Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Hate crime laws have no business in a just legal system
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, July 10, 2007

From the Chicago Tribune:
The Tribune carried an interesting story recently about a particularly heinous double murder in Knoxville, Tenn. The two young victims, who were kidnapped, raped and killed, were white. The three men and a woman who stand charged with the crime are black.

The story posed some difficult questions about how this country deals with crimes that have a racial overtone — when someone of one race kills someone of another race. And it asked the question: What is a hate crime?

The definitions in federal law and various state laws differ, but generally a hate crime is considered to be any crime that is motivated by bias based on race, religion or other factors. Hate crime laws permit tougher punishment based on the motivation and broader social impact of the offense.

So did the Knoxville case qualify? "There is absolutely no proof of a hate crime," said John Gill, a special counsel to the Knox County prosecutor. "It was a terrible crime, a horrendous crime, but race was not a motive."

Yet Mary Newsom, the mother of one of the victims, told a Tribune reporter: "If this wasn't a hate crime, then I don't know how you would define a hate crime."
And that is precisely the problem with hate crime legislation. What qualifies and why? What proof is required? Who gets to decide? How does one gather proof about "motivation" and "broader social impact"?

And why would you?

The crime is kidnapping, rape and murder. Clear-cut. No ifs ands or buts. While it may or may not have been motivated by some other factor, the fact remains that kidnapping, rape and murder are already crimes and proving them is much, much easier than attempting to determine 'motivation' and assessing whether or not the crimes have a 'broader social impact'.

Unfortunately, after this start, the Trib wanders away from the point. In fact, its argument is that hate crime legislation is acceptable at state level where a number of them already exist, and that's where such determinations should be left. It is actually editorializing against a federal bill now pending in Congress. But you can see, in this paragraph, the fact that the editors too, have severe reservations about not only the arbitrariness of such legislation at any level, but its relevance:
Hate crime laws may be justified when the crime has a broad societal impact. A brick through the window of the first black family on a block is more than a prank. But hate crime laws raise concerns when they punish criminals differently not because of what they do, but because of what they think. In the view of Northwestern University law professor Martin Redish, it's the equivalent of tacking on extra punishment if a crime is meant to promote the cause of communism. Beat a man because he looks rich, or because he's got a Republican bumper sticker on his car, and there's no hate crime. Beat him because you think he's Jewish, or Cuban, or (under this bill) gay, and there is.
No, hate crime laws can't be justified for any of those reasons, because unlike the violations of other laws, they're essentially requiring we delve into the subconscious of the criminal and determine "without a reasonable doubt" that the crime was motivated by certain external factors we deem to fall in the category of "hate". That's an impossible task. We may get all of the considered and learned opinions in the world, but none of them will meet the standard which a jury is required to use to judge the defendant before rendering a verdict.

The Trib ends with:
Violence ought to be punished regardless of the motive. Hate crimes are not acceptable — but neither is any other crime.
A just legal system deals with crimes it can prove and prove convincingly with hard evidence and stays out of the realm of opinion, arbitrariness and attempts to police thought. It is not a system for 'social justice'. It is a system for criminal justice. Hate crime laws attempt to introduce social justice into the criminal system and get us into areas in which we shouldn't be. That's why they should be opposed at all levels.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Ironically, I suspect that shouting, "I hate you, I hate you!" while beating the crap out of someone would not qualify as a hate crime.
 
Written By: DIffus
URL: http://
is cross burning a separate crime, or is it just trespass and arson?

Criminal law always looks at the mental state of the perp. That’s how the system distinguishes between murder and manslaughter.
 
Written By: Francis
URL: http://
Francis, that’s not an apt analogy. The difference between murder and manslaughter is a difference of intent, not motive. Hate crimes focus on motive, not intent.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
There is a difference between state of mind and motive. The criminal law rightly makes a distinction between a murder committed spontaneously in a state of passion and one that is carefully planned, but motivation is something entirely different.

This debate reminds me of the people who opposed the Iraq war because of what they suspected were Bush’s "real reasons" (oil, revenge for dad, PNAC/Joo conspiracies, etc), rather than arguing the issue on the merits. It seems to me that hate crime legislation is what we end up with when the Left applies their obsession over motivations to the criminal justice system.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
I am generally opposed to the idea of legislating hate crime laws which change the sentencing based on somehow ascertaining prejudicial feelings of the perpetrator.

