Yep, and I can see the Middle East as Romney's "specific hallway," and him running around it with Carriers, insisting on military haircuts for everybody, or else.
not quite sure how you extrapolate one person's childhood reactions, in this case mine, to make it applicable to anyone else or the world.
That's one of the saddest things I've ever read. I feel sorry that your experiences caused you to have to live like that, because it's not right and it was not fair to you.
The Middle East? He sees most of the US (and her residents) as products and market.
Yeah, Shadow, you kind of relegated your bullies to plot devices in your lifestory--which, as a coping mechanism, probably served your childself well--but they were whole human beings with their own stories, many of whom doubtless terrorized others and some of whom may even have grown up and gone into politics. The sort of "that's the way it's always been done" is what stymies so many of the current attempts to combat bullying. And while we may not be able to go back in a time machine to do anything about Mitt's bullying, we can address his current attitude that this sort of thing is par for the course.
Is this one of those sits where a pipe isn't really a pipe?
This was the point I was reiterating. Sorry if things got too personal.
Well, you guys must be as old as dirt, because I'm almost 50, and the word "bullying" was indeed used regularly when I was in school and had to deal with them, by parents, kids, teachers, school administrators, and even the cops they used to trot into elementary school classes to give us law and order pep talks -- including talks about how to deal with bullies. The word had not somehow been lost to the English language by the time I got into high school, either.
I wouldn't dispute anyone's past experience. The only thing I'll challenge is the suggestion that a thing that was no biggie back in the day should continue to be no biggie now. My view is that, as I said, the class as moved on. We've learned.
That is a very dangerous attitude to take, Williebee.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I interpret what you are saying is if the behavior was not considered outrageous in which it occurred because it was acceptable or normal at that time, you are not outraged by it now.
I disagree with that perspective. Wrong is wrong and merely because homophobic harassment was considered normal when Mitt Romney was a teenager, it still doesn't make it right. Some things don't need the progression of time and the growth of enlightenment to go from acceptable to unacceptable behavior
Case in point:
Segregation was not simply the law in the South, it was part of the customs and cultures of the South. Nobody saw anything wrong with calling a fully grown Negro a "boy" or worse. There was nothing outrageous about White men putting a darkie who had forgotten his place and gotten uppity back in his place. Often violently and sometimes fatally.
I don't think Mitt's high school hijinks are all that important. Maybe he did forget (I don't know how) and maybe he was just a rich, pampered brat who was a prick toward gay classmates.
What I do believe is important is Mitt's lack of empathy and inability to relate to how human beings are affected adversely when "their betters" choose to play with them like toys. Mittens does not relate to ordinary Americans in a way that even for most wealthy men, he is ill-suited to represent the millions of citizens who weren't born with a silver spoon stuck up their ass.
Mitt may win, but he will never relate.
