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

[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?[/quote]
OSHA Standards = absurd
Rape by company = bring on the lawsuits.[/QUOTE]
OSHA standards would have kept American Soldiers from being electrocuted by faulty wiring in showers in Iraq.

I can't imagine anyone who has been protected by OSHA standards calling them absurd. Work a blue collar job once and maybe you'll understand how important some of those standards are.

 

[DarkAudit]

So the standards that would have kept 18 soldiers from dying in the barracks showers is "absurd"?

Go tell the families of those 18 that the standards that would have kept them alive is absurd.

 

[GasBandit]

An excellent summary of the current American political situation, from a UK perspective - particularly the last paragraph about the woeful two party system.

I don't know what is more astounding... that Newsweek is giving Karl Rove space to talk about why cap and trade is bad, or that CNN is publishing an opinion that all government subsidized health care is bad. Through the looking glass, we are.

Medicare fraud: $60 Billion annually. Annual profits of top ten insurance companies combined: $8 billion. Hrmmmmm.

Barney Frank's legislation in the House affirms the assumption that too-big-to-fail is not only a reality but a reality that should be acknowledged in law. Frank also wants financial institutions to pay into a pre-funded trust that would cover the cost of a government takeover, if ever necessary again.

Healthcare reform has become nothing more than a cheesy Washington soap opera starring Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

This week will test Obama's political clout, where Obama has endorsed threatened Democrat candidates up for re-election in Virginia, New York and New Jersey.

Is this what President Obama meant when he said this would be the most "transparent administration in history"? Rather than coming up with plausible lies, the administration seems to be fine using the transparent kind.

A simple calculator could figure out that the taxpayers have spent $160,000 per job "created/saved" by Obama's stimulus plan. But the White House calls this "calculator abuse."

Federal banking regulators seized nine more banks.

One of our favorite brain dead politicians is under full-scale investigation by the House ethics committee. With great "who the $#@^ are you, you nobody? I'm Maxine F%$#ing Waters!" pic.

Taxpayer funded studies on how Congressmen can avoid constituents. Sounds about right.

The dollar continues to fall. Time to start learning chinese?

Not exactly political, but - punches thrown in the Washington Post newsroom! Fight! Fight! Fight! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

---------- Post added at 02:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:19 PM ----------

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.

That's a dangerous door to open. The government acting in violation of its own constitution to make unjust policy. If the government doesn't have to afford equal protection under the law to whites today... what happens if in 30 years, an unforeseen political situation leads to minorities not receiving equal protection? This is why government must treat all equally and with colorblindness... because the ability to ignore constitutional law for "good" today may be used for ill tomorrow.

 

[makare]

That's a dangerous door to open. The government acting in violation of its own constitution to make unjust policy. If the government doesn't have to afford equal protection under the law to whites today... what happens if in 30 years, an unforeseen political situation leads to minorities not receiving equal protection? This is why government must treat all equally and with colorblindness... because the ability to ignore constitutional law for "good" today may be used for ill tomorrow.

As I have said earlier, it is not unjust and it is not unconstitutional.

 

[Krisken]

That's a dangerous door to open. The government acting in violation of its own constitution to make unjust policy. If the government doesn't have to afford equal protection under the law to whites today... what happens if in 30 years, an unforeseen political situation leads to minorities not receiving equal protection? This is why government must treat all equally and with colorblindness... because the ability to ignore constitutional law for "good" today may be used for ill tomorrow.

As I have said earlier, it is not unjust and it is not unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]
Didn't you hear? Repeating your argument ad nauseum without supplying new points or information is how to win arguments here! Even if it's already been proven incorrect.

 

[DarkAudit]

That's a dangerous door to open. The government acting in violation of its own constitution to make unjust policy. If the government doesn't have to afford equal protection under the law to whites today... what happens if in 30 years, an unforeseen political situation leads to minorities not receiving equal protection? This is why government must treat all equally and with colorblindness... because the ability to ignore constitutional law for "good" today may be used for ill tomorrow.

