Dean not liberal? If Dean is a moderate, then I guess that makes Bush a Nazi? Read his stance on socialist medicine: Geez, if that isn't good-ole fashioned compassion with other people (taxpayer) money, I don't know what is. When did we have a "right" to health care? I don't claim a right to having other people pay for my medical bills. He thinks that politicians in Washington need more of your money to throw at various vote-buying schemes, not returned to the overburdened taxpayers, who represent a shrinking percentage of the population. That is classic liberalism. I'm not one of these homophobe Republicans (hell, I was even best man at my best female friend's lesbian "joining" ceremony!) but I don't think that these so-called "hate" crime laws are a good idea. They appeal to the emotions, but they are against the equal protection clause. Don't most criminal statutes already take care of those who would kill because of race or orientation? And do we really want to penalize thought, because by saying something is a hate crime is that it was a crime of thought. Why should someone of a minority be entitled to more protection under the law than a member of a majority group? More liberalism!!! So you mean to tell me that to fix past wrongs, we have to wrong the innocents of this generation because of the color of their skin? Give me a break. I think colleges should add points for those from poor homes to give them a better shot at entry into college, not do it because of the color of someone's skin. Diversity is a bunch of p.c. bull crap. because forcing people to live amongst people of other backgrounds doesn't improve one's education. Dr. King went to Morehouse, a traditionally black school that has few, if any white students. There is no diversity there, yet would you deny he didn't get a great education? This guy is about as far left as one can go, in the mold of a Mondull, Dukakis or McGovern. Sorry about the length of this post, but I can't let this untruth stand untested.
Nobody is advocating hate crimes laws that protect homosexuals and not heteros. They protect everyone. If I killed someone for being straight then the same law would apply. Please stop propogating the protected class myth. The justice system already uses intent in administering sentences, why can't hate be a factor like passion or premeditation?
How is returning more of one's hard-earned dollars vote buying? Geez, give me a break. I guess you want to pay more in taxes, don't you?
It is not a myth, it is a reality. Why should we add an extra level of punishment to a crime just because it is someone who happened to be prejudiced against their little identity? I don't think white people who shoot white people are doing out of love, unless they're mentally ill!!! So why wouldn't it be a hate crime if a white kills a white, for example? So if a white kills a black person and we are supposedly equal, why does that same person get punished more because the victim was of another race or sexual orientation? Point-set-match.
Point-set-match? What are you a bad TJ clone? if a white person kills another white person because the victim is white then that is still a hate crime. hate crimes breed more hatred and turns those in a society against one another. that is why they are worse than "regular" crimes. Also your example is flawed in reality since it's proven statiscally that a black person who killed a white person is more severely punished than a white person who killed a black person. There are other defacto protected classes. A cop killer is more likely to get the death penalty than someone who kills a convenience store clerk. A child-killer is also looked upon as "worse" than someone who kills adults. A man killing a "defenseless" woman is punished harder than if he killed another man. Also, when people speak against hate crime laws, they always use murder as an example but the reality is homocides are only a small perentage of hate crimes. Assault, rape and harrassment are also hate crimes and much more common.
I still don't know who to go with in the Primary, but Dean is growing on me. Add Gen. Wesley Clark to that ticket and our future outlook is gooooooooooood.
I don't believe in that theory that so-called hate crimes breed more "hate crimes." What about when Reginald Denny, an innocent white truck driver, was dragged from his truck and nearly beaten to death? You didn't see an uptick of white folks killing black folks because of all this rage and hatred. These kind of crimes are no different than any garden-variety murder and should be treated as such. But all of those examples (child-killer, cop-killer, etc.) you used do not involve race or orientation. Why does killing someone because of your beliefs (however ill-conceived) make a crime more heinous than if you hold no prejudice towards the little group they're part of at large and you still kill the person? This is a way of penalizing thoughts and ideas and beliefs, which is a scary thing indeed. I just don't think that someone's beliefs and/or prejudices should factor into rating the severity of a crime. What does it matter if the folks who killed Matthew Shepard were a bunch of homophobic piles of human debris? They still killed him brutally, premeditated their crime and will receive due justice. Why should they be punished more severely if say they did the same thing to a straight guy? I just have a big problem with pigeon-holing people into these little groups based on the color of their skin and sexual orientation. People need to get over this crap and realize we are ONE human race.
