This'll probably escalate quickly

[churchmouse]

And what good are traditions and standards if they are wrong? Is it liberty if we determine for others how they must dress and wear their hair?

The dress code I remember had teeth and it worked. Kids dressed nicely. No jeans, creased pants and shirts with collars. Shoes were tasseled loafers, penny loafers or wingtips. No tennis shoes. Young ladies dressed as such, young ladies.
This is no different than the dress code in the workplace. It set a standard. I also do not believe it had a freaking thing to do with liberty. Kids, young adults need to have standards set for them . If not you have mayhem.
Schools are for learning (well, supposed to be anyway) and not fashion shows for freaks.

 

[edporch]

Quote:
Originally Posted by edporch
Quote:
Originally Posted by edporch
I have no use for Mitt Romney but this is a NON-STORY.

Let's look at the time frame this supposedly happened.

I remember DISTINCTLY that in 1965, long hair on males was NOT something accepted by many.

It was not uncommon for them to get "haircuts" against their will, and it was common in those days to say that a guy with long hair "must be queer".

I remember in 7th and 8th grade in the '68-'69 time frame, there were a couple of guy who were friends (definitely NOT gay) who both had long "hippy" like hair.

There were many guys who talked about grabbing these guys and cutting their hair.

I remember myself even saying jokingly to use Nair so it would take more time to grown back!

To add more historical context to this, it was well into the early 1970's that even the high school yearbook would tell guys their hair was too long in their Senior Picture and they needed to get a haircut and have it taken again.




The lack of historical context that people who are too young to remember 1965 is where this "story" is aimed.

And what good are traditions and standards if they are wrong? Is it liberty if we determine for others how they must dress and wear their hair?

I'm NOT making the case that it is OK, ONLY that in 1965 and for some time after, that's the way society was about long hair on men.

 

[churchmouse]

Quote:
Originally Posted by edporch
Quote:
Originally Posted by edporch
I have no use for Mitt Romney but this is a NON-STORY.

Let's look at the time frame this supposedly happened.

I remember DISTINCTLY that in 1965, long hair on males was NOT something accepted by many.

It was not uncommon for them to get "haircuts" against their will, and it was common in those days to say that a guy with long hair "must be queer".

I remember in 7th and 8th grade in the '68-'69 time frame, there were a couple of guy who were friends (definitely NOT gay) who both had long "hippy" like hair.

There were many guys who talked about grabbing these guys and cutting their hair.

I remember myself even saying jokingly to use Nair so it would take more time to grown back!

To add more historical context to this, it was well into the early 1970's that even the high school yearbook would tell guys their hair was too long in their Senior Picture and they needed to get a haircut and have it taken again.




The lack of historical context that people who are too young to remember 1965 is where this "story" is aimed.





I'm NOT making the case that it is OK, ONLY that in 1965 and for some time after, that's the way society was about long hair on men.

Rode to Key West Florida in 1971 to see my grand parents and to experience the Easy Rider life style. Yes the movie. I had built my first Harley and except for all the chrome and paint it was a lot like the captain America bike in the movie. I had the ultra long hair etc. Folks in Georgia and Alabama did not take kindly to me because of the hair (and the bike but mainly the hair). More than a few fist fights due to this. This may be a bit off topic but it was a real issue in those times.

 

[hornadylnl]

Truthfully, No better or less than the ability of the story as reported to hold up in a court of law. Let's see, the victim (the only person that can truly attest to the act) is DEAD and unable to corroborate (convenient at the least), only 5 people out of how many attest to the act (how many people out of anyone's past could be found to say some bad things about them, especially if paid nicely), the alleged victims family is staying conspicuously away from this, the alleged victim's family says that he was not gay and out of all the time that Romney has been running for office either Governor or President this is JUST NOW coming out? PUHHHLEEEEASE!!!

NO self respecting Prosecutor would go anywhere near a court with this. Why? Because if cannot be proved or disproved.

There are ceremonies (and other things like this) being conducted in colleges and universities as well as other organizations across this country right now that make this look like the kid got a "Hurts Donut". I am 50 years old and I can tell you with 100% certainty that there were kids all across this country back when that got their hair forcibly cut for any number of reasons, not the least of which was because they had the audacity to grow their hair long. And as someone else said, there is FAR worse going on in the school yard today.

If you want to assign believability to this story based on the fact that he did not vehemently deny it, why do companies (and people) settle out of court even when they have done nothing wrong? You don't waste time (and/or money) trying to prove a negative. Especially when it is ONE story. The stronger and more frequently Romney denies and spends time on this, the less time he spends on issues. And the more and harder he denies it the more the lapdog media will chase it. Get it?? It's a sparkly thing for them as well.

