Thinking Right

By TW

January 2, 2008 8:39 AM | Link to this

FOX would have been better off letting a tipsy Paula Abdul announce the game last night. Apparently, they know even less about football than they do politics…

By HIDT

January 2, 2008 8:47 AM | Link to this

Hate crimes are nothing new, just the labeling of them. There are already stiff punishments in place for the acts. There is no need to add on a motive penalty.

By Glenn

January 2, 2008 8:54 AM | Link to this

Ever notice that Jim Wooten manages to mine interesting stuff from an insipidly banal state government? Cannot be easy.

This issue is interesting because, in my opinion, hate crimes legislation is doomed forever to the status of a noble failure. I can’t think of how to punish for hate crimes without running headlong into precisely the legal issue Jim pinpoints from among perhaps more than a dozen issues: vague and overbroad statutory language will lead to unconstiutional over-reaching in enforcement.

Are you concerned about the threat to your constitutional rights posed by the Patriot Act? Do you feel that the death penalty is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual in its de facto implementation.

If you think that this society cannot kill a person as humanely as most of us have put our beloved pets to sleep, then you are indulging a second fantasy if you think that hate crimes will not degrade our liberties far worse than anything countenanced by Mr. Gonzalez or his former Chief.

Still, there is such a thing as a hate crime, and such crimes cut to the core of who we are, and open anew old, terrible wounds. A hate crime means this: You should be dead; I wish to make you so.

Perhaps enhanced sentencing has been the better option right along. The lawmakers want to get into the act simply because almost all of them think that it is their job to get into the act, no matter how.

By ron

January 2, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this

Good morning Jim,I want to go on record;I don’t hate anyone.I have no emotion beyond, dislike intensely.That dislike intensely emotion is what I feel when I read that some group or other is trying to get a leg up on the rest of us poor suckers.

By Redneck Convert

January 2, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this

Happy New Year everybody.

Well, it’s bad enough I can’t use the n-word no more and have to settle for Those People. Now they want to punish me extra if I happen to use spray paint on their trailer or run one of them down just because I don’t like them. I don’t know what this world is coming to. A good white Christian can’t even hate no more without getting extra jail time for it. If I was to beat up this weasel getalife because he’s a librul or maybe break some windows in TFTT’s place because he called me names or is gay they could charge me with a hate crime on top of anything else I done.

Well, people got a right to hate. It says so right there in the Constatution. We don’t need a bunch of libruls taking away my rights and putting me in for extra jail time just because I don’t like a person or what they think. This is GA, not some gay librul Northren state. This bill should never see the light of day.

I say we keep right on whacking gays around like we always done. If they catch us, they can maybe charge us with assault or something. I’ll take my probation and pay my fine like a man. But putting me in jail just for using my Constatutional rights is just wrong.

That’s my opinion and its very true. I know my good conservative friends on this blog will agree with me.

By Craig

January 2, 2008 9:15 AM | Link to this

very wise comments Glenn. I guess I’m willing to let the judge and jury decide the punishment, based on the individual case, even though there’s a possibility that punishments will be different depending on where the crime took place. Give the judge discretion and let him or her decide the punishment.

By jbmlaw

January 2, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. All real crimes were punished under common law – our legislators have added nothing of value. The stupidest state laws attempt to punish fraud – either it is theft or it isn’t, and the legislated add-on does not add any value.

I think informed cultures punish actions, not thoughts, and we have fully-sufficient mitigation factors for the courts to consider in levying punishment. Under the “hate crimes” theory, merely punching the shoulder of a member of a protected class for hateful reasons should be punished more severely than intentionally inflicting grievous injury absent the hate-class factor; isn’t that typical leftist “thinking”? Perhaps it is time for some version of pay-go for criminal statutes, require that the legislature remove two for every new one it passes.

By Shark Sammich

January 2, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this

Whenever I hear a conservative use the term “Politically Correct,” I know it’s time to hit the snooze bar.

