Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

[makare]

I'm pretty sure that hate crime statutes are about punishment more than deterrence. Since deterrence is generally bullshit anyway. It has nothing to do with white guilt, it has to do with the reality of the world we live in. There are inequalities so severe that the law has to step in and even things out. But I know you have a rose colored view of the world so I don't expect you to see that.

It makes me giggle every time lefties accuse ME of being optimistic about humanity.

You hold an unconstitutional and unjust opinion, that you fight inequality with inequality.

Plus, you keep seeming to labor under the false idea that I'm saying hate crimes should have their penalty LOWERED to standard punishment levels, when I'm saying that standard punishment levels should rise equally.

Gas you do have an overly optimistic view of humanity. From what I have seen especially from you the left has a very low opinion of humanity because they dont believe that people can survive alone without help from a community.

My opinion is constitutional you just misinterpret the 14th amendment and compound it with a lack of understanding of subsequent legislative and judicial practice and precedent.

And on your final note I dont even know what your belief about the standard punishment level is and I dont care. My concern is that you do not understand why hate crime statutes exist in the first place and how the inequality you speak of would still exist if you raise everything up a level. That is why it is an inequality that is being treated by law, not an inequality created by law.

Damn optimists. Always assuming the best in people.

heartless bastards do not get to speak about seeing the best in people.

 

[Covar]

I'm pretty sure that hate crime statutes are about punishment more than deterrence. Since deterrence is generally bullshit anyway. It has nothing to do with white guilt, it has to do with the reality of the world we live in. There are inequalities so severe that the law has to step in and even things out. But I know you have a rose colored view of the world so I don't expect you to see that.

It makes me giggle every time lefties accuse ME of being optimistic about humanity.

You hold an unconstitutional and unjust opinion, that you fight inequality with inequality.

Plus, you keep seeming to labor under the false idea that I'm saying hate crimes should have their penalty LOWERED to standard punishment levels, when I'm saying that standard punishment levels should rise equally.

Gas you do have an overly optimistic view of humanity. From what I have seen especially from you the left has a very low opinion of humanity because they dont believe that people can survive alone without help from a community.

My opinion is constitutional you just misinterpret the 14th amendment and compound it with a lack of understanding of subsequent legislative and judicial practice and precedent.

And on your final note I dont even know what your belief about the standard punishment level is and I dont care. My concern is that you do not understand why hate crime statutes exist in the first place and how the inequality you speak of would still exist if you raise everything up a level. That is why it is an inequality that is being treated by law, not an inequality created by law.

Damn optimists. Always assuming the best in people.

heartless bastards do not get to speak about seeing the best in people.[/QUOTE]

You know I had meant to respond to that. If thinking that a parent shouldn't go into bankruptcy because of their 32 year old son makes me a heartless bastard then feel free to call me the mother-fucking grinch. Son going into bankruptcy? sure sucks to be him. Parents dragging themselves down with him? Stupid, irresponsible and needless. So yea I don't take sympathy on a couple who go into bankruptcy when it could have been easily prevented.

 

[makare]

You know I had meant to respond to that. If thinking that a parent shouldn't go into bankruptcy because of their 32 year old son makes me a heartless bastard then feel free to call me the mother-fucking grinch. Son going into bankruptcy? sure sucks to be him. Parents dragging themselves down with him? Stupid, irresponsible and needless. So yea I don't take sympathy on a couple who go into bankruptcy when it could have been easily prevented.

prevented how? by disregarding family?


yeah that is why you dont get to talk about appreciating the best in people because you don't appreciate it or understand it.


you truly are a heartless bastard.

Also I never said the parents were going into bankruptcy I said they were going to sell their house.

 

[Iaculus]

If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

You know, there's a reason Western civilisation isn't run like the Imperium of Man.

Spoiler

We don't have Standard Template Constructs yet.

 

[Krisken]

If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.

Governor Perry disagrees. The arrogant asshole.[/quote]
Weren't you the guys ragging on people who saw things in black and white terms?[/quote]

That's completely different Espy. [/quote]

Are you implying a double standard is in place? I am SHOCKED. SHOCKED.

I just hope charlie never has to work at a job where people could die by using their product, like... a CAR company. Or a PHARMACEUTICAL company. Or a CHEESE company. Dude's gonna have to quit within like five minutes.[/QUOTE]
I think what you guys are missing is we are not the same people. I have my views on things, and they have their views on things. There are degrees with which I agree with them, and degrees where I disagree. Don't be so SHOCKED. SHOCKED.

