R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Just as yours have you seeing only what it wants you to.You have seen, your politics just refuse to let you believe it.
Mitt Romney’s campaign calls gay teen bullying report ‘exaggerated’
- Status
S
stevegravy
Guest
Man…just when I got to start thinking Mr. Etch-a-Sketch was a real live flesh and blood kid at one point in his life. Almost had developed some respect for him …You have to go and ruin it by telling me the story is bogus. Now I have to find another way to figure out if Romney is real. Thanks for nothing.
You are AWESOME. I had forgotten these stories.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Just keep in mind that this will be the most historical election of our time. At stake are all the marbles, including at least one and likely two appointments to the SCOTUS. That alone should make up your mind to vote against Obama. Period.
S
SamH
Guest
I really don’t expect you to understand, it goes against your belief system.Are you claiming that asking for identification at the polls is somehow ant-Catholic? If so, I still don’t see the connection. Just trying to figure out what your point, if any, is.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
S
SamH
Guest
Do you have any idea how adoption works?
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
You ask that of an attorney? Your insult only means that I will ignore your posts from now on. And, please ignore mine as well.
Go in peace and serve the Lord.
S
SamH
Guest
Why not? If all you handle are DUI and petty criminal cases how would you know about the adoption process?
Your post indicates you don’t understand the process; I was wondering if you were trying to be facetious. Without government licensing an entity isn’t allowed to operate as an adoption agency for the state. But you knew that - right?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Sam, I like both you and Rich. Because of someone’s post long ago, I know a little something about what Rich does, and I would be thunderstruck if he didn’t know a great deal about adoption. It’s in the nature of what he does.
Since I like to see the two of you duel, it would be a favor to me if neither of you ignored the other.
R
ringil
Guest
You are being dramatic. I have CNN on nearly all the time and I think I heard this whole sillliness mentioned once. Theres’ no conspiracy- there’s no drama. There is no poor targeted Romney.
J
Jerry_Miah
Guest
I will have to add “Human Events” to the list of completely bogus websites (the fact that their writers include names like Limbaugh, Oliver North and Patrick Buchanan says it all). It’s a total falsehood to say “no one seems ready to corroborate the Lauber hair hazing incident” – it’s been totally corroborated, and it wasn’t hazing, it was a bully attack by Mitt Romney leading a gang of bullies with a pair of scissors in his hand. The victim ended up in tears, screaming for help.Let’s just keep this front and center shall we?
The more I thought about this overnight, the more significant it became. Despite this puff piece, I don’t see any big change in Romney. He might not be able to get away with physically bullying, actual assault and battery, anymore, but he now says “I like being able to fire people”. Here’s what Gingrich and Perry said about Romney’s current bullying:
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203436904577151211420780338.html
H
Havard
Guest
I hope you’re right. It’s sad but not uncommon that people buy into hearsay and conjecture. Just look at all the people who think Obama’s a Muslim.
R
ringil
Guest
You are on a first name basis with Romney? Pretty neat- just like the guy next door right?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I would like to address this “government trough” business.
It’s true, a lot of Catholic organizations have accepted grants from the government. All Catholic hospitals accept Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement, which is government money.
But one has to ask whether it’s proper to a free society for government, even so, to go beyond simply ensuring that those entities do what they are set up to do. Do Catholic hospitals provide medical care? Yes. Do Catholic adoption agencies find children and place them with parents? Yes.
But what has happened is that the government (and not just the federal government) have decided that isn’t enough. Those institutions must also follow ideological lines that are not essential to the core function of the institutions. There are hospitals where they don’t provide, say, superspecialized burn care. There are hospitals that won’t do births at all. Nobody in government seems to mind that. But when it comes to contraception and abortion, all of a sudden they’re “essential to health care”. Are we so slow of wit that we can’t see it isn’t the service the governmental entities are so much concerned with as it is ideological conformity.
Under the Indian Child Welfare Act, which I have oddly, had occasion to deal with, the government actually mandates that when it comes to the adoption of a child with the requisite percentage of Indian “blood”, the agency MUST inform the tribal authority and PREFER Indian adoptive parents if the tribal authority can come up with them. And the government aids the process financially, if need be.
A friend of mine who is very wealthy, and his wife, have adopted four children. Because of their religious beliefs they only wanted to adopt children of mixed race, and particularly those who were at risk for fetal alcohol syndrome. Well, children of mixed race when one of the races is black, can be a problem. They have definitely run into problems where Black organizations attempted to block their adoption, and, really, if they did not also opt for at least the potential for disabilities, I think their problems might have been insurmountable. But does the government have a problem with the difficulty white parents sometimes have in adopting black or partially black children? No.
But preferring heterosexual parents who are actually married to each other? Nooooo, we can’t be doing that. Can anybody possibly believe this sort of thing isn’t simply the imposition of an ideological position, having absolutely nothing with the future welfare of the children?
