Romney the Bully

That's because he's not here to defend Romney. He's here to try to divert attention from Romney.

Whilst I would agree that this banging on relentlessly about some teenage bullying decades ago is a piece of political theatre, and not at all relevant, it's not at all the same as Obama's drug use. The simplest reason being that bullying is something we all consider wrong, whilst drug use is something most of us have no problem with, and some of us engage in ourselves.The US needs some big group of Republican congressmen coming out and saying they used to smoke weed, like a bunch of leading Conservative Party MPs did in the UK when terrifying reactionary Ann Widdecombe proposed some draconian crackdown or other. It would be cathartic.

They need to decriminalize or legalize it.But the anti-drug war is a big business now, so don't look for that any time soon.

And yet here you are, trying to distract us from conduct by Romney that no reasonable person would find defensible with conduct by Obama that you yourself think should be decriminalized.Wow, the cognitive dissonance is strong in this one.Edited by subbie, : Tyop

It's funny. This is one of the few topics that I see lots of support for amongst both the far right and the "liberal commies," and yet the idea is absolutely untouchable for any politician.Just seems to show that, as you say, "big business" is what drives the law, not the people.

No, it's actually a felony to gather a mob to attack someone with a pair of scissors because you think he's gay. It's not a "schoolyard prank", it was an act of gaybashing that apparently had a long-term effect on everyone but the sociopath who instigated it.

So is assault.

...with a deadly weapon. Scissors stab and cut, after all.And interfering with the access of a member of a protected class (even if he's only perceived to be gay, he doesn't actually have to be homosexual) to a school (through extreme intimidation and assault on the premises) on the basis of membership in that protected class (attacking a gay guy for being gay) would qualify as a hate crime, nowadays.

Hi, Rahvin. Honestly, tacking on "with a deadly weapon" kind of comes off as an attempt at sensationalism. What he did was bad enough already: there's no need to try to make it sound like attempted murder or something.

Perhaps.But at the same time, I guarantee you that there are prosecutors who would not hesitate to file just that kind of charge in exactly that situation (not against someone with Mittens's kind of money, of course). I've seen prosecutors try to enhance a charge for use of a deadly weapon when the "weapon" was a roll of duct tape. And, if the history of the assailant includes threats of violence against the victim before the scissors incident, I might even be inclined to think that a felony charge would be warranted. We have heard that Mittens engaged in some kind of harassing behavior before the scissors incident.Edited by subbie, : Subtitle

Hi Blue Jay If he had used a knife to cut the hair would it be different? Remember that intimidation is a part of bullying.But I agree that murder was not part of the intent -- injury was, whether physical or mental is irrelevant.Enjoy.

Hi, Subbie. For sure: it meets the technical, legal definition well enough, and of course any prosecutor should try for the highest charge possible.But, that's not a good strategy in a debate when you know the opposition isn't going to negotiate with you for a lesser charge. "Enhancing the charge," in this case, is only going to polarize the debate more and make the good argument (that Mitt Romney showed poor character in bullying and in not owning up to it) get lost in exaggerations.

Yet it's what he actually did. He assaulted a person, not simply with his fists, but with a deadly weapon. Thats not the intent at all - there is, in fact, a charge called "attempted murder." If the intent was to make it sound liek Romney tried to kill someone, I would have suggested that actual charge.Assault with a Deadly Weapon does not require intent to kill. If I shoot you with a gun in the leg, intentionally to wound, I have still assaulted you with a deadly weapon. If I stab you in the hand with a knife with the intent only to wound you, I have assaulted you with a deadly weapon.Romney committed an assault, and he used a deadly weapon in the commission of that assault. It's not "charging up," it's what actually happened. It's the real, appropriate charge, as well as the sentence increase that comes with the assault being a hate crime.

A voter is allowed to take into consideration any actions of the candidates.If Coyote doesn't want to take into consideration a hate-crime assault with a deadly weapon, then he sure doesn't have to.But that don't mean the rest of us will also ignore it.

I just thought it prudent to point out a few things to no one person in particular...At age 17, neural activity is fundimentally different then it is a decade later. Neural pathway development, hormonal levels, fundimental brain chemestry, even the location of common activity is different. In terms of how he thought as a 17 y/o verses how he thinks presant day, neurologicly, these are two distinctly different people.In fact, the brain isnt even fully developed into an adult brain by 17.Of course, that is not to say that actions at this age or earlier should be completely disregarded, they are often times indicaters of behavior patters, neurosis, psychosis, and/or developmental issues. But neither are they absolutes.In my youth, I percieved a threat from a classmate of mine (a friend at the time). I thought he was going to punch me in the arm, so I lunged at him and drove a pencil into his left eye, broke it off, and thought nothing of it.(They saved his eye and he fully recovered.)I am not the same person I once was.My argument of personal incredulity...