likearock

The worst crimes are the one's that threaten the justice system itself. For example, intimidation and murder of witnesses, prosecutors, and judges.

Shouldn't "ludeness" be $7.14 a month ? (for those who get it) Is that because Howard Stern tends to roar a lot? You know, he's a roarer.

There's enough of a reason for me. Witness intimidation is a huge threat to our rule of law. It must be dealt with severely. Edited to add: BTW, I supported executing Tookie. But to my mind the fact that this guy tried to murder his witnesses makes him more deserving of the death penalty. So if you're looking for reasons why people might support one but not the other, that could be part of it.

Did they also say that the 9/11 victims were being punished because of the sinful ways of NYC? Or that towns rejecting creationism should expect disaster because they would be rejected by God? With Robertson, it's a pattern. A very sick pattern.

You are now officially a Speakers Corner GOD!!!! (At least in my opinion) I live for posts like this. [Let the thermonuclear warfare begin!!!] Walt I'm honored.

What a bullshit argument. Really? So argue it instead of issuing ad hominem attacks. Like that. By the way, clever tactic to rope Bill into it since we all know he's less like to issue a PA warning when he's the target. It was meant to make you think. My bad. Why not bring in bestiality and pedophilia? It's pretty obvious how much hatred you have for gay people. No matter what, you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the fact that two men can have the same kind of monogomous, "two people meant to be together" love that exists between a man and a woman.

Come on! There's no way that "a squared plus b squared equals c squared" is a theory.

Whatever those motive were or are, it's pretty obvious to everyone we've got to get out. It's just a question of when.

I don't understand why people think that interracial couples are not asking for anything special, they are. Marriage has always been known to mean a union between members of the same race (now this was never written down because it was never questioned). Interracial couples now want that redefined to include a mixed race marriage union. That is a special request on their part. IF they wanted equality then there would be no need to change the law. Blacks have just as much right to marry a black woman as any white man has to marry a white woman.

Well, Bill was quoting Leviticus (and Jude and Corinthians) to gay-bash. Is Leviticus the Old Testament or the New? I forget. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1987362#1987362 Old. The order is Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy (please correct me if I'm wrong).

The Shiites are the plurality in Iraq and they seem to have come out quite well in the recent elections: http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1577875,00050004.htm. True there are cultural differences between them an the Iranians (which the Bush administration never hesitates to stress), but after all is said and done, we would be talking about two Shiite dominated, fundamentalist Islamic regimes. This guy's rising influence and close ties to Iran also leads me to be very suspicious of Iran's role and endgame in Iraq.

What the hell are you saying here, Mark? That Matthew Shepherd was somehow "looking for it". That's pretty fucking low.

Also, it's a whole new scene from 1980 now that people can telecommute (which I'm doing right now). The hurt is going to be felt primarily on the people in the tourist business. But it's not the same kind of bargaining leverage as 25 years ago.

After Iraq becomes a Shiite dominated fundamentalist Muslim state and merges with Iran, what will the new country be called?

How interesting. Thanks for doing that research, Rhonda. I hadn't even gone to that site. I wish I had so I would have seen that even the pedophiles note the distance between the two groups. Mark Harju, your contribution to this discussion has been noted, examined, and thoroughly discredited. A couple of hundred posts into a thread where I initially asked for this well-known "Militant Homosexual Agenda" has so far resulted in this many answers: Zero! One could HOPE that people would therefore stop using this ridiculous phrase from now on, but one can be quite certain they won't. It's too useful for the bigots to rile up the emotions of the sheep. Baaah! It's not just gays, you know. There will always be a "Militant x Agenda" where x = feministecologicalhollywoodgun ownergun controlpro-lifepro-choiceSome people will always define themselves by what they're against.

Don't forget completely free healthcare. You don't find that anywhere in the private sector. I guess I picked a good time to go to Eloy!

Trent, a proud member of the management class? I'm searching the Internet to find a smiley that expresses how hilarious that is. But I'm sure he'll let you know better than I can.

Your point is logical and narrowly true but misses (sidesteps?) the larger issue. To call the IRA the "Militant Irish Agenda" can be read as strictly accurate as you showed above, but 99% of the people who see that phrase will incorrectly read it as stating that the entire Irish population is militant. Of course that would fit the goals of the anti-irish who will gladly encourage misunderstandings that advance their bigotry. But most people are able to make the distinction that all the Irish are not terrorists without having to believe that the terrorists are not Irish. Isn't that the ideal?

So is the death penalty. You may require everyone to be anti-death penalty to be considered pro-life, but that isn't a universally accepted restriction. Irrelevant. That's like saying Irish people don't encourage IRA terror so that means IRA terrorists are not Irish.

I'd say it's John McCain. What would you say?

Will be an interesting test for Roberts (and possibly Alito) when it get to the Supreme Court.

Watch out... if you continue to speak clearly and reasonably like this you'll be told you're an inherently angry person.

If a pedophile starts collecting stamps, that doesn't give him the opportunity to start speaking for the whole stamp collecting community. Who said it does? You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. That was an oblique reference to Mark's position that the pedophiles speak for all homosexuals. I apologize for the lack of clarity. No problem. Let's recognize that part of the problem is the emotionally charged atmosphere of this whole topic. There were some pretty despicable anti-gay posts and I can understand people who don't want to add fuel to the fire. But I don't think the right way to do that is to ignore the truth.

If a pedophile starts collecting stamps, that doesn't give him the opportunity to start speaking for the whole stamp collecting community. Who said it does? You're putting words in my mouth.

oh! This is interesting. So your distinction is that if there is a militant subgroup, then their agenda is the portion of the whole that's the militant one. This is plausible. Moving forward, how do you handle the aberrant bankrobbing skydiver? Does he now control the "skydiver agenda"? This doesn't quite fit the pattern I was describing. In both NAMBLA and abortion doctor killers, the activity can be described as some subset of the larger activity. Killing abortion doctors is an form, albeit an extreme an abhoorent one, of pro-life protest. The same is true about NAMBLA. Totally abhorrent, I grant you, but it is a form of homosexual activity. Robbing banks really has nothing to do with the core activity of skydiving (although some people might be driven to it, gear prices being what they are ). That's a good question. I would say that they should if they have the ability to do so, but shouldn't be obligated to do so. If pro-life leaders could stop the killers they should do so, but it's doubtful that many have that power. See my previous remark on skydiving bankrobbers for why I don't consider my position to be reductio ad absurdum.