The point is they would not have done this to a straight guy. The only reason they killed Matt was because he was gay. and if you don't think hate crimes breed more hate read this: McKinney laughs at sentence, becomes celebrity among inmates Twenty minutes after being convicted of murdering gay college student Matthew Shepard, Aaron McKinney was back in jail, smiling, laughing, and watching himself on television, a sheriff’s detective said. Jail officials are worried that McKinney is becoming a celebrity among younger inmates, said Sgt. Rob DeBree, a detective in the Albany County, Wyo., sheriff’s department. Some fellow inmates have asked for—and received—McKinney’s autograph, DeBree said, adding, “We’re worried about the effect he may be having on the younger inmates.” Were all the lynchings of blacks in the south done by one group or organization? hate spreads. this is penalzing them for acting wrongly on these thoughts and beliefs not for having them to begin with. And what was the cause of this attack? It was retaliation to the LAPD's own hate crimes. I'm not saying one was worse than the other but his attack would not have happened if not for first hate crime.
But are some actions and beliefs worse than others? Why should race or orientation even be a remote consideration? Why are you bringing up the old South and the horrors of lynching. As a mixed-race person, I would've probably suffered mightily at the hands of those racist ignorants. I say again, there are no love crimes. Everything could be a hate crime? And how does a couple of inmates who idolize a man who killed a gay guy show that hate supposedly spread. I have a more positive view of humanity, one that is not dominated and divided in hatred, but one that is well on the way to healing many of the racial divides in this country. I remember when I was young, I got in more fights because I was a "half breed", "half-gook", "half-jap" to many of the kids. My twin sister and I were stared at in the store by people when we were with our mother because we are biracial. But now, we wouldn't get a second glance. I only had a few people call me half breed in the Corps, but they were doing so in a jovial fashion. From my experience I'd like to think we've grown as a nation when it comes to healing the divisions of race and becoming a more color-blind society. Why do we need all these protections if our society is inexorably moving towards a more harmonious ideal. Just because someone has racist ideas and they kill someone of another race doesn't make it a worse crime than if they killed another of their race. I just don't buy that the whole nation is a tinderbox, ready to explode in racial violence because a white guy killed a black guy. If that was true, why aren't gay people out killing straight people in revenge for Matthew Shepard? There will always be evil in the world, but do we need to add another level, that of simple thought and belief, to crime? I think not.
It is evil if it comes out of my paycheck. There is no such thing as a right to health care. I hate to see children suffer because of the stupidity of parents who brought them in the world without being able to afford them, but am I supposed to pony up the money to make up for their mistakes? Call me selfish, but forced charity is not charity at all.
Do you think that the American people agree 100% on everything that taxes are spent on? IE, some people think too much goes to the military or corporate wellfare. When govt contracts are handed out, aren't there people who equally agree and disagree with which companies win said contracts? Also, I don't know of any charities that cover the healthcare cost of children across the entire country. Not trying to change your opinion, I just thought that you made it sound like Child healthcare was some extreme left wing wacko stuff. Also, with the way the economy is going, there are a lot of people who lost the stability they had when their children were born. Now they are SOL.
because the federal government felt it was necessary to pass anti-lynching laws then. Why is it different now? while McKinney is serving life without parole, these others might not be and will be out in the world thinking that what McKinney did was right and "cool". we're waiting till 2005.
do you support free public education? you're paying for all these rugrats to go to school and healthcare is more important than education.