Do I think that the story as told is true? No idea. But looking at the way the man's family is handling it, I would guess no. Do I think this could possibly be manufactured to present another sparkly thing to be chased by those that have little ability to apply critical thinking and are looking for anything hold against the opponent? I don't discount the possibility. Because either could be the case do I WASTE time, energy and brain power on it? Not even close. Except to read parts of this thread for it's potential entertainment in watching those that do.

Be careful chasing sparkly things. The next one just might have a hook in it.

I get all of that perfectly fine. I just want to know how everyone knows with absolute certainy that the event never took place. This story/non story makes no difference on my opinion of Romney. I just want to know where I can get a crystal ball that some are using to say that it didn't happen.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I get all of that perfectly fine. I just want to know how everyone knows with absolute certainy that the event never took place. This story/non story makes no difference on my opinion of Romney. I just want to know where I can get a crystal ball that some are using to say that it didn't happen.

I understand your point, but it happened in 1965! Who the hell cares? This is purely a case of "the politics of personal destruction" and we play into the Progressives' hands by even having the discussion.

If you don't like Romney's politics and political past, that's fine; you're either going to vote for him or you're not. You probably don't want to be judged on what you did in your teens, and I don't want to judge you because it DOESN"T MATTER 40 years later!

Let's ignore this bull**** and concentrate on the true issues that should define this election. We have two politicians with verifiable records of accomplishment (or not) that we can use to judge between them (or to reject both of them, if we so choose). These personal issues are pure and simple distractions to keep us concentrating on the wrong things.

 

[strahd71]

I understand your point, but it happened in 1965! Who the hell cares? This is purely a case of "the politics of personal destruction" and we play into the Progressives' hands by even having the discussion.

If you don't like Romney's politics and political past, that's fine; you're either going to vote for him or you're not. You probably don't want to be judged on what you did in your teens, and I don't want to judge you because it DOESN"T MATTER 40 years later!

Let's ignore this bull**** and concentrate on the true issues that should define this election. We have two politicians with verifiable records of accomplishment (or not) that we can use to judge between them (or to reject both of them, if we so choose). These personal issues are pure and simple distractions to keep us concentrating on the wrong things.

good post!

jake

 

[hornadylnl]

I understand your point, but it happened in 1965! Who the hell cares? This is purely a case of "the politics of personal destruction" and we play into the Progressives' hands by even having the discussion.

If you don't like Romney's politics and political past, that's fine; you're either going to vote for him or you're not. You probably don't want to be judged on what you did in your teens, and I don't want to judge you because it DOESN"T MATTER 40 years later!

Let's ignore this bull**** and concentrate on the true issues that should define this election. We have two politicians with verifiable records of accomplishment (or not) that we can use to judge between them (or to reject both of them, if we so choose). These personal issues are pure and simple distractions to keep us concentrating on the wrong things.

I DON'T CARE. I just want to know how Kirk and others know with absolute certainty that the event never took place.

Also, it seems that many Romney supporters don't want to discuss the true issues with Romney's policies as they only make him look bad.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I DON'T CARE. I just want to know how Kirk and others know with absolute certainty that the event never took place.

Also, it seems that many Romney supporters don't want to discuss the true issues with Romney's policies as they only make him look bad.

I think you misunderstand. Most of us here didn't pick Romney as our first-choice candidate (or second, or third or fourth, for that matter), but since he appears to be the alternative to Obama, some of us feel we need to hold our noses and vote for him. Would I prefer to have a more conservative candidate? Certainly, but I don't have one, it appears, so I will do the same thing the rest of us will do, I'll make a choice and stick to it. To that end, I don't care what the MSM or other Obama cheerleaders have to say about Romney; I'M voting against OBAMA. And I'm going to vote for as many conservative candidates as I can to help rein in any of Romney's statist tendencies. That's what I'm stuck with and that's what I'm going to do.

 

[hornadylnl]

I think you misunderstand. Most of us here didn't pick Romney as our first-choice candidate (or second, or third or fourth, for that matter), but since he appears to be the alternative to Obama, some of us feel we need to hold our noses and vote for him. Would I prefer to have a more conservative candidate? Certainly, but I don't have one, it appears, so I will do the same thing the rest of us will do, I'll make a choice and stick to it. To that end, I don't care what the MSM or other Obama cheerleaders have to say about Romney; I'M voting against OBAMA. And I'm going to vote for as many conservative candidates as I can to help rein in any of Romney's statist tendencies. That's what I'm stuck with and that's what I'm going to do.

