DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on December 29, 2012, 10:39:58 PM
-
http://start.toshiba.com/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CDA3FMVL00%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1018&page=1 (http://start.toshiba.com/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CDA3FMVL00%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1018&page=1)
They have caught a subway pusher, she admits to being a hatefull murderer.
I don't think that murder for the sake of hate needs to be punished worse , nor any less , than murder for the sake of greed or jelousy or unjustified fear.
-
The whole point of hatecrime laws is to make existing laws to be enforced and the fact people complain about the hatecrime laws but not the fact the laws are not being enforce kinda justisfy it's existance.
When a minority is assualted people complain about the hatecrime law but very little is said a person is assaulted. Not exactly a good reason to stop such laws.
-
Kimba,
Is a black persons life more valuable than an asian persons life?
Is a harlan county oxybilly's grisly demise more horrendous than a cherokee from the county over.
Then why hand out differeing penalties based on the type of the victim and the heart of the perp?
-
Agreed
-
The difference is that a hate crime has no justification. If a wife kills a husband, or vice versa, they may or may not have a good reason, but at least they think they have some justification. When there is no motive other than just hate for some unknown person because he belongs to some group, that is of a greater danger to society.
Of course, if you give out a 30 year sentence with no possibility of parole, it is going to have the same deterrent effect no matter what the motive is.
All murders are committed by people who are not quite sane. A hate crime is committed by someone a bit more of a psychopath than someone who is motivated by jealousy, greed or some other motive based on what they think the victim did to them.
-
Bt
Thats actually interesting because legally asians cant be protected by hatecrime laws. A few years ago several chinese in a short span of time got attacked and one even died . A judge ruled due to the fact its not racist to attack asians so it can't be a hate crime.
I've brought this up many times to people i work with and found 100% agreement that it not racist to attack asians. Our stereotype of being compliant has massively backfired on us.
So despite i can't get protection for my people being known to save money.I can still get collateral protection because it existance would still require the police to do thier job.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=rOfUKwVXve4&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DrOfUKwVXve4 (http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=rOfUKwVXve4&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DrOfUKwVXve4)
-
murder is murder....assault is assault....a person is a person. When we start trying to judge and convict on intent, be it racial vs monetary, is when we start valuing 1 life higher than anothers
Just saying
-
I totally disagree with the idea that Asians do not suffer from directed racism, the history of California especially demonstrates that racial based institutional bias and social anger has been directed at asian people quite a bit.
Racism can be bad and as a justifacation for crime it should not be accepted.
Greed can be bad , as a justifaction for crime it should not be accepted.
Jelosy can be bad , as a justifaction for crime it should not be accepted.
Crimes comitted strictly for relif of boredom, well that is less bad, so when boredom os the reason for murder or assault the punishment should be lesser.
-
Note i brought the issue the hatecrime law is brought on because existing laws are not being enforced and the focus keeps going to racial preference not making sure people in general don't get harmed.
Not even a disscussion those existing law should be enforced.
No one brought up the idea how about replacing hatecrime laws with a law that existing laws are to be enforced.
The police themselves had the ability to stop such laws from existing by showing stats they always stopped racially based crimes . But for some reason they prefered those laws to exist.
-
If existing laws are not being enforced, how is the notion of more laws going to change what's not being enforced, in the 1st place?
-
It is ridiculous to say that intent cannot be taken into consideration in an accusation of murder. Every court in the country takes motivation into account.
-
Hatecrime laws make it more public for existing laws to be enforce. Harder to ignore. Pretty sure it's much harder today for the police to ignore a complant then it was before the laws came about.
-
As I see it, the main purpose of a hate crime law is to make a crime that the local yokels refuse to take seriously as a matter for the feds to deal with.
I fail to see why anyone could not be prosecuted for a hate crime if hate was the motivation. The shooter on the LIRR was a prime example of a Black guy who had it in for White people and shot a bunch of them that he did not know. He was, of course, insane, but so is any mass murderer.
They are just less lethal when they have no guns.
-
It is ridiculous to say that intent cannot be taken into consideration in an accusation of murder. Every court in the country takes motivation into account.
Motivation is taken into account for evidence of a crime, along with means and opportunity, but not in trying to hand out stiffer sentence based solely on the motive. that's when you start valuing 1 person over another. Justice is supposed to be blind, including color blind
-
That is simply not true.
At the very beginning of the OJ trial, the prosecution declared that they would not be trying for a death penalty, though obviously the brutal murder of OJ's Ex and her presumed lover was certainly brutal enough to justify it.
John Hinckley shot Reagan and killed a cop and maimed Brady, but there was no attempt to give him a death penalty.
-
Afew years go in philidelphia thirty asians students was assualted in a two day the princapal refused acknowledge that only asians are targeted. So despite asian has no protection from that law it's presence will get people to notice they are getting attack. It's funny because in the news video only asians say they are targeted but everybody else only say attacked. Despite no mention any other race was attacked
-
It is ridiculous to say that intent cannot be taken into consideration in an accusation of murder. Every court in the country takes motivation into account.
That is not quite what I proposed.
When someone has a justified reason , such as self defense , and some evidence of that justifacation then his fault is mitigated.
For a while there you made it sound as if greed might be accepted as justifacation , which I certainly reject.
When there is no discernable or provable motive should the punishment be lighter?
-
A hate crime murder is a type of premeditated murder. It is hard to justify as temporary insanity. The hater generally plans to commit the murder on some hated minority member in advance.
I did not say that greed was a justifiable motive, on the contrary, it is a motive for personal gain. It should a more serious moral issue than something done on impulse, like murdering one's wife's lover in the process of screwing one's wife.
An example of an unmotivated murder would be to accidentally run over someone in the street, or in an accident. The driver of the subway train that ran over a person on the tracks should not be prosecuted, since the train cannot be stopped in time no matter what he does.
-
A murder is a murder, whether it was motivated by hate, anger, desperation, financial, mental, etc., and the intent was to kill. The victim is still dead, and shouldn't be processed as some lower class of dead, based on some arbitrary skin color
The "unmotivated murder" as you're describing is not murder at all, they're accidents, as there was no intent to kill
-
Exactly.
There are degrees of offense, ranging from totally accidental death to manslaughter due to negligence (like driving while drunk) to justifiable homicide. The differences between these are often a matter of the mental attitude of the person causing the death.
Of course, a driver can be drunk and the same accident could also have occurred in some cases even if the driver was totally sober.
Intent is certainly a factor, and premeditation is certainly another.
The usual reason for a federal hate crime law is to assure justice in cases in which the local authorities are negligent in dealing with a crime. The various civil rights murders by Klansmen cops in Mississippi are one example of this. The Feds entered the case based on the undeniable fact that murdering someone is a denial of their civil rights. Note that it took decades before the Feds got involved in this.
The mental attitude of the person causing the death is always a factor in determining any punishment or lack of same.
-
There is no need to have "hate" as a crime catagory.
Killing is not "murder" if it is entirely accidental or motivated by good cause , such as self defense.
Racism is not a justification of killing and already is unacceptable without "hate crime" laws.
I consider hate crime laws worse than useless ,especially if they make it more important that the killer killed an Arab than that the killer killed a person.
-
I can see a reason for federal hate crime laws, because local police have on many occasions refused to take on a case in which race has been a factor.
Hate is not a crime category. Hate is a motivation for a type of random killing of strangers based on prejudice.
-
Intent is certainly a factor, and premeditation is certainly another.
As is motive. Those 3 are the primary factors used in determining guilt. But using one of those to ascribe a murder that's "worse" than another, and requiring a harsher judgement, based nothing more on skin color places one person's life more importantly than another, is clearly unfair, and demeaning to the person with the apparent wrong skin color
-
So sirs is against giving a longer sentence to someone who kills a minority member, as opposed to killing someone that is not, such as, for example, sirs.
Reverse discrimination! Of course.
-
because local police have on many occasions refused to take on a case in which race has been a factor.
Why not have the feds sue the local DA's for dereliction of duty, and violating equal protection under the law. Seems to me you are advocating punishing the wrong group.
-
So sirs is against giving a longer sentence to someone who kills a minority member, as opposed to killing someone that is not, such as, for example, sirs.
Reverse discrimination! Of course.
What the frell?? On what planet is advocating equal punishment for equal crimes, based on the same intent,, i.e. killing, the notion of reverse discrimination?? Somone that murders me, based solely that I'm white, should be punished just the same as someone who murders me, for money. I'm still dead.
(of course, I'll have shot him long before he gets anywhere close enough to try and kill me, but that's for another thread)
-
Hmm
I recall several black celebrities say they still get pulled over.The topic about hate crime is legal equal treatment. It is true hatecrime laws doesn't give equal treatment but nobody except finally bt bring anything about enforcing existing laws for equal treatment.
The irony is xo brought up several points of loopsided legal treatments but the defense is almost consistently about people should get equal treatment never on such charges are not true.
It's funny statements are made but hardly no reference to counter.
I stated before the police totally had the ability to prevent hatecrime laws from coming to existance by bringout stats show they always gave equal treatment to all complaints. But somehow it seems the police wanted those laws to come about.
-
Perhaps they do.
What is in it for them?
-
Equal treatment might occur if everyone had equal legal representation. As it is, there is no such thing.
-
Frankly I wouldn't worry about it. She killed him. If they want to call it a hate crime, that's fine, who cares?
BSB
-
Equal treatment might occur if everyone had equal legal representation. As it is, there is no such thing.
Can lawyers be handicapped untill this is possible?
-
Frankly I wouldn't worry about it. She killed him. If they want to call it a hate crime, that's fine, who cares?
BSB
Very considerate of her to confess, and to state her motive.
Few cases will be so clearly hate crimes as this one is.
-
"Means, motive, and opportunity"
If you unhealthy red staters don't like her motive that's your problem.
BSB
-
"Means, motive, and opportunity"
If you unhealthy red staters don't like her motive that's your problem.
BSB
You like her motive?
Must be a blue state thing.
-
I like the facts. By her own admission she killed out of hate for Muslims.
-
I like the facts. By her own admission she killed out of hate for Muslims.
As much as she hated Muslims she was guilty of nothing under the law untill she killed a man.
In the eyes of God , she may have been a murderer as soon as she began to generate such hatred.
That is Gods business, because God hates the hatred itself and has the means to detect it wheter confessed or not.
If it turned out that her victim was actually not a Muslim as she thought , would she be guilty of a lesser crime?
-
Can lawyers be handicapped untill this is possible?
=========================================
No, that will never be done. Justice could be made more equal if we replaced the jury with truly unbiased professional judges that would be less susceptible to lawyers' BS, but this won't be done either because of finding truly unbiased judges and lawyers, who would clearly not want their capability of choosing easily swayed dummkopfs as jurors.
-
If Jurys were professional instead of common people with lives to get back to ....
Cases would never close , and laws could become impossible for the common man to interpret.
Two things that are already pretty bad , but could be worse.
-
"As much as she hated Muslims she was guilty of nothing under the law untill she killed a man."
No kidding, that's why she is charged with a hate CRIME, not just hate.
BSB
-
Still waiting for Xo to try and explain this reverse discrimination nonsense, for supporting equal punishment for equally dead murdered victims. Unless of course there is no explanation, which would....ironically explain alot
-
Wait and wait and wait forever, you insufferable prick!
It is a joy to make you wait.
-
....as I said, & the lack of explanation, explains alot. Thanks Xo...and I was never waiting, just again hilighting your ongoing nonsense for all to relish.
But as long as your happy and "joyful" ;)
-
Waiting for sirs to become educated is like waiting for a turtle to sing operatic arias.
-
"As much as she hated Muslims she was guilty of nothing under the law untill she killed a man."
No kidding, that's why she is charged with a hate CRIME, not just hate.
BSB
So the hate doesn't , or shouldn't ,make a diffrence?
-
Waiting for sirs to become educated is like waiting for a turtle to sing operatic arias.
Oh, the irony.....a "professor" declining to make any effort to supposedly "educate" ;)
-
"So the hate doesn't , or shouldn't ,make a difference?"
This is an interesting response. It's not interesting because of who made it, or why he made it, but it's interesting in terms of where the right is now. To make this clear, what I'm going to say has nothing to do with this poster.
This response is about just going around in circles. It doesn't follow what I said. It doesn't move in any direction. Just around and around. They say that young boys who are growing up without fathers get caught in this kind of pattern. Their thinking goes around in circles. Interestingly the right in this country is without a leader. They are without a father figure if you will. Just look at who they ran for president. Romney had no principles. He never took a stand. He said one thing one year on a subject and something entirely different the next all depending on which way the wind was blowing. He never took off in a direction and stayed with it. Funny, because his father, whom he tried to emulate in so many ways, was highly principled individual.
