Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
They both tell a story, don't they? But it's objectively weird to suggest that the fact that the man once was a truck driver is more relevant to his impending service as Commerce Secretary than the fact that he now is a multi-millionaire.

He is CEO of Kellogg. If one cannot impute that he is a multi-millionaire from this fact alone, than one is a schmoe.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
He is CEO of Kellogg. If one cannot impute that he is a multi-millionaire from this fact alone, than one is a schmoe.

then

(sorry. dtb moment.)

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Clear Channel apparently is putting up these billboards as a "public service."

That sort of thing has been popular for years in Korea. And China. And, until recent vandalism, in Iraq. What's the big deal?

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I'll ignore the rest of the bullshit

Of course you will.

[quote]and just respond to your question of "Why?" -- i.e., why I believe the murderers' original story instead of their new story.

Very rarely to robberies end in murder. Much more rarely to robberies end in torture-murders (as opposed to, say, just shooting your victim or whacking him on the head with a pipe). It is even more rare for a planned robbery to end in a murder. Here, you have two guys who planned to rob a random person, and planned to do so by pretending to give him a ride... and then ended up committing a torture-murder.[quote]

He was savagely pistol-whipped and left to die. If this is your definition of torture-murder, so be it

Could it have been the meth? Sure. But lots of crimes are committed under the influence of meth, or crack, or pcp, or other drugs that don't have the calming influence that people tell me other drugs have. ("Dude, give me your wallet. Or some food -- you have any foood???") Very few of those crimes end in murder, particularly the torture-murder we saw here. This leads me to look for a reason.

Are you forgetting that these guys attacked another group of people right after the Shepard incident - in exactly the same manner [pistol-whipping]? It was because of this second attack that they got caught.

The original reason was pretty credible -- the violent response to the gay advance.

Which sounds to me like nothing more than a bullshit lawyer trying to get them off on an insanity defense.

The new reason is no reason at all, at least based on the report I read (I didn't watch 20-20, because, ugh). The torture-murder was just a continuation of the robbery. Sure, it's possible. But to me, it seems a lot less plausible. Particularly when the motivation for changing the story now -- i.e., getting a reduced sentence by showing it wasn't a hate-crime -- is so apparent.

Now, why do you accept the murderers' new story as gospel?

I don't accept it as gospel.

However, I never liked how certain people - both gay and straight - took this case and made it the poster case for the advance of ludicrous "hate" crimes legislation.

I also always found it odd that the judge in this case imposed a gag order on the defendants after the trial. I've never heard of such a thing.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Clear Channel apparently is putting up these billboards as a "public service."

Um 2

That is rather creepy.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Clear Channel apparently is putting up these billboards as a "public service."

2

Who the fuck is running their public relations department. This is moronic.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
2

Who the fuck is running their public relations department. This is moronic.

If not an Onion story, I'll bet it is at least a billboard for very targetted neighborhoods.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Of course you will.

Forgive me. Another fight with you over non-issues like whether your message about the "recent" show implied you had seen it seemed like a waste of time.

Are you forgetting that these guys attacked another group of people right after the Shepard incident - in exactly the same manner [pistol-whipping]? It was because of this second attack that they got caught.

None of them ended up tied up or dead, but certainly that gives some credence to the new story by the murderers. But, in my personal view, not enough under the circumstances.

Which sounds to me like nothing more than a bullshit lawyer trying to get them off on an insanity defense.

Again, that's possible. But to me the current story, presented in a context where they are seeking to reduce their sentence, is more likely the one cooked up by the lawyer. It just seems less likely that a lawyer would cook up the "gay advance" theory without the killer even mentioning the victim's gayness, than that the lawyer would cook up the idea of retracting that story in order to boost the resentencing petition.

You believe they were lying then, I believe they were lying now. I think that means that we have a difference of opinion. I'm not sure what you think -- do you conclude that I'm just another liberal bullshit party line spouter?

I don't accept it as gospel.

Your original statement, way back when, asserted as fact that this was a meth deal gone bad, and not an anti-gay attack. If you've changed that view and are simply saying that the murderer and his girlfriend are retracting that story, coincidentally at a time when retracting that story might serve to reduce his sentence, and that this creates a basis to give this another look, fine.