By jbmlaw

January 2, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this

Full disclosure – my favorite tee-shirt is a bright yellow job that reads “I Hate Everyone” and I wear it to the mall regularly. Probably a criminal act.

By Shark Sammich

January 2, 2008 9:37 AM | Link to this

Jim, do you not see any parallel between an (apparently, to your eyes) unneeded hate crimes law, and the uneeded photo ID law?

Seems to me that, at very minimum, there were actually, you know, real hate crimes committed last year. Anyone dig up any actual, you know, “voter fraud” crimes last year?

Anyone?

By Another taxpayer

January 2, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this

I hate the way these terrorists hate us. I hate the way they kill us and I hate that we have to kill them. I hate that we all hate because someone, in the beginning, hated.

I hate it.

Oops, that’s not PC talk.

I regret the way these terrorists despise us. I scorn the way they eliminate us and I detest that we have to neutralize them. I loathe that we all abhor because someone, in the beginning, repulsed.

I resent it.

But, what I hate most of all are these Democrats in thrift store clothing. At least a real Democrat will tell you to your face that they intend to raise taxes and increase spending on enough jowls to feed the world. Or, were those hocks? When you cannot even tell if the “Republican” is going to be more “Democrat” than the Democrat, what is a voter to do?

By ron

January 2, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this

Don’t you just dislike it intensely that all politicians are the same and they just draw their party affiliations out of a hat?

By B.P.O.E.

January 2, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this

Hate crimes law? Not needed.

We do need a “War on Christmas” law though. Its important that Christmas speech be protected. I watched a week long series on Fox News and it seems there are people out there that hate Christmas.

Its really an outrage. I was out and about on Christmas Eve and was sickened by the amount of disrespect. 3 times a “Happy Holidays” politically correct grenade was hurled at me and my family.

The war on Christmas is a battle we all must fight and win. The Christmas terrorists will start a campaign of terror unheard of if proper laws are not put in place.

The war on Christmas is getting uglier each year.

(((((A gang of anti-Christian zealots spread their unChristmas misery on a group of children at the Mall last week telling unsuspecting kids that there is no Santa Claus. “It was terrible. There were about 20 liberal atheists telling all the kids that Santa Claus is fake. There were kids screaming and crying all over the place. Free speech prevented us from stopping them. We must tighten our laws to protect the children.”)))))

Sad. Sick. Liberal perverts. You have gone too far.

New law # One: Thou shalt never use the phrase “Happy Holidays.” Merry Christmas is mandatory.

New Law # Two: It is unlawful to inform any child under the age of 12 that there is no Santa Claus.

New Law # Three: Turkey and ham are the official meals of Christmas. No tacos, enchiladas or sushi.

By RealRep

January 2, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this

Mike joins real conservatives in questioning Romney’s allegiance to failed foreign policy.

A vote for Giuliani is a vote for Hillary.

Huckabee ‘08

By Aquagirl

January 2, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this

We have differing punishments based on similar circumstances; for instance, first degree murder and manslaughter. The crime depends on the motivation of the criminal.

So why do conservatives get all freaked out over hate crimes legislation? Afraid a silly little law might spoil the good fun of cross-burning or f_g bashing?

By Curious Observer

January 2, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this

An addition to B.P.O.E.’s wish list: All holiday shoppers, regardless of religious belief, shall be required to sing “Silent Night” upon command. We can’t have these atheists, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus ruining our Christmases.

By WFC

January 2, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this

If you want to worship dead Jewish carpenters or schizoid failed Arab merchants, it’s OK with me as long as I don’t have to. Also, I have no interest in who you have sex with as long as they are OK with it. It’s really fairly simple.

By Shark Sammich

January 2, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this

Long as I’m asking questions nobody wants to answer: How funny will it be if Rudy G. actually loses to Ron frickin’ Paul in Iowa?

