left class (he also sprayed anyone who sneezed with disinfectant because of a heart transplant he had several years prior).

I also had a government teacher who was a conspiracy theorist who believed the government faked the moon landing and that JFK and his brother would save the world (and because they are both gone we are doomed :lol: ).

[JenniferJuniper]

I also had a government teacher who was a conspiracy theorist who believed the government faked the moon landing and that JFK and his brother would save the world (and because they are both gone we are doomed :lol: ).

We'll never know for sure what would have happened, but I do think we might have been much better off had Robert Kennedy not been murdered when he was. And if he'd become president in '68, my 25 year old uncle who was killed in Vietnam in 1972 might still be alive.

But back to the topic at hand. Here is Obama's first ad about Bully Boy at Bain.

[deelaem]

Interesting. Mormons are the masters of spin.

[JenniferJuniper]

Interesting. Mormons are the masters of spin.

"Lying for the Lord" - http://www.mormonwiki.org/Lying_for_the_Lord

[gustava]

We'll never know for sure what would have happened, but I do think we might have been much better off had Robert Kennedy not been murdered when he was. And if he'd become president in '68, my 25 year old uncle who was killed in Vietnam in 1972 might still be alive.

But back to the topic at hand. Here is Obama's first ad about Bully Boy at Bain.

Wait a darn minute here! You mean the moon landing was real????? :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: