Asshole.

if we're going to focus on what people did when they were in HS or College, it's going to be a loser for sure

If he killed or raped someone while posing as a police officer, that would be relevant

by serial rapists and murderers???

Right.

I'm sure Rmoney thanks you for your support.

It's one thing to focus on the behavior, it's another to start discussing the criminality.

What he did is creepy. It is the behavior of a rapist and serial killers. Very Ted Bundy like

When you start getting into the weeds talking about it being a crime, you're going to have people ask about the criminality of doing drugs and then you've lost the argument because the discussion wil, then, focus on which crime actually does more harm...drugs or impersonating a police officer as a "joke"

Ever been pulled over? Even for an infraction or for nothing at all, it's a bit intimidating.

Ever talked to someone who's high on pot? That level of intimidation really just isn't there - pot smokers are not authority figures operating under the color of law enforcement. A pot smoker can't threaten you with arrest, demand your ID or stop your car merely by the authority granted by smoking pot.

When you bought your bag of weed or an 8ball, did you think about anyone who might have been murdered in the course of your purchase being available?

I never thought of it because I knew the guy I got my stuff from and he didn't kill people but I know the people who supplied him weren't nice guys who shy away from murdering him if he came up short and I know the people who supplied them probably murdered more than 1 person in the course of business.

Either that, or you're just unable to form a coherent argument other than hand-waving about "drugs are bad, mmmmmkay?"

I'm all for the legalization of pot but I'm under no illusion that buying an 8ball isn't directly supporting the murder of people

More hand-waving and propaganda from you. No one is buying what you're trying to sell. Get back to me when you can form a response that addresses my points.

people who smoke pot aren't intimidating, great.

What about the people murdered in the distribution and supply of pot and cocaine? Do we ignore that aspect?
You talk about the criminality of impersonating a police officer, people will bring up the criminality of doing cocaine and the criminal enterprises it supports.

Dressing up like a cop is not smoking a joint.

Want to discuss drug policy? Start a thread about it. Stop dragging your pet into this. Makes you look weak-minded and silly.

I'm not discussing drug policy, I'm pointing out you stick to the BEHAVIOR and avoid the criminal aspect. People know it's a crime, why bring it up?

You bring up criminal acts, it's very easy to change the subject away from the behavior to criminal acts.
Penn, from Penn and Teller has already done this with his little rant from his mother's basement. Focusing on how casusal Obama was in discussing his drug use, while people sit in prison for doing the same thing.

Stick to the BEHAVIOR

Romney's actions had a direct effect on people.

The failed drug policy has resulted in a big money yet underground economy that people will kill to defend their part of that money supply. Buying drugs is not the direct cause of deaths; criminalization is.

no one was murdered as a result of my purchase?

I would want to know the motivation behind Mitty's thinking it was a joke and why he sought entertainment in pulling people over

the assumption is they don't know it's criminal, which could lead to Mitty saying he didn't know what he did was wrong.

Littering is a crime; so it is the same as murder? You may not understand personality theory, but at least try to understand that Mitt shows a pattern of behavior that indicate he lacks character, empathy and morals. He is cruel, controlling, authoritarian, entitled, lying and spoiled. There is plenty more, I am sure.

if one were to ask which had a bigger impact on society as a whole, I assure you that casual drug use and its direct link to murder and other related crimes would be much higher up on the list than beating someone up in HS or impersonating a police officer for a prank.

He does lack character, empathy and moral but whining about it being a crime isn't going to win anyone over.

However potent it is, I'm sure it's not going to make you more likely to kill someone. Casual drug use has a more direct link to murder than ACTUAL sociopathic tendencies? Dear god, I though I've heard it all here. Let me make this clear, smoking a bit of bud or snorting a bit of coke does not make one a sociopath/psychopath. What Romney has demonstrated on multiple occasions does. Alcohol is magnitudes of order more directly linked to increased violence than pot does. Please provide this direct link between casual drug use and murder. I'm sure you'll be forthcoming with it as soon as you come down.

There's no manufacturing or distribution of cocaine out of Columbia and Peru, those people don't murder anyone to protect their investment.

You would have to be a sociopath to ignore the people being murdered over drugs around the world just to say snorting a bit of coke doesn't have any direct link to people being killed

Now, Romney IS a sociopath. My argument is, stick to that instead of talking about the CRIMINAL ASPECT of his actions. He can't be prosecuted, he wasn't prosecuted so why worry about that? The president smoked pot, snorted coke....both criminal and when you get into a discussion about the two and you start talking about impersonation of a police officer being illegal people will start asking about the criminal aspects of the presidents admitted drug use.

