Romney the Bully

I was going to ask if you had anything to say about what Romney did, or if you were here just to toss in a tu quoque, but I noticed you did say this: Does this mean that you simply brush Romney leading a group in an assault with a potentially deadly weapon, an action he won't admit he did or genuinely apologize for, as "boys will be boys?"

So when asked if you want to address the actual topic of this thread, you pile red herrings on top of your tu quoque. I guess that answers my question. It isn't, but we all know that reality never colors your political thinking anyway, do don't let that stop you now. Either that or we don't think something like a little drug use is a foible. But again, that would be reality interfering with your fantasy life. Oh, you mean like you trotting out Obama's drug use to try to divert attention from a felonious assault by Romney, for which he was not punished in the least amount?

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

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

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