Willard Mitt Romney; Homophobe and Bully

BenBurch

Gatekeeper of The Left
BenBurch
Joined
Sep 27, 2007
Messages
37,538
Location
The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
http://www.edgeboston.com/news/poli...ullying_guide_in_mass_because_of_2_lgbt_words

The Boston Globe recently discovered that former governor Mitt Romney’s administration blocked an anti-bullying public school guide from being published in Massachusetts in 2006 because officials took issue with the terms "bisexual" and "transgender."

At the time, Romney’s aides said the guide’s publication was being halted because of the length of the document and officials needed to more time to review it. The Globe, however, was able to get hold of an email that was written by a high-ranking Department of Public Health official that stated the real reason for the delay was because the guide uses the terms "bisexual" and "transgender."

"Because this is using the terms ’bisexual’ and ’transgendered,’ DPH’s name may not be used in this publication,’’ Alda Rego-Weathers, then the deputy commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, wrote.

<SNIP>
Click to expand...

What a slimeball.

First he commits a gang assault on that kid in his school because the kid was effeminate, and then he forbids action to reduce bullying because it might reduce bullying against GLBT people.

What a piece of vile **** your candidate is, GOPers.
 
If you need to be reminded of the earlier story, and GOPers, I know you have a short memory for inconvenient truths;

http://boingboing.net/2012/05/10/mitt-romney-was-a-homophobic-b.html

<SNIP>
“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenage son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled.

With help from other bullies, the story goes, Romney then tackled Lauber, pinned him to the ground, and while the young man was weeping, cut off his hair with scissors.

<SNIP>
Click to expand...
 
Edited by LashL: 
Edited; breach of Rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Romney Signs on to Anti-Gay Group’s Campaign Pledge

http://www.edgenewengland.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=123015

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has signed on to a campaign pledge created by the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage, a group that seeks to obstruct marriage equality and, in states where gay and lesbian families are legally allowed to wed, to roll family parity back.

Romney had earlier declined to sign a pledge concocted by a fringe-right Iowa group. That pledge sparked controversy by claiming that African American children were better off in the days of slavery than they are now. Only Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, both virulently anti-gay politicians, signed that pledge.

Bachmann and Santorum also put their names to the NOM pledge, reported Politico on Aug. 4.

The NOM pledge commits signatories to push for "a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage, to appoint federal judges who don’t see a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage, and to back the Defense of Marriage Act" should they be elected to the office of the presidency.

<SNIP>
Click to expand...
 
BenBurch said:
Yeah, it is personal. I was bullied as a child. Bullying is a horrible thing. That he clearly thinks it is A-OK when it's somebody he loathes is sickening.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can read his mind, Ben. Furthermore, I don't have much faith that a state-sponsored pamphlet is actually going to do much of anything to stop bullying. After all, this is the true face of your enemy.
 
Ziggurat said:
I don't think you can read his mind, Ben. Furthermore, I don't have much faith that a state-sponsored pamphlet is actually going to do much of anything to stop bullying. After all, this is the true face of your enemy.
Click to expand...

That's a fair point. However, that is not the justification they used, and not the reasoning they appeared to use. So whether or not the pamphlets would be useful or not, the reason they weren't issued was because of the inclusion of those two terms.

It's unacceptably flawed reasoning and I think a fair, if over stated, criticism. If a man says, "2+2=4," I'd agree, but if he were to say, "2+2=4 because the Jews control the media," I'd disagree even though 2+2 really does equal 4.
 
Another OpEd on this topic; http://www.policymic.com/articles/9...-election-2012-especially-if-he-s-elected&op=

<SNIP>

Romney's supporters have argued that he was only 15 when the school bully incident took place, that he was a teenager who didn't know any better and that boys will be boys. At 15-years old, a person is already aware of what is right and what is wrong. Fifteen-year-olds are eligible for life sentences in some states for murder. Fifteen-year-olds can drive, and get pregnant, and make their own decisions; they know what malice is and they know how to manipulate. Romney was cognizant of what he was doing and why he was doing it, according to the reports from his friends and classmates that watched or assisted him. It means that he is someone who is intolerant and cruel, who cannot be trusted. If at 15 he did not know kindness, why should he know it now? Immaturity is forgivable, even understandable; intolerance is not.

<SNIP>
Click to expand...
 
At 15 years old, your average teenage boy is marinating in hormones. The idea that a 15-year-old is an emotionally developed, rational adult who understands the consequences of his actions just doesn't wash with me.

And honestly, I find the idea that his actions at 15 have some relevance to his candidacy to be ridiculous.
 
tyr_13 said:
That's a fair point. However, that is not the justification they used, and not the reasoning they appeared to use. So whether or not the pamphlets would be useful or not, the reason they weren't issued was because of the inclusion of those two terms.
Click to expand...

The "furthermore" sentence and the link was really only about what I think the effects of this decision will be (quite possibly nothing), not the motives. I'm unimpressed with their stated motives, but if we're going by stated motives, then Ben's accusation ("because it might reduce bullying against GLBT people") isn't justified, which was my first point.
 
Cleon said:
At 15 years old, your average teenage boy is marinating in hormones. The idea that a 15-year-old is an emotionally developed, rational adult who understands the consequences of his actions just doesn't wash with me.

And honestly, I find the idea that his actions at 15 have some relevance to his candidacy to be ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I suppose I have a higher standard for 15 year-olds.

I was a Boy Scout, and that was a very serious part of my life back then, and I cannot imagine I would have ever done what he did.

If he had gone from that to an exemplary life in which the rights of GLBT people were respected, that would constitute redemption from his actions, he has not.
 
Cleon said:
At 15 years old, your average teenage boy is marinating in hormones. The idea that a 15-year-old is an emotionally developed, rational adult who understands the consequences of his actions just doesn't wash with me.

And honestly, I find the idea that his actions at 15 have some relevance to his candidacy to be ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I half agree. If the bullying incident was out of character with the rest of his life, then I would forgive it.

However, this is also somebody who has publicly stated that he likes firing people and has in his adult public life actively pursued policies to disenfranchise LGBT people. So we still some of his cruel streak and he still has antipathy towards gays. The 15 year old incident might have been more flagrant because it was fueled by hormones, but the base cruelty and anti-gay nature are clearly still present.
 
cwalner said:
I half agree. If the bullying incident was out of character with the rest of his life, then I would forgive it.

However, this is also somebody who has publicly stated that he likes firing people and has in his adult public life actively pursued policies to disenfranchise LGBT people. So we still some of his cruel streak and he still has antipathy towards gays. The 15 year old incident might have been more flagrant because it was fueled by hormones, but the base cruelty and anti-gay nature are clearly still present.
Click to expand...

Surely Mitt has evolved.;)
 
cwalner said:
However, this is also somebody who has publicly stated that he likes firing people
Click to expand...

No he didn't.

He once said that he likes to be able to fire people. But that's actually a very different statement, one that I bet a whole lot of people would agree with. So I'm curious as to why you got it wrong. Were your sources of information wrong? Did you simply misremember? Or did you choose to misrepresent?
 
I would not take the actions of a 15 year old and use them as a measure of what a man is. However, conservatives defend that 15 year olds should be tried as adults and can receive sentences like life imprisonment and capital punishment.
Logically, they don't believe that what a 15 year old can change and be rehabilitated, so I say Romney must still be a bully, a bigot, and an overall disgusting person...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom