|
|
Stories we should know more about.
|
Posts:
589
Registered:
4/21/07
|
|
(8484 of 8484)
Re: What's New in the News
Nov 20, 2009 11:55 PM
|
I JUST SAW FAHRENHEIT 911 AGAIN.
Its good to see it every once and awhile, to keep a little anger, to keep our minds remembering the many many reasons why this government had to change.
Wow! seeing the Secret Service speeding the presidential limo on to the White House rather than letting Bush and his wife do the traditional walk, to wave to the crowds.
The Secret Service determined that the protesting crowds were too numerous, and getting out of hand, a first in american history for an inaugural parade!
Yes, life continues, and we forget all too quickly, as the political elites know only too well.
I know almost every regular poster here on these boards knows all about the various borderline criminal activities, carried out during the last administration, and I remember well all the passionate posts condeming them, and sharing the truth and facts with each other, and I kinda miss them.
But, as I said, seeing Fahrenheit 911 again is a powerful reminder-a powerful perfectly connected set of dots showing us how they use their offices and positions for their own personal mutual benefit society and why we should be alert, on guard and aware of it.
And Michael Moore does such a masterful job quietly connecting those dots, laying it out so clearly, as always.
I'm not saying to live in the past, just that its good to remember, to be reminded.
And to stay a little angry.......
"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it...."
|
|
|
Posts:
1,863
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(8483 of 8484)
Re: What's New in the News
Nov 20, 2009 8:45 PM
|
prettywitty,
Well put. Love the moniker as well; concise, to the point, and, well, witty.
OF COURSE hate crimes are by their nature redundant (presumably), but more importantly, simply missing the point. As in, if you meet all the criteria for having committed Murder I (or II, or III for that matter), the law does not attempt (nor should it) to establish what was in your mind when you did it.
Hate crime legislation is certainly ONE example of liberal left politics run amuck, although, like most liberals, I'd certainly be reticent about expressing that sentiment openly, given the open Repubelican right-wing hostility toward and more than opportunistic antagonistic approach towards all things liberal.
GOP. The new NAZI's. Hey, we're God fearing, and mostly (and increasingly) white too!
LOL! Same song, different verse, pointed at a different generation, just to be "clever." Those wily Republicans!
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
9,549
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(8482 of 8484)
Re: What's New in the News
Nov 20, 2009 7:05 PM
|
> Well Counselor, if assault is already a crime, it
> seems to me that hating the person one assaults is
> another crime, no?
>
> So there are now 2 criminal offences involved where
> there used to be one.
>
> A crime for assault, and a crime for hating the
> person you assault.
It's one crime.
|
|
|
Posts:
7,554
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
|
Posts:
8,279
Registered:
8/24/06
|
|
(8480 of 8484)
Re: What's New in the News
Nov 20, 2009 3:42 PM
|
Well Counselor, if assault is already a crime, it seems to me that hating the person one assaults is another crime, no?
So there are now 2 criminal offences involved where there used to be one.
A crime for assault, and a crime for hating the person you assault.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,549
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(8479 of 8484)
Re: What's New in the News
Nov 20, 2009 1:46 PM
|
> Yes PW, it was tongue-in-cheek.
Whew!
> So you see it as absurd to suggest that since the law
> will allow a person to be prosecuted for his thoughts
> or emotions, the law might allow a person to be
> arrested for his thoughts or emotions?
No. I see it as absurd to suggest the law allows a person to be prosecuted for his thoughts. The hate crime laws do no such thing.
> What an imagination you do not have PW.
Quite the imagination you have, lol!
> If fercryinoutloud and yippeeayeay are your
> responses, I guess I should be encouraged that such
> silly responses indicate there is no objection of
> substance?
LOL.
I don't think I ever said yippeeayeay, but fercryinoutloud means that whatever it was in response to was so absurd as to warrant nothing more than fercryinoutloud.
Example:
"I tripped on a sidewalk today. Know what that means? The world will come to an end by midnight!"
"Oh fercryinoutloud..."
|
|
|
Posts:
8,279
Registered:
8/24/06
|
|
(8478 of 8484)
Re: What's New in the News
Nov 20, 2009 1:15 PM
|
So close, and yet so far.
Yes PW, it was tongue-in-cheek.
So you see it as absurd to suggest that since the law will allow a person to be prosecuted for his thoughts or emotions, the law might allow a person to be arrested for his thoughts or emotions?
What an imagination you do not have PW.
If fercryinoutloud and yippeeayeay are your responses, I guess I should be encouraged that such silly responses indicate there is no objection of substance?
|
|
|
Posts:
9,549
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(8477 of 8484)
Re: What's New in the News
Nov 20, 2009 1:04 PM
|
> Good question Rujo--what about love crimes?
Really? A good one?
Aye yi yi...
> Do they
> somehow compensate for hate crimes? Is there a point
> system? 
I hope the smile is indicative of this being toungue-in-cheek!
