rehmwa

IMHO - there's a few sincere people here that don't warrant jabs like that. You're one of them, Wendy, lawrocket, normiss, etc.... I think DavJohns is also one of them. Maybe if we practice rational discourse with each other for a while the habit might set in and infect the others.... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

that doesn't stop others.... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

and I addressed a very 'genuous' opinion that motivation/intent is a couple degrees removed from thought policing and pre-judging....(grouping thought with motivation/intent is disingenuous ) (just for completeness since they aren't following our discussion) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

It's all freedom of speech - if on public property and not infringing on anyone else. (it's also stupid and hateful and impotent - people like this get attacked and then they keep on doing it. I wonder if they'd stop sooner and more effectively if people just gathered and pointed at them and laughed - rather than giving them the anger and violent responses they wanted in the first place. ((Puppies and unicorns - I even wonder how effective it would be if people went to stand next to him and just quietly starting sharing things about the 'individuals' in the neighborhood, real things, hopes and dreams, and were decent to him.)) Would it be a hate crime if someone attacked the guy with the distasteful sign???) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Boo hoo..... Free speech. I don't feel 'harassed' when someone black wears a "black power" shirt. ***putting a bicycle lock around his neck Then arrest them for assault. If they did it, I have no problem with them going to jail for it. This is a key point. This guy DID get physically pressed by those jerks. Their actions are the problem and those actions are verified and definitely out of line. And that should be enough to punish those guys. But they are talking about how the room was decorated and what the guys wore.........instead of just about their actions. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

as you note - even a flat "rate" is still progressive in amount, just not progressive in percentage why pay more in amount (for the same product) - where would you draw that line? Loaf of bread? or roads and military? (willie sutton is legit argument, but I wonder what people think is "right", not just practical or expeditious) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I like Sky's posts too. Here's the thing: You and I are walking down the road. Two guys walk up and sucker punch us in the back of our heads. They say nothing, and clam up during the court cases, etc. Exact same crime. However, in our town, there's a few loudmouths that are bugging the mayor about bad pay for equal work and sexism, and racism, and blah blah blah. The DA is spun up and elections are just around the corner. My guy gets simple assault and x number of months in jail. Your lawyer notes that you 'appear' to be middle eastern (even though you are now American) and makes a hate crime claim during the case. your guy gets simple assault for x number of months, PLUS he gets another x number of months. Why is the assault on me valued less? (or yours more?) Everything was exactly equal, other than the external political climate? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Here's a great point. If these crimes warrant a larger punishment in your special scenarios, then aren't we saying that they are not severe enough in the general sense? I think so. That's the real problem, and fixing just the one symptom puts us farther from the real solution - value everyone equally and justice needs to respond accordingly. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

circle of life - posters here were making those claims about GWB hijacking 'extra' terms too. our posters here really have no idea that they are the exact same people arguing two sides of a diseased coin ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

No, I'm not. (smiley face or swastika, it's a violation of the private property). Any secondary fallout needs to be addressed directly as to those specific actions that are committed, not 'potentially' committed. agree to disagree Funny you chose Banksy though. In your opinion, is defacing another's property LESS of a crime because the 'artist' is making a positive (or at least a Politically Correct to certain demographics) statement? Now you are getting into abuse of the right of free speech and that's it's acceptable to commit a crime in the pursuit of that speech. But only if you agree with the speech of the artist, but not acceptable if you don't. Where would draw THAT line? whose property is it 'acceptable' for Banksy to deface? whose would it be 'inappropriate' to? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

You and I will have to agree to disagree on this

it was fun, but I'm not going down that route, rick and ron and kallend and funjumper live down there good stuff for a while, thanks "it would have to be started by politicians, carried through the legislative process, then upheld by a court, appeal courts and the Supreme Court. " I am concerned about this. History shows this isn't fool proof when the goal is a major philosophical shift in politics and society. I have two parties in Washington that have no issue 'bending' the rules to get what they want. And a public majority that doesn't understand that this is not right. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

It's a good statement. That's not the question. Here's the question: Are you willing to make that statement by having a government that deliberately unequally punishes people for the same act? If so, which statements are ok with this and which statements are you not ok with it? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

OK - define the minimum to achieve that. And get EVERYONE to agree with your definition (enforce all your criteria without violating people's rights to choose for themselves how to live their lives) I'll start - IMHO, preventative care starts with fitness and nutrition. Fitness = exercise. Health = how we eat. Let's give everyone a gym membership and create an eating plan for everyone. Force them to workout and eat like I think they must. good luck ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

1 - clearly the poster committed a hate crime (I mean, if "nobody can question that" it must be) 2 - clearly you committed a hate crime against Oprah (both a female and a minority, and most importantly, an actor - you can't doubt her. Though she is rich, so that's a tough call, you can't commit a hate crime against a rich person. tough call) The Supreme Court? tough call - clearly they didn't commit a hate crime then??? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

No, but then non of that is a hate crime. yes it is if there is a desire to prosecute it that way - the 'more equal' pigs in charge can define it any way they wish. Wait until it's a hate crime to bad mouth policy from the president (Bush, or Obama). Or pick a hated Canadian politician if you wish. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

You do in a hate crime. All other crimes and subsequent punishment is based on intent as well. What thought process went into it. Difference between manslaughter and murder 1 is often the thought behind the act. Selecting something in a store and absentmindedly walking out with it is not stealing. It is only stealing if you intended to steal it, if the thought was there. Thought already plays a big part in criminal justice, to all of a sudden abandon that when it comes to hate crimes makes no sense to me. I understand your point - but those gradations are about the intent that goes into it. This goes beyond a reasonable expectation of intent, but to the philosophy behind the intent. It even goes beyond that and prioritizes the 2nd over the 1st at times. Your example is valid and applies to how to punish the criminal directly based on his actions. hate crime is more than that, it's taking a scapegoat and using him to make a societal statement. That's different. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