As I have said earlier, it is not unjust and it is not unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]
Didn't you hear? Repeating your argument ad nauseum without supplying new points or information is how to win arguments here! Even if it's already been proven incorrect.[/QUOTE]

So you're saying GB is our version of Goebbels? Sounds about right.

 

[GasBandit]

That's a dangerous door to open. The government acting in violation of its own constitution to make unjust policy. If the government doesn't have to afford equal protection under the law to whites today... what happens if in 30 years, an unforeseen political situation leads to minorities not receiving equal protection? This is why government must treat all equally and with colorblindness... because the ability to ignore constitutional law for "good" today may be used for ill tomorrow.

As I have said earlier, it is not unjust and it is not unconstitutional.[/quote]
Didn't you hear? Repeating your argument ad nauseum without supplying new points or information is how to win arguments here! Even if it's already been proven incorrect.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, are you referring to me, or to her? Because the information I supplied was the 14th amendment of the constitution, which is pretty clear on the issue, and it was basically dismissed with a "nuh-uh!"

makare - YOU say it's not unjust and it's not unconstitutional, despite the constitution's 14th amendment clearly stipulating that the law must be applied EQUALLY. Not unequally in case of minority crime. You just say it isn't unjust and unconstitutional because you don't want it to be.

1) The constitution says equal protection for all under the law.
2) Hate crime law applies penalties/protections to SOME but not all.
ergo,
3) Hate crime law is unconstitutional. QED.

 

[makare]

That's a dangerous door to open. The government acting in violation of its own constitution to make unjust policy. If the government doesn't have to afford equal protection under the law to whites today... what happens if in 30 years, an unforeseen political situation leads to minorities not receiving equal protection? This is why government must treat all equally and with colorblindness... because the ability to ignore constitutional law for "good" today may be used for ill tomorrow.

As I have said earlier, it is not unjust and it is not unconstitutional.[/quote]
Didn't you hear? Repeating your argument ad nauseum without supplying new points or information is how to win arguments here! Even if it's already been proven incorrect.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, are you referring to me, or to her? Because the information I supplied was the 14th amendment of the constitution, which is pretty clear on the issue, and it was basically dismissed with a "nuh-uh!"

makare - YOU say it's not unjust and it's not unconstitutional, despite the constitution's 14th amendment clearly stipulating that the law must be applied EQUALLY. Not unequally in case of minority crime. You just say it isn't unjust and unconstitutional because you don't want it to be.

1) The constitution says equal protection for all under the law.
2) Hate crime law applies penalties/protections to SOME but not all.
ergo,
3) Hate crime law is unconstitutional. QED.[/QUOTE]

it says equal protection of the law. that means that if there is an inequality the law gets to step in and rectify it so that there is equality. It is is equal protection not equal application.

 

[Armadillo]

it says equal protection of the law. that means that if there is an inequality the law gets to step in and rectify it so that there is equality. It is is equal protection not equal application.

And you say WE'RE misinterpreting the 14th Amendment.

Equal protection MEANS equal application! People of differing races, genders, sexual orientations, or whatever the hell other trait you want to apply are seen as equals in the eyes of the law. As Gas has said numerous times, once you start applying the law differently based on physical traits, you run afoul of this clause. Punish the ACTION, not the THOUGHT.

Also, you've mentioned before that hate crime law "evens it up" or something to that effect. Well, when will the situation have been "evened-up" enough for hate crime statutes to be no longer "neccessary?" Is there a benchmark, or is this an open-ended thing, destined to continue no matter how many generations removed we become from slavery, Jim Crow, or any other inequity in our past?

 

[Krisken]

it says equal protection of the law. that means that if there is an inequality the law gets to step in and rectify it so that there is equality. It is is equal protection not equal application.

And you say WE'RE misinterpreting the 14th Amendment.

Equal protection MEANS equal application! People of differing races, genders, sexual orientations, or whatever the hell other trait you want to apply are seen as equals in the eyes of the law. As Gas has said numerous times, once you start applying the law differently based on physical traits, you run afoul of this clause. Punish the ACTION, not the THOUGHT.

Also, you've mentioned before that hate crime law "evens it up" or something to that effect. Well, when will the situation have been "evened-up" enough for hate crime statutes to be no longer "neccessary?" Is there a benchmark, or is this an open-ended thing, destined to continue no matter how many generations removed we become from slavery, Jim Crow, or any other inequity in our past?[/QUOTE]
Maybe when people aren't dragged to death or songs like "Barack the magic negro" aren't used, or a noose hanging from a tree isn't used to intimidate people, or etc....

It's ok. I don't expect you to understand what it's like to not be a white male. I'll never understand either. If you could walk a mile in their shoes, I imagine you'd be singing a different tune though.

 

[makare]

it says equal protection of the law. that means that if there is an inequality the law gets to step in and rectify it so that there is equality. It is is equal protection not equal application.

And you say WE'RE misinterpreting the 14th Amendment.

Equal protection MEANS equal application! People of differing races, genders, sexual orientations, or whatever the hell other trait you want to apply are seen as equals in the eyes of the law. As Gas has said numerous times, once you start applying the law differently based on physical traits, you run afoul of this clause. Punish the ACTION, not the THOUGHT.

Also, you've mentioned before that hate crime law "evens it up" or something to that effect. Well, when will the situation have been "evened-up" enough for hate crime statutes to be no longer "neccessary?" Is there a benchmark, or is this an open-ended thing, destined to continue no matter how many generations removed we become from slavery, Jim Crow, or any other inequity in our past?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, laws change with the times as needed. What is interpreted one way today will be interpreted differently years from now. That is how the law works. And the constitution is the law of the land which it is the responsibility of the judiciary to interpret and apply according to Article III of the Constitution.

Protection and application are completely different words with completely different meanings. And hate crimes punish the action, the action of choosing arbitrary targets by status.

 

[Terrik]

Want to know what it's like being a minority？ Move to another country where white isn't the majority.

(except I get positive discrimination)

Not always, mind you -_-

Damned Beijing taxi drivers.



I do agree with makare to a point. Legislation does change as needed. Look at the Civil Rights Act of 1964===its purpose was to expand the reach of, and enforce the 14th amendment. The amendment was there but the law wasn't adequate to meet the current needs.

 

[Armadillo]

it says equal protection of the law. that means that if there is an inequality the law gets to step in and rectify it so that there is equality. It is is equal protection not equal application.

And you say WE'RE misinterpreting the 14th Amendment.

Equal protection MEANS equal application! People of differing races, genders, sexual orientations, or whatever the hell other trait you want to apply are seen as equals in the eyes of the law. As Gas has said numerous times, once you start applying the law differently based on physical traits, you run afoul of this clause. Punish the ACTION, not the THOUGHT.

Also, you've mentioned before that hate crime law "evens it up" or something to that effect. Well, when will the situation have been "evened-up" enough for hate crime statutes to be no longer "neccessary?" Is there a benchmark, or is this an open-ended thing, destined to continue no matter how many generations removed we become from slavery, Jim Crow, or any other inequity in our past?[/QUOTE]
Maybe when people aren't dragged to death or songs like "Barack the magic negro" aren't used, or a noose hanging from a tree isn't used to intimidate people, or etc....

It's ok. I don't expect you to understand what it's like to not be a white male. I'll never understand either. If you could walk a mile in their shoes, I imagine you'd be singing a different tune though.[/QUOTE]

EDIT: WAY too angry of a response. You pushed a HUGE button of mine, pal. I'll let it slide this time, but next time let's try to avoid the "you're a white male so you don't get it" bullshit, shall we?

---------- Post added at 04:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:46 AM ----------

Yeah, laws change with the times as needed. What is interpreted one way today will be interpreted differently years from now. That is how the law works. And the constitution is the law of the land which it is the responsibility of the judiciary to interpret and apply according to Article III of the Constitution.

Protection and application are completely different words with completely different meanings. And hate crimes punish the action, the action of choosing arbitrary targets by status.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I just flat out don't agree with you.

 

[Krisken]

it says equal protection of the law. that means that if there is an inequality the law gets to step in and rectify it so that there is equality. It is is equal protection not equal application.