By Glenn

January 2, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this

WFC, sounds good from this end, too. Except the “dead” part. The dead part just doesn’t float my boat, just doesn’t start my engine. Doesn’t launch a thousand ships, you know? Doesn’t transform Western culture or turn a slaver into an abolitionist. You know?

By B.P.O.E.

January 2, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this

You’re exactly right Curious Observer. When I was waiting in line to pay for my gifts on Christmas Eve I was getting grossed out. I was thinking to myself “What if the guy in front of me is buying those gloves as a Kwanza present. Yuck. The guy behind me had one of those gay accents, what if those 501’s he was buying were for his gay lover?” Yuck. I was having lots of those kind of thoughts, all day.

Most people don’t realize how many laws of Christmas there are. We could have pages of them.

My next door neighbor, even with strings upon strings of Christmas lights, was guilty of a felony Christmas law violation. I caught him deep frying his turkey on Christmas Day. Christmas tradition is against deep frying on Christmas. Its been banned on Christmas and he was reminded of it. Lets just say I got sick of his bs and popped him one. My kids shouldn’t have to see my neighbors deep frying on Christmas.

By Another taxpayer

January 2, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this

Boiling in oil is one thing. But, deep frying. The nerve.

By Jackie

January 2, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this

It appears that our legislators have not taken into account “the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law.” A crime is a crime, therefore, the label being attached to said crime is irrelevant. Punish the lawbreaker. This goes back to discretion being used by the prosecutor in the application of the charges being brought. Bold:”Glenn” dissertation is precise.

By TW

January 2, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this

Sammich – it will be very funny. Maybe Rudy ought to get up there and tromp around for a few hours with his breathing mask and his camera crew?

By Shark Sammich

January 2, 2008 11:37 AM | Link to this

TW, while Mayor 9/11 has officially written off Iowa and I guess it shouldn’t be unexpected that Ron Paul might have a shot at a mighty 7% or so of the caucus vote (and while I’m at it, I should mention that Iowa’s caucus is a stupid, stupid way to nominate a party’s candidate)… yeah.

Maybe Rudy should make a last-minute Iowa appearance. Maybe he and Wife #3 can hold hands and sing 9/11 carols around the 9/11 tree.

By deegee

January 2, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this

“Only four law enforcement agencies in the state recorded “hate” crimes in 2006. It’s not clear whether other jurisdictions had none or whether they don’t rise to a level that warrants attention.”

Please read Redneck Convert’s post for clarity on this point.

By Nnelg

January 2, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this

“A hate crime means this: You should be dead; I wish to make you so.”

That’s a bit overstated. It might also mean: You are inferior. I wish to prove it by writing it in spray paint on your garage door.

By TW

January 2, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this

Sammich - because Rudy has finally married someone who is not a blood relative, I will give him a pass on having multiple wives/girlfriends. Although, perhaps he should contact his buddy Jeffs Romney about joining the Mormon cult where such behavior is encouraged?

By ron

January 2, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this

Has it occurred to anyone except myself that there are no Presidential candidates running in 2008?Out of the entire group,I don’t see a President among them.This is like some kind of bad movie,starring The Marx Brothers.

By Glenn

January 2, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this

Ooooooooooooohhhh. Touche, TW!

R-u-d-y married his c-o-u-s-i-n! R-u-d-y married his c-o-u-s-i-n!

Ummm! I’m t-e-l-l-i-n-g!

So did FDR, and by implementation all the royal families of Europe, first and foremost the Windsors, are inbreds.

Why a dolt today?

By Disgusted

January 2, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this

For the sake of humanity, will nobody enact a law that criminalizes disillusioning kids about the existence of Santa Claus?

Any moron can foretell the outcome of such a disgusting revelation. Sans a strong belief in Santa Claus, these kids will grow up to be failed insurance lawyers, cynical teachers of the retarded, embittered libertarians who spout nonsense about eliminating all government except for military defense, rock-ribbed Republican housewives who accuse just about everybody else of treason, crazed truck drivers who post lengthy screeds denouncing liberals, Ron Paul supporters, and assorted other forms of maladjusted warts on our society.