One again, it's the policy that's causing those deaths. If the drug trade weren't driven underground, those deaths wouldn't occur. The blood is on the hands of the governments who don't realize that prohibition has been fully discredited. Our government has apparently decided that numerous deaths are the price that we pay as a country in order to ensure that our citizens are less free. You'd fit right in with Bush's ONDCP (and Obama's unfortunately). That's some crazy, fundy, Dr. Seuss logic that you're spewing.

Mittens playing police officer and talking about the illegality of it.

Doing coke supports murderers.

Romney as Ted Bundy would be a much better way to attack his "prank" than worrying about it being illegal to do. Everyone KNOWS what he did was illegal...but it's the sheer creepiness of the action that should be the focus, not the legality

As much as you seem unable to grasp this concept, not all crimes are the same. Most people understand enough to know that smoking a joint is harmless (remember, read and think before replying). What Romney did was FAR from harmless and is sociopathic behavior. There's no reason not to focus on the creepiness AND illegality. It's all fair game.

he admitted cocaine use. And, frankly, unless you know who the grower of your pot is you can't claim that your purchase doesn't support the murder of other people. You buy it from someone who's getting it from Mexico, you're supporting murder.

I'm telling you, if you start talking about the criminality you're going to end up trying to argue drug policy and cocaine use instead of the sheer weirdness of someone putting on a police uniform and playing cop because they think it's funny.

The great bulk of people aren't nearly as naive as you seem to think they are. You seem to think that Romney's spokespeople saying "But Obama broke the law too!" is an effective retort. I, for one, would LOVE to hear that line of reasoning. Anyone with more than a few brain cells to rub together would hear something like that and instantly be disgusted with the Romney camp, and for good reason.

I'm talking about discussions with people you know, especially those who might be leaning towards Mittens.

You bring up the fact that what he did was criminal and I guarantee you they'll start discussing Obama's drug use. It will be just like the story about his dog and his attack on the kid at school. You know why? Because Hannity and Limbaugh and allthe other places they get their talking points will tell them about O's drug use and how much worse that is and they won't even THINK about anything else.

they'd be making a ridiculous argument that I'd easily be able to tear to shreds. Just like I've torn yours to shreds. Don't get me wrong, people in this country are, by and large, pretty ignorant. But the ones who are as ignorant as you're suggesting are completely forgone, there's no point in even talking to them. The people who believe that believe that marijuana use supports murder and mayhem typically don't have two brain cells to rub together and are completely not worth the time to address.

you've veered off into discussing drug policy which has nothing to do with the point that was originally trying to be made.

O didn't just use Marijuana he used Cocaine. And anyone who thinks the drug violence out of Mexico has nothing to do with Marijuana would be a bigger idiot than someone who brought it up.

The fact is, unless you know where your pot is coming from you don't know if anyone is actually being murdered for that bag of weed you're buying. Dealers get killed by suppliers and other dealers. People DO get killed in the protection of supply as well as over the money.

As we can see, you've spent more time discussing drugs than Mitten's behavior sooooo

I don't care what substance Obama used, so long as he didn't harm anyone as the direct result of consuming the substance. Let's get that out of the way first.

Now (here's where you want to start reading very slowly):

If the government all of a sudden decided to make impersonating a cop no longer a crime, it would STILL be a very awful thing to do. Impersonating a cop SHOULD be a crime. Can I at least get you to understand this very simple concept? It is DANGEROUS to allow people to go around impersonating a cop? Do you understand this?

Now, I'm going to discuss what would happen if the government made consuming drugs legal. If they did such a thing and then someone were to take some drugs casually, NO ONE WOULD BE HURT. Because doing drugs, in and of themselves, should not be a crime. No one gets hurt because the reason that the drug war is harmful is BECAUSE OF THE GOVERNMENT? Do you understand this?

If impersonating a cop were legal, it would still be a fucking terrible thing to do. It SHOULD be illegal. If drugs were legal, it would take away the government's ability to do harm with its prohibition? Understand? No, of course you don't.

the fact is, drugs are illegal. People are murdered in the production and distribution of drugs the purchase of cocaine DIRECTLY supports that murder. Just because you didn't pull the trigger, it doesn't mean your actions had nothing to do with it.

