Conservatives say stupid shit

[Escapegoat]

Originally Posted by Qingdai

Virginia Foxx Republican of N.C., ""I also would like to point out that there was a bill -- the hate crimes bill that's called the Matthew Shepard bill is named after a very unfortunate incident that happened where a young man was killed, but we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay. "
In front of his mom, on the floor of the House of Representatives.

That must be that Southern hospitality that we've heard about, invite someone to your "house" then insult the shit out of their dead relatives.

Unless he is female, and says "bless his heart" after, it does not conform to the rules of southern culture.

[Qingdai]

Virginia Foxx is female, I could fully see her saying, "bless his heart" too. 'Course it is North Carolina, so there's that.

[Jerome]

Explain why it matters the reason why someone that killed another person, if the reason is malicious regardless.

[D. Scarlatti]

And make it snappy.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Explain why it matters the reason why someone that killed another person, if the reason is malicious regardless.

Sure.

A murder is a murder. A person is dead.

A lynching is something else. A person is dead, and a message has been sent.

[wei yau]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

[

Clearly the respondents to this poll are interested in marrying Chaka Khan...barring that, Whitney Houston.

[Dingfod]

Other? Free cable tv for the masses?

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Adam

Sure.

A murder is a murder. A person is dead.

A lynching is something else. A person is dead, and a message has been sent.

Right, you want harsher punishment for thought crime.

That works until the wrong people are in control and your thoughts are then defined as criminal.

You guys really need to think beyond the feel good intent.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Right, you want harsher punishment for thought crime.

Wow, I think you set a new standard in reading incomprehension.

It is the right thread for it.

[Jerome]

How is is worse to kill someone for money then to kill someone because of their religion?

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Right, you want harsher punishment for thought crime.

Interesting! JEROME, should the law distinguish between murder and involuntary manslaughter?

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Interesting! JEROME, should the law distinguish between murder and involuntary manslaughter?

"if the reason is malicious regardless"

Learn to read all the words dumbass, I usually don't use a lot of words so you should be able to keep up.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

"if the reason is malicious regardless"

Learn to read all the words dumbass, I usually don't use a lot of words so you should be able to keep up.

Right, you want harsher punishment for some types of thought crime but not others. (When I ask you a question, it's because I already know exactly what the answer will be. Some people might call this the Socratic method; I like to think of it as trick questions.)

[Jerome]

You need to study some more.

manslaughter

n. the unlawful killing of another person without premeditation or so-called "malice aforethought" (an evil intent prior to the killing). It is distinguished from murder (which brings greater penalties) by lack of any prior intention to kill anyone or create a deadly situation. There are two levels of manslaughter: voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary manslaughter includes killing in heat of passion or while committing a felony. Involuntary manslaughter occurs when a death is caused by a violation of a non-felony, such as reckless driving (called "vehicular manslaughter"). Examples: Eddy Hothead gets into a drunken argument in a saloon with his acquaintance Bob Bonehead, and Hothead hits Bonehead over the head with a beer bottle, causing internal bleeding and death. Brent Burgle sneaks into a warehouse intent on theft and is surprised by a security man, whom Burgle knocks down a flight of stairs, killing him. Both are voluntary manslaughter. However, if either man had used a gun, a murder charge is most likely since he brought a deadly weapon to use in the crime. The immediate rage in finding a loved one in bed with another followed by a killing before the passion cools usually limits the charge to voluntary manslaughter and not murder, but prior attacks could convince a District Attorney and a jury that the killing was not totally spontaneous. Lenny Leadfoot drives 70 miles per hour on a twisting mountain road, goes off a cliff and his passenger is killed in the crash. Leadfoot can be charged with involuntary manslaughter.
See also: homicide murder

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

You need to study some more.

manslaughter

n. the unlawful killing of another person without premeditation or so-called "malice aforethought" (an evil intent prior to the killing). It is distinguished from murder (which brings greater penalties) by lack of any prior intention to kill anyone or create a deadly situation. There are two levels of manslaughter: voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary manslaughter includes killing in heat of passion or while committing a felony. Involuntary manslaughter occurs when a death is caused by a violation of a non-felony, such as reckless driving (called "vehicular manslaughter"). Examples: Eddy Hothead gets into a drunken argument in a saloon with his acquaintance Bob Bonehead, and Hothead hits Bonehead over the head with a beer bottle, causing internal bleeding and death. Brent Burgle sneaks into a warehouse intent on theft and is surprised by a security man, whom Burgle knocks down a flight of stairs, killing him. Both are voluntary manslaughter. However, if either man had used a gun, a murder charge is most likely since he brought a deadly weapon to use in the crime. The immediate rage in finding a loved one in bed with another followed by a killing before the passion cools usually limits the charge to voluntary manslaughter and not murder, but prior attacks could convince a District Attorney and a jury that the killing was not totally spontaneous. Lenny Leadfoot drives 70 miles per hour on a twisting mountain road, goes off a cliff and his passenger is killed in the crash. Leadfoot can be charged with involuntary manslaughter.
See also: homicide murder

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Right, you want harsher punishment for thought crime.