By TW

January 2, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this

Happy New Year Glenn! Yeah, you got me - bit of a ‘dolt’ I suppose…half of it was just not being able to resist. The other half stems from listening, and I suppose agreeing, to this guy at a party the other night talk about how NY will be the War’s loss column until we catch bin laden. When you think about it, what exactly did Rudy do that was so great? I mean, truth be told, we kind of got our butt kicked on that day, and aside from those who threw in the towel with their suicides, we really need bin laden for some accountability. Rudy’s touting 9/11 is kind of like June Jones waking up today and puffing his chest out about the Sugar Bowl last night. After all, high fives for composure are rather rec department, wouldn’t you say???

By Glenn

January 2, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this

Er, uh, I meant “by implication”, not “by implementation”.

Jackie, thanks. Can I collect my tuition now? On another subject, over the holidays I made a mental note to get back to you about something you wrote. It’s been bugging me a lot. Four tours. Some USMC, you said, have re-upped three—-as in three—-times. Ho-lee sh!t!

C.O., Sharky, B.P.O.E., Kiwanian, Rotarian and Soroptimist,

With the modernization of nations goes secularization, a process susceptible of scientific study. Without such secularization, the field of Religious Studies (comparative religion) would vanish. It is axiomatic that any nation’s predominant religious tradition will give way to first diluted, then degraded, finally denatured forms before its demise. In its decrepit and finally moribund state, the religion comes in for ridicule.

Whoever came up with the hare-brained expression “war on Christmas”—-presumably it was someone bent on selling airtime or ink or bytes—-was drawing attention to himself by declaring an eclipse that which was a mere sunset. Someone engaged in the scientific study of religion would rather ask the following kinds of questions:

• Why is the Christian holiday Christmas the one ridiculed or at least gently mocked as an archaism?

• In what ways has the society come to that pass at which it can mock that faith in that way, and not another faith, and not in another way?

• What do those who see something they choose to call a “war on Christmas” think they see?

• Why do those who find observance of the Holiday officious or offensive find it so?

By getalife

January 2, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this

“Here comes the world’s newest superpower. The rest of the world is gloomily contemplating economic slowdown and even recession. Not in Beijing. China is set to make 2008 the year it asserts its status as a global colossus by flexing frightening economic muscle on international markets, enjoying unprecedented levels of domestic consumption and showcasing itself to a watching world with a glittering £20bn Olympic Games.”

OMG, the commies are ruling the world.

Way to go pinkos.

By Jackie

January 2, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this

@Glenn,

Your check is in the mail. I was not a member of the USMC. I am a Viet Nam vet in the Army. You may have seen where I have family and friends that are career and retired military.

By Glenn

January 2, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this

Yes, I recall that you were Army, which fact I appreciate, by the way. About 10 days ago in the course of commenting on Iraq policy we had occasion to remark about how exhausted the personnel are over there, not in number, exactly, but in energy. We agreed that the average is nearing 2.5 tours apiece, and even higher in the Corps. You said that among Marines in country it was not uncommon to find a fourth tour. That shocked me, the more it sank in.

It causes a kind of despair mixed with admiration. Shouldn’t we seriously think about reactivating the draft, down the line, irrespective of the outstanding performance in Iraq?

By Grand Poobah

January 2, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this

The Grand Poobah is pleased with Disgusted! His word “screed” is a good one. Add the word, “qweef”, and U can construct a sentence that puts henpecking-women like RW/Duhng in their place: RW became so unhinged while ranting about the campaign, I couldn’t tell whether he was screeding or qweefing.

kudos to Disgusted for his flavorful prose.

The grand poobah decrees it so.

By Try another schtick

January 2, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this

Grand Poobah, I hate to break this to you,but you are a Fred’s Super Dