Gay Bashing 101
I did some really bad things when I was between the ages of ten and fifteen. But they're things I don't waste much time dwelling on these days. After all, I was only a kid at the time - and a troubled one at that. I should be cut as much slack as the slack factory is willing to provide. So there.
There is one exception as far as my preteen period is concerned. It involved the time I slapped a developmentally-disabled kid across the side of the head. Back in the day they were called "mentally retarded". He was sitting in front of me on the bus. I guess I needed an outlet for my anger and - instead of taking it out on myself (as I usually did) - on this day I elected to take it out on a helpless and innocent child. Although we were the same age, he might as well have been five years younger. His name was Clark. He died a long time ago. This is the first time I've ever admitted this - publicly or privately. It was one of the few times in my childhood where I actually deserved to be severely punished, but I never was. Not even a verbal reprimand. I hope God and Clark have forgiven me. I know I've never forgiven myself. That's punishment enough I suppose.
Although I had matured enough by my late teens to the degree that my offenses against the human race had dwindled down to a conscionable degree. my transgressions between my fifteenth and nineteenth birthdays are able to cause me considerable guilt three-and-a-half decades later. There are times when I am still overcome with grief and shame over a sin committed as a late adolescent. Why? Because by that time in my life I was old enough to know better. Once you reach a certain age, the claims of "childish indiscretions" are invalid and utterly pointless. Those later infractions are not so easily dismissed. This is why our state prisons are stocked to the rafters with eighteen-year-olds who have been sentenced to terms of twenty-years-to-life or more. Some have even been sentenced to die. Think about that.
I was reminded of this when the revelation was made this week that, as a seventeen-year-old senior in the exclusive private school he attended in the mid nineteen-sixties, Mitt Romney, in what can only be described as a "Lord of the Flies" moment, led a posse of kids in an attack on another boy (described as "slight" and frail"), who was presumed by them to be a homosexual. The kid's bleached-blonde hair was pretty long by the standards of the day. At the dawn of Beatlemania, it could be a dangerous thing to emulate the Fab Four in this country - as this unfortunate soul found out to his horror I'm sure. While they pinned him down, Mitt cut off most of the poor guy's hair. While this was happening to him, the boy wept openly and cried out for help. HA! What a jokester that Mitt!
It was a diffe
rent world when this incident took place in 1965. Many people had not had the chance to become enlightened at that point. A half century ago, gay people pretty much kept quiet about their sexual orientation. Other than New York's Fire Island and the occasional Judy Garland concert, there were not many places where they were free to express themselves openly. To do so would have subjected them to violence and, in some cases, imprisonment. It was a different world indeed.
"I like what they do with fags in this country! The punishment is quite correct and inconsistent with most of the law. They throw them in jail with a lot of men. Hmm! Hmm! Very clever!"
-Lenny Bruce, 1963
from the routine, "Thank You, Masked Man"
I can remember one night when I was fourteen years old, watching the old Ten o'clock News on Channel 5. This was back in the days when it was the best local news program in New York City (Where have you gone, Gabe Pressman???) On this particular evening they were interviewing some fellow who was an out-of-the-closet homosexual. I remember saying out loud, "How can he go on television and even admit to such a thing?" In 1972 it was just too weird for me to comprehend.
That was then. This is now. I, too, have since become enlightened. So I'm going to give Mitt the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure that he has become enlightened in the ensuing years as well. Most people have. Why should he be the exception?
So what are we t
o make of all this? Is Mitt Romney a gay-bashing homophobe? Probably not. The conclusion I've drawn is that the man is a sociopath. Does that sound like a bit of a stretch? What is a sociopath? It is someone who feels no pangs of guilt from the pain he inflicts on his fellow human beings regardless of the severity of that pain. I would only ask you to remember Mitt's deeds when he was in charge of an "investment" company called Bain Capital. In order to make a tidy profit for himself and his fellow "investors", they purchased scores of companies across the country and then shut them down - putting thousands of working class people out of work in the process. At around the same time, Mitt and his fellow Bain capitalists posed for a magazine article photograph, some of them with cigars - the plutocracy's favorite phallic symbol - clamped between their drooling teeth; all of them clutching scores of twenty-dollar-bills. Mitt even has a bill sticking out of his buttoned-down suit jacket. Sweet fucking deal!
Just look at that photo! These greedy bastards are obviously quite proud of themselves. They have become stupidly rich at the expense of the hard working people whose lives and livelihoods they have destroyed. If that isn't the living, breathing definition of sociopathology - or whatever the word is - I don't know what is! Am I waging class warfare here? You'd better believe it, Buster. And I'm shooting to kill - figuratively speaking I assure you.
Mitt has expressed no remorse for the gay-bashing he took part in as a fired-up, manly-man teenager. He claims he doesn't even remember the incident; this despite the fact that four of his former classmates have gone on the record (one off the record) to say that the incident did indeed occur and that they are profundly ashamed of themselves for their participation in it. Mitt is not ashamed, obviously.