My only caveat to this are things like cross burnings or graffiti using symbols like swatikas and the like.

If a person spraypaints nonsense on someone’s property, it is a crime, and should be dealt with under the criminal code. However, do you think it is identical if someone spraypaints a swastika on the doors of a Synagogue?

I do think that if someone wants to legislate the difference between these kinds of acts, they could make specific legislation, applying a minimum sentence for spraypainting swastika on the home, business, or religious center of a jewish person. I think if we do anything, this should be the limit.

I would not be oppoposed if we made no distinction, the criminal code allows enough discretion for judges to apply harsher sentences when they deem it appropriate.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Well Captin, for once you’re not completely wrong, BUT you are still not correct/right either. Your posting still shows the conceptual flaws of "hate crimes" legislation. So it would be a GREATER crime to put a Swastika on the home, place of business or place of worship of a Jew or Jews, OK. How about a cross, or how about pigs feet at the synagogue or at the the mosque? What hacks off the Buddhists, dead animals, in general, and how about Republican literature at the Unitarian Universalists?

I’m trying to get at some specific problems with your idea but a generalized one, too. It’s not OK to really hack off Jews or Muslims, but it would be a little better if you hack off Christians, or Buddhists? Any time you say that the same act gets you more jail time, because you did it to one group, then you are saying THAT group’s pain and suffering is worse than any other group, or individual’s pain and suffering. Why is a Swastika at the synagogue any worse than the two acts of vandalism that have occurred at my parish? And whilst I’ve pretty convinced that the ’utes what broke into my parish and defaced the parish all didn’t so much hate Catholicism, so much as they were just being destructive jerks, out to put it to Da Man, that does not mean my sense of violation is any less than the Rabbi’s, does it? And that’s the problem with hate crimes, it says that to beat a white, heterosexual man is LESS a crime than to beat a Lesbian, African-American, and that ultimately then, the Lesbian African-American is MORE valuable than the white hetero guy, after all you punish the perp more severely for one act than another...and that either in the Eyes of God or the Eyes of the Law, one person is more or less deserving is simply an anathema, to Anglo Law or religion.

So, even though you are making a more limited claim for coverage it still suffers from the defect of making one act, equivalent in all other respects, MORE heinous because it was done to one person over another person or group, akin to Lèse majesté, punching the King is WORSE somehow than punching me? I have no problem I sentencing the little Nazi’s to 30 days in jail for defacing a synagogue and giving my little mutants 100 hours community service for defacing my parish, but the crimes must be equally charged, it’s all vandalism/criminal mischief, not vandalism in my case, but a hate crime in the other.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Well Captin, for once you’re not completely wrong
Can you document this? (show how I have been wrong in everything else I have posted). Otherwise, this is just an idiotic way to participate in a discussion. Maybe you think that if you just make any nasty assertion about me it will ingratiate you with your ideological clique? Ad hominem attacks against people who hold unpopular points of view make you soooo cool!
So, even though you are making a more limited claim for coverage it still suffers from the defect of making one act, equivalent in all other respects, MORE heinous because it was done to one person over another person or group, akin to Lèse majesté, punching the King is WORSE somehow than punching me?
My example was just that, ONE example. I would not be opposed to it if each specific kind of instance were leglislated individually. Cross burnings, swastika’s, whatever someone wants to come up. My point was not so much that the laws SHOULD be passed in this way, but that if someone wants to legislate, they should be specific, rather than a general theory that if hate is involved it should get a special sentence. A great many crimes are prima facie evidence of hate, so I don’t see a need for the distinction, or any valid way to determine the distinction.

So how is it that I am wrong in my conclusion that I believe that there is enough discretion in the current laws to allow for judicial system to handle these type of crimes and motives without any hate crime laws?



 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
None of you have recounted the actual physical acts of this crime.
Think about those, and get back to us.
In the mean time, there are a few animals that need to be thinned out, in or out of captivity.
 
Written By: d
URL: http://
Well Captin, for once you’re not completely wrong
Can you document this? (show how I have been wrong in everything else I have posted).