Now, look at who else ran from the right. Newt Gingrich. Gingrich is the person who started all the extreme partisanship that we see in Washington right now. He is the one that got all of them just going around in circles. They can't solve a problem to save their lives. Now, Newt isn't responsible for what is going on now. That's the fault of those in congress at the moment. But, he started it, and many on the right would have voted for him to sit in the oval office. Amazing.
So, the rest of the country is waiting for the right to get up off its ass, stop going around and around, and help us solve the considerable problems America, and rest of the world, has right now.
BSB
-
Romney's "Dreams of my Father" certainly was an interesting read, so he had that going for him.
-
That is both flattering and evasive.
My father died when I was 37 but untill then he was a terriffic father.
Perhaps I have developed the problems of the fatherless since then.
But enough about me.
If someone is killed and the reason does not meet the tests of justifiability, then it is a murder and the severest penaltys apply.
But should this be enforced diffrently for and against certain races , religions and affiliations?
Hate crime legislation is a backwards step, away from the goal of equal justice under the law.
-
I disagree. Nowhere do any of these laws suggest a longer sentence for something labeled a "hate crime"do they?
-
Educating you is clearly impossible. Why bother?
-
I disagree. Nowhere do any of these laws suggest a longer sentence for something labeled a "hate crime"do they?
Yes . In Wisconsin aggravated assault goes from 4 years to 7.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Mitchell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Mitchell)
-
I disagree. Nowhere do any of these laws suggest a longer sentence for something labeled a "hate crime"do they?
I don't know then, so what is the point of them?
-
"Romney's "Dreams of my Father" certainly was an interesting read, so he had that going for him. "
I haven't read it nor will I. I don't believe a word he says, writes, emails, whatever.
"That is both flattering and evasive"
It wasn't posted to you and has nothing to do with you.
BSB
-
I don't know then, so what is the point of them?
One
last
time:
The point is that in cases where the local yokels will not investigate or prosecute because they themselves are racist, the hate crime law makes it possible for the Feds (or perhaps a higher authority of the same state) to come in and do so.
How bloody hard is that to understand?
-
"That is both flattering and evasive"
It wasn't posted to you and has nothing to do with you.
BSB
I am sorry , I was confused by being quoted .
-
I don't know then, so what is the point of them?
One
last
time:
The point is that in cases where the local yokels will not investigate or prosecute because they themselves are racist, the hate crime law makes it possible for the Feds (or perhaps a higher authority of the same state) to come in and do so.
How bloody hard is that to understand?
I don't recognise any legislation I have heard of by your description.
Sounds interesting , but I wish I was sure we were talking about the same thing.
I thought the idea behind "hate crime " laws was to increase the severity of punishment for certain classes of perpertrator and certain classes of victim.
Have you heard of a case in which the law was used as you describe?
-
"I am sorry , I was confused by being quoted ."
I made it abundantly clear at the start of the post.
Now, I see no need in us communicating. I don't like you, I never have. I think you're as phony as the day is long. So just post to others and I'll do the same.
BSB
-
"I am sorry , I was confused by being quoted ."
I made it abundantly clear at the start of the post.
Now, I see no need in us communicating. I don't like you, I never have. I think you're as phony as the day is long. So just post to others and I'll do the same.
BSB
I like you .
Not for being friendly, which you are not.
For being interesting, which you definately are.
I can address you or not as I please and you may read or not as you please, which is not a change in the situation we already had.
I don't need you ,and you don't need me , the stakes of this relationship are very low.
So you can adress me as you will , I don't mind and permission was never required anyway.
-
Educating you is clearly impossible. Why bother?
Because you discredit yourself, all the more when you, a professor, don't even make an effort to supposedly "educate". What it does show is your lack of credibility to begin with, on any particular issue/rant, as you try evading with endless demeaning slurs aimed at me, such as your above example. Bravo
-
" Interestingly the right in this country is without a leader. They are without a father figure if you will. '
BSB
I have seen this sort of thing before.
But it might be worth discussing on its own terms.
The left projects upon the right its own attitudes.
The right is not looking to politics for father figures , competant government would treat the common man as if he were an individual and an adult.
-
BINGO II
-
BINGO II
Yes , but I am a little sorry to loose BsB.
