Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I cannot suspend disbelief long enough to imagine that you won a bar fight.

I'm just trying to build my alibi for when I kick your ass if'n you beat me at Foosball next week.

[Shape Shifter]

Proof that wildlife would be unaffected by drilling.

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I wasn't calling the photo a fraud. The page where you got the photo- (you know the page where the current lead story is that WTC5 came down due to placed charges)....

Yeah, see I actually don't know "the page where the current lead story is that WTC5 came down due to placed charges" because I don't read it. If you bothered to read what I previously posted, you would know this.

- admitted the authenticity was questioned by Clear Channel (photo could be shopped)and claimed that at least 1 of the 2 billboards it mentioned wasn't even claimed to be sponsored by Clear Channel (CC not involved at all).

Bullshit, Hank. That story -- which, again, I had not read and was not my source -- talked about the (pictured) sign in Orlando, of which the picture was taken, and then continued to discuss a purported "second sign in Jacksonville," which is a different city in Florida about 140 miles away to the north. Clear Channel Orlando didn't comment. A Clear Channel salesman in Jacksonville made the comment you find illuminating.

Which is not even to get to the question of whether Clear Channel is "involved" when someone else pays them to erect a billboard. I would say yes, but that's because I'm speaking English.

If your point is that a photo posted on a blog has to be authentic- we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Not my point. Trying reading my posts aloud -- maybe it will help.

My point had little to do with CC- I couldn't give a shit if it did or didn't pay for the billboard- my point was your post was misleading and you should have known as much.

And my point was that you erroneously assumed that I based my post on the prisonplanet.com story, when in fact I hadn't read it and was relying on something else entirely. If you're going to accuse me of trying to mislead people, have the grace to admit when you're wrong.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And my point was that you erroneously assumed that I based my post on the prisonplanet.com story, when in fact I hadn't read it and was relying on something else entirely. If you're going to accuse me of trying to mislead people, have the grace to admit when you're wrong.

And after this, you still contend Bush lied?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
This, though, goes right to my problem with hate crime statutes. Cases like Byrd are easy. But in your bar-fight scenario, how do you tell the reason for the fight? The guy who insulted me is black. If he'd been white, maybe I wouldn't have been as insulted, but he was black and shoulda known his place. Or his insult involved him sleeping with my sister, and that was way more insulting because he was black.

Or maybe not. How do you determine my motive in this situation? The only way -- or at least one way -- is to look at things I've said in the past. If I'm a David Duke supporter, that gives you a much better shot at showing that my crime was motivated by bias. And protected conduct shouldn't become be used this way, IMHO.

I know this kind of "nuance" is out of vogue, but c'est la vie.* I applaud the sentiments that drive much hate crime legislation -- sentiments that I think focus on conduct, not on thought and not on making one victim better than another -- but find that the practical application, particularly in the hands of a zealous prosecutor, can result in bad consequences.

I see your point and -- at the risk of failing to stp -- will say only that the problem of determining what someone's intent was is one that arises in other crimes, and we do not let that problem dissuade us from making first- and second-degree murders separate crimes. At least in theory, a jury should find first-degree murder only where there is clear and convincing evidence.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Given that rape is, by definition, something that can only involve a female victim, it's pretty strange to say that it should also be charged as a hate crime because it's a crime against a woman.

I miss Atticus, too, but that doesn't mean I want him to come back to tell us about prison rape.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I miss Atticus, too, but that doesn't mean I want him to come back to tell us about prison rape.

I'm appalled that he has missed that great Barbra movie, Prince of Tides.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
And after this, you still contend Bush lied?

I see your point. You accuse me of misrepresenting something I never read, and so I should sympathize with our intellectually lazy President, who presumably never bothered to read the CIA's reports? But the difference is that I was relying on another witness, and there never were any WMD, etc.

[Gattigap]

TNR rates the GOP 2008 field (focusing on those other than the McCain/Ahnuld/Rudy field that have been discussed ad nauseum). It's not bad, and I particularly like their grading system and keys to improvement.

• There's been a lot of caterwauling over our grading system. The critics say it's "unfair" and "arbitrary." The critics have since been liquidated. I suggest you keep your trap shut.
  
  In addition to letter grades, we've identified some areas of improvement for each candidate, based on the following key:
  
  * You're still too fat. I'm sorry. Or you're boring. Or both.
  
  ^ Your red hot rage could ignite an igloo, transforming it into a towering inferno the likes of which have heretofore been seen only in the deepest reaches of Hades. This could be good or bad.
  
  $ Sure, we claim to like politicians from hardscrabble backgrounds, but secretly we want to be ruled by top-hat-wearing toffs swaddled in gold lamé.
  
  @ Had you not opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment, the only bulwark against the unstoppable advance of the Homosexual Agenda, you might have had a chance.
  
  # While you may have sworn undying loyalty to George W. Bush, our Maximum Leader, one is alarmed by your failure, thus far, to cover yourself with elaborate tattoos proclaiming said undying loyalty. That or you endorsed John McCain in 2000.
  
  & If you're going to win reelection, win big.
  
  ~ You should have won your home state for the prez. This ain't no disco.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
And at the heart of it, isn't hate crimes legislation an effort to redress old wrongs?

If someone starts beating up black people because he's trying to drive black people out of his neighborhood, I'm not sure that's an "old wrong."

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I see your point and -- at the risk of failing to stp -- will say only that the problem of determining what someone's intent was is one that arises in other crimes, and we do not let that problem dissuade us from making first- and second-degree murders separate crimes. At least in theory, a jury should find first-degree murder only where there is clear and convincing evidence.

Beyond a reasonable doubt, even.

But you confuse "intent" with "motive". They are different. The difference matters.

And the horse is dead, I'll confess.

(But I really like horses so this wasn't motivated by bias.)

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I see your point. You accuse me of misrepresenting something I never read, and so I should sympathize with our intellectually lazy President, who presumably never bothered to read the CIA's reports? But the difference is that I was relying on another witness, and there never were any WMD, etc.

Still, someone posting on this board should hold himself to a standard at least as high as that which applies to a President sending American soldiers to die.

[Santorum]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
If someone starts beating up black people because he's trying to drive black people out of his neighborhood, I'm not sure that's an "old wrong."

And even if there is an element of redressing old wrongs, so what. Doesn't the state have an interest in telling targets of hate crimes that old wrongs will no longer be tolerated? To take the most obvious example, a cross burning on a black family's lawn is a symbol of hate because it communicates to the family that there are people out there that hate the family. It is also a reminder -- and is placed there as a reminder -- that not so long ago, the government countenanced cross burning, to say nothing of lynching, as well as other types of murders and other forms of terrorism directed at blacks. Shouldn't the government be able to tell black families that its "past wrong" of ignoring or participating in such crimes is a thing of the past, and that the government is now on the family's side?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I see your point. You accuse me of misrepresenting something I never read, and so I should sympathize with our intellectually lazy President, who presumably never bothered to read the CIA's reports? But the difference is that I was relying on another witness, and there never were any WMD, etc.

If you send me into Florida are you sure I'll find billboards?

[SlaveNoMore]

Santorum
And even if there is an element of redressing old wrongs, so what. Doesn't the state have an interest in telling targets of hate crimes that old wrongs will no longer be tolerated?

So you seem to think our penal law should be applied according to "collective guilt"?