Yeah examine your postings you post like a liberal, and that makes you WRONG, dude...Can’t help you.
I would not be opposed to it if each specific kind of instance were leglislated individually. Cross burnings, swastika’s, whatever someone wants to come up
And that’s the problem, so now we have to catalogue all the ways you and I can be offended, cross-reference them and make them illegal....and if we don’t get them ALL, Thenwe’re saying that a swastika on a sysnagogue is worse than putting a McCain ’08 poster on the door of the Unitarian Universalist Church, and that therefore the pain of the Jooos, was worse than the followers of the "Cosmic Muffin", thereby elevating one crime over the other. When it it is just easier to charge them all with trespass and vandalism.

Please note your conclusion is OK, we can distinguish at SENTENCING, so you’re not as wrong as you usually are. Be thankful, in a few years of being lectured and instructed you’ll come back to being a Good member of the GOP, until then listen and learn.

PS: if the opening of your post was a joke, then I apologize for this response’s tone (You’r still WRONG about hate crimes, but I apologize for the snark), if your were serious, lighten up dude.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
None of you have recounted the actual physical acts of this crime.

Why should we have to, I know it was HORRIFIC. The fact that the crime was terrible has no bearing on the issue of the validity or falsity of the need for hate crimes legislation. I don’t believe in the Death Penalty, even for Hitler or Hussein, and trotting out the Shoah or the chipper-shredders doesn’t make my opposition waver...same thing here, it is irrelevant just how bad the crime was.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
A swastika on a synagogue door is no different than a knock-knock joke spray painted on a synagogue door in terms of defacement. Any additional harm from a swastika occurs totally within the confines of our skulls. We are no more capable of successfully bringing about social justice by prosecuting criminal effects of thought than we are by prosecuting motives of thought. At least I think that’s what Joe is trying to say, and I agree with him. For our criminal justice system to be effective, it needs to stick real-world crimes. Not all of the jurisdictional boundaries of our social institutions are constrained by our discretion, ultimately they are constrained by nature as well, beyond which we have no effective options, which is, I believe, McQ’s point. Centuries of human experience back him up.

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: peter jackson
URL: www.liberalcapitalist.com
Dear Joe,
If you are always for - or always against- something (death penalty)
you have no sense of proportion.
Thats why hate-crime legislation is stupid.
Let the facts be heard and the degree of the crime known.
What else is needed?
 
Written By: d
URL: http://
What else is needed?
Facts and proof would be nice.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
We are no more capable of successfully bringing about social justice by prosecuting criminal effects of thought than we are by prosecuting motives of thought.
I agree, which is why I say that if someone really needs to make a distinction, it should not be on the basis of what is in someone’s skull, but on a specific commission of an act. Not that I support legislating this, but rather than legislate the vague notion of a hate crime, make a specific law about swastika’s and synagogues, and if someone else wants a specific law about pentagons and churches, go for it. A interesting aspect of this I see with this is that motive would then become irrelevant. A 12 year old could be peer pressured into doing this without having any clue what a swastika is, or the ethnicity of the homeowner, so they would have no more hate than the kid who TP’s a house. In order to address this possibility, the judge would need to have sentencing latitude, which would really make the whole concept pointless. Leaving the solution where it has always been, to insure that judges have latitude. There IS a difference between TPing a house and spray painting swastika’s on the home of a Jewish person (even with water soluble paint). The difference is not in physical harm done, the TP is more difficult to clean up, but I still believe that difference can be addressed within the discretion of judges using the ranges of sentencing guidelines.

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
PS: if the opening of your post was a joke, then I apologize for this response’s tone (You’r still WRONG about hate crimes, but I apologize for the snark), if your were serious, lighten up dude.
I guess it wouldn’t be as funny (here at QandO) if I started my posts responding to any conservative opinion with an insult to the poster for being a conservative. I could get at laugh Democratic Underground doing that. Of course I would be embarassed to get a laugh like that.

But I’ll lighten up.





 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
I guess it wouldn’t be as funny (here at QandO) if I started my posts responding to any conservative opinion with an insult to the poster for being a conservative
It might be funny you never know, more than likely you’d be wrong, as the conservative position is, more often and not, well false modesty aside, 75% of the time the correct one....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
In the view of Northwestern University law professor Martin Redish, it’s the equivalent of tacking on extra punishment if a crime is meant to promote the cause of communism. Beat a man because he looks rich, or because he’s got a Republican bumper sticker on his car, and there’s no hate crime. Beat him because you think he’s Jewish, or Cuban, or (under this bill) gay, and there is.
Is that an argument against hate crime laws, or is it an argument for expanding them to cover politically-motivated crimes? Politically targeted crimes can have a much worse impact on society than those that target the population at large.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
crime is crime...................... period
 
Written By: darohu
URL: http://
It might be funny you never know, more than likely you’d be wrong, as the conservative position is, more often and not, well false modesty aside, 75% of the time the correct one....
Yeah... why not just say that conservatives are correct 100% of the time, and when they appear to be incorrect, it is not because consevatism is incorrect, but because they have strayed from conservativism, or they have misunderstood a conservative precept.

While you are at, you could create a whole apologetica for conservatives, it shouldn’t be much harder than the Bible.

Of course you would have to devote an entire volumn to George Bush.

Good luck with that being right all the time thing.

Cap




 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
While you are at, you could create a whole apologetica for conservatives, it shouldn’t be much harder than the Bible.

Of course you would have to devote an entire volumn to George Bush.

Good luck with that being right all the time thing.
So bitter...
While you are at, you could create a whole apologetica for conservatives, it shouldn’t be much harder than the Bible.
Well you’re correct again, as conservatism AND the Bible speak truth, then an apologia to either will be easy...
Of course you would have to devote an entire volumn to George Bush.
Easier than excusing Carter and the Clintons, at least Oh I forgot you’re an apostate GOP’er, so you have NO ONE in your pantheon, as I imagine that everyone you’ve supported has lost...
Good luck with that being right all the time thing.
Read for comprehension, Captin, we’re only right 75% of the time, well we’re ALWAYS "Right" but we’re only correct 75% of the time...
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I imagine that everyone you’ve supported has lost...
Other than Ronald Reagan, and GHWB the in 1988, you would be correct.

I am 0 for 4 since 1996.

But I have to say, although I did not vote for Clinton, he did better than I expected. And although I did not vote for Bush, and hoped he would do better than I expected, I would have to say that he did far worse than I could possibly have imagined.

By the way, why would you choose to be wrong 25% of the time?

Or better yet, what are liberals right about?

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
By the way, why would you choose to be wrong 25% of the time?

Or better yet, what are liberals right about?
We don’t choose to be wrong we just sometimes are...obviously or are you saying that liberals CHOOSE to be wrong and just ascribe that characteristic to us? So to turn it around why do you guys CHOOSE to be wrong?

As to what are liberals right about, you make a mistake in assuming that if I’m wrong you must be right...more often than not; if I’m wrong, my liberal critic is wrong, too, just in a different, but easily demonstrable way.

It USED to be liberals could be right, many times, but since the 1980’s, well really 1968, liberals have moved further and further from being liberals and just become smelly hippies, so they have moved further and further away from the truth. Take the ACLU, for example, it used to campaign for civil liberties, but the Cali Chapter came out in favour of "Speech Codes" and here recently it’s been supportive of state money for religious purposes, foot washing stand for Muslims. The ACLU USED to stand for the right to speak freely, now it’s just becoming a multi-culti feel-good, progressive group.....so as soon as liberals go back to supporting FREEDOM, rather than fighting Da Man, they’ll stand a better chance of being right.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
so as soon as liberals go back to supporting FREEDOM, rather than fighting Da Man
I think most libertarians would tell you that these are often one in the same.

As far as liberals pre and post 1968, I guess I am pre-1968 liberal, or a pre 1994 conservative.

Whatever I am, I try to be right all the time, and I honestly could care less who claims ideological ownership of a concept, my opinion is driven by me, not ideology.

I prefer to call myself a libertarian, but I also recognize that I hold views inconsistent with this philosophy, but then again, I hold views that are inconsistent with every ideology.

I have no home with any ideologues, and I am thrilled about that.