That works until the wrong people are in control and your thoughts are then defined as criminal.

You guys really need to think beyond the feel good intent.

So just to confirm, you believe that the law should punish someone for what was in their mind at the time when he or she killed another human being?

Let me give you a hint: babbling about "thought crime" is the wrong basis on which to oppose hate crimes legislation. Stealing other people's intellectual property and pasting it here without attribution doesn't help either. Refine the objection and it might stand up better. As it happens, I, too, oppose hate crimes legislation.

[Qingdai]

Man, I don't know why anyone bothers to argue with Jerry, but it's your life.

[ChuckF]

I'm not arguing with JEROME. In fact, I agree with his opposition to hate crimes legislation. I'm just trying to understand why he thinks it's ok to punish a person for the content of his or her thoughts.

[Jerome]

You have taken the ridiculous position that intention exhibited by action is equal to having the wrong thoughts.

[SR71]

I guess Cain is leading the pack now, so I guess I'll harsh on him for a while. Here he is Quoting a union buster from the early 1900's and saying it's a Lincoln quote. Hyuck hyuck.

Herman Cain Quotes Obscure 20th-Century Strike-Breaker and Misattributes it to Lincoln | Video Cafe

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

You have taken the ridiculous position that intention exhibited by action is equal to having the wrong thoughts.

I don't believe I have taken any such position. Can you show me where I have?

What is the murderer's malice aforethought but "having the wrong thoughts?"

The law constantly reaches into the mind of the actor to see what he was thinking, and may condemn or exonerate him on that basis. What is the key difference here? I think you're getting close here.

Remember this parenthetical.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Right, you want harsher punishment for thought crime.

First, I don't think I ever said that I support hate crimes legislation (in fact, however, I do), so I'm not sure why you assumed that I had to support the idea in order to be able to explain it.

Second, no, what I "want" (or, rather, what I understand to be the point of hate crime legislation) is for their to be a recognition of and a penalty for the fact that, implicit in every lynching, is a death threat aimed at every member of the targeted group.

Should it be illegal to make death threats?

[SR71]

Cain on Muslims in his dreamt of administration. Never mind that the constitution which the Tea Party is so enamored of specifically forbids his proposal.

Herman Cain on Muslims in Government: 'I Don't Want... to be Looking Over My Shoulder' - Politics - Fox Nation

From Constitution-
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

He's a funny guy.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Adam

Second, no, what I "want" (or, rather, what I understand to be the point of hate crime legislation) is for their to be a recognition of and a penalty for the fact that, implicit in every lynching, is a death threat aimed at every member of the targeted group.

You want individuals separated into groups, much easier to manipulate their behavior that way, right?

Idiotic thinking like that will have brown eyed people lynching green eyed people you fucking moron.

Hey, your eye color does or does not allow special group privilege, therefore you should have animosity, nay, you must have anger for those other fucks with the wrong color eyes because those fucks do not have your group's eye color.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

I don't believe I have taken any such position. Can you show me where I have?

What is the murderer's malice aforethought but "having the wrong thoughts?"

The law constantly reaches into the mind of the actor to see what he was thinking, and may condemn or exonerate him on that basis. What is the key difference here? I think you're getting close here.

Remember this parenthetical.

Chuck, the actions denote the determination.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

You want individuals separated into groups, much easier to manipulate their behavior that way, right?

Idiotic thinking like that will have brown eyed people lynching green eyed people you fucking moron.

Hey, your eye color does or does not allow special group privilege, therefore you should have animosity, nay, you must have anger for those other fucks with the wrong color eyes because those fucks do not have your group's eye color.

ADAM IS THIS TRUE?!

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Chuck, the actions denote the determination.

So it's OK for the state to punish someone for the content of his or her thoughts when that person's actions denote a determination to take such action? The state could punish a homophobe for killing a homosexual for being a homosexual since his actions in killing a homosexual denotes a determination to kill a homosexual? Is that what you're saying?