It really isn’t a matter of “being the king’s man, if you take the king’s shilling”, because the king doesn’t mind discriminating in other ways, and, in fact, encourages it in some cases.
But having said that, I will also add that taking government money is always a hazard, though the seriousness of the hazard is now becoming dramatically more evident than was once the case. How did it happen? Well, the decline of religious orders is undoubtedly part of it. But I don’t think that’s all there is to it. In any city of size, one can go around and see the remnants of what were once great Catholic institutions that are something else now. When I was in graduate school, I earned room and board by helping take care of young boys in an orphanage. But that orphanage had fewer and fewer boys, and eventually closed down. Why?
Well, part of it was that there were simply fewer boys. But a good part of it was the ever-increasing state demands as to what the organization had to provide. Regulatory compliance became a bigger and bigger burden. Since the orphanage was entirely supported by donations and diocesan funds, it became ever more expensive to operate. So, in a sense, the state encroached from another direction even though the institution was privately funded.
Something also ought to be said about the taxation level. If one goes around in older parts of cities, one can only marvel at the incredible effort and money it took to build magnificent churches and schools in neighborhoods that were clearly working class neighborhoods. How were those parishes able to afford such structures which even middle class suburbs could not begin to equal now? Where did the “donation money” go?
I think it went to government at all levels, which is another subject.
But even so, it has to be admitted that the Mormons take no government money for their organizations. They’re not even tax exempt. The Amish don’t even take government money as individuals. No Social Security, no Medicare, no nothing.
So, I believe, at least in part, that the Catholic “romance” with government has come to a bad pass. Religious institutions received government money, never realizing that their charitable funding was going away precisely because the governments at all levels were taking that money. And now, governments have those institutions exactly positioned so that they must either become “arms of the government” not only in providing services, but in ideology as well. The only further thing required was a government willing to insist on the ideology, and now we have one.
It’s true, a lot of Catholic organizations have accepted grants from the government. All Catholic hospitals accept Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement, which is government money.
But one has to ask whether it’s proper to a free society for government, even so, to go beyond simply ensuring that those entities do what they are set up to do. Do Catholic hospitals provide medical care? Yes. Do Catholic adoption agencies find children and place them with parents? Yes.
But what has happened is that the government (and not just the federal government) have decided that isn’t enough. Those institutions must also follow ideological lines that are not essential to the core function of the institutions. There are hospitals where they don’t provide, say, superspecialized burn care. There are hospitals that won’t do births at all. Nobody in government seems to mind that. But when it comes to contraception and abortion, all of a sudden they’re “essential to health care”. Are we so slow of wit that we can’t see it isn’t the service the governmental entities are so much concerned with as it is ideological conformity.
Under the Indian Child Welfare Act, which I have oddly, had occasion to deal with, the government actually mandates that when it comes to the adoption of a child with the requisite percentage of Indian “blood”, the agency MUST inform the tribal authority and PREFER Indian adoptive parents if the tribal authority can come up with them. And the government aids the process financially, if need be.
A friend of mine who is very wealthy, and his wife, have adopted four children. Because of their religious beliefs they only wanted to adopt children of mixed race, and particularly those who were at risk for fetal alcohol syndrome. Well, children of mixed race when one of the races is black, can be a problem. They have definitely run into problems where Black organizations attempted to block their adoption, and, really, if they did not also opt for at least the potential for disabilities, I think their problems might have been insurmountable. But does the government have a problem with the difficulty white parents sometimes have in adopting black or partially black children? No.
But preferring heterosexual parents who are actually married to each other? Nooooo, we can’t be doing that. Can anybody possibly believe this sort of thing isn’t simply the imposition of an ideological position, having absolutely nothing with the future welfare of the children?
It really isn’t a matter of “being the king’s man, if you take the king’s shilling”, because the king doesn’t mind discriminating in other ways, and, in fact, encourages it in some cases.
But having said that, I will also add that taking government money is always a hazard, though the seriousness of the hazard is now becoming dramatically more evident than was once the case. How did it happen? Well, the decline of religious orders is undoubtedly part of it. But I don’t think that’s all there is to it. In any city of size, one can go around and see the remnants of what were once great Catholic institutions that are something else now. When I was in graduate school, I earned room and board by helping take care of young boys in an orphanage. But that orphanage had fewer and fewer boys, and eventually closed down. Why?
Well, part of it was that there were simply fewer boys. But a good part of it was the ever-increasing state demands as to what the organization had to provide. Regulatory compliance became a bigger and bigger burden. Since the orphanage was entirely supported by donations and diocesan funds, it became ever more expensive to operate. So, in a sense, the state encroached from another direction even though the institution was privately funded.