As far as the ACLU, I have looked into their position on speech codes, and expect that I will disagree with your assertion, but if you would provide some more information about the specific instance where you claim they supported speech codes, I can determine if it is one of the cases I am familiar with and we could discuss it further.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Whatever I am, I try to be right all the time
Well who doesn’t? I mean do you know anyone, besides mayhap Michael Moore, that consciously sets out to be wrong? We’re human, and so we err...it’s just we conservatives err less because we have a better lodestone/guide star. Liberals and you, Captin, just start off defective compasses so you end up in Wrong-Land more often, but I realize that you want to end up in Right-Land.
As far as the ACLU, I have looked into their position on speech codes, and expect that I will disagree with your assertion, but if you would provide some more information about the specific instance where you claim they supported speech codes, I can determine if it is one of the cases I am familiar with and we could discuss it further.
It was in a Reason Magazine article, when Reason was good-when it had Postrel as its editor. It was an article on the decline of the ACLU. It pointed out that the Skokie case led to a DECLINE in membership and contributions, and the ACLU realizing that its core was LIBERAL, not libertarian. In this article it talked about the SoCal chapter supporting Bersekkeley’s speech codes, until the National Chapter threatened them with expulsion. It simply chronicled the movement’s descent into a LIBERAL organization, focusing more on fighting Da Man-my words- than promoting liberty.
so as soon as liberals go back to supporting FREEDOM, rather than fighting Da Man
I think most libertarians would tell you that these are often one in the same.
And that’s why most libertarians/liberals are Potato Heads, too. Let me quote, "To be Anti-State, is not to be Pro-Freedom" from a nice critique of Rothbard. Too many libertarians make the same simple mistake that too many liberals have made/make, that is that they OPPOSE something as a shorthand for SUPPORTING something. The Womyn’s Movement, supposedly supports womyn’s equality, but as it’s enemy was Sexism, usually associated with Men, it has become the forum for bashing men, and supporting Womyn as victims, being anti-man is not being PRO-Womyn. The Civil Rights Movement, ditto, enemy Racism, usually manifested by Whites, now simply supports victimized Blacks against "racist" Whites, being anti-White is NOT be Pro-Black.

In Rothbard’s case cheering at the collapse of the So. Vietnamese Government shows the weakness, nay the Potato-headedness of later Rothbardism...when he cheered it was because there was "one less state in the world" he neglected to note that its place was taken by a Marxist-Leninist Unitary Party-State, and that the sum stock of freedom in the world had diminished not increased with the loss of So. Vietnam. See, being anti-State does not mean being Pro-Freedom. So too with libertarians/liberals....they tend to view Da Man, as the Republicans in power, though occasionally the government in general, and so they oppose the Da Man, even if Da Man is opposing Marxism or Fascism....Opposing Da Man does NOT equal advancing Freedom. Usually it just means we oppose Republicans/Christians/the Majority. but we stand with the "Other", you know Gays, Lesbians, Marxists, Islamists, and Muslims, because they are NOT Da Man/Tyrannical Majority and so ipso facto in Potato Head-Land they must represent Good, Truth, and Freedom, when in reality they do not. Which is to say that they do not represent a priori "the Good." Standing up to the majority is not the same thing as standing up for freedom.

So no, being Anti-Da Man, is not the same as being Pro-Freedom.

You hang around me long enough and don’t worry L’il Buddy I’ll get your head back on straight....a Pre-1994 Conservative, you’re one of the Conservatives who is "Pure", not wanting to be tainted with "Power" you left when we became the Majority...how bizarre. I guess you’d rather believe yourself "Right" than actually sully yourself with the compromises of actual power and doing something to advance the cause.

 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
You hang around me long enough and don’t worry L’il Buddy I’ll get your head back on straight....a Pre-1994 Conservative, you’re one of the Conservatives who is "Pure", not wanting to be tainted with "Power" you left when we became the Majority...how bizarre. I guess you’d rather believe yourself "Right" than actually sully yourself with the compromises of actual power and doing something to advance the cause.
I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Being a pre-1994 conservative meant that I supported what the conservatives said they were going to do, but I could not support what they actually did.
until the National Chapter threatened them with expulsion
So even the Republik of Kalifornia Chapter of the ACLU came down contrary to your earlier assertion...
Take the ACLU, for example, it used to campaign for civil liberties, but the Cali Chapter came out in favour of "Speech Codes"
I would also dispute that they were EVER in favor of speech codes. I have no evidence of even this chapter taking that position. Perhaps you have confused their refusal to file a lawsuit over the speech codes with support of said codes. If so, that was a legal issue, they needed to wait until the codes were codified in the school before they could file suit. If you really think they supported speech codes, you are going to have to be a whole lot more specific.