And you say WE'RE misinterpreting the 14th Amendment.

Equal protection MEANS equal application! People of differing races, genders, sexual orientations, or whatever the hell other trait you want to apply are seen as equals in the eyes of the law. As Gas has said numerous times, once you start applying the law differently based on physical traits, you run afoul of this clause. Punish the ACTION, not the THOUGHT.

Also, you've mentioned before that hate crime law "evens it up" or something to that effect. Well, when will the situation have been "evened-up" enough for hate crime statutes to be no longer "neccessary?" Is there a benchmark, or is this an open-ended thing, destined to continue no matter how many generations removed we become from slavery, Jim Crow, or any other inequity in our past?[/quote]
Maybe when people aren't dragged to death or songs like "Barack the magic negro" aren't used, or a noose hanging from a tree isn't used to intimidate people, or etc....

It's ok. I don't expect you to understand what it's like to not be a white male. I'll never understand either. If you could walk a mile in their shoes, I imagine you'd be singing a different tune though.[/quote]

EDIT: WAY too angry of a response. You pushed a HUGE button of mine, pal. I'll let it slide this time, but next time let's try to avoid the "you're a white male so you don't get it" bullshit, shall we?

---------- Post added at 04:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:46 AM ----------

Yeah, laws change with the times as needed. What is interpreted one way today will be interpreted differently years from now. That is how the law works. And the constitution is the law of the land which it is the responsibility of the judiciary to interpret and apply according to Article III of the Constitution.

Protection and application are completely different words with completely different meanings. And hate crimes punish the action, the action of choosing arbitrary targets by status.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I just flat out don't agree with you.[/QUOTE]
Why, are you a black woman?

 

[crono1224]

white people are revered some where? Man that shits went out of style long ago here.

 

[Terrik]

Damned Beijing taxi drivers.

I've never had a problem with a taxi in Beijing. were you trying to catch a cab near Tiananmen?

but this damn H1N1 thing made everyone check my temperature (while ignoring the Chinese people around me)[/QUOTE]

Qianmen area mostly. Im also not use to the Beijing system (restricted pick up areas, for instance)--or the fact that I've had taxi drivers tell me to "Take a bus"..and yes, the H1N1 thing is ridiculous.. surprisingly happens far, far less in Tianjin. I've had taxi drivers in Beijing tell me that they won't pick up foreigners because they think H1N1 is a foreigner disease and they don't want to catch it.

white people are revered some where? Man that shits went out of style long ago here.

I'm tellin' ya Crono--find a school asap

 

[JONJONAUG]

So this guy here is running for Congress in North Carolina and OH GOD MY EYES.

http://www.georgehutchins.com/

 

[Terrik]

Surely this is a joke

 

[Espy]

So this guy here is running for Congress in North Carolina and OH GOD MY EYES.

http://www.georgehutchins.com/

IT BURNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Covar]

HOT DAMN THAT'S MY DISTRICT!

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

hey is this the go to thread to laugh at republicans


because




holy shit

 

[AshburnerX]

Wow... that is fucked up.

 

[Krisken]

So this guy here is running for Congress in North Carolina and OH GOD MY EYES.

http://www.georgehutchins.com/

Wow, looks like someone threw up on a web page.

Hey Covar, since it's your district, can you verify this?

 

[Krisken]

Joe "You Lie!" Wilson says Obama is responsible for shortage of H1N1 vaccine. even though he voted against increased funding for vaccines.

 

[DarkAudit]

Told ya the GOP has no real use for latinos.

Or Senator Olympia Snowe. What would they say about folks like Nelson Rockefeller today? Denounced and denied I would guess.

And here goes Fox again. Not covering news, but organizing anti-government protests.

And that big "ratings jump" that Fox Noise allegedly got? The real numbers say different.

 

[Covar]

near as I can tell he's not legit, as a Republican Candidate at least. At the very least he hasn't been picked up by local news, and there's connections to his page from a National Independents Movement party.

My Guess. Either a really complex hoax or a cook third party.

 

[makare]

legitimate or not, dear god, someone send that guy a web designer that is not on acid. thank you.

 

[Bowielee]

Joe \"You Lie!\" Wilson says Obama is responsible for shortage of H1N1 vaccine. even though he voted against increased funding for vaccines.

To be fair, which I know is laughable when talking about politics, it's often hard to critisize people for voting against bills with all the riders attached to them.

I know it's a time honored political tradition, but calling someone on the carpet for naying on a bill which has a rider they do agree with (though I'm not saying that he did) seems even more hypocritical, IMO.

I know this is hyperbole, but say they introduce a bill abolishing slavery with a rider that it will also abolish abortion.

Saying yay to that bill doesn't necessarily mean that you're anti abortion, but more that you're anti slavery.

 

[GasBandit]

Maybe when people aren't dragged to death or songs like "Barack the magic negro" aren't used, or a noose hanging from a tree isn't used to intimidate people, or etc....

Quick point - The phrase "Barack the Magic Negro" was coined by a black man, describing, ironically enough given that we're discussing hate crime, how obama was just a tool to assuage white guilt.

It's very simple though to address the other things you mentioned though. Increase the penalty for dragging to death or hanging nooses or any other kind of such activity, WITHOUT MAKING MENTION OF RACE anywhere in the legislation. Voila.

Protection and application are completely different words with completely different meanings. And hate crimes punish the action, the action of choosing arbitrary targets by status.

No, they assume that any crime committed upon a minority by a white person is a hate crime no matter what the facts of the case may be. If I run over a guy who just so happens to be black because he slept with my wife, it's automatically a hate crime. But if I am cuckolded by a white guy, I automatically face a lesser sentence. Hate crime law is as inane as "zero tolerance" policies in school - they eschew thought and reason from the process and create an intolerable and idiotic system in a well meaning but completely misguided attempt to rectify a perceived social problem.

 

[makare]

Maybe when people aren't dragged to death or songs like "Barack the magic negro" aren't used, or a noose hanging from a tree isn't used to intimidate people, or etc....

Quick point - The phrase "Barack the Magic Negro" was coined by a black man, describing, ironically enough given that we're discussing hate crime, how obama was just a tool to assuage white guilt.

It's very simple though to address the other things you mentioned though. Increase the penalty for dragging to death or hanging nooses or any other kind of such activity, WITHOUT MAKING MENTION OF RACE anywhere in the legislation. Voila.

Protection and application are completely different words with completely different meanings. And hate crimes punish the action, the action of choosing arbitrary targets by status.

No, they assume that any crime committed upon a minority by a white person is a hate crime no matter what the facts of the case may be. If I run over a guy who just so happens to be black because he slept with my wife, it's automatically a hate crime. But if I am cuckolded by a white guy, I automatically face a lesser sentence. Hate crime law is as inane as "zero tolerance" policies in school - they eschew thought and reason from the process and create an intolerable and idiotic system in a well meaning but completely misguided attempt to rectify a perceived social problem.[/QUOTE]

in the hate crime statutes i have read and in cases where they are applied they had to show that status, race, gender, orientation etc was part of the intent. I don't know who the "they" you are talking about are but it sure isn't the judiciary.

 

[Covar]

Maybe when people aren't dragged to death or songs like "Barack the magic negro" aren't used, or a noose hanging from a tree isn't used to intimidate people, or etc....

Quick point - The phrase "Barack the Magic Negro" was coined by a black man, describing, ironically enough given that we're discussing hate crime, how obama was just a tool to assuage white guilt.[/QUOTE]

Don't bother Gas, the song even says were every criticism comes from.

 

[GasBandit]

The New York tiff between Republicans and Conservatives continue - Dede Sco.. Scozti.. Scozza... the RINO has dropped out and polls show the "Conservative" candidate in the lead. This has led to what politico is now calling a Republican Civil War. Things are neck and neck in New Jersey, a historically bluer-than-blue state, and looking close in Virginia as well despite Obama heavily pushing and campaigning for the Democrat.