BETTER I don't like this, but it is better than the current plan. 1 - "basic" needs to be BASIC - essentially single payer "real" emergency room type coverage only, not health care, emergency room, major medical only 2 - tax should be flat, not progressive. everyone uses the same, everyone pays the same the current system would have been able to transition much more easily to 'supplemental' policies that achieve more as desired by the customers This whole - "if you like it, you can keep it" would have been much more truthful if it was really "if you like it, you can keep it. But if your current plan does not meet the minimums, you will likely need to purchase the difference between what you have now, and what you will be required to have to participate fairly with the rest of the country" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Should a criminal be punished for stealing a loaf a bread from Walmart? Should he be punished extra for stealing a similar loaf from a corner quickie mart owned by a (chinese? white? black? Jewish? Poor? rich? male? female? gay? straight?) couple? Should he be punished more or less if the thief is chinese? white? black? Jewish? Poor? rich? male? female? gay? straight? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

You have a point. i can see the difference in this example. It would be more then vandalism. Hmmm time to rethink this one. I don't - graffiti is graffiti regardless of the topic - it's defacing another's property. (If the "content" incites other crimes - like assault, etc, then those are separate crimes that stand on their own and need to be addressed as they stand). How do you trial one case where the guy painted that swastika and the other case where an ignorant vandal spray painted something that 'kinda looks' like a swastika? at that point, you aren't working the crime, you are working on society by committing further injustice on the individual (first you punish them correctly for the act of defacing another's property, then you take out societal frustration upon the guy because you have no other target - one is justice, the other is a witch hunt - a lazy, political and childish witch hunt). How do you justify an increased punishment on one person for "potential" that he might incite a total stranger to commit a crime? Isn't the next crime the responsibility of the next criminal? It's so incredibly rife with unequal punishment under the law I'm amazed the concept every got any traction - but that's politics and ignorance in action. I'm for punishing someone based on their actions, NOT on their thoughts, NOT on the actions of others. It's that simple. Highly liberal laws punish people based on (what they, in a biased way think is) their thoughts. Highly conservative societies punish people based on (what they, in a biased way think is) their thoughts. Highly religious societies punish people based on (what they, in a biased way think is) their thoughts. If you look at it clearly - hate crime is a clear symptom of very extremist, very intolerant, societies. "Hate crime" is just another way to try to enforce and control thought and morals beyond just responding to the actions of a person. Assault is assault and should be punished equally. Why does it matter what's in the mind of the person that commits it? Why does it matter if the victim is one race or religion over another? The crime is the attack, not the (perceived) thought process. Anything else is pure bias and more "ism" preferencing. Down that road is a pretty crappy place that just reinforces what we want to evolve past in the first place. The only logical responses to my position are "social engineering" type arguments. (I know, someone will note that punishing murder = 'social engineering' - that tangent is obtuse and redirecting and boring). So it come down to a person's opinion on individualism vs otherwise. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I believe the popularized line came from Blazing Saddles. yup - a tribute to Treasure of S.M. also showed up in Cheech and Chong too the full quote is so much better Hell, I just learned about the original version from the book just now, it's even better. Tirades need to be big. I like it. "Badges, to god-damned hell with badges! We have no badges. In fact, we don't need badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges, you god-damned cabrón and chinga tu madre!" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

stop it, no one likes logic. you must hate puppies ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

The original version of the line appeared in B. Traven's 1927 novel The Treasure of the Sierra Madre: "All right," Curtin shouted back. "If you are the police, where are your badges? Let's see them." "Badges, to god-damned hell with badges! We have no badges. In fact, we don't need badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges, you god-damned cabrón and chinga tu madre!" The line was popularized by the 1948 film adaptation of the novel. In one scene, a Mexican bandit leader named "Gold Hat" (Alfonso Bedoya) tries to convince Fred C. Dobbs (Humphrey Bogart)that he and his company are Federales: Dobbs: "If you're the police where are your badges?" Gold Hat: "Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges! I don't have to show you any stinkin' badges!" Lazy and contemporary and weak version abused constantly "we don't need no stinkin' badges" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

When the Dems lose the majority they will cry, and cry how unfair the rule change is now, and with the help of the news media playing it up, the GOP will cave and change the rule back. it's really simple, the Dems SHOULD have changed the rule to "Republicans cannot filibuster" then the issue isn't a problem at all. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

an illegitimate vote = denial of the legitimate vote it cancels, therefore, he must say 'yes' it does (I don't see why Rush is avoiding your question) the real question is which is bigger? the alpha error, or the beta error You guys are talking about indirect disenfranchisements - you are making an assumption that voter ID will result in disenfranchisement and there is no way to get around that - that's several intermediate steps to get to your disenfranchisement of a legal voter. While illegal voting is direct - one step to disenfranchisement of a legal voter. I'm more interested in these direct disenfranchisements - like disallowing write in votes from legal voting military members, direct fraud in counting, ballot box stuffing, voter intimidation, dead people voting, felons voting, etc etc etc an illegal vote is direct, no doubt about it - if you don't fix it with ID, what is your alternate recommendation that would address it? How do we fix that problem in an acceptable way? IMO - anyone that's obtusely unwilling to try and answer that last question clearly has an agenda that desires illegal voting. And, frankly, there must be a solution that would minimize illegal voting AND improve legal voting. Most all of the anti-ID arguments are bunk and just rationalizations by those that gain from illegal voting. Even so, constructive feedback would be to offer an alternative, not just fighting it......if they were 'truly' sincere. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants