Romney the Bully

Well, if it is indicative of his character now, then it's significant, and if it isn't then it isn't. And the way to find that out is to look at his character now, which is what we were planning to do anyway.

No it isn't.Really, at what point in the progress of a fire does it become too late to blame it on the arsonist? But this is plainly not true because things are in fact better. You may wish to fantasize that if McCain had been President things would be even ... uh ... betterer ... knock yourself out, there's no law against wishful thinking. But you can't say that Obama's made things worse, because things are not in fact worse.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So is assault.

Well, that's quite an accurate description. But maybe a little too accurate for comfort, so let's start parsing it. It wasn't because he was gay, it was just because he appeared to be gay. Unless you have a signed affidavit from your victim stating that he's gay and signed by a notary public, then technically you are not doing it "because you hate gays", you're doing it because you hate people whom you suspect of being gay.See, Romney would have done exactly the same thing even if his victim was in fact completely straight and Romney just thought he was gay --- so how can Romney's actions be construed as homophobia? which involves hating on people who have been proven gay beyond reasonable doubt.Why, you might as well accuse a man of being anti-semitic because he beat up a guy whom he thought was Jewish. Unless before the beating the victim showed his attackers a certificate of his judaism signed by his rabbi, that's not anti-semitism at all. Perhaps his attackers were motivated by his hebraic nose, his olive complexion, and the fact that his name was Joshua Goldstein, but they weren't anti-semitic unless he proved to them, before they attacked him, that he was Jewish. Mere circumstantial evidence may have been enough for them to beat the crap out of him, but it's not enough to prove that they're anti-semitic.

Sometimes I make an effort to mock an idiot, and sometimes I just need to quote him.

Psychopaths are always outraged when their victims complain. This is because psychopaths are mad in the head. "I only led a mob to assault the bitch, and now s/he dares to tell people that I did so. This is so unfair on me. Boohoo! Boohoo!"This attitude does not lead normal people, such as myself, to cry: "OMG, a psychopath's feeling have been hurt! Call a whaaaambulance immediately! Let us give the poor little psychopath the tenderest care, because his delicate self-esteem has been so severely damaged by someone accurately describing what he did."

I am. I usually am: my record on being right is good, though I say it myself. And yet that was not what I said, as you would know if ... well, if you were able to read things written in the English language, a faculty which you appear to have abandoned in the course of your quest to exonerate a criminal assault.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

What I said was: "And yet that was not what I said, as you would know if ... well, if you were able to read things written in the English language, a faculty which you appear to have abandoned in the course of your quest to exonerate a criminal assault."I might be able to put some of that into shorter words, if necessary. Which bits of it are giving you trouble?

I cannot explain your own statements to you. You're on your own there. No.What I said was (let me provide subtitles for the hard of thinking) that it is stupid to exonerate a man of a hate crime on the grounds that he was not absolutely certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that his victim was a member of the group that he was attempting to victimize.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Your state of bewilderment would be of more concern to me if I was a member of your family or a close friend.

Now, does that sound like me?

Weren't we discussing Mitt Romney?

Really?So in Entrerese, "bitch" = someone who does not think that the delicate egos of psychopaths should be protected by a conspiracy of silence concerning their crimes. In this respect at least the adjective "normal" would seem to cover it.

Quite so. Romney merely broke the law for no purpose except to cause distress to others. If that was a character flaw, we'd have to suppose that there was also something wrong with being a sadistic serial killer --- an obvious reductio ad absurdum.But some people have informed you that this is what Romney has done. Some have even suggested that it puts him in a bad light. This is despicable behavior. Even that most lowly of criminals, a district attorney, only degrades himself in this way because he is paid to; the man who would do it for free clearly has some sort of personality disorder, though one that has so far eluded the compilers of the DSM.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Let's be accurate, he suppressed the entire guide, not just the passages he objected to. Rather than help LGBT people, he decided not to help anyone.