And in the 1980's when Obama was doing cocaine, there were actual wars in the streets of US Cities over cocaine. People die as a result of the demand of pot. Should it be legal, absolutely, but it's not.

You're spending all this time arguing drug policy

That's fine if you want that to be your argument. Just be aware that it's a ridiculously stupid argument. That's OK, some people only have ridiculously stupid arguments to fall back on. Just be aware that the great bulk of the country don't need to fall back on such stupid arguments. And the ones who DO need to fall back on such stupid arguments are republicans who'd never consider voting for Obama in the first place. Comprende?

My argument is FOCUS ON THE BEHAVIOR and how similar it is to the likes of SERIAL KILLERS instead of the criminality.

I don't know how many times I have to say the same thing...BEHAVIOR, BEHAVIOR, BEHAVIOR

It's not about the illegality of what he did, it's the CREEPINESS OF THE BEHAVIOR. You bring up the criminal aspect it opens the door that leads YOU to discuss DRUG POLICY instead of THE BEHAVIOR

If you focus exclusively on behavior, Romney aides will say "But it was just a harmless joke, no one was hurt." But there's a reason you can't do that EVEN IF YOU'RE INTENDING IT AS A JOKE, it's because it's dangerous and very scary to the victim. THAT'S why it's illegal. If I was debating this with a Romney surrogate, I'd hope beyond hope that they'd bring up your argument of "Obama did it TOO!". It would not only give me a chance to address why it's such a ridiculously stupid comparison, but I'd be able to lambaste the ridiculous stupidity that is the drug war as well. Kill two birds with one stone, hard to beat that.

instead of focusing on how really creepy it is that someone thought it was funny to dress up like a cop.

in the end, the behavior would be ignored just as it has been done with our discussion.

Do you see how easy it would be to respond to any claim of creepiness? Really? Fairly easy, isn't it? They'd say the same thing that they always do "It was just a harmless prank!" They've been saying that and getting away with it for years. You include the fact that this is actually a crime, and now you're getting somewhere. Comprende? Fuck no.

you bring a different perspective to the discussion and put "creepy" in a different context.

Mitt Romney and Ted Bundy thought it was great fun to impersonate police officers, I wonder what else they have in common. I'm not saying Mittens is a serial killer or a sexual sadist but he certainly shares the trait.

People already KNOW its a crime. You bring up crimes for which he wasn't charged, you open the door for discussion of drug use...which leads you down the road of arguing drug policy

You do know that they fairly successfully excused the various and assorted awful tortures that went on there as "fraternity pranks", right? Far too many idiot undecideds could be swayed by that same damned argument. Perhaps not all of them would be swayed back by being informed that what he did was also illegal (because a lot of them don't know this), but enough for it to be worthwhile to inform them.

impersonating a police officer is a crime?

Specifically because of how this incident is being framed by those wanting to diminish what he did. You're damned right.

Got it.

I'd focus more on how similar his behavior is to that of serial rapists and murderers than a crime he was never charged with.

No one is really going to be learning anything new regarding that. Now, if they happen to see Romney's talking heads trying to justify Romney's criminal behavior by saying that Obama broke the law too? I think that would almost be a campaign ending moment right there. I have to imagine that most reasonably intelligent democrats are praying that the Romney camp would dare to be so stupid.

I need to head home now. I won't be participating in this fruitless conversation much for a while.

from the attacks on fellow students, the treatment of his dog to the sick thrill he got from impersonating a police officer is more important than the fact it was criminal.

It says more about someone that they find a thrill out of pretending to be a cop and pulling people over than it does pointing it out it was a crime.

Has Obama survived his talk of drug use? You look at what happened with the dog story and the bully story and how easily those issues were dropped when people started talking about what obama did. I'm sure they'll compare crimes just as easily to distract from the behavior.

The common thread in the OP's examples is Romney's tendency to engage in dehumanizing behavior. In the first example, he treats his dog (we all know dogs are people, too) like a piece of luggage. In the second example, Romney treats his fellow student like a symbol of attitudes Romney is opposed to. In the third example, he evidently gets a charge out of pulling over strangers as if he were a cop, with no regard for the effect it has on the drivers (i.e. no one likes to be stopped by a cop, and no one appreciates the pointless inconvenience).