Something also ought to be said about the taxation level. If one goes around in older parts of cities, one can only marvel at the incredible effort and money it took to build magnificent churches and schools in neighborhoods that were clearly working class neighborhoods. How were those parishes able to afford such structures which even middle class suburbs could not begin to equal now? Where did the “donation money” go?
I think it went to government at all levels, which is another subject.
But even so, it has to be admitted that the Mormons take no government money for their organizations. They’re not even tax exempt. The Amish don’t even take government money as individuals. No Social Security, no Medicare, no nothing.
So, I believe, at least in part, that the Catholic “romance” with government has come to a bad pass. Religious institutions received government money, never realizing that their charitable funding was going away precisely because the governments at all levels were taking that money. And now, governments have those institutions exactly positioned so that they must either become “arms of the government” not only in providing services, but in ideology as well. The only further thing required was a government willing to insist on the ideology, and now we have one.
H
Havard
Guest
That just gave me an amazing idea…You are on a first name basis with Romney? Pretty neat- just like the guy next door right?
He needs to sing “Romney from the Block”, a parody of “Jenny from the Block” as guest host on SNL.
R
rlg94086
Guest
I was wondering if this was getting much TV play, since I don’t watch. It sounds like it’s only of interest to political wonks.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
There is something amusing about seeing a liberal, who would otherwise discount every single thing they would say, citing conservatives as authorities.
Yes, we know you don’t think the story is unraveling, and we know you want people to think it tells everythign there is to know about Mitt Romney’s character. We get that.
So, when are you going to start your deep, psychological evaluation of Obama’s assault on the girl he “admitted to” assaulting in his book? If that had been Romney, there is not the least doubt in my mind you would have interpreted him into being a wife-beater and a rapist by now.
So, when are you going to analyze Obama’s assault on the girl? Are you going to dedicate as much time to that as you have to this?
Or are you motivated by hate for Republicans, not by a desire to intimately evaluate the early experiences and misdeeds of presidential candidates?
R
ringil
Guest
Just not “juicy” enough. Now if Romney were wearing a chicken suit when he cut the other kid’s hair- maybe with a giant novelty pair of scissors. - BINGO! PRIME TIME!!I was wondering if this was getting much TV play, since I don’t watch. It sounds like it’s only of interest to political wonks.
G
gilliam
Guest
Please note one of the reasons the Lauber family is so upset is that this amounts to an “outing” of John. Remember, there is absolutely no evidence he was a homosexual. How would you like it if this happened to someone in your family and they are not around to defend themselves? And why? to what purpose do you destroy the memory of another human being?
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Washington Post Romney Hit Piece Implodes
Sometime in the mid-1990s, David Seed noticed a familiar face at the end of a bar at Chicago O’Hare International Airport.
“Hey, you’re John Lauber,” Seed recalled saying at the start of a brief conversation. Seed, also among those who witnessed the Romney-led incident, had gone on to a career as a teacher and principal. Now he had something to get off his chest.
“I’m sorry that I didn’t do more to help in the situation,” he said.
Lauber paused, then responded, “It was horrible.” He went on to explain how frightened he was during the incident, and acknowledged to Seed, “It’s something I have thought about a lot since then.”
Lauber died in 2004, according to his three sisters.
But Lauber, at least according to his obituary in the South Bend Tribune, led an incredibly full life. He graduated from Vanderbilt, became a member of the British Horse Society, had his seaman papers, was a licensed mortician in three states and head chef at the Russian River Resort in California, and even served as a civilian contractor to the troops in Iraq. This does not sound like someone crippled by a supposedly crucial incident back in high school.
breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/05/10/Washington-Post-Hit-Piece-Implodes
piece implies that the Romney incident was somehow the beginning of the end for Lauber:
Sometime in the mid-1990s, David Seed noticed a familiar face at the end of a bar at Chicago O’Hare International Airport.
“Hey, you’re John Lauber,” Seed recalled saying at the start of a brief conversation. Seed, also among those who witnessed the Romney-led incident, had gone on to a career as a teacher and principal. Now he had something to get off his chest.
“I’m sorry that I didn’t do more to help in the situation,” he said.
Lauber paused, then responded, “It was horrible.” He went on to explain how frightened he was during the incident, and acknowledged to Seed, “It’s something I have thought about a lot since then.”
Lauber died in 2004, according to his three sisters.
But Lauber, at least according to his obituary in the South Bend Tribune, led an incredibly full life. He graduated from Vanderbilt, became a member of the British Horse Society, had his seaman papers, was a licensed mortician in three states and head chef at the Russian River Resort in California, and even served as a civilian contractor to the troops in Iraq. This does not sound like someone crippled by a supposedly crucial incident back in high school.
breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/05/10/Washington-Post-Hit-Piece-Implodes
- Status