It took me a long time to get with the program as far as gay marriage is concerned. I was all for the idea of "civil unions" and thought they were taking a mile when they should have been satisfied with an inch. How insensitive on my part. Like President Obama, my feelings on this subject have "evolved" over the years. To say that it is a threat to the institution of marriage is too silly for words. If anything it will only strengthen it since more people will be getting married as a result - a lot more.
Are we to seriously believe (as some on the extreme right are implying) that if gay marriage is made legal across the land, heterosexuals will decide to go that route instead of the traditional one? I don't think that's the case. Although I have never been married, I have been engaged four times (twice to the same lovely woman - Hello, Virginia!). I'm at a point in my life where I really do want to settle down with someone. If and when that blessed day finally does arrive, I'm fairly certain that it won't be with a man. I'm funny that way.
So no, I really don't believe that Mitt Romney goes to bed at night dreaming violent dreams about stuffing gay people into a doggie crate and tying them to the roof of his station wagon for a twelve hour joy-ride from Boston to Toronto. I am sure that he has evolved along with the rest of humanity with regard to his true feelings about homosexuals and Irish Setters.
My problem with the Mittster is simply the fact that the man is utterly lacking in conviction. As the late, great Molly Ivins once said of King George Bush the First, "There is no 'there' there". He's also as ignorant about international affairs as King George Bush the Second. He recently described Russia as America's number one ideological enemy. This tells me that the man has not read a newspaper since 1989.
Like Dubya, I'm certain that he will turn foreign policy over to the neo-cons. Do you remember how well that worked out last time around? He has already advocated the invasion of Iran. That would be a geopolitical blunder so extreme it might possibly instigate the beginning of World War Three. This is not the first time I've said this and, I promise you, it won't be the last: If the American electorate is stupid enough to go down this road again they'll deserve everything that happens to them. Everything.
It's not just gays and lesbians who have a lot to lose should Mitt Romney be inaugurated president on January 20, 2013. We all have a stake in the outcome - whether we realize it or not. Don't forget the fact that the next administration will see two - possibly three - appointments to the Supreme Court within the next five years. If those appointments are made by a right-wing Republican, we might as well start singing America's requiem.
And-a-one! And-a-two! And-a-three!
Tom Degan
Goshen, New York
tomdegan@frontiernet.net
SUGGESTED READING:
Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Krugman
It doesn't get much better than Mr. Paul.
There is one exception as far as my preteen period is concerned. It involved the time I slapped a developmentally-disabled kid across the side of the head. Back in the day they were called "mentally retarded". He was sitting in front of me on the bus. I guess I needed an outlet for my anger and - instead of taking it out on myself (as I usually did) - on this day I elected to take it out on a helpless and innocent child. Although we were the same age, he might as well have been five years younger. His name was Clark. He died a long time ago. This is the first time I've ever admitted this - publicly or privately. It was one of the few times in my childhood where I actually deserved to be severely punished, but I never was. Not even a verbal reprimand. I hope God and Clark have forgiven me. I know I've never forgiven myself. That's punishment enough I suppose.
Although I had matured enough by my late teens to the degree that my offenses against the human race had dwindled down to a conscionable degree. my transgressions between my fifteenth and nineteenth birthdays are able to cause me considerable guilt three-and-a-half decades later. There are times when I am still overcome with grief and shame over a sin committed as a late adolescent. Why? Because by that time in my life I was old enough to know better. Once you reach a certain age, the claims of "childish indiscretions" are invalid and utterly pointless. Those later infractions are not so easily dismissed. This is why our state prisons are stocked to the rafters with eighteen-year-olds who have been sentenced to terms of twenty-years-to-life or more. Some have even been sentenced to die. Think about that.
I was reminded of this when the revelation was made this week that, as a seventeen-year-old senior in the exclusive private school he attended in the mid nineteen-sixties, Mitt Romney, in what can only be described as a "Lord of the Flies" moment, led a posse of kids in an attack on another boy (described as "slight" and frail"), who was presumed by them to be a homosexual. The kid's bleached-blonde hair was pretty long by the standards of the day. At the dawn of Beatlemania, it could be a dangerous thing to emulate the Fab Four in this country - as this unfortunate soul found out to his horror I'm sure. While they pinned him down, Mitt cut off most of the poor guy's hair. While this was happening to him, the boy wept openly and cried out for help. HA! What a jokester that Mitt!
It was a diffe
rent world when this incident took place in 1965. Many people had not had the chance to become enlightened at that point. A half century ago, gay people pretty much kept quiet about their sexual orientation. Other than New York's Fire Island and the occasional Judy Garland concert, there were not many places where they were free to express themselves openly. To do so would have subjected them to violence and, in some cases, imprisonment. It was a different world indeed.