anyone seeing similarities to 1992? hopefully the outcome is the same. Bush is the incumbent, who experts say is not beatable. John Edwards = Bill Clinton (young Southern lawyers not frontrunner for nomination) Howard Dean = Jerry Brown (Brown had a 800 number, Dean has the web. Both considered far left and most outspoken contender) John Kerry = Bob Kerrey (highly decorated Vietnam vets) Dick Gephardt = Tom Harkin (both from midwest states) Joe Lieberman = Paul Tsongas (New England senators with some Republican beliefs)
1. In Dean's own state he actually cut income taxes, paid down the debt and still managed to get the healthcare thing to float. I know you say it's compassion with other peoples money, but since these are kids we are talking about, they dont' really have their own money. You may be against health care, but that doesn't make it a far left issue. Cutting income taxes though definitely does not fit the Tax and spend label that we here attached to the liberal agenda. 2.Hate crimes legislation is also fairly mainstream. 3. Your diversity argument sounds like you are against the Brown vs. Board of Education decision by the supreme court. Is that correct? You think seperate but equal is workable? The fact is that I've seen integration work. I look from generation to to generation in the places where integration was forced and I see the change in attitudes toward less racism in those areas. 4.Howard Dean may be left of your positions, but I wouldn't say that moves him to the far end of the spectrum.
outlaw: You've done a good job of matching them up close as possible, but this isn't 92 and these are different guys. Edwards doesn't have anywhere near Clinton's savvy, passion or experience. Clinton was a consumate politician, recommended by his passion and intelligence, but earning suspicion for his expedience. Edwards is a newbie. He has none of Clinton's best or worst qualities. Dean's got nothing in common with Brown but populism. And his surge right now is far stronger than Brown's ever was. Plus, whatever they say about Dean now, he's never had to counter the gigantic nutbar reputation Brown did. Trust me, I know. I ran Brown's Houston campaign in 92. I know all the 92 guys and know them well. Kerry's way more seasoned than Kerrey. He's also more wooden. Different personality strengths, different personality weaknesses. Similarity in service, dissimilarity in that Kerry's running against a guy who dodged service (his dad didn't) in a time when that matters a lot more than 92. Gephardt's yesterday's guy, but he's nowhere near the parody of old school, good old boy, cookie cutter liberalism Harkin was. Harkin was the left's version of Foghorn Leghorn. Gephardt's a much more solid type. He still doesn't stand a chance. The old middle, even with union support, ain't goin nowhere this time. The new middle (Edwards) has an outside shot. Lieberman/Tsongas is your closest comparison, but again, the similarity means nothing in the changed climate. Tsongas' strength was that, in a time of economic uncertainty, he had a serious claim to being the most fiscally responsible guy running. Lieberman's is that he's the Democrat most like Bush on foreign policy. With the recent Iraq revelations, nobody is more yesterday than Lieberman. I'm not looking to shut down the comparisons. I'd love it if they went for a year. Having spent my only full-time year on politics in 92, I'd like nothing more than to talk about it forever. If you (or anyone else) has more on this, keep it coming. My take though, today at least, is that Dean's way more viable than my old friend Jerry Brown, and that the race (and the race everyone wants) will ultimately boil down to a two man race with Dean. They all think they can beat him and they all think they'd rather run against him in a two way than any of the other viable candidates (Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, Gephardt, maybe Graham). My feeling is that Kerry and Dean are in what the early primaries (and fundraising campaigns) will determine to be a three way between them and one of the others, most likely Edwards or Gephardt. Graham's gotta get edged out, if only by weirdness and personality. And I don't think any serious person believes in Lieberman since the war tide turned, if they even did before that. I say it's a four way now, interesting as it turns three way and more when it turns two way, especially with every Dem emboldened by the newly weakened Bush. My gut says it's Kerry or Edwards v. Dean, with Kerry or Edwards getting the nod (though I'm split between Dean and Kerry). I've said it before, I'll say it again. 2004 will be fun.
Franchiseblade, My point was that forcing people to live together is not going to make things more harmonious. I'm just not a big fan of just because the population has so many whites, so many latinos, so many Asians, we have to have corresponding percentages at every public institution. I'm a strong believer in merit-based admissions and hiring. My point was that diversity was not part of Dr King's education, yet look what he did for civil rights in his country. I don't believe in "separate but equal" but I do support race being eliminated as a factor on admissions. Replace it with economic status and the playing field is leveled without having to resort to defacto quotas. Helping one race supposedly make up for decades of mistreatment by mistreating another race is flat-out wrong. As my old man always says, "Two wrongs don't make a right."
