Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (170519)	6/4/2003 7:43:09 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1580020

No Ted it is a totally unreasonable and unsupported conclusion. It is a different kind of crime esp. when they shoot some one and then rob the person or mutilate him/her. The gay guy in Wyoming got robbed after he was crucified and beat him to a bloody pulp. In my book, that's two crimes.....why should they get off with just one punishment? IF you get punished for murder you are being punished you are not getting off of anything. If you want to charge the person with abduction and aggravated assault and battery then fine, but usually prosecutors don't bother when they already have a murder rape. If it was a white person doing all of that, based on personal hatred, there would be the same number of crimes and just as much hatred. Unless racism is somehow a crime itself your whole argument falls apart. What if it was racially motivated but was done with a quick double shot to the head? If racism makes it a new crime that would be a "hate crime" as well. But only one real crime has been committed, unless racism and racially based hate are themselves crimes. And as ugly as racism and hatred are I disagree with the idea of "thought crime". Yes, and that was his interpretation........it was not a statement made by the people who did the ad. You are upset because of one man's opinion. I was upset with it long before I read that opinion. The people who made the add implied that Bush's opposition to hate crime laws was in some way similar to the murder itself. And liberals get upset about the Willie Horton add, it didn't include a statement about how freeing Horton was like committing Hoton's crime. And also Horton got off early, Byrd's killers did not. They are not free to commit more crimes, at least not on anyone else but prison inmates. (and I don't think you would support quick executions to prevent that possibility). You can make your declarative statements all you want. You can refer to something dismissively as "nonsense" or "ridiculous" as well......none of that use of grammar or sentence structure will make you right. But your declarative statements make you right?? Of course the statements don't make me right. I make them because they are right... Like I've said before, many of these hate crimes are double crimes......rape and then a beating; a beating then a robbery; torture then a murder. If you insist try them for rape, and beating, and robbery, and murder, or whatever individual crimes they commit. But I doubt that your incentive is really to have separate charges for all "lesser included offences" or all lesser crimes that the prosecutor didn't bother with when he could get a conviction on more serious charges. If a man rapes a woman and he doesn't hate her (or her race or whatever) and he beats her to ensure compliance should that be a hate crime, in addition to rape? What about muggings, they are often beatings then robbery, should they all be hate crimes?? The message needs to be made clear that hate is not acceptable in this society. If hate is a crime then you are outlawing thoughts an emotions. Hate should normally be considered a bad thing, and result in negative reactions, but the crime is the action not the thought. I don't know where you're getting your public sentiment stance from.......that's not the stance here in WA state. In WA state they support torture as a criminal punishment?!? I didn't say sympathy, I said empathy.....there's a big difference. My use of the word sympathy was deliberate. Empathy means feeling what she feels. No one can really do that nor is it reasonable to expect them to do so. Sorry, but from what I've heard, Bush has a somewhat mixed record on individual rights in TX. She has every right to be pissed and if he thinks her ad was unfair, let him take an ad out and explain his position. That's how it works in a democracy. She has every right to make a distorting hateful and inaccurate add, and the response should not be to ban it but to counter it, but the fact that she has a right to make the add doesn't mean that it was right to do so. Tim