"I like what they do with fags in this country! The punishment is quite correct and inconsistent with most of the law. They throw them in jail with a lot of men. Hmm! Hmm! Very clever!"-Lenny Bruce, 1963
from the routine, "Thank You, Masked Man"
I can remember one night when I was fourteen years old, watching the old Ten o'clock News on Channel 5. This was back in the days when it was the best local news program in New York City (Where have you gone, Gabe Pressman???) On this particular evening they were interviewing some fellow who was an out-of-the-closet homosexual. I remember saying out loud, "How can he go on television and even admit to such a thing?" In 1972 it was just too weird for me to comprehend.
That was then. This is now. I, too, have since become enlightened. So I'm going to give Mitt the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure that he has become enlightened in the ensuing years as well. Most people have. Why should he be the exception?
So what are we t
o make of all this? Is Mitt Romney a gay-bashing homophobe? Probably not. The conclusion I've drawn is that the man is a sociopath. Does that sound like a bit of a stretch? What is a sociopath? It is someone who feels no pangs of guilt from the pain he inflicts on his fellow human beings regardless of the severity of that pain. I would only ask you to remember Mitt's deeds when he was in charge of an "investment" company called Bain Capital. In order to make a tidy profit for himself and his fellow "investors", they purchased scores of companies across the country and then shut them down - putting thousands of working class people out of work in the process. At around the same time, Mitt and his fellow Bain capitalists posed for a magazine article photograph, some of them with cigars - the plutocracy's favorite phallic symbol - clamped between their drooling teeth; all of them clutching scores of twenty-dollar-bills. Mitt even has a bill sticking out of his buttoned-down suit jacket. Sweet fucking deal!Just look at that photo! These greedy bastards are obviously quite proud of themselves. They have become stupidly rich at the expense of the hard working people whose lives and livelihoods they have destroyed. If that isn't the living, breathing definition of sociopathology - or whatever the word is - I don't know what is! Am I waging class warfare here? You'd better believe it, Buster. And I'm shooting to kill - figuratively speaking I assure you.
Mitt has expressed no remorse for the gay-bashing he took part in as a fired-up, manly-man teenager. He claims he doesn't even remember the incident; this despite the fact that four of his former classmates have gone on the record (one off the record) to say that the incident did indeed occur and that they are profundly ashamed of themselves for their participation in it. Mitt is not ashamed, obviously.
It took me a long time to get with the program as far as gay marriage is concerned. I was all for the idea of "civil unions" and thought they were taking a mile when they should have been satisfied with an inch. How insensitive on my part. Like President Obama, my feelings on this subject have "evolved" over the years. To say that it is a threat to the institution of marriage is too silly for words. If anything it will only strengthen it since more people will be getting married as a result - a lot more.
Are we to seriously believe (as some on the extreme right are implying) that if gay marriage is made legal across the land, heterosexuals will decide to go that route instead of the traditional one? I don't think that's the case. Although I have never been married, I have been engaged four times (twice to the same lovely woman - Hello, Virginia!). I'm at a point in my life where I really do want to settle down with someone. If and when that blessed day finally does arrive, I'm fairly certain that it won't be with a man. I'm funny that way.
So no, I really don't believe that Mitt Romney goes to bed at night dreaming violent dreams about stuffing gay people into a doggie crate and tying them to the roof of his station wagon for a twelve hour joy-ride from Boston to Toronto. I am sure that he has evolved along with the rest of humanity with regard to his true feelings about homosexuals and Irish Setters.
My problem with the Mittster is simply the fact that the man is utterly lacking in conviction. As the late, great Molly Ivins once said of King George Bush the First, "There is no 'there' there". He's also as ignorant about international affairs as King George Bush the Second. He recently described Russia as America's number one ideological enemy. This tells me that the man has not read a newspaper since 1989.
Like Dubya, I'm certain that he will turn foreign policy over to the neo-cons. Do you remember how well that worked out last time around? He has already advocated the invasion of Iran. That would be a geopolitical blunder so extreme it might possibly instigate the beginning of World War Three. This is not the first time I've said this and, I promise you, it won't be the last: If the American electorate is stupid enough to go down this road again they'll deserve everything that happens to them. Everything.
It's not just gays and lesbians who have a lot to lose should Mitt Romney be inaugurated president on January 20, 2013. We all have a stake in the outcome - whether we realize it or not. Don't forget the fact that the next administration will see two - possibly three - appointments to the Supreme Court within the next five years. If those appointments are made by a right-wing Republican, we might as well start singing America's requiem.
And-a-one! And-a-two! And-a-three!
