Grimis: Keep in mind that I'm an educator and not a lawyer. I'd say that he wasn't charged with a hate crime because, acccording to the laws, there wasn't a hate crime committed. Just becaue she was Christain and he was gay and she was waxing poetic about the Bible and sin doesn't mean that a hate crime was committed. That was murder, I'm sure--which can or can't be a hate crime depending upon circumstance.
PalpatineW:I think that threats (assaults) should be considered differently than actual actions seen through to fruition. Saying "I'm Gonna Kill BrewGuy!" is different than saying "I'm gonna put a huge Black Power fist on BrewGuy's lawn (with the intent to scare him) and then kill him for NO otrher reason than he is of "white" and I don't like "Whitey" (as you put it).
Moe: People who kill Gay people becasue they are gay ARe really bad people. People who rape women and molest children ARE really bad people. People who drag and guy by a chain or shoot an elderly woman driving down a road ARE really really bad people, and I guess I don't have a problem saying that. I agree that we put bandaids on gashes rather than work on deeper cures all the time.
Everyone can crack on and on about liberal this, conservative that and Rep this and Demo that. If we all agree that it should be a crime to committ these offenses catagorized as "hate crimes" why are we spending time arguing minutia? If the accused are wrong and we want them punished for it, why are we hasseling over it like this?
Back to Lott--I'd just like to say that I took extreme offense to his comments and am glad they weren't blown off as lighthearted. What he "jokingly" talked about was an era of unequality that included things like lynchings and firebombs being thrown into churches(which is why the Supreme Court decided that the Klan can't burn crosses as I stated earlier). He can try all he wants, but he was wrong to say that. It was tasteless and speaks to an insensitivity that need not be tolerated.
DrOp--I'm off to make cookies for Santa now. Merry Christmas.
Originally posted by DrOpIf we all agree that it should be a crime to committ these offenses catagorized as "hate crimes" why are we spending time arguing minutia? If the accused are wrong and we want them punished for it, why are we hasseling over it like this?
Because the law provided for that before any of this hate crimes nonsense went into law. That's not minutiae. That's the whole point. I've said it before and I'll say it again; people who murder should be charged with murder; not thoughtcrime in the commission of murder. Hate crime laws make the killing of certain groups of people more punishable; it's obivously worse to kill one of the priviledged classes then it is Joe Blow.
People should be judged for their actions, not the thoughts behind their actions. Parris Glendenning is responsible for the "crime"(tounge in cheek) of running up a $2 billion deficit; not the crime of running up a $2 billion deficit while implementing his crack-pot left-wing agenda.
What kind of disjointed society do we live in if Merry Christmas is Politically Incorrect?
I'd say that he was not only the most influential economist, but that he also had the greatest benefit to society of any economist of the 20th century. His contributions include (but are not limited to):