 

[Espy]

Calm down there, I was just being a little silly. Not everything in this thread has to be life or death.

I know you and CDS and DA aren't all the same person. Or do I???????

 

[Armadillo]

My opinion is constitutional you just misinterpret the 14th amendment and compound it with a lack of understanding of subsequent legislative and judicial practice and precedent.

And on your final note I dont even know what your belief about the standard punishment level is and I dont care. My concern is that you do not understand why hate crime statutes exist in the first place and how the inequality you speak of would still exist if you raise everything up a level. That is why it is an inequality that is being treated by law, not an inequality created by law.

Except that it's NOT being "treated by the law." The law still separates people into groups based on physical characteristics and treats them differently based on those characteristics, which is unconstitutional. Here's the relevant text from the 14th Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I don't see what's to misinterpret there.

Damn optimists. Always assuming the best in people.

heartless bastards do not get to speak about seeing the best in people.

When all else fails, name-call.

 

[Krisken]

Calm down there, I was just being a little silly. Not everything in this thread has to be life or death.

I know you and CDS and DA aren't all the same person. Or do I???????

heh, sorry. I really hate the phrase "you people". It implies we're drones who all think the same, which is absolutely silly. I think it's a pretty safe bet Covar's sarcasm wasn't a joke, so I assumed you were serious.

 

[makare]

My opinion is constitutional you just misinterpret the 14th amendment and compound it with a lack of understanding of subsequent legislative and judicial practice and precedent.

And on your final note I dont even know what your belief about the standard punishment level is and I dont care. My concern is that you do not understand why hate crime statutes exist in the first place and how the inequality you speak of would still exist if you raise everything up a level. That is why it is an inequality that is being treated by law, not an inequality created by law.

Except that it's NOT being "treated by the law." The law still separates people into groups based on physical characteristics and treats them differently based on those characteristics, which is unconstitutional. Here's the relevant text from the 14th Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I don't see what's to misinterpret there. [/QUOTE]

Ive already explained why this wrong and since I hate redundancy I am not doing it again. REREAD THREAD.

Damn optimists. Always assuming the best in people.

heartless bastards do not get to speak about seeing the best in people.

When all else fails, name-call.[/QUOTE]

What failed? Anyone who would throw a sick relative away into poverty and not help them is a heartless bastard. Not so much name calling as stating the obvious.

 

[Krisken]

My opinion is constitutional you just misinterpret the 14th amendment and compound it with a lack of understanding of subsequent legislative and judicial practice and precedent.

And on your final note I dont even know what your belief about the standard punishment level is and I dont care. My concern is that you do not understand why hate crime statutes exist in the first place and how the inequality you speak of would still exist if you raise everything up a level. That is why it is an inequality that is being treated by law, not an inequality created by law.

Except that it's NOT being "treated by the law." The law still separates people into groups based on physical characteristics and treats them differently based on those characteristics, which is unconstitutional. Here's the relevant text from the 14th Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I don't see what's to misinterpret there.

Damn optimists. Always assuming the best in people.

heartless bastards do not get to speak about seeing the best in people.

When all else fails, name-call.[/QUOTE]
Only when logic fails to break through the senselessness and lack of reason. :heythere:

 

[Espy]

Calm down there, I was just being a little silly. Not everything in this thread has to be life or death.

I know you and CDS and DA aren't all the same person. Or do I???????

heh, sorry. I really hate the phrase "you people". It implies we're drones who all think the same, which is absolutely silly. I think it's a pretty safe bet Covar's sarcasm wasn't a joke, so I assumed you were serious.[/QUOTE]

I was being half serious, but I wasn't saying anything to you, just using your good point to bolster my half serious one to DA and CDS.

 

[Covar]

You know I had meant to respond to that. If thinking that a parent shouldn't go into bankruptcy because of their 32 year old son makes me a heartless bastard then feel free to call me the mother-fucking grinch. Son going into bankruptcy? sure sucks to be him. Parents dragging themselves down with him? Stupid, irresponsible and needless. So yea I don't take sympathy on a couple who go into bankruptcy when it could have been easily prevented.

prevented how? by disregarding family?


yeah that is why you dont get to talk about appreciating the best in people because you don't appreciate it or understand it.


you truly are a heartless bastard.

Also I never said the parents were going into bankruptcy I said they were going to sell their house.[/QUOTE]

My mom's best friend's son (counts on fingers.. yeah that's it) has some heart condition they can't figure out. Even though he has health insurance they are going to have to declare bankruptcy because they can't afford the bills. They were hoping you could just declare medical bankruptcy so they had me ask my professor about it but no.

I am staying out of the general conversation in this thread and I am not arguing for universal healthcare. It is just weird how I am in the middle of researching bankruptcy related to medical care and it was mentioned here. All in all it is really just plain sad.

Silly me, how could I have ever have gotten the idea that you said they were going into bankruptcy.

 

[GasBandit]

Except that it's NOT being "treated by the law." The law still separates people into groups based on physical characteristics and treats them differently based on those characteristics, which is unconstitutional. Here's the relevant text from the 14th Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I don't see what's to misinterpret there.

Ive already explained why this wrong and since I hate redundancy I am not doing it again. REREAD THREAD.

[/QUOTE]


There, that rounds that off nicely.

heartless bastards

Appeal to emotion ftw?

 

[makare]

You know I had meant to respond to that. If thinking that a parent shouldn't go into bankruptcy because of their 32 year old son makes me a heartless bastard then feel free to call me the mother-fucking grinch. Son going into bankruptcy? sure sucks to be him. Parents dragging themselves down with him? Stupid, irresponsible and needless. So yea I don't take sympathy on a couple who go into bankruptcy when it could have been easily prevented.

prevented how? by disregarding family?


yeah that is why you dont get to talk about appreciating the best in people because you don't appreciate it or understand it.


you truly are a heartless bastard.

Also I never said the parents were going into bankruptcy I said they were going to sell their house.[/QUOTE]

My mom's best friend's son (counts on fingers.. yeah that's it) has some heart condition they can't figure out. Even though he has health insurance they are going to have to declare bankruptcy because they can't afford the bills. They were hoping you could just declare medical bankruptcy so they had me ask my professor about it but no.

I am staying out of the general conversation in this thread and I am not arguing for universal healthcare. It is just weird how I am in the middle of researching bankruptcy related to medical care and it was mentioned here. All in all it is really just plain sad.

Silly me, how could I have ever have gotten the idea that you said they were going into bankruptcy.[/QUOTE]

the subject is clearly my mom's friend son. I said nothing about his parents.

 

[Covar]

You know I had meant to respond to that. If thinking that a parent shouldn't go into bankruptcy because of their 32 year old son makes me a heartless bastard then feel free to call me the mother-fucking grinch. Son going into bankruptcy? sure sucks to be him. Parents dragging themselves down with him? Stupid, irresponsible and needless. So yea I don't take sympathy on a couple who go into bankruptcy when it could have been easily prevented.

prevented how? by disregarding family?


yeah that is why you dont get to talk about appreciating the best in people because you don't appreciate it or understand it.


you truly are a heartless bastard.

Also I never said the parents were going into bankruptcy I said they were going to sell their house.[/QUOTE]

My mom's best friend's son (counts on fingers.. yeah that's it) has some heart condition they can't figure out. Even though he has health insurance they are going to have to declare bankruptcy because they can't afford the bills. They were hoping you could just declare medical bankruptcy so they had me ask my professor about it but no.

I am staying out of the general conversation in this thread and I am not arguing for universal healthcare. It is just weird how I am in the middle of researching bankruptcy related to medical care and it was mentioned here. All in all it is really just plain sad.

Silly me, how could I have ever have gotten the idea that you said they were going into bankruptcy.[/QUOTE]

the subject is clearly my mom's friend son. I said nothing about his parents.[/QUOTE]

Ah see I assumed when the word they is used that it refers to multiple people, not a single person. My mistake then, that would change the basis of my arguement.

 

[GasBandit]

Makare (or anyone else who wants to chime in)-

Situation 1: Man convicted of assaulting gay victim, under hate crime law, gets 20 years.

Situation 2: Man convicted of assaulting gay victim, under constitutional, equally applied punishment, gets 20 years.

How is situation 2 less of a punishment (or for the other people who said punishment is deterrent, deterrent) to the assaulter just because it's the same penalty as if the victim had been straight?

 

[makare]

Makare (or anyone else who wants to chime in)-

Situation 1: Man convicted of assaulting gay victim, under hate crime law, gets 20 years.

Situation 2: Man convicted of assaulting gay victim, under constitutional, equally applied punishment, gets 20 years.

How is situation 2 less of a punishment (or for the other people who said punishment is deterrent, deterrent) to the assaulter just because it's the same penalty as if the victim had been straight?

If someone chooses a target based on status rather than behavior or really any kind of motive, there should be a specific punishment. The punishment should be specifically for choosing a person simply based on what they are not what they did.

the subject is clearly my mom's friend son. I said nothing about his parents.

Ah see I assumed when the word they is used that it refers to multiple people, not a single person. My mistake then, that would change the basis of my argument.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I should have said he but since the subject is my mom's friend son I dont see why you would assume the they refers to the parents plural more than a plural regarding the son.

 

[DarkAudit]

If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.

Governor Perry disagrees. The arrogant asshole.[/QUOTE]
Weren't you the guys ragging on people who saw things in black and white terms?

What was it Krisken said about people who view things in such black and white terms?

I said you are unreasonable. Which applies to all people who see everything in black and white.

Thanks. That was it.[/QUOTE]

I think you missed my point. Governor Perry of Texas has been "So what? We killed the fuck and that's that." and has done all he can to derail any investigation into whether or not Texas really did execute an innocent man. The sheer arrogance with with he's done it just turns one's stomach.

 

[GasBandit]

If someone chooses a target based on status rather than behavior or really any kind of motive, there should be a specific punishment. The punishment should be specifically for choosing a person simply based on what they are not what they did.

Nice try at ducking the question. If the penalty for assault is increased across the board to draconian levels, how is that any less punishment than if it is increased to draconian levels for just certain special groups? Will the redneck say, "You know, when hate crimes made it so I'd get 20 to life for assaulting a black person, I was so much less likely to assault a black person than I am now that it's 20 to life for anyone, regardless of the victim's skin color.. but now that it's 20 to life to assault ANYBODY, I can just go to town on any black guy I see now!"

What you've demonstrated nicely is the leftist tendency toward the criminalization of thought. Crimes are actions, not thoughts. The action is what is being punished. You can't make people stop hating by reinforcing their hatred through unjust and unequal application of protection by law. If anything, you will only exacerbate the feelings of hate.

---------- Post added at 01:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:54 PM ----------

If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.

Governor Perry disagrees. The arrogant asshole.[/quote]
Weren't you the guys ragging on people who saw things in black and white terms?

What was it Krisken said about people who view things in such black and white terms?

I said you are unreasonable. Which applies to all people who see everything in black and white.

Thanks. That was it.[/quote]

I think you missed my point. Governor Perry of Texas has been "So what? We killed the fuck and that's that." and has done all he can to derail any investigation into whether or not Texas really did execute an innocent man. The sheer arrogance with with he's done it just turns one's stomach.[/quote]
His point was that saying "if capital punishment kills 1 innocent man then it is unacceptable," is putting things in very black and white terms. You apparently agree that it is black and white, and that it's ok for THIS to be a black and white ascertainment, but not other things. So much for shades of grey.

 

[makare]

If someone chooses a target based on status rather than behavior or really any kind of motive, there should be a specific punishment. The punishment should be specifically for choosing a person simply based on what they are not what they did.

Nice try at ducking the question. If the penalty for assault is increased across the board to draconian levels, how is that any less punishment than if it is increased to draconian levels for just certain special groups? Will the redneck say, "You know, when hate crimes made it so I'd get 20 to life for assaulting a black person, I was so much less likely to assault a black person than I am now that it's 20 to life for anyone, regardless of the victim's skin color.. but now that it's 20 to life to assault ANYBODY, I can just go to town on any black guy I see now!"

What you've demonstrated nicely is the leftist tendency toward the criminalization of thought. Crimes are actions, not thoughts. The action is what is being punished. You can't make people stop hating by reinforcing their hatred through unjust and unequal application of protection by law. If anything, you will only exacerbate the feelings of hate.

[/QUOTE]

I didn't duck a question. Intent has always been part of crime it has nothing to do with left or right. Again I do not see hate crime legislation as a deterrent... AGAIN IT IS NOT I REPEAT NOT A DETERRENT. It is a punishment specific to intent. The intent to harm a specific class of person. The increase loses its weight against a specific type of crime when it is not addressing that particular crime. It is a policy decision. As a public policy we wish to specifically punish those who kill or batter people solely based on their status.

So yeah if you insist, 20 years IS 20 years but it doesn't send the same message or establish the same policy.

 

[blotsfan]

If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.

Thats where we disagree. You save 99 criminals to save 1 innocent man. I don't.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.

Thats where we disagree. You save 99 criminals to save 1 innocent man. I don't.[/QUOTE]

What. I'm not saying let everyone on Death Row out of prison.

 

[SpecialKO]

If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.

Thats where we disagree. You save 99 criminals to save 1 innocent man. I don't.[/QUOTE]

What. I'm not saying let everyone on Death Row out of prison.[/QUOTE]

If we close Guantanamo, we'll be releasing hundreds of terrorists onto American soil!!