I don't feel as if I have succeeded nor handled the situation well.
Being right , isn't everything.
-
BSB's a big boy, with a massively arrogant ego. The funny thing is that "in general", we all are very confident in our opinions. And those opinions are generally supported by many things we read to reinforce, what we already believe. It is a breath of fresh air to hear someone say they read something or heard someone, that opened up their eyes to ..... another point of view. Not that it changed their mind in any way, but presented them with something else to consider.
"In general", right leaning folks are just as passionate and in belief of their conclusions as left leaning folks. But unlike the right, and outside of Xo, it sure does seem that the farther left one's ideology is, not only are they more arrogant, they're also far more likely to cut you down with insults of how dumb we're supposed to be, and subsequently shut down any attempt to debate. It's as if they've been intimidated, in some way, to their erroneously perceived vastly superior intellect. The whole gun debate & CCW's have been a shining example of that
Xo stays, and we're grateful at the attempt he provides at representing leftest socialist rhetoric, though as we've seen time and time again, he too shuts down debate, before even trying to debate, claiming nonsense about not being able to be educated.....so I guess he sees this forum not as a debate forum, but as a rant forum, with no need or even a sense of obligation in supporting those rants
IMHO
-
That is a good assessment Sirs .
I agree.
Let me add this.
We have all got illusions , illusions are universal, recogniseing this helps me think of humility in its proper place in my life.
I learn stuff here, all the time. I learn how the opposite point of view works and get an inkling of where my own POV might be improved.
This was better when we had a lot of debate going on.
I agree often with the representatives of the right , so I don't need to exercise tolerance twards the right.
I miss the strong left wing we used to have , certain ones in particular who were willing to give me a serious workout I miss the most, because they disagreed with me the best.
Lets be appreaciative of Xo who is holding up his end , to answer a team of opponents must be exausting him.
-
agreed 100%
-
There is no one left in here and there hasn't been for a long time. Sirs is an idiot. Plane is a phony. CU just posts junk. Once in a blue moon BT has something good to say. I more often than not agree with XO so I don't really learn anything from him.
The posters you could actually learn from were 1) the young lady from NYC who worked in the WTC 2) Domer when he wasn't being an asshole 3) yellow crane on occasion 4) the lady whose husband was in the Corps 5) the guy from NYC who was an Israeli soldier. That's 'bout it. The worst posters were 1) Snowblower- a born liar if there ever was one 2) Nigger - worthless 3) Universe Prince - like talking to a wall 4) Plane - head case 5) Sirs- what can you say? the biggest idiot whoever posted on the WWW 6) Some Ones Pet Dog - or whatever his name was- jesus that guy thought god anointed him 7) others whose names escape me
BSB
-
...... I more often than not agree with XO so I don't really learn anything from him. ....
......
BSB
I think of this as a key point.
-
There is no one left in here and there hasn't been for a long time. Sirs is an idiot. Plane is a phony. CU just posts junk. Once in a blue moon BT has something good to say. I more often than not agree with XO so I don't really learn anything from him.
See what I mean? Great job reinforcing the point I was making B, not to mention the other examples he provided as folks we can "learn from", outside of Tee, were, IIRC, all largely left leaning. Imagine that.
Your efforts are duly appreciated, especially in your lack of supporting your own rhetoric, proportionally supplemented by the level of hateful demeaning insults you freely toss around, instead
I tell ya, it's getting harder and harder to respect your service & sacrifice to this country, but I'll endeavor to keep trying....at least until you've lost it completely
-
Well Sirs, you and plane are a couple of far-right morons. Now that isn't my fault, it's yours.
BSB
-
The right is not looking to politics for father figures , competant government would treat the common man as if he were an individual and an adult.
================================================================
I don't think YOU are looking for a father figure, but a lot of the far right is clearly looking for another Reagan, who was more of a grandfather figure, to lead them back to the happy times they had in the 1950's, when gays stayed in the closet or went to nuthouses or prison and women stayed at home baking cookies.
Romney was a sort of father figure. Ryan will never be one. Neither will Rubio. Nor will any pf them ever be elected president.
The Newtster was the crazy uncle and Santorum was the other religious nut uncle.
Neither Boehner nor McConnell is anyone anyone would choose for a father.
-
One of the problems is the unhealthy, poorly educated, right-wing, red staters, are not adults. They're children with no adult figureheads to look to.
BSB
-
It takes a serious bonehead to follow creeps like Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck. It serves to divert anger at life's unfairness, personal flaws and bad luck to a political figure. I agree that most of these dittoheads and beckerwoods are mentally immature.
-
"Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck."
What a frightening group. And then Republican politicians with presidential aspirations like Romney and McCain have to become like these people inorder to get past the gate. So it just goes around and around.
BSB
-
The right is not looking to politics for father figures , competant government would treat the common man as if he were an individual and an adult.
================================================================
I don't think YOU are looking for a father figure, but a lot of the far right is clearly looking for another Reagan, who was more of a grandfather figure, to lead them back to the happy times they had in the 1950's, when gays stayed in the closet or went to nuthouses or prison and women stayed at home baking cookies.
Romney was a sort of father figure. Ryan will never be one. Neither will Rubio. Nor will any pf them ever be elected president.
The Newtster was the crazy uncle and Santorum was the other religious nut uncle.
Neither Boehner nor McConnell is anyone anyone would choose for a father.
I suppose I could be wrong .
But Ronald Reagan was competant and inspiring, but not a father figure in any respect to the right.
I see this premise as projecting the Leftist attitude twards leadership onto the right where it does not really exist.
-
Well Sirs, you and plane are a couple of far-right morons. Now that isn't my fault, it's yours.
BSB
Based on.......your mere ignorant say so? That's all you've got? Sad
Sirs
-
The right is not looking to politics for father figures , competant government would treat the common man as if he were an individual and an adult.
================================================================
I don't think YOU are looking for a father figure, but a lot of the far right is clearly looking for another Reagan, who was more of a grandfather figure, to lead them back to the happy times they had in the 1950's, when gays stayed in the closet or went to nuthouses or prison and women stayed at home baking cookies.
I see this premise as projecting the Leftist attitude twards leadership onto the right where it does not really exist.
Sadly, it happens all too often
-
Reagan sure as hell did not inspire me. He seemed to me to be both stupid and ignorant. He was good at acting, though. He fooled most of the people a lot of the time.
And he was a father figure, and still is one to right-wingers to this day.
-
Reagan sure as hell did not inspire me.
LOL.....why would he inspire a radical liberal??
He seemed to me to be both stupid and ignorant.
As concluded by a radical liberal.
And he was a father figure, and still is one to right-wingers to this day.
Just as plane accurately concluded, leftist trying to apply non-existent broad brushed attitudes, upon the right. He was merely a competent, principled conservative, and highly articulate leader.
-
http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-His-Own-Hand-Revolutionary/dp/0743219384 (http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-His-Own-Hand-Revolutionary/dp/0743219384)
Reagan was far above advrage intelligence and commanded a better understanding of the worlds problems than anyother leader of his generation.
He was not much of a father figure to me tho, he never even learned my name.
-
He was a dummy, face it. He was just this actor they hired. Every morning they gave him a script. Without it he was lost.
-
He was a dummy, face it. He was just this actor they hired. Every morning they gave him a script. Without it he was lost.
That is gullability you are displaying.
These are the talking points that were repeated often enough to be accepted without evidence.
-
I watched this fool for ten years. I know a fool when I see one. Reagan was just a very good actor. We are lucky not to be cursed with more like him.
-
He was a dummy, face it. He was just this actor they hired. Every morning they gave him a script. Without it he was lost.
What I'll face is this ongoing uncredible, unsubstantiated AMBE, that you perpetuate to the best of your ability, on a daily basis
-
Clark Clifford had it about right when he labeled Reagan "an amiable dunce".
BSB
-
That is the danger of just accepting what you get told.
Reagan was prone to run rings around his opponents in debate or in political maneuver.
But people would insist he was a dummy.
Well.... there you go again.
-
;)
-
I think I am about to learn something ....
Do liberals indeed expect leadership to be paternalistic?
Is government and family the same concept?
I would not have thought this , even of liberals.
-
Look at the father figures for the last two Dem presidents and compare to the father figures for the last two GOP presidents.
Something seems to be amiss with the diagnosis of the GOP, handed to us by our blue state betters.
-
Indeed
-
But people would insist he was a dummy.
Well.... there you go again.
-=================================
Yeah, there is a statement that right wingers consider a valid rebuttal.
Reagan was indeed both a dunce and good at seeming amiable.
