Does Foxx Care? Does a Bear Make Doo-Doo in a Toto Neorest 600 Toilet?
Saul Friedman,
yesterday:
I nearly forgot to include among the stupid or dumb death panel liars and nuts, Rep. Virginia Foxx, R., N.C., who seems like a benign grandma, until she speaks. On the hate crimes legislation, passed as a result of the beating death of a gay man, Matthew Shepard, Foxx voted against it and said that reports that he was beaten because he was gay was "a hoax that continues to be used as an excuse for passing hate crime bills." Shepard's mother heard that piece of cruelty in the gallery.
In September of 2005, Foxx was one of 11 members of Congress to vote against a $51 million aid package, supported by George W. Bush, for victims of Katrina. And she was one of 33 Republicans to vote against an extension of the 1964 Voting Rights Act. But her fame rests with her opposition to the health care reforms, which will make insurance, like the kind Foxx and other lawmakers have, more affordable for an estimated 40 million people who are uninsured.
But last July, Foxx said, "There are no Americans who don't have health care." Echoing Bush's assertion that people can always go to emergency rooms, she added, "Everybody in this country has access to health care. We do have 7.5 million Americans who want to purchase health insurance who cannot afford it." And in a floor speech, she took the death panels lie to this absurd conclusion: "I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country .... The [health reform bill] will put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government." Unfortunately, one of the dimmer lights in the U.S. Senate, Charles Grassley, R., Iowa, joined in on that stupidity. The Institute of Medicine says that 18,000 to 22,000 deaths, including some of Foxx's constituents, are recorded each year among those who are uninsured. Does Foxx care?
Saul Friedman, yesterday:
What is a "hate crime"? Either a crime has been committed or it hasn't. Making a special class of victim based on race, gender, or ethnicity is racist and promotes the degredation of minorities as well as reverse racism. An assault on a gay man or on a white man is the same - no difference exccept to the liberals who want to see it that way when it suits them. The Black Panther who outside the polling booth - why wasn't THAT a hate crime under your definitions? Tough questions, tough questions.
ReplyDeleteJohnny Rico
I make it a point never to comment on any of Johnny Wacko's posts. I think Wacko is a sad and pathetic excuse for a human being. That's why I find it hard to admit that I agree.
ReplyDeleteI have serious problems with hate crime laws. We punish murder and add punishment if it is premeditated and even add punishment if the killer uses a gun. One is designed to limit planning a crime and one is designed to limit weapons.
Hate crime laws are too subject to interpretation and misuse by police, politicians and DAs.
Assault and battery is a crime; assault and battery on Johnny Wacko, well that's a........
Some are more equal than others.
ReplyDeleteActually, a Harvard University study shows 45,000 Americans die every year from no health care. Their methodology and findings are available online.
ReplyDelete... meant to discourage racism based on our society's stance on rejecting it. Like it or not, that is our society today.
ReplyDeleteWhy thank you for the rare compliment Shyster! Common ground is evident if we look for it, and so is friendship.
ReplyDeleteHate crimes are designed to intimidate a whole subset of the population, restrict their freedoms, and create pervasive fear.
ReplyDeleteBrushfire,
ReplyDeleteI thought crime in general did that. Hate crimes make a special class of victim and perpetrator which makes worse the made up problem you are intent on solving.
Johnny Rico
Sorry, Shyster, but Brushfire is right. A beating of Wacko is just that, a beating of him simply because he is obnoxious and disliked. By all accounts, Matthew Shepherd was a decent fellow. He was beaten and because he was gay, sending a message to the gay community that this will not be tolerated. Likewise, black lynchings were a message of intolerance.
ReplyDeleteNow beating Wacko Rico :-) LOL!
Sorry Biker, I'm not with you on this one.
ReplyDeleteBlack teen and white teen get into a fight. Before the black teen stomps the white teen to death he is heard to say, "Cracker bastard."
No question it is manslaughter, possibly even one of the degrees of murder.
Hate crime? Enhanced punishment?
I get nervous when we attempt to punish the thoughts in someone's mind without external evidence.
They took Shephard into the desert and beat him to death. It was planned. Murder 1. The brutality should get them the death penalty.
Hate crime laws ask the jury to react to hate with disgust aimed at prejudice.
It makes me nervous and the laws as written will punish the crime.