And I think you misunderstand. All I want to know is how some that bash Obama for every little issue (true or not) can know with absolute certainty that this story about Romney is true or not. It'd be nice for once if people could take their Party blinders off for one moment and look at something objectively for once.

 

[Jack Burton]

I get all of that perfectly fine. I just want to know how everyone knows with absolute certainy that the event never took place. This story/non story makes no difference on my opinion of Romney. I just want to know where I can get a crystal ball that some are using to say that it didn't happen.

2nd time around asking you to back up where you think INGO members posted that they "knows with absolute certainy that the event never took place. "

 

[churchmouse]

2nd time around asking you to back up where you think INGO members posted that they "knows with absolute certainy that the event never took place. "

It was brought up early in the thread. Folks get stuck...this will pass.

 

[Jack Burton]

It was brought up early in the thread. Folks get stuck...this will pass.

Now... it's more than possible that I overlooked where someone posted close to "knows with absolute certainy that the event never took place." or thereabouts... but I don't think so.

I think that it is just hornadylnl pulling stuff out of his a**. I could be wrong... but I don't think so.

I don't mind a good debate... but when one side feels free to make up stuff and put it in the fingers of other posters I am going to call them on it every time.

Since he is prone to do that, he tends to get called on it a lot by me.

 

[hornadylnl]

It is almost as if this story is a complete fabrication.

Sister of Alleged Romney Target Has ‘No Knowledge’ of Any Bullying Incident - ABC News

Draw and STRIKE!

When will we hear about the bullying Obama did?

Before society became a bunch of blissninnies, pranks such as this were routine. Heck even the popular culture relected this attitude--ever watch the Three Stooges, old Disney movies, or the Bowery Boys?

Boys did certain things--played sports, wrestled, chewed gum and passed notes in class, or played pranks on other boys. No one made a federal case of it, it was simply stopped, the boys were told to stop "horsing around" and get back to work.

The Romney case is concerning because:

1. It is a complete work of fiction which only transpired in the mind of David Axelrod while in his condo on Lake Michigan.

2. If it were true, it shows how weak and degraded American society has become when we are concerned with the pranks of high school boys. Weak little girls in the media run our society and we need to change that.

What is also outrageous is that the media makes a front page story over a fake haircut when Barack Obama's self-confessed shoving a girl in school draws zero attention.

Now that the story is proven a fraud, the Media does not want anyone to know about their fraud. MSNBC cuts off microphone of conservative pundit:

Video: MSNBC cuts conservative’s mic when he calls out media coverage of Romney “bully” story « Hot Air

Of course it is a complete fabrication. It is what Axelrod does.

He made up a cargo ship full of nonsense about Jack Ryan and the media let him get away with it as: 1) Axelrod is one of them, 2) Axelrod is on the side of angels as far as the media is concerned.



Can we stipulate that not every touching is a battery?

Can we agree that high school boys are full of juice and sometimes do silly things?

Can we agree that fighting with a girl as Obama admits to is far, far worse?

Can we agree that this incident only happened in the living room of David Axelrod's lakeside condo?

Jack Ryan was married to Jeri Ryan and then it is a complete fabrication from there.

Mitt Romney was born alive and then went to prep school, complete fabrication from there.



Because Jack Ryan did not fight. He stood there and smiled and was overwhelmed by Axelrod and the Chicago Way.

This is the Chicago Way. I only lived there for 3 years but I learned that the proper response is not to stand there and smile and to punch back thrice as hard.

Correct, the burden in on those that accuse Romney of this behavior.



Do not need any proof as the creators of this fiction have the burden and it fell apart very quickly, within 24 hours.

Part of the valid criticism of the Republican party is that they just roll over, a la Jack Ryan when he was subject to an Axelrod work of fiction. Romney should not go down the same road.

Now... it's more than possible that I overlooked where someone posted close to "knows with absolute certainy that the event never took place." or thereabouts... but I don't think so.

I think that it is just hornadylnl pulling stuff out of his a**. I could be wrong... but I don't think so.

I don't mind a good debate... but when one side feels free to make up stuff and put it in the fingers of other posters I am going to call them on it every time.

Since he is prone to do that, he tends to get called on it a lot by me.

How do you like your crow cooked? If you took your f'in blinders off for 2 seconds instead of following me around trying to find something to pick a bone with me about, you wouldn't be talking out of your 4th point of contact.