However, I never liked how certain people - both gay and straight - took this case and made it the poster case for the advance of ludicrous "hate" crimes legislation.

It's pretty easy to understand why this case became the marquee case for such legislation, don't you think?

I'm not sure why you consider using the motivation for a crime as a basis for sentence enhancement to "ludicrous." While I'm not the biggest fan of such legislation, I can certainly see merit to the arguments that (1) assaulting someone because he is black or gay or whatever is more reprehensible, and thus more deserving of punishment, than assaulting him for some other reason, or for no reason at all; and (2) that a person who targets members of a particular group for crimes is more likely than other criminals to be a repeat offender, and thus a greater deterrent/longer imprisonment is appropriate.

I also always found it odd that the judge in this case imposed a gag order on the defendants after the trial. I've never heard of such a thing.

It's pretty odd, no doubt. But didn't the Johnny Taliban also have a gag order imposed? Is the difference that his was specifically part of a plea deal and theirs was not.

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Here's how the poll was phrased. Note the utter lack of any discussion on how it would then revert to the states:

"As you may know, President Bush may have the opportunity to appoint several new justices to the U.S. Supreme Court during his second term. The 1973 Supreme Court ruling called Roe v. Wade made abortion in the first three months of pregnancy legal. Do you think President Bush should nominate Supreme Court justices who would uphold the Roe v. Wade decision, or nominate justices who would overturn the Roe v. Wade decision?"

Uphold - 59
Overturn- 31
Unsure - 10

You really think that the country is teeming with closet federalists? I think not.

[Adder]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I agree with Kaus:

• kf is Stupid II: I still don't understand why it's a good idea to centralize intelligence under a single czar. If the problem with pre-Iraq intelligence was the tendency to tell the Administration what it wanted to hear, won't narrowing the information funnel maximize the chances of that happening again? Won't it be easier to "politicize" a single "National Intelligence Director"? What we want is a multiplicity of perspectives and an error-revealing debate, no? Rich Lowry's op-ed in Friday's N.Y. Post predicts:
  
  if the bill passes and if--God forbid--there's another major terror attack a few years hence, the complaint will immediately go up that U.S. intelligence is "too centralized."
  
  Are Democrats so wedded to the 9/11-Commission and the 9/11 families that they don't see this? During the election season, the 9/11 families were a media-compatible vehicle for criticizing the Bush administration. But the election is over. Democrats should be able to take a fresh look.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2110033/

Yeah, but a problem with pre-9/11 intelligence was a lack of centralization. Personally, I would prefer a heightened risk of a pre-Iraq intelligence fuck up that then chance of a pre-9/11 fuck up. But I admit that it is a close call.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/35364.htm

There is a proposal to cut US funding of the UN unless there is a dramatic response to Oil/Food scandal.

Have we ever paid our dues in full anyway?

And I really don't think this resonates with the populace, but I have hardly followed it myself.

Although I did see some idiot republican talking about how Paul Volker was undermining his reputation forever by agreeing to allow for his audit to be paid out of oil for food funds. Nevermind that this is how all auditers get paid in this country, and Volker hardly has the temptation of a repeat performance to undermine his credibility.

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
However, I never liked how certain people - both gay and straight - took this case and made it the poster case for the advance of ludicrous "hate" crimes legislation.

And this has fuck-all to do with whether it atually WAS motivated by hate??

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Clear Channel apparently is putting up these billboards as a "public service."

You didn't get the memo? We are now a Christain cult of personality. If you question the leader, you will be liquidated.*

* Apologies to Ashcroft for stealing his line.

[Fugee]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And regardless of which story you believe, it doesn't change the fact that people in the great state of Wyoming went to the funeral with signs bearing lovely Christian messages, like "He got what he deserved."

Don't get all Sebby on me. Christ would not endorse those messages.

ETA: Good thing I didn't put money on my internet hoax theory of the 20/20 show.

[ilikenewsocks]

Originally posted by Fugee
Don't get all Sebby on me. Christ would not endorse those messages.

Yeah. That "eye for an eye" stuff is SO Old Testament.

Show me a religion that doesn't have at least some internal inconsistencies, and I'll show you a cult.