Tom Degan
Goshen, New York
tomdegan@frontiernet.net
SUGGESTED READING:
Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Krugman
It doesn't get much better than Mr. Paul.
posted by Tom Degan @ 10:08 AM
51 comments
51 Comments:
Perhaps as disturbing as the incident itself has been Romney’s reaction to it. He doesn’t remember when almost everyone else involved does? “If anyone was hurt or offended, obviously I apologize” just doesn’t cut it. Is this an example of the kind of “wild and crazy guy” that Ann would have us believe he is? How would the two of them feel if someone did something like this to one of their sons? Let’s take homophobia out of the equation here. Anything that causes lasting emotional or mental distress is simply wrong and can not be excused or brushed off in any way whatsoever. Again he has shown that he was and remains callous, insensitive, and self centered with a big dose of entitlement thrown in.
It's not the teenaged Mitt Romney in the 1960s doing a thoughtless and stupid thing teenaged boys normally do that requires judgement, it's the Mitt Romney of today.
His choices in reacting to the news of his involvement ranged from chuckling and claiming not to remember the incident to claiming he was sorry IF he offended anyone.
There was a moment at the beginning, where a normal reaction such as "I was young, and I truly regret the incident." or "I honestly don't remember doing it, but that is a terrible thing for anyone to do to another person."
could have defused the situation in Mitt's favor, and satisfied most critics.
Unfortunately, he chose neither course, deciding to either trivialize it with laughter or by insulting the victim and the witnesses (and fellow accomplices)by claiming he "didn't remember".
It's not that it happened way back then, it's that he has no shame now. I have a dear friend who became so ashamed of a prank she pulled on a classmate that she sought her out at the recent 50th reunion and said "I am so ashamed..." The other woman went from pretending not to recall through to saying it had been humiliating and she accepted and appreciated my friend's remorse. I didn't expect such soul searching from the man, but blowing it off. Well, those are the colors he's flying.
It's the amused chuckling he does now when reminded of this incident (or the doggie-on-the-car-roof event) that disturbs me. "I caused a person or other living thing traumatic discomfort and fear. Ain't that a hoot?" Romney even has Fox News stumped by his behavior.
If you can make Neal Cavuto look on in perplexed shock and amazement, as you giggle over reports of something you did in your past that hurt someone, you've really stooped.
~A~
I believe that all high level executives in almost all largish corporations are sociopaths. They are bred that way. The people willing to make "the hard decisions" (like laying off thousands of people, or closing factories to build products offshore, or employ slave labor in a third world country), are the people who move up the ranks. Who can do that except a sociopath? A healthy person does that maybe once, then quits that company out of disgust. The sociopath drools for the next "resource action".
It's not that Romney may have been a bully as a teen; it's his reaction to being called out on it today. Instead of expressing regret or shame, instead of suggesting that he knows better now, he laughs off his behavior as "pranks" and offers the standard non-apology apology: "IF anyone was hurt or offended, I apologize."
Americans--and maybe people everywhere--love a redemption story, love the person who comes to terms with past bad behavior, expresses genuine remorse, makes amends if possible, and demonstrates improved behavior. Romney cannot conceive that he has anything to apologize for, and that is the problem.
Can't wait till Obama gets vetted just like Mitt is. You know interviews with former classmates, his teachers, his students when he was teaching. Then how about the results of his being a community organizer?
Like I said, can't wait, question is will Tom have any part in the vetting?
"What is a sociopath? It is someone who feels no pangs of guilt from the pain he inflicts on his fellow human beings regardless of the severity of that pain."
Perhaps if you are not rich, you are not considered a fellow human. That attitude might now be a prerequisite for most of the political offices in Washington. This way you can exploit, enslave, spy on, lock-up, torture or assassinate poor people and still maintain a clear conscience. Not only that, now its legal!
Ahh, the land of the free abounds with opportunity...
Only in Obama's America could we have had the two people most responsible for our tax code — Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel who once ran the Ways and Means Committee — turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.
John
"What is a sociopath? It is someone who feels no pangs of guilt from the pain he inflicts on his fellow human beings regardless of the severity of that pain."
I think we can include animals.
What about the Obama family eating that poor puppy? Has Barry admitted to having any remorse?
Anonymous2, Do you eat beef? Chicken? Pork? Seafood? Or are you a strict vegetarian? Just wondering.
Tom Degan (and Kathleen Saulino's and John's reference to the following): "What is a sociopath? It is someone who feels no pangs of guilt from the pain he inflicts on his fellow human beings regardless of the severity of that pain."
I think the proper diagnosis of those sitting in corporate board rooms, and/or occupying executive-level office suites, would be that of "psychopath". Granted, both disorders are often characterized by a lack of conscience, an inability to feel empathy toward others, along with little or no respect for the law. The main difference, however, is psychopaths are often well educated and successful, due mostly to their extreme attention to detail -- usually organized to a point of obsession, making them appear very neat and in control at work (or in school).
Sociopaths, however, have more of a tendency to be, for example, homeless and out of work or unable to maintain a job, and typically do not have normal relationships with family, don't have many friends, and do not get along well with co-workers (or anyone, for that matter) due to their inability to comprehend and understand human emotions and feelings.
A psychopath, on the other hand, may be able to have normal relationships, even to the point of dating, getting married and raising and caring for children. Although they don't feel remorse for acts of violence and cruelty they may commit, they are able to understand human emotion and empathy --- and efficiently manipulate it. Their incredible understanding of human feelings makes it easy for them to impress and persuade others.
This describes, perfectly, today's typical CEO of a Fortune 500 company.
That definition of psychopath also describes Bonehead, Cuntor and McConjob too. Those three make me puke. Maybe if our so called " leaders " weren't INSANE Amerika might be in better shape.
You lefties sure are crapping your pants about the election. The people know that Obama's "Hope And Change" was nothing but "Bull And Shit" and the economy is tanking.
You guys keep manufacturing something hoping it will stick to the wall.
Now Romney has a history of beating up gays! Did Dan Rather get the facts for this story?
Thanks for the laughs on this Rant.
Funniest part is JG saying "I think". He doesn't, he only repeats the latest lib talking point.
Hurry up Nov!
Smokey Lagumski (a.k.a., Just the Falsehoods!, Anonymous, Anonymous2, Annie Mouse Too: "You lefties sure are crapping your pants about the election."
Hardly. As a matter of fact, Obama's election is pretty much guaranteed. Oh, sure, it'll look like a tight horse race right up until the end, but in reality the "winner" has been decided. Romney already knows this, so is feebly going through the motions. His role as "loser-designate" will be the closest he ever comes to the White House, and he fully accepts this. He'll still profit handsomely from this arrangement, and cheerfully plods on as if his candidacy means or will amount to anything. (It doesn't.)
Welcome to "democracy" in the twenty-first century.
"...and the economy is tanking."
Of course! You'll never get an argument from me regarding this. The latest JPMorgan Chase debacle certainly isn't an isolated incident; it's just the tip of the iceberg. The derivative market is an ever-growing cancer that's going to implode and bring every western economy to its knees, if not flat on its face. I'm afraid 2008 will look like amateur-hour before it has fully taken its toll. I've been saying this for at least a couple of years, and I'm even more convinced now. My advise: Keep watching what happens in Europe. They're the canary in the coalmine.
By the way, a Romney election, as far-fetched and unlikely that it is, would only accelerate the implosion. At least with Obama the landing should be ("might be") a little less harrowing.
Snokey Lagumski, you said:
"You guys keep manufacturing something hoping it will stick to the wall.
Now Romney has a history of beating up gays!"
What's the matter, don't you read the news?
JG,
"The derivative market is an ever-growing cancer that's going to implode and bring every western economy to its knees"
I believe this is by intent. The goal is to get EVERY nation indebted to the fed.
John: "I believe this is by intent. The goal is to get EVERY nation indebted to the fed."
I agree. The international banking cabal knows exactly what it's doing, and just like 2008 it's all by design. Neither major political party will do anything to stem the tide, simply because both parties are totally beholden to corporate interests. We've been hijacked and taken hostage by traitors, and not one shot had to be fired.
I've said it many times before, and I'll say it again, only the illusion of two separate political parties exists today. It's, in fact, one party with two separate wings. I call this dual-winged party the "Corporatist Party".
I believe in black helicopters, that Area 51 has alien space craft and that 911 was an inside job. Can I now join JG' looney tunes left wing group?
Don't know if Romney story true or not. Even if it was, I really don't care about high school behavior. The pranks I doled out and recieved in high school and college makes one wish for a simple hair cut.
Anywho, if this is the backbone of the Obama reelection strategy, he is FINISHED!
On another subject, lots of yapping about doing away with the filibuster, mostly by dems. Do they realize that they are going to lose many seats in the Senate?
boltok said..." Don't know if Romney story true or not."
How fucking stupid or lazy are you when most of the people involved in the incident have spoken up, confirmed it and say that they regret it? If you expect your comments to be taken seriously, you are going to have to do better than that.
According to archive.org, a website that caches websites on a regular basis, the Dystel.com website – the official website for Dystel & Goderich, Obama’s literary agents – was using the Barack Obama “born in Kenya” language until April 2007, just two months after then-Senator Obama declared his campaign for the presidency.
Archive.org shows that the Dystel website used the following biography for Obama as of April 3, 2007:
BARACK OBAMA is the junior Democratic senator from Illinois and was the dynamic keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was also the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago. His first book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, has been a long time New York Times bestseller.
Obama launched his presidential campaign in February 2007.
By April 21, 2007, the Obama bio had been changed to state that Obama was born in Hawaii:
BARACK OBAMA is the junior Democratic senator from Illinois and was the dynamic keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was also the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Hawaii to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago. His first book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, has been a long time New York Times bestseller.
Obama had already been a national figure for three years, since the Democratic National Convention in 2004, by the time the biography was changed; he had been a sitting Senator for over two years.
Is this an example of the poor job of vetting Obama, or a piss poor job by Obama's literary agent?
Anonymous: "Is this an example of the poor job of vetting Obama, or a piss poor job by Obama's literary agent?"
Please...I've heard enough of this stupid crap to choke a horse.
Tell me...exactly what about this sitting president's qualifications (age and citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1) are you in disagreement with: (1) thirty-five years old at time of election; (2) been a resident of the U.S. for fourteen years prior to election; or (3) is a citizen of the United States?
Let's nip this stupidity in the bud right here. What's your objection?
Anonymous: "I believe in black helicopters, that Area 51 has alien space craft and that 911 was an inside job. Can I now join JG' looney tunes left wing group?"
What a great retort! Gee, you really set me straight with that reply! ;-) You've certainly convinced me I'm wrong...
Was Obama really vetted with this error out there not being found until now, that is the question. So don't try to frame it in any other words. Wake up, JG the media has been in the pockets of liberals forever and this is a great example of their not vetting the most liberal canidate running in 2008. An error like this about Rommey would have uncovered by the media 6 years ago at least.
That's what makes Romney's hair cutting issue in HS, what 50 years ago, such a transparent part of the liberal bias in today's news reporting.
You are way too full of yourself to ever be proven wrong, that's why it's so entertaining to mock you. People with no humbleness and big heads are fun to deflate. JG, you fit that bill to a tee. Now run back to your blog where you control every thing, and pretend what you say is important.
Anonymous: "...the media has been in the pockets of liberals forever..."
Oh, yeah, the liberal media. That's funny! I can imagine all those "liberal types" in their board rooms at Walt Disney, News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom, CBS, and Live Nation scheming to bring Romney down every chance they get. Damn liberals!
"Liberal media", huh? Throw that in the trash heap of history with boom-boxes, typewriters, public phone booths, and Polaroid instant film. It just doesn't exist...except in every out-of-touch conservative's mind.
"Was Obama really vetted with this error out there not being found until now, that is the question."
It's not a question to me. Why not? Because it has no relevance. It doesn't matter where he was born!
Perhaps working to help developmentally disabled individuals would help you deal with your guilt. Many have part time jobs, and more would like them. They need someone to help find or develop a job for them, and support while doing the job. This is just one thing you could do, as there are others. I'm sure NY has a local agency or nonprofit organization which is specific to individuals with developmental disabilities. Call them. Hope you're well. Joel
Anonymous said... Was Obama really vetted with this error out there not being found until now, that is the question.
Do you really believe that if there was any truth to this that Hillary and McCain would not have jumped all over it? Grow up and move on, dude. Nothing to see here.
It doesn't matter where he was born! It doesn't matter where he was born!
It doesn't matter where he was born!
It doesn't matter where he was born!
911 was an inside job!
911 was an inside job!
911 was an inside job!
911 was an inside job!
My Name is Jefferson's Guardian and I have the secret of the Wisdom of the Ages.
We conned-servatives don't respond to questions and we don't provide information.
We are trolls, and are here only to annoy, distract and smear.
"There is one exception as far as my preteen period is concerned. It involved the time I slapped a developmentally-disabled kid across the side of the head. Back in the day they were called "mentally retarded". He was sitting in front of me on the bus. I guess I needed an outlet for my anger and - instead of taking it out on myself (as I usually did) - on this day I elected to take it out on a helpless and innocent child. Although we were the same age, he might as well have been five years younger. His name was Clark. He died a long time ago. This is the first time I've ever admitted this - publicly or privately. It was one of the few times in my childhood where I actually deserved to be severely punished, but I never was. Not even a verbal reprimand. I hope God and Clark have forgiven me."
In todays liberal utopian fantasy society, morality is relative. Tom Degan is not responsible for his actions even if Clark died prematurely due to the slap. At the point in time of the slap, Tom was a victim of society is some way and cannot be held accountable for his actions.
JG if you are not in area 51, please give your opinion.
In todays Right Wing Nut-opian fantasy society, morality is absolute. Whatever the wealthy elites dictate is moral.
Jefferson's Guardian "I agree. The international banking cabal knows exactly what it's doing, and just like 2008 it's all by design."
Cabal? I doubt that. They're perfectly willing to screw over each other, for one. That's not a cabal. That's a bunch of sharks who happen to be swimming in the same pool.
Harry from Goshen, NY "In todays liberal utopian fantasy society, morality is relative. Tom Degan is not responsible for his actions even if Clark died prematurely due to the slap. At the point in time of the slap, Tom was a victim of society is some way and cannot be held accountable for his actions."
And, from that quoted passage, where did you get that? A for-comprehension reading of "It was one of the few times in my childhood where I actually deserved to be severely punished…" should lead one to, politely, a conclusion so far away from yours that I find it hard to believe you manage to dress yourself in the morning.
Modusoperandi: "Cabal? I doubt that. They're perfectly willing to screw over each other..."