> Sorry ladies, I can't buy into this hate crime love
> fest. Thanks for taking the time to explain them.
You're welcome.
>
> It seems a slippery slope indeed to a situation like
> what was depicted in the movie Minority Report.
Oh fercryinoutloud...
> Prosecuting people for their thoughts and emotions
> and prejudices does not seem right to me.
> Where will
> the line be drawn?
Nowhere. I expect the cops will be knocking on your door any minute because you thought something they don't like.
RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!!
|
|
|
Posts:
8,279
Registered:
8/24/06
|
|
(8476 of 8484)
Re: What's New in the News
Nov 20, 2009 12:56 PM
|
Good question Rujo--what about love crimes? Do they somehow compensate for hate crimes? Is there a point system?
Sorry ladies, I can't buy into this hate crime love fest. Thanks for taking the time to explain them.
It seems a slippery slope indeed to a situation like what was depicted in the movie Minority Report.
Prosecuting people for their thoughts and emotions and prejudices does not seem right to me. Where will the line be drawn?
|
|
|
Posts:
362
Registered:
2/3/09
|
|
(8475 of 8484)
Re: What's New in the News
Nov 20, 2009 8:14 AM
|
> Hate crime is another charge that can be added to a
> list of felonies like assault, rape, theft, etc.
> Really they should be classified as a terrorist.
>
> Finally a law that says if you base your crime on
> hate of another because they are not in your clique,
> you deserve to be prosecuted for it.
>
> For years, we ignored the reason for committing the
> crime. If hate of another group is the reason, maybe
> you deserve to be separated from society.
>
> They are a threat to society, just like terrorists.
> Personally I believe that is the crime they should be
> prosecuted on. The KKK was terrorists. Why did we
> act that way in the past?
So what crimes, specifically, would fall into the category of "love crimes?"
|
|
|
Posts:
13,016
Registered:
2/5/06
|
|
(8474 of 8484)
Re: What's New in the News
Nov 20, 2009 3:19 AM
|
Hu and Obama seal real deals
What real deals?
--
Edited by infoseek at 11/20/2009 12:37 AM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
35,117
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(8473 of 8484)
Re: What's New in the News
Nov 20, 2009 2:33 AM
|
> I don't get this "hate" crime distinction. Maybe
> somebody can explain it to me.
>
> It seems that if a person is assaulted, robbed, or
> otherwise violated, the perpetrator should be
> prosecuted and punished for that violation/crime.
>
> What difference does it make what the perpetrator was
> thinking?
>
> Aren't we really starting down the slope to a
> Minority Report scenario? Aren't we really beginning
> to criminalize and prosecute thoughts and emotions?
Jet,
I think it has to do with the fact that if a person is attacked for being a certain race or of a certain group, that crime intimidates the entire group. So the crime is bigger than that single incident. This law gives such crimes more weight.
--
Edited by RainyKincaid at 11/19/2009 11:33 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
2,995
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
(8472 of 8484)
Re: What's New in the News
Nov 19, 2009 6:16 PM
|
JET
You might want to check out my post from this morning on the hate crimes thread that might further help explain the phenomenon of hate crimes and why they should be a separate category.
Hate crimes always include the element of terror.
They can start out with graffiti on a house or car, tampering with a car, throwing rocks and bricks through windows, and other acts of terrorism. If they're caught at this stage, they will be tried and sentenced according to hate crime laws that carry stiffer penalties.
If not, crimes will escalate to stalking, break-ins, robberies, arson, killng pets in a gruesome manner, physical/sexual assault, torture, or murder.
The point of hate crimes is to inflict severe psychological torment that results in morbid terror and paranoiac hypervigilance in the victim, inhibited movements, quitting a job, refusing to leave the house, severe PTSD, psychotic breaks, etc.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,841
Registered:
10/21/07
|
|
(8471 of 8484)
Re: What's New in the News
Nov 19, 2009 4:42 PM
|
Hate crime is another charge that can be added to a list of felonies like assault, rape, theft, etc. Really they should be classified as a terrorist.
Finally a law that says if you base your crime on hate of another because they are not in your clique, you deserve to be prosecuted for it.
For years, we ignored the reason for committing the crime. If hate of another group is the reason, maybe you deserve to be separated from society.
They are a threat to society, just like terrorists. Personally I believe that is the crime they should be prosecuted on. The KKK was terrorists. Why did we act that way in the past?
|
|
|
Posts:
8,279
Registered:
8/24/06
|
|
(8470 of 8484)
Re: What's New in the News
Nov 19, 2009 2:52 PM
|
I don't get this "hate" crime distinction. Maybe somebody can explain it to me.
It seems that if a person is assaulted, robbed, or otherwise violated, the perpetrator should be prosecuted and punished for that violation/crime.
What difference does it make what the perpetrator was thinking?
Aren't we really starting down the slope to a Minority Report scenario? Aren't we really beginning to criminalize and prosecute thoughts and emotions?
|
|
|
|
|