In each case, Romney fails to connect on an emotional level; he fails to empathize -- which has ominous implications if he is placed in a position of making and/or influencing decisions that affect the lives of U.S. (and, indeed, world) citizens. Romney's disconnect is shown emphatically in this DU thread (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002723957), as well, in dramatic contrast with Obama.

Romney's nefarious activities at Bain haven't exactly been ignored, either.

I think what Romney did in college is relevant as it helps us better understand his character. Smoking pot or doing coke doesn't hurt anyone. Assaulting gay classmates with scissors, leading blind teachers into closed doors, hounding classmates by yelling "atta girl" when they open their mouth in class, putting dogs on a car roof for hours at a time, harassing an officer who arrested him and threatening to sue him for merely doing his job, lying in wait dressed as a police officer to stop cars at random, supporting the war in Vietnam that is killing thousands of kids of his generation while seeking multiple deferments ... all are activities that in fact do harm to others.

except the people who die as a result of the cartel's efforts to supply drugs

Romney is an ass who has some severe mental issues but whining about criminal activity opens the door to Obama's drug use.

Not the people who have the audacity to believe that they're somewhat free. You remind me of those ridiculous anti-pot commercials that came out after 9/11. Nice to see that the ONDCP's propaganda dollars weren't entirely wasted.

instead of the creepiness of the "prank"

When you focus on the criminality of what he did you're going to end up in the weeds, discussing drug policy not Mittens Ted Bundy like behavior

are in no way comparable. Many others here have attempted to point out the same thing to you, you seem completely unable to grasp this simple concept. We have everything to gain by focusing on Romney's sociopathic behavior. There's zero reason to avoid it. ZERO.

while the other directly supports murder and mayhem


if you want to focus on the sociopathic behavior, stay away from a discussion of the criminality. I've already tried your way with family members...you know where it got me?

The same place it's gotten you, discussing drug policy

Just like the fascists at the ONDCP. Luckily there are very few in this country who are so easily fooled by the ONDCP's propaganda.

you're supporting murder and mayhem.

Now you're not even focused on Mitten's disturbing behavior. You bring up the criminality of what he did, the response will be "Obama used drugs and that's worse"

Stick to the BEHAVIOR, not the legality of it. Everyone knows it's illegal. Tie it to the behavior of rapists and serial killers instead of a prosecutable crime had he been caught.

And it's YOU who is the one going off point, not me. It's the government that has created this black market, not the people who choose other than the government mandated way to relax. So in your mind it was also the people who wanted to keep their happy hour that caused an uptick in organized crime during prohibition, not the idiots and fundies in the government. Nice to see who you support.

The focus should be on his BEHAVIOR, not the criminality of what he did

So I'm just going to post my last post to you in the utterly vain hope that you will someday, come close to getting it.

If the government all of a sudden decided to make impersonating a cop no longer a crime, it would STILL be a very awful thing to do. Impersonating a cop SHOULD be a crime. Can I at least get you to understand this very simple concept? It is DANGEROUS to allow people to go around impersonating a cop? Do you understand this?

Now, I'm going to discuss what would happen if the government made consuming drugs legal. If they did such a thing and then someone were to take some drugs casually, NO ONE WOULD BE HURT. Because doing drugs, in and of themselves, should not be a crime. No one gets hurt because the reason that the drug war is harmful is BECAUSE OF THE GOVERNMENT? Do you understand this?

If impersonating a cop were legal, it would still be a fucking terrible thing to do. It SHOULD be illegal. If drugs were legal, it would take away the government's ability to do harm with its prohibition? Understand? No, of course you don't.

Now, are you going to post the same shit again? I guess you can't teach an old dog new tricks, can you?

and not focusing on the BEHAVIOR

No one is arguing what he did wasn't illegal but when you bring up the criminal aspect you're going to end up discussing drug policy like you've done for the last hour.

IT"S THE BEHAVIOR, STUPID

If any Romney advocate were stupid enough to bring up that line of reasoning, he'd be instantly massacred by any Democrat with half a brain. Both the behavior AND criminality need to be addressed. Without addressing both, you can bet your ass that they'd slither their way out of this one as well.

for which he wasn't charged or prosecuted you open the door for drug use, which is also criminal.

The behavior is the disturbing aspect. People know it's a crime, how many know the types of people who liked impersonating police officers aside from the harmless wannabes?