Shyster, The law clearly recognizes difference in crimes based on intent. Manslaughter is distinguished from murder based on intent. First degree murder and second degree murder are distinguished by premeditation, which considers the state of mind of the accused. Crimes of passion are generally treated less harshly than premeditated murders. So determining whether a crime was committed with the intent to terrorize a whole class of people may be difficult to prove, but in some cases, such as lynchings, it is clearly evident.
ReplyDeleteBrushfire,
ReplyDeleteThen if what you are saying is true, a hate crime should be treated more lightly as it is indeed a crime of passion. Hating someone is based on a passionate intent (just like jealousy or anger), so hate crimes should be treated less strictly than if the hate element weren't there, right? right? How many more "convienant" elements do you wish to add to the law?
Hate crimes have the opposite effect than what was intended. Instead of preventing discrimination and racism, it promotes discrimination and racism by highlighting divisions between our citizens based on gender, sexual orientation, religion, and color. Not sure on how to make this any clearer, but that is what is going on in society today each time someone is charged with a hate crime.
Pamela
Johnny Rico
Johnny R. Crimes of passion are committed as a result of sudden strong impulses. They are sudden and unplanned responses to a triggering event. Hate crimes are deliberate signals of terrorism aimed at a minority population with the intent to intimidate the entire group. The difference is that hate criminals advertise their crimes, often flamboyantly, to get the message of intimidation across. Think flaming crosses, Nazi graffiti smeared across burned temples, or people who are tortured, crucified, and left to die. Hate crime is terrorism committed against an entire community.
ReplyDeleteWhat I hear you say is that an attempt to terrorize is not a punishable crime. So the shoe bomber, and the underpants bomber and the Time's Square bomber should all be released on parole, because they didn't even hurt anybody.
Johnny R. Crimes of passion are committed as a result of sudden strong impulses. They are sudden and unplanned responses to a triggering event. Hate crimes are deliberate messages of terrorism aimed at a population with the intent to intimidate the entire group.Hate criminals advertise their crimes, often flamboyantly, to get the message of intimidation across. Think flaming crosses, Nazi graffiti smeared across burned temples, or people who are tortured, crucified, and left to die. Hate crime is terrorism committed against an entire community.
ReplyDeleteWhat I hear you say is that an attempt to terrorize is not a punishable crime. So in your paradigm the shoe bomber, and the underpants bomber, and the Time's Square bomber should all be released on parole, because they didn't even hurt anybody.
Ah, Brushfire, here we have it. I wanted you to bring it out, because if I did you would call me racist. You say hate crimes are "deliberate signals of terrorism aimed at a minority population with the intent to intimidate the entire group". Aimed at a minority? This is exactly what I am talking about when I say hate crime laws promote the very type of behavior that politically correct law makers supposedly want to abolish! Why is it a "minority" is the only group able to suffer a hate crime? The Black Panther calling for the killing of cracker babies is not a hate crime then?
ReplyDeleteI see you tried to hide your impulsive post by deleting the "minority" section in your second post. No need to do that, I understand that you, and other liberals as well, intend for hate crime legislation to TARGET white American males and no one else. The cream rises to the top so to speak, and your post is indicative of your true intentions behind supporting hate crime legislation. You just couldn't help yourself could you? LOL!!
I am unable to see any of your arguements that hate is not based on passion. Jealousy ,for instance, could and does lead to pre-meditated acts of violence yet is often considered a crime of passion. What is the difference between that and the nebulous defintion of a hate crime? There is none my liberal of a friend!
Again, a crime is a crime whether hate is involved or not. Punish the crime instead of making a political statement via ill-concieved law making.
Your true feelings of hate crimes got the best of you here!!!!!
Johnny Rico
Janey
It's good to hear you again, Shyster, but I'm still with Brushfire on this issue. How can there be no added punishment for hate crimes, when so many Jews were exterminated in Germany? Just a murder or two, or 6 million+ or so. Just murders?
ReplyDeleteWhy exectue Adolf Eichmann? HE didn't murder anyone.
Brush, the intent is the "intent" to commit the crime. One of the reasons that motive has never been an element of the offense is that, for the most part, the law doesn't care why you shot your neighbor and the DA is not required to find a reason.
ReplyDeleteThe DA is required to prove that you shot him and, if pushing for a higher sentence, that you planned it in advance of the shooting.
If the DA were required to prove why you did it beyond a reasonable doubt investigation and trial would be a nightmare,
Biker, and the guy driving the getaway car never went into the 7-11 and robbed and shot the clerk.
ReplyDeleteWe did not execute Eichmann, Israel did and I think he was convicted of crimes against humanity and genocide. He planned and orchestrated the execution of millions, he does not have to drop the gas.
I'm fairly sure that, should we catch Bin Laden, he will face a charge that carries the death penalty even though he did not fly one of the planes.
Brush, the rare defense of "crimes of passion" are often based on a momentary diminished capacity. It is a defense to a greater crime. We do not charge someone with a "crime of passion."
ReplyDeleteWe charge them with murder.
He or she brings up "The cheating bastard had it coming and I couldn't help myself" defense.
Exactly right, Shyster. So can we not consider "hate crimes", based on intent, a larger crime against a specific population of humanity?
ReplyDeleteBrushfire,
ReplyDeleteYou don't want to answer to your "minority" dilemma do you. I wouldn't either if I had such a double standard.
Sorry, Biker, the intent is to commit the crime of murder. The means is lynching, the intended victim is black. If the crime goes through it is murder. If it does not go through it is conspiracy or attempt to commit murder. I don't want to charge conspiracy to hate or attempt to hate.
ReplyDeleteShyster: Ok, we disagree. But aren't you somewhat shaken by the fact that you are in agreement with Wacko Rico?
ReplyDelete"Be afraid. Be very afraid"
- The Fly
Rico - Are you saying that legislation is the cause of hate crimes? Really? So laws against theft cause people to steal? Laws against murder cause people to murder? I believe your logic is faulty on that idea.
ReplyDeleteWhatever you are saying about minorities doesn't make sense to me. I am confident that for the most part, minorities are targets of hate crimes because they are most vulnerable segments of society. Hate criminals are cowards and only act out when they outnumber their victims.
Shyster - I argue with your conflation of motive and intent. The intent to terrorize is not the same as motive. The motivation to torture homosexuals may arise from unconscious fear of being homosexual. The intent to terrorize all homosexuals is what makes a hate crime different from an ordinary crime. Don't you agree that there should be a very strong penalty against burning crosses in African-Americans' yards? If we don't consider the intent to terrorize, the most we could punish the perpetrators for is misdemeanor destruction of property, or maybe creating a nuisance.
Brush, I have not conflated motive with intent and I understand the difference.
ReplyDeletePlease note that courts, up to the Supremes, have had a hard time balancing cross-burning statutes and the First Amendment.
Hate crimes are not that easy to define and the threat of labeling your acts as a hate crime allows the potential for police and prosecutor abuse.
Hate crime laws make me nervous. Charge, convict and punish the underlying crime and stop attempts to legislate thought.
Shyster - I believe that Virginia vs Black was a 2003 Supreme Court decision that permits states to take intent to intimidate into account when prosecuting cross burnings. I don't claim any expertise in matters of law, so please clarify for me if that is not the case.
ReplyDeleteBrushfire said:
ReplyDelete"Rico - Are you saying that legislation is the cause of hate crimes? Really?"
No, I never said that. Can you find where I said that? What I am saying is that your support of hate crime legislation inevitably supports racism and more hate crimes. Singling out a specific class of persons (white people by your definition) for punishment is in itself a hate crme. You said in your post that hate crimes apply to minorities (as the victims). This is a shining example of how nebulous and difficult it is to label a crime a hate crime. A crime is a crime, regardless of whether it was committed against a minority or a majority. Punish for that crime as opposed to creating a stigma and corresponding social reaction to that stigma.
Liberal POV recently said that not punishing the Black Panther was correct because if we had punished him, it would have caused feelings of hate within the black community. This double standard social stigma is exactly what I am talking about when it comes to hate crimes. How can you punish one group and not the other? Leave race and stigmas out of the equation and look for the elements of the crime and punish based on those elements.
"Hate criminals are cowards and only act out when they outnumber their victims"
What? Hate crimes now have something to do with numbers? A church was vandalized and burned down a couple years ago by some errant teens in Watauga County. They were charged with a hate crime. How does this have anything to do with outnumbering potential victims. Your definition of hate crime keeps getting weirder and weirder.
I still have not recieved a reply as to why you posted the exact same two posts and left the "minority" out of the second one. Is this because you realized that your first post was racist and pointed to the fact that only white people can committ hate crimes? Were you hoping no one would see your mention of "minorities" in your first post by thinking you accidently double posted? Why did you leave it out in your second post? Easy question. Easy answer.
Johnny Rico