My experience has been that ideologues like yourself have an unfounded trust in the claims of their ideological bretheren, and the result of this is the acceptance of many inaccurate claims being accepted as true.

I would venture to say that my objective knowledge on which I base my political opinions is more comprehensive and accurate than yours, your views may be subject to GIGO. But let’s look at this ACLU case and see what it yields.

Cap

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Captin, take your complaint up with REASON, then....and the SoCal chapter did support speech codes, according to the article. And a major portion of the ACLU sided with the idea of speech codes, so YES the ACLU supported Speech Codes.
Being a pre-1994 conservative meant that I supported what the conservatives said they were going to do, but I could not support what they actually did
.
What did they actually do that so shocked you, then Captin? Not shrink the gub’mint? Take it up with Clinton? Supported "Fambly Values"? They said they would....
I would venture to say that my objective knowledge on which I base my political opinions is more comprehensive and accurate than yours, your views may be subject to GIGO. But let’s look at this ACLU case and see what it yields.
Oh that’s good...I not too worried about your "Objective knowledge base" being larger or more accurate than mine, Captin...But if it makes you feel better to think, "I’m not wrong, Joe just has the wrong data" by all means continue to believe it.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Captin, take your complaint up with REASON, then....and the SoCal chapter did support speech codes, according to the article. And a major portion of the ACLU sided with the idea of speech codes, so YES the ACLU supported Speech Codes.
You keep saying that the ACLU supported speech codes but have yet to provide any reference to this being factually so. I would be happy to review the REASON article, but you can’t seem to provide any documentation of that article’s existence.

Is this your idea of supporting your argument, you read an article once and therefore your assertion is supported?

Typical conservative.

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
You keep saying that the ACLU supported speech codes but have yet to provide any reference to this being factually so. I would be happy to review the REASON article, but you can’t seem to provide any documentation of that article’s existence.

Is this your idea of supporting your argument, you read an article once and therefore your assertion is supported?

Typical conservative.
Sorry I can’t cite it, I read it in the 1990’s, don’t keep my back copies. If this was a PhD dissertation or a class paper I’d have to have the biblio and footnote, as it is, no don’t really feel the need.

Fundmentally you’re just saying I’m "lying" right Captin? Or making it up from whole cloth or something, correct? It’s a web page, not a class room.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I did note in a your responses that there was no answer to my argument(s), merely nit-picking about a source...
Typical liberal, no answers, just personal attack....see two can play at it. I believe that is called tu quoque.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Fundmentally you’re just saying I’m "lying" right Captin? Or making it up from whole cloth or something, correct? It’s a web page, not a class room.
I’ll remember that the next time I am asked to document an assertion I make.

Cap (who documents assertions he makes, or admits he has made an unfounded assertion)

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
I did note in a your responses that there was no answer to my argument(s), merely nit-picking about a source...
It’s hard for me to show you that you are wrong, if you cannot even show evidence that the assertion you made ever happened.

If I say that Ronald Reagan ordered the Secret Service to beat up 23 Democrats in Cleveland, you would say this was false, but you could not PROVE it was false, because you cannot prove a negative. So the correct response to such an assertion would be to ask the person making the assertion to document their claim.

And then hope they call this request an ad hominem attack so you can laugh at them.

hehe

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
This isn’t the first time this tension within the union has spilled into print. Back in 1990, Reason ran a cover story called "Has the ACLU Sold Out?"; it described a similar split between people who put civil liberties first and people who think liberty is a euphemism for liberal. After that article ran, the civil libertarians regained the upper hand, but apparently they didn’t vanquish the other side for good.

http://www.reason.com/blog/printer/120396.html

So here you go Captin, and now you can STFU about it, because it was in 1990 and they don’t have the e-version of that. BUT from now on when you claim something, BY F*C(ING G*D YOU’D BETTER F&C(ING FOOTNOTE IN MLA APPROVED STYLE!


 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"...but race was not a motive"

WHAT?!?! Does ANYONE really believe in their minds (not what they say of course) that these beyond murderers would have done SUCH extended horrors on a black couple?

And were supposed to believe they didn’t chose then for ANY racial reasons?!

And while all these hideous crimes were being done...they never said anything racial to them?!

I know MY intelligence won’t be insulted like that.
Hate crimes are only reserved for white criminals.
 
Written By: Liz
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider