There's no Pit thread on the Romney bullying story yet, so . . .

[elucidator]

Legal! And constitutional!

[Boyo_Jim]

@Martin_Hyde

…A police officer could have walked in on what Romney was doing to this kid and I guarantee an arrest wouldn’t have even happened.

This is without question the stupidest comment in the thread so far.

[Bosstone]

@Martin_Hyde

Explain how it is different. Both were legal, under the laws of the time, ways to exempt yourself from being drafted at that age at that time.

@Martin_Hyde

Unless we think Romney’s Mormonism was just a put-on to avoid the draft, I have no desire to fault him **morally **for it. I don’t see how it is any different than all the college deferments.

Legality equates to morality, does it?

[Martin_Hyde]

I’ll cop to not getting what point you are trying to make.

Do you think taking a college deferment to avoid the draft is morally or legally wrong?

Do you think taking a religious exemption to avoid the draft during a pre-defined period of religious missionary work is morally or legally wrong?

If you think one is okay and the other is not, why?

[elucidator]

Something bugging me a little about this. I see the victim referred to as “gay”. Has this actually been established? I remember those years, seems to me that many a young man grew his hair somewhat longer as a ticket to Nookie Heaven. Seems to me that, as I recall, other young men did not like that. Not one little bit.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@elucidator

Something bugging me a little about this. I see the victim referred to as “gay”. Has this actually been established? I remember those years, seems to me that many a young man grew his hair somewhat longer as a ticket to Nookie Heaven. Seems to me that, as I recall, other young men did not like that. Not one little bit.

Well, Romney definitely remembers that the guy he does not remember was not gay.

Or something like that.

[Bosstone]

@Martin_Hyde

I’ll cop to not getting what point you are trying to make.

Do you think taking a college deferment to avoid the draft is morally or legally wrong?

Do you think taking a religious exemption to avoid the draft during a pre-defined period of religious missionary work is morally or legally wrong?

If you think one is okay and the other is not, why?

College deferments are important. You take a student out of college and put them in the infantry, you’ve just wasted an intelligent mind that could have helped better the country far more than their employment as a grunt would do. Education should not be squandered or diminished, as it’s an investment in the student’s future as well as the health of the nation.

But I simply cannot see any basis for religious deferments. Unfortunately far too many people think that freedom of religion means the government has to respect all religions, when it would be far more sensible for the government to respect no religions. You want to be religious, you do it on your own time; the government should be completely secular and should not allow or deny special favors for any religion.

Missionary is a vocation, just as much as being a plumber or desk clerk is. The only reason it’s seen as different is because the US is outlandishly religious. I mean, Mitt got off the draft by doing missionary work. They excused him from the war so he could try to convert people (provided that’s what he was actually doing and not simply draft-dodging). You excuse someone from that, you might as well excuse the desk clerk from the draft because otherwise that business may not make as much money this year. You might as well excuse all Mormons or Christians from the draft; why should only the really really religious get a pass, when only the so-so religious still have to serve?

In short, missionary work is so very unlike higher education that it kind of baffles me you’d equate the two.

And of course, just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. I don’t really hold Mitt’s deferment against him, because I don’t agree with a draft in any case and it was a legal loophole. But I don’t like the fact that the loophole existed at all, nor do I think the value of said loophole comes in any way close to college deferment.

[Martin_Hyde]

I can buy (although I do not agree with it) the claim that we should be entirely secular and not give any sort of conscience exemptions from the draft. That’s a valid position.

I don’t get your argument about why a college deferment would be especially moral just because it’s a big investment for the student and the nation. It’s not as though that person would be unable to go to college when they got back from their term of service. You’re basically saying college deferments are morally acceptable because college is so important that a college student shouldn’t be bothered with military service.

I actually find that fairly baffling, I would think military service, one of the oldest and most important duties of citizenship, would trump “timely completion of an education.” Plus, college is disproportionately attended by white persons and people with money, so the college deferment is a de facto system which makes it more likely than poor minorities get drafted than a no-exemption system would.

My position on it (and why I see the two as the same) is both of them are legal reasons you could avoid the draft, and if society has created clear exemptions I do not believe it is immoral to take advantage of them. It’s immoral to commit fraud to avoid the draft or to flee to another country to avoid the draft, at least in my opinion, but if society says there are exemptions then there are exemptions and I’m okay with people taking them legitimately.

I actually feel college exemptions are closer to the old Civil War system where rich people could just buy their way out of service, and look at them a bit less favorably than I do religious exemptions. As an atheist it’s not that I really care about someone’s religious beliefs, but say a person who is a Quaker or Amish and is deeply committed to pacifism I kind of like that we live in a society that says we won’t force those people to take up arms. Not all religious exemptions are created equally, proselytizing missionary work doesn’t seem as noble to me as a commitment to pacifism which precludes participating in a war.

There is also the practical side of it too, genuine Quakers/Amish/etc that we forced into service in the past would not fight, period. They were willing to go to prison and would not take military training. So from a practical perspective you can create an exemption for people like that, or you have to worry about housing several thousand+ people in military prisons during a time of war. I’m not sure that’s in the best interests of the country either.

[RickJay]

@Inigo_Montoya

To you, perhaps, but not for anything approaching a valid reason as far as I can see. As I suggested upthread, the event itself indicates only that Mitt was a creep 50-60 years ago.

Just to make sure we’re all talking about the same guy, Mitt Romney just turned 65 a few months ago. The event would have happened 47 years ago, as reported. Sixty years ago he was too young to be allowed to carry scissors.

That said, your general point is of course valid. The problem is not that Mitt Romney was a bully in 1965, it’s that he is a spineless liar in 2012. All politicians lie but this lie is unusually imbecilic and cowardly. It is completely beyond any reasonable person’s capacity for belief that Romney could not remember the incident in question.

[QUOTE=Bosstone]
College deferments are important. You take a student out of college and put them in the infantry, you’ve just wasted an intelligent mind that could have helped better the country far more than their employment as a grunt would do. Education should not be squandered or diminished, as it’s an investment in the student’s future as well as the health of the nation.
[/QUOTE]

I would suggest to you that if putting off someone’s education for a mere twelve months - people delay their education by a year to go backpacking, for God’s sake - is more damaging to the nation than that person being unavailable to fight an active war, the war being fought is self-evidently not enough of a concern to merit drafting anybody.

[saoirse]

@elucidator

Something bugging me a little about this. I see the victim referred to as “gay”. Has this actually been established? I remember those years, seems to me that many a young man grew his hair somewhat longer as a ticket to Nookie Heaven. Seems to me that, as I recall, other young men did not like that. Not one little bit.

Michael Kinsley, who was in 9th grade at Cranbrook that year, says he believes Romney about that. The idea that someone was actually, really homosexual was foreign to them. (I’m reminded of the time, when I was in high school, and the lead singer for Bow Wow Wow came out. A friend of mine said, “She’s only 17, how could she possibly know that?”) He also said that Romney might very well ahve taken it on himself to “police the norms” in the school. The administration encouraged students to do this sort of thing. All of which says to me that Romney isn’t a bad person for having done this. He’s a bad person for never having thought about it again afterward, in addition to all the other reasons he’s a bad person.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@Martin_Hyde

My post was actually one of compassion. It’s basically beyond question (and is supported by the DSM-IV) that if you were born with XY chromosome and male genitalia you’re a man, and believing you’re “really a woman” is a type of mental illness.

I’ve not said all people who feel that way need to be locked up, just like not all schizophrenics need to be locked up. What I have said is the ones who are so far gone they really want to physically mutilate their bodies, to try and change reality to match their delusions, need help. They need help inside of a mental hospital until they can be brought back to some level of functioning without this dangerous desire for self-mutilation.

I think it’s very depressing that, because of political concerns, medical science has essentially given up on trying to do anything to fix the mental illness that is the root of these people’s problems. Instead, the cheap fix (mutilate them so they can happily live their delusions) has basically become the preferred way to fix these people. I’ve mentioned before that in certain extreme circumstances I might be okay with doctors doing these mutilations, but by and large I think they should be prohibited as they violate the core concept of “do no harm” to the patient.

You are either a mediocre troll, or a very small minded idiot.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@RickJay

That said, your general point is of course valid. The problem is not that Mitt Romney was a bully in 1965, it’s that he is a spineless liar in 2012. All politicians lie but this lie is unusually imbecilic and cowardly. It is completely beyond any reasonable person’s capacity for belief that Romney could not remember the incident in question.

Nitpick: it’s possible that Romney is sociopathic, and doesn’t remember sheering the victim while 2+ friends held him down as he screamed for help and teared up. The other perps remember this clearly and it haunts them to this day. But if Romney is wired different than the bulk of us, he truly may not remember. It’s just another day in high school.

But that’s improbable. Occam’s razor favors the lie hypothesis. After all, Romney lies more about stupid shit than most politicians do. Cite.
What was that early 1980s film where a guy had ESP visions of a sociopathic President? Not Scanners… not Altered States Ah! The Dead Zone! Based on the Stephen King novel.

[elucidator]

@Measure_for_Measure

…Based on the Stephen King novel.

Who?

[gamerunknown]

@elucidator

Has this actually been established?

He did come out later, but it’s not established that Romney knew at the time.

@Martin Hyde

I don’t know that I have posts explicitly defending Obamacare.

Sorry, I meant the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

[Steve_MB]

@Martin_Hyde

We didn’t make Quakers or Amish fight in WWI or WWII.

When I see Quakers and Amish demonstrate in favor of the draft (for other people), I’ll want that policy revoked, PDQ.

[BobLibDem]

@elucidator

Something bugging me a little about this. I see the victim referred to as “gay”. Has this actually been established? I remember those years, seems to me that many a young man grew his hair somewhat longer as a ticket to Nookie Heaven. Seems to me that, as I recall, other young men did not like that. Not one little bit.

What? Long hair got you into Nookie Heaven? Why the hell didn’t someone tell me that 40 years ago?

[dngnb8]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Yes, everyone makes mistakes as a kid. They even make mistakes when they are 18 years old, as Romney was when he got some friends to pin down a smaller, younger boy and chopped his hair off.

I don’t believe I ever said it was new and exciting. I believe I am disgusted with how Romney is handling it NOW.

See Below

@Euphonious_Polemic

Apparently you cannot read.

Mitt is not evil.
He did something very unpleasant to someone else when he was a young man. When this is brought up THIS WEEK, his response is to say “I forgot” and to deliver a lame-ass “apology”.
This is what makes him a poor excuse for a man. Not because of what he did as a “kid”, but what he did this week as a man.

See below

@Lochdale

So we’re condemning him for something he may have done as a teenager…yikes.

So no one upset about Obama just fabricating characters in his book or do we let that pass?

See Below

@spooje

So that leaves us with several options.

1. Mitt IS the same bully, and just does a good job of hiding it
2. Mitt has changed and honestly doesn’t remember the event
3. Mitt remembers and regrets the event like his cohorts did, but doesn’t want to admit to it
4. Mitt remembers the event, doesn’t regret it, chalks it up to youthful indiscretion but doesn’t want to admit to it
   **5) Mitt remembers and regrets the event and has been badly advised that he should not admit to it for political reasons

See #5

Unfortunately, partisan hackery wont let this die. Those of you who are “OMG SO UPSET!” at something that happened 30 odd years ago is because youre not voting for him

Had this come out about Obama, and the same thing said, the responses would be flipped. I find the conditional indignation humorous.

[Airbeck]

@dngnb8

Had this come out about Obama, and the same thing said, the responses would be flipped. I find the conditional indignation humorous.

And you’re certain of this how exactly? I find your unfounded assumptions ridiculous.

People are upset at Romney for not owning up and taking responsibility the way an adult is supposed to regarding past actions. Not what he did when he was a teenager, but how he is acting about it NOW. You are incredulous at us because you assume that we would feel differently in some other imaginary scenario you’ve invented in your own brain. That’s absurd. Criticize people for what they actually do and say, not for what you assume that they would do and say in your imaginary theoretical scenario.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

Thanks Airbeck. Could not have said it better myself.

[saoirse]

@Airbeck

And you’re certain of this how exactly? I find your unfounded assumptions ridiculous.

People are upset at Romney for not owning up and taking responsibility the way an adult is supposed to regarding past actions. Not what he did when he was a teenager, but how he is acting about it NOW. You are incredulous at us because you assume that we would feel differently in some other imaginary scenario you’ve invented in your own brain. That’s absurd. Criticize people for what they actually do and say, not for what you assume that they would do and say in your imaginary theoretical scenario.

People are also evaluating him according to it, since you really can’t evaluate his stances on the issues without checking back on him every other week. As Timothy Noahpointed out, despite all the flip-flops on pretty much every economic or cultural issue or attitude,

two themes… have without question remained dominant in Romney’s adult life. One is hair. The other is control.