Well ... here's your latest cost estimate on the PelosiCare bill from the house. It's $1.2 trillion. Obamacare - More dangerous to America than terrorism? Robert Gibbs says the white house isn't concerned about the constitutionality of the takeover of health care.

Harry Reid has some gonads. He is accusing the Republicans of not having any healthcare plans, when he himself technically does not have a completed healthcare bill to show the world. Last week, he sent off pieces of healthcare legislation for a CBO cost analysis. So the Republicans said they wanted to see the bill that he sent to the CBO. Well the truth of the matter is that this bill hasn't even been written yet. Unfortunately for Harry, there have been some Republican submitted health care plans. Me, I wonder why the republicans are even an issue, seeing as how the Democrats have an unassailable majority. What's stopping Obamacare is not Republicans, it's swing state Democrats that are reluctant to toe the ultraleftist party line Pelosi and Reid are demanding.

While the big battles are being fought in Washington, Democrats are quietly racking up smaller victories that have been on their wish lists for years. The Wall Street Journal has more.

Do you wonder why Al Gore refuses to debate the global warming nonsense? Could it possibly be because he has a huge financial stake in promoting this fraud?

Seems that the voters in Iowa are starting to figure out that they were conned by this hopey-changey thingy. And if you're still signed-in to Obama's hopey-changey message, for goodness' sake don't read this. You don't want to find out that to The Community Organizer, it's all about money .. money flowing his way.

Jeremiah Wright is back in the news. This time over a video where he praises Marxism. Sounds about right.

Ford, the only Big Three auto maker not to take a government bailout, recorded a billion dollar profit, thanks largely to restructuring and renegotiating union contracts.

And then we get this news ... Taxpayers are unlikely to recover their full investment in General Motors or Chrysler.

Has anyone read the Copenhagen agreement? What exactly are we about to get ourselves into.

Hillary Clinton is doing a bangup job of handling the Middle East peace process. Or not ...

Obama says he wants to get serious about creating jobs. Wait, wasn't that what his economic stimulus package was for?

A report from the Congressional Research Service shows that the United States has the largest energy reserves on Earth. But because of our government, we can't do a darn thing about it.

What does immigration enforcement have to do with national security? Here's something the Democrats (and Republicans) don't want you to see.

An analysis found that 3 million registered voters are dead and 12 million are ineligible to vote.

The government of Venezuela is having to ration water, and the leftists blame this on ... capitalism??

A massive wind energy project off the coast of Massachusetts could be held up indefinitely because ... it could harm the rituals of a local Indian tribe.

Is a Muslim headscarf considered a hat? Here's a story from Dallas that has the Muslims in a rage.

in the hate law statutes i have read and in cases where they are applied they had to show that status, race, gender, orientation etc was part of the intent. I don't know who the \"they\" you are talking about are but it sure isn't the judiciary.

Yes, because we all know how rare and hard to make stick accusations of racism are these days.

 

[makare]

in the hate law statutes i have read and in cases where they are applied they had to show that status, race, gender, orientation etc was part of the intent. I don't know who the "they" you are talking about are but it sure isn't the judiciary.

Yes, because we all know how rare and hard to make stick accusations of racism are these days.

Well if there is a way to win or lose this argument, with that stupid comment you just lost. Good day sir.

 

[GasBandit]

in the hate law statutes i have read and in cases where they are applied they had to show that status, race, gender, orientation etc was part of the intent. I don't know who the "they" you are talking about are but it sure isn't the judiciary.

Yes, because we all know how rare and hard to make stick accusations of racism are these days.

Well if there is a way to win or lose this argument, with that stupid comment you just lost. Good day sir.[/quote]

To quote Krisken - you wish.

Good day sir.

 

[makare]

in the hate law statutes i have read and in cases where they are applied they had to show that status, race, gender, orientation etc was part of the intent. I don't know who the "they" you are talking about are but it sure isn't the judiciary.

Yes, because we all know how rare and hard to make stick accusations of racism are these days.

Well if there is a way to win or lose this argument, with that stupid comment you just lost. Good day sir.[/QUOTE]

To quote Krisken - you wish.[/QUOTE]

I said good day.