 

[AshburnerX]

If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.

Thats where we disagree. You save 99 criminals to save 1 innocent man. I don't.[/QUOTE]

What. I'm not saying let everyone on Death Row out of prison.[/QUOTE]

If we close Guantanamo, we'll be releasing hundreds of terrorists onto American soil!![/QUOTE]

Actually... if it ever did come down to releasing the prisoners in Guantanamo, we'd basically be setting them adrift on a boat at sea. Most of their countries of origin are unwilling to take them back. Only the most blatantly innocent have been allowed back into their countries of origin.

 

[Bowielee]

If one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty is unacceptable.

Thats where we disagree. You save 99 criminals to save 1 innocent man. I don't.[/QUOTE]

And here I was mistaken that our justice system was supposed to be centered around protecting the innocent... silly me.

 

[Krisken]

Before panties get twisted, no, those are not the men you are looking for

Many of the names appear, on first glance, to be boldface ones -- such as Michael Jordan, William Ayers, Michael Moore, Jeremiah Wright, Robert Kelly (\"R. Kelly\") and Malik Shabazz -- but the White House warned on its blog that these names in particular were \"false positives.\"
\"The well-known individuals with those names never actually came to the White House,\" wrote Norm Eisen, special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform.

Thought it might be nice to nip this before someone says these controversial figures were at the White House.

 

[crono1224]

While tech I agree that hate crimes are excessive and 'shouldn't' occur because assault is assault is assault, you must then ask yourself if there is greater crimes for attacking children, then you say they can't defend themselves as well, so the next question becomes at what age, then the last question is why, do children develope exactly at the same age?

It's a bunch of bullshit no one is going to be able to answer.

But regardless yes, killing one innocent man is worth letting them go free..... TO JAIL FOR LIFE fuck me, people act like if you don't kill them they will be out raping your mom and shitting on your dad.

 

[Eriol]

And here I was mistaken that our justice system was supposed to be centered around protecting the innocent... silly me.

That's the saddest and funniest thing I've seen in a political thread in a LONG time. People actually think that the western world's legal systems (they are not Justice systems by a LONG shot) are based around the idea of protecting the innocent? HA!

 

[DarkAudit]

Vitter says it's Obama's fault the Republicans are pro-rape.

 

[Espy]

So this fun little "pro-rape" thing is this years "pro-baby killing" huh?

 

[Krisken]

So this fun little "pro-rape" thing is this years "pro-baby killing" huh?

Sadly, I think it is. Though I think DA is just trying to get a rise out of certain individuals in this case. I prefer to think of it more as "Pro contractors getting away with covering up rape, murder, and other illegal activities while in the employ of the United States Government."

I don't understand clauses like the ones people who work for these companies overseas are asked to sign. It's like asking people to be indentured servants without rights. I think companies working for the United States overseas should still be subject to the laws here, including OSHA requirements and basic human rights (like the right to work for a company in another country and not get raped by other employees and have it covered up by the company).

 

[Covar]

The issue is you're sending private employees into a warzone, and because of this you can not guarantee them the safety and protection that they would have stateside. Personally I don't think they should be over there at all, but that most likely won't be going away anytime soon. What they need is a way to find the balance.

 

[Krisken]

The issue is you're sending private employees into a warzone, and because of this you can not guarantee them the safety and protection that they would have stateside. Personally I don't think they should be over there at all, but that most likely won't be going away anytime soon. What they need is a way to find the balance.

What the hell does that have to do with being raped by fellow employees and having it covered up by the company?

 

[AshburnerX]

The issue is you're sending private employees into a warzone, and because of this you can not guarantee them the safety and protection that they would have stateside. Personally I don't think they should be over there at all, but that most likely won't be going away anytime soon. What they need is a way to find the balance.

But that's not what happened, is it? What happened is people in her company's EMPLOY raped her and she was denied the right to seek damages from the company that HIRED them. She wasn't raped by someone outside the company or an insurgent, she was raped by people her company hired, and she wouldn't have been exposed to that danger if the company had been diligent in it's duty.

 

[Covar]

The issue is you're sending private employees into a warzone, and because of this you can not guarantee them the safety and protection that they would have stateside. Personally I don't think they should be over there at all, but that most likely won't be going away anytime soon. What they need is a way to find the balance.

What the hell does that have to do with being raped by fellow employees and having it covered up by the company?[/QUOTE]
OSHA Standards = absurd
Rape by company = bring on the lawsuits.