You start bringing up the names and behaviors of psychopaths and their tendencies you're going down a whole other road where Mitten's behaviors, AS A WHOLE, point to someone with some really fucked up ideas about what is fun. You bring up criminal aspects, the easy way out is to bring up Obama's drug use

I've pointed out to you numerous times why bringing up Obama's drug use would simply be shooting themselves in the feet. Both the criminality and the behavioral aspects of what Romney need to be addressed. I can guarantee you that Romney's talking heads aren't nearly so stupid as to make your boneheaded argument. When the Sunday morning talks shows come and go and not a single talking head spews that moronic argument, maybe then you'll realize this. Unlikely though.

Change the subject--it's a classic trick one sees on the talking heads all the time.

Don't fall for it. This OP isn't about Obama, or drugs, or anything other than Mittsy the Shittsy and his uniform fetish.

Sad, though, to see DUers who actually fall for the ONDCP's fascist bullshit. I know republicans like to play tit for tat, but this has got to be one of the stupidest arguments I've heard.

I've demonstrated how easy it is to get off the topic simply attacking the criminal aspect of the argument.

You think that the criminality of what he did shouldn't be mentioned, that it would be a trap. I think neglecting to mention the criminality of what he did, in ADDITION to the behavioral aspects of what he did, would be an enormous mistake. I don't see how we're in agreement at all. I would welcome any and all attempts to discuss the legality of what Romney did with any talking head. Nothing but good could come of it.

And once someone brought up the criminal aspect you see how easy it is to lead a conversation into the weeds of drug policy.

It's about Mitty's behavior and nothing else

If I light up a joint, I don't know but that the weed came from someone's back yard in Oregon. There's no conscious harm to another living human being sitting in front of me. If I buy a pair of track shoes or jeans, I've probably contributed to enabling the miserable business of a sweat shop factory where young women are overworked as virtual slaves, are often raped, and may be driven to suicide. That's true about the consumption of many things in our society. But there's a big difference when it comes to how the behavior reflects on someone's character. Harming someone directly in front of you who appears to you in all their immediate humanity as opposed to a loose statistical connection to drug violence is quite different. Both types of activity are unfortunate but one is far more revealing as to character traits than the other. And for me the relevance is the relationship to character.

When you start discussing the criminality, you're going to end up in the weeds.
Everyone knows it's illegal so stick to the issue of character

Don't even bring up CRIMINALITY of impersonating a police officer...stick to CHARACTER. Point out how Ted Bundy used to impersonate a police officer but not the crime of impersonating a police officer

Are we allowed to talk about that?

of impersonating and officer when it can't be prosecuted today.

Is a LOT more sinister than using drugs. Most people have experimented with using drugs; most people haven't impersonated a police officer to intimidate people. One is a victimless crime, the other one isn't.

it's a victimless crime because you don't know them, right?

focus on the creepiness not the legality. Everyone already knows its illegal

How many more strange stories are there about the acts of Romney?

It starts to add up to being a creep.

...benign.....no one was helped in either of those events

The man could barely see and Romney set it up so the man walked in to a door I believe. And then giggled endlessly over the poor man.

McCain might be the exception in recent cycles, but Palin more than made up for that.

What a bizarre thought process. Ignore a lawful order because you can afford the fine?

He doesn't seem to grasp the concept.

who dressed up as a cop then drove around with a dog strapped to the top of his car pulling people over to cut off their hair, making periodic stops to plunder companies and fire their workers.

his dorm mates that he liked to dress up and pull people over. But is there any evidence that he actually did so? Or was he just shooting off his mouth to try to impress people? Are there any statements from people who actually saw him do it or experienced being pulled over by him? NOTE: this is not meant as a defenxe of Mittsy.

is almost as disturbing as actually doing it.

He stopped some women from an all-girls high school while he was at Cranbrook.

and is unfit to serve in any public role.

That he hasn't been outed as an insane person is a shame and maybe even a coverup.

Robin Madden and his wife Ann who saw the uniform on Romney's bed and who were told about it by Romney himself while attending college in California and Graham McDonald and Phillip Maxwell who were Cranbrook classmates and describe specific incidents where Romney pulled people over that they actually saw while attending high school in Michigan. Clearly this was repeated behavior over a stretch of time occurring in at least two locations.

Or any life for that matter. He'd make a great third world dictator and he's perfect for the war party and "job creators" but he's not fit to be president.