Cabal? Absolutely! The revolving door between government (Treasury) and the investment banking cartel (primarily Goldman Sachs) is undeniable. Henry Paulson, for example, was essentially the cheerleader and main contributor to the taxpayer fleecing that culminated in the TARP (acronym for "Privatize Profits, Socialize Losses").
Sure, yeah, like sharks they eat their own -- mostly the vulnerable and the weak, but they also swim in schools and collude and defraud at will. Google and research the names of investment banking executives who have served in very influential posts within the U.S. government. It's like a "who's who" of the top tier boardroom scoundrels of Wall Street.
Anonymous: "It doesn't matter where he was born!"
Agreed!
"911 was an inside job!"
It wasn't?
"[He] is someone who feels no pangs of guilt from the pain he inflicts on his fellow human beings regardless of the severity of that pain." This is the conclusion you said you drew about Mitt.
Actually, you cannot logically draw that conclusion. The only conclusion you can draw (assuming the allegation is true) is that he actually did forget the incident (admittedly this is unlikely) or he is trying to deflect the issue for political expediency because to engage it would be disastrous in the hands of the media given his stance on "gay marriage". I draw the latter conclusion.
What conclusion do you draw from the fact that Obama, just a few years ago, stood in the pulpit of a Christian church and declared marriage as a union between a man and a woman? Yet, he has "evolved" suddenly over the past few years. Poppycock. Again, political expediency. They all do it.
In this regard they are both cut from the same mold - the politician mold.
Harley A.: "What conclusion do you draw from the fact that Obama, just a few years ago, stood in the pulpit of a Christian church and declared marriage as a union between a man and a woman?"
Please cite your source, the actual quotation from the pulpit, and the contextual setting in which his declaration was made. Possibly it's common news to people who care to keep up with such things (and I admit I'm out of the loop on such trivial matters), but it's only fair that you provide more information about this before Tom (or anyone) responds.
Personally, I often wonder why there's such a vehement objection to gay and lesbian marriage. They're, obviously, just asking for the same legal rights men and women currently claim, and they're not demanding (as far as I know) that their unions be sanctioned and performed by any religious authorities or institutions. It's purely a legal, and civil rights, issue.
Why do conservatives object to this?
"I think the proper diagnosis of those sitting in corporate board rooms, and/or occupying executive-level office suites, would be that of "psychopath". Granted, both disorders are often characterized by a lack of conscience, an inability to feel empathy toward others, along with little or no respect for the law. The main difference, however, is psychopaths are often well educated and successful, due mostly to their extreme attention to detail -- usually organized to a point of obsession, making them appear very neat and in control at work (or in school).
Sociopaths, however, have more of a tendency to be, for example, homeless and out of work or unable to maintain a job, and typically do not have normal relationships with family, don't have many friends, and do not get along well with co-workers (or anyone, for that matter) due to their inability to comprehend and understand human emotions and feelings.
A psychopath, on the other hand, may be able to have normal relationships, even to the point of dating, getting married and raising and caring for children. Although they don't feel remorse for acts of violence and cruelty they may commit, they are able to understand human emotion and empathy --- and efficiently manipulate it. Their incredible understanding of human feelings makes it easy for them to impress and persuade others."
George Jefferson's Guardian,
What left wing rag did you copy that from?
All Board of Directors and CEOs fit that description? Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot of your ideology fit that description though.
Thank you for exposing that you are a marxist!
Do you think Thomas Jefferson is also a marxist?
Harry from Goshen, NY (a.k.a., Anonymous, Just My Two Cents, Anonymous2, Smokey Lagumski, Just the Falsehoods, and a schizophrenic's load of others) asked:
"What left wing rag did you copy that from?"
None (unlike the plagiarism you're prone to committing). It's pretty much common knowledge (to those who read books), and fully understood within the psychiatric and psychological science fields. Again, it's not really new "news".
"All Board of Directors and CEOs fit that description?"
Not all, certainly, but as far as CEOs go (within Fortune 500 corporations), the vast majority. Again, that shouldn't be surprising or shocking to you. It's common knowledge.
"Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot of your ideology fit that description though." and "Thank you for exposing that you are a marxist!
No, they're not of my ideology. They were communists and/or Marxists. I'm not. You say I am, but you're wrong. You're labeling my political beliefs because you don't understand them, they confuse you, and most of all, they frighten you. But, a communist I'm certainly not. But if it makes you feel better, they were undoubtedly psychopaths also, but I don't include them because they're not a threat to me, my family, or the democratic institutions of this country. (Unlike you.)
"Do you think Thomas Jefferson is also a marxist?"
Well, he's no longer alive (at least within the incarnation that we know him as), but the answer is no. Do you think he was?
DRUM ROLL PLEASE!
TRUMPETS PLAYING PLEASE
The Great and all Wonderful, Jefferson's Guardian has blessed us with his wisdom from his throne high atop, Mount Liberalloon.
Stop all that you are doing, bow your heads out of respect for his GREATNESS, face towards the nearest office of the FEDERAL GOVT and quake in fear of his bulling bullshit proclamation supporting more GOVT and dismissing self responsibility.
Be still my beating heart, the ONE who knows all, sees all, is telling all how to become a better human in HIS likeness.
Amen.
We conned-servatives don't respond to questions and we don't provide information.
We are trolls, and are here only to annoy, distract and smear
JG -
He made it in an interview with Rick Warren at his Saddleback Church in CA. It is on YouTube I'm sure. You could have Googled it - you seem pretty bright.
My point was not so much about gay marriage as to point out that Obama, no less than Romney, is all about political expediency. Stances change with the political winds. Tom said Romney is utterly lacking in conviction. I merely point out that he is not alone.
I will choose not to argue the issue of homosexuality with you. It would be futile given the chasm between us ideologically.
And, for the record, Tom may or may not respond to me as he sees fit. I don't think he owes me a response at any given time.
Biden can give us a few more years of laughs anyway, like Mr. Magoo. How about that stunt he pulled in front of 500 Rabbis at the Rabbinical Assembly Convention two weeks ago? I haven't laughed that hard since Bill Clinton was in office. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/joe-biden-makes-sign-of-the-cross-in-front-of-rabbis-16304272
EXTRA, EXTRA, READ ALL ABOUT IT, The manufactured "GOP War on Women" isn't sticking to the wall!
After months of manufactured "GOP War on Women" silliness, a new CBS/NYT poll finds Romney leading Obama 46-44% among woman voters. Mind you, that isn't GOP women or even independent women, but ALL women voters.
More importantly, today's poll finds a notable shift among women in just the last month. In April, Obama was leading Romney by 6% among women. No other group saw an 8 point shift in their support.
Turns out women's top concern is the same as men's: The economy. All the contrived outrage about contraceptives and women's health can't mask the fact that 73% of voters listed either the economy or the federal deficit as their number on issue. Looks like its going to be a long, hot summer for Team Obama.
"You (JG) could have Googled it - you seem pretty bright."
First time I have ever disagreed with something Harley A. has posted.
Harley A.: "My point was not so much about gay marriage as to point out that Obama, no less than Romney, is all about political expediency."
Well of course; they are politicians. Nobody disagrees with that.
As far as Obama "evolving" regarding the gay marriage issue, I have no problem with this. With every major social issue that has confronted us during this nation's history, it has been the "evolution" of major decision-makers, undoubtedly spurred along by a significant consciousness-raising within society at-large, that finally tipped the scales toward equality for previously marginalized or excluded groups.
We all come to a change of heart slowly and purposefully, Obama being no exception. I'm convinced that one day the idea of disallowing gay or lesbian marriage will seem as foreign and insensitive as slavery does today. Evolutionary change is a powerful and remarkable aspect of human nature. It's too bad conservatives condemn and are fearful of the idea.
"I will choose not to argue the issue of homosexuality with you. It would be futile given the chasm between us ideologically."
That's your choice, and I respect it. But, given the topic of this particular post, it certainly would be the proper forum.
Well, JG, the problem I have with the "progressive" view of history and the "evolution" of mankind is that those who hold to that concept tend to think their ideas are de facto the more evolved and progressive. It becomes simply a convenient construct through which to push their agendas - and, in reality looks exactly like an objective system where the objective just so happens to be my own particular view at the time.
For those like me who hold to a true objective view of truth, we believe there is truth existing outside of us and we seek to know it. As a Christian, obviously I think the Creator is the giver of this Truth. We see mankind regularly getting it right and getting it wrong throughout history. Mankind is not progressing, with the exception of technological advancement. Morally, there is nothing new under the sun.
please come back in a week and read what you have written here and realize everyone hates you despite there political vews. the comments thred exsist to comploment the wrighter and continue the discoution brought up by the posting. for example is the morality of a pilitition relivent? was Romney's responce to the acusations appropret? did that fag have it coming? any of those would have been acceptable. even tom degan is a moron would work just try to leave out the part where all is writings are farts and everyone who enjoys them are lining up to sniff those farts because then you are proud of your fart jokes and he is proud enough people are reading his work that they feel compelled to make fart jokes and everyone else thinks you are an 8 year old who watches the news so lets be friends and talk politics
My goodness! Thank you so much for that one! A real keeper! Too many errors of spelling and punctuation to even begin counting! That little comment was one for the ages, my friend.
Thank you for being a living, breathing advertizement of the idiocy of the far right.
Sincerely,
Tom Degan
That post made me think of this from "Blazing Saddles":
Olson Johnson: [after Gabby Johnson's speech] Now who can argue with that? I think we're all indebted to Gabby Johnson for clearly stating what needed to be said. I'm particulary glad that these lovely children were here today to hear that speech. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed a courage little seen in this day and age.
Post a Comment
<< Home