As I said, he fooled many more people more of the time than any president I can recall.
But he was all image, a phony, nothing but an act.
The GOP is in the process of becoming extinct. That is a good thing.
-
...As concluded by a radical liberal, who has a track record of being 99% wrong in all those claims/accusations
-
The GOP is in the process of becoming extinct. That is a good thing.
You are probably correct, to be replaced by true fiscal conservatives, which would in fact be a good thing. It would be nice if they could keep the socons out, but we'll see.
-
We can only hope. Need a few more Tea Party folk, focused on the fiscal issues, and not so much on the social issues
-
Being as the teabaggers mostly flunked math as well as spelling, they will be hard to find.
The whole idea of "starving the beast" to balance the budget has never worked, and never will work.
-
If we're going to entertain this ridiculous rant and teabaggers supposedly flunked math, then leftists played hookie, and never even went to class to begin with, both in math & in economics.
-
The GOP is in the process of becoming extinct. That is a good thing.
Well.... there you go again.
I have heard this before, more than once.
More than I have faith in the Republican partys ability to improve when it is spanked enough.
I have tremendous faith ing the Democratic partys ability to embarrass itself severely when it is in power.
-
You know what is stupid?
Calling everyone in the opposing party stupid.
Really. How does that work?
Somewhere around 4th grade a standardized test is given and all the students who don't do well on it are labelled Republicans? Then neglected by the teaching profession in order to make that deficiency permanent?
That would be a logical conspiracy theory except when one examines most remedial classrooms the odds are pretty heavy that the registrants vote D.
Let's give the stoopid charge a rest.
This board is getting worse than youtube comments.
Geez
-
I did not call Reagan stupid. He was an exceptionally talented actor.
He was however, ignorant. Most of what he knew was simply untrue.
And no, he did not "tear down this wall": the Germans themselves did this. And it was not because Gorbachev was afraid of the US that he did not send the Red Army.
-
Hehehehehee!
That is very funny!
Reagan understood the situation of the world better than any contempoary politician this side of Margret Thatcher.
But don't take my word for it, see what Margret Thatcher and Michael Gorbachof had to say about him.
-
Thatcher was another evil bitch.
-
Hehehehehee!
By "evil" do you mean something specific, or is that just the impression you get from reading her bio in Mother Jones?
-
I actually visited England during the Thatcher years.
Many of the Brits I spoke with hated her guts. I actually READ BOOKS about such things, Plane. Thatcher was clearly both evil and a bitch.
-
I was in the Navy then, I met expat and tourist English everywhere.
They liked Thatcher very much. It is probly a lot like here , some like the leadership and some don't no matter who it is.
I hear lately that Argentina is pressing its claim on the Falklands again, perhaps not militarily this time.
-
The Falklands were taken by England when Argentina was busy with political turmoil. The people there are British, so naturally they would prefer to be a part of the UK.
Thatcher fought the war to save her own political fortunes. The Argentine generals at the time did the same. It was very stupid war.
There was a pretty good Argentine film made about it. "Iluminados por el fuego", Blessed by Fire.
The main character is an Argentine who was eventually captured by the Brits.
-
Yes and they are at it again.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/04/argentine-president-plays-the-falklands-islands-card-again/ (http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/04/argentine-president-plays-the-falklands-islands-card-again/)
-
The Malvinas are clearly Argentine, but the people who live there want them to remain affiliated with the UK.
All over Argentina, on many highways, there are signs along the road that declare "Las Malvinas son Argentinas" (The Falklands are Argentine).
I did see one that was defaced and proclaimed "Las Argentinas son de los pingüinos" (The Falklands belong to the penguins).
Things are pretty bad in Argentina. The hostel where I stayed that was always booked weeks in advance, sent a message that they are going out of business, because it was no longer profitable. It was supporting six couples and their families from 2000 through 2010.
Nothing will come of this, there will be no war.
-
I hope they don't need a war .
But there are at least a billion dollars worth of fishing rights there every year.
-
There is speculation that there is oil offshore as well.
Argentina is not going to attack the UK again, and the UK has no reason to attack Argentina. They will shake fists at each other. Actually, both sides have a claim to the islands. The veterans of that war are still protesting poor treatment by the government: they were camping out in front of the provincial government buildings in Corrientes and Resistencia and probably other places as well.