 

[Smokepole]

I get all of that perfectly fine. I just want to know how everyone knows with absolute certainty that the event never took place. This story/non story makes no difference on my opinion of Romney. I just want to know where I can get a crystal ball that some are using to say that it didn't happen.

Quote:[ I DON'T CARE. I just want to know how Kirk and others know with absolute certainty that the event never took place.

Also, it seems that many Romney supporters don't want to discuss the true issues with Romney's policies as they only make him look bad. ]

Jesus, will you pleeeeease give it a rest. EVERYONE is not saying that they know with "absolute certainty that the event never happened." What they are saying is that the story can't be proven true nor even false, it is only one supposed event and as such doesn't merit any more attention. The only person other than Romney that can give absolute testimony and be the most believable IS DEAD. He can't help. In addition, it is only ONE such event. We have nothing else to show anything even resembling a trend. A second - first - year law student (hell, even I) could shoot enough holes in this story to make it look like a blizzard fence. But, SOME PEOPLE insist on belaboring the point. You say that you "DON'T CARE", yet you refuse to let the thing go, to the point that you remind me of a Terrier with a chew toy. You keep shaking your head and growling, but just can't put the thing down. You appear to WANT something to be able to hang your dislike for Romney on and will take anything no matter how vague and/or believable.

Not to pick on you specifically, you were just the most recent vociferous. There are others. Let's put this thing in perspective, in the grand scheme of things, on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the equivalent of World War, plague, famine and total economic collapse, where would this story and it's believability/accuracy/impact rate? On my scale it would be somewhere around ohhhhhhh -263. Crap, even that would probably be a bit high.

 

[Smokepole]

Democrats pounce on story of

Yep, OP, this did escalate quite hurriedly. Good call. Was fun to watch too.

 

[rambone]

Romney's character is weak. He has no real principles to temper his decisions.

His apparent fidelity to his family and his faith speaks volumes of his character.

Obama is a good family man too.

He either doesn't understand capitalism or he rejects it.

His business success to date would also tend to reject your assertion.

Getting rich doesn't mean you understand capitalism. He's been the recipient of Federal bailouts.

His advocacy of increasing the Federal minimum wage and supporting TARP further my point. He's a corporatist, not a capitalist.

He endorses theft against taxpayers through federal bailouts. I've watched him advocate against virtually every one of the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution.

Possibly. Though as a Governor of a hyper-liberal state, I also take in consideration that a number of his actions were either forced upon him, or he did so for political expediency/survival.

Liberals didn't take his arm and make him sign his name on all his hyper-liberal laws. That's a cop-out and not a sign of a leader, or a man of strong character. He's weak.

 

[Kutnupe14]

How do you like your crow cooked? If you took your f'in blinders off for 2 seconds instead of following me around trying to find something to pick a bone with me about, you wouldn't be talking out of your 4th point of contact.

The interwebz jargon for the beatdown just posted by Hornadylnl, is OWND/PWND!

Jack?

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Rambone -

If I remember correctly, Romney did not receive Federal bailouts. Bain Capital did. Long after he left and had no control over it. There are two companies that the media love to mesh into one as well (Bain Capital vs Bain Consulting).

I don't have the timeline at hand but I'm sure it's out there. I believe that the "government bailout" line is an Axelrod twist of the truth.

 

[Ted]

Obama is a good family man too.

Possibly. Though I have some lingering questions to that regard.

However, the statement to which I responded, was only that of Romney.

Getting rich doesn't mean you understand capitalism. He's been the recipient of Federal bailouts.

His advocacy of increasing the Federal minimum wage and supporting TARP further my point. He's a corporatist, not a capitalist.

He acted in the best interest of himself, his company, and of his investors. He engaged in decisions that have turned a profit for both in largely ethical and to the best of my knowledge, by legal means. He's taken advantages over competition, and succeeded in a market that largely doesn't suffer fools.

By all accounts and definitions, he has demonstrated himself as a capitalist.

Liberals didn't take his arm and make him sign his name on all his hyper-liberal laws. That's a cop-out and not a sign of a leader, or a man of strong character. He's weak.

Please direct me to one politician that hasn't compromised via means in some manner, to accomplish a perceived greater good. His very willingness to rise to the challenge and take the reigns of Governor of an ultra liberal state, demonstrates both leadership and and character.

Uncompromising cowardice by not facing difficult challenges, is more a character flaw.

 

[Hotdoger]

Obama is a good family man too.


.

Homosexual activity and also having several girlfriends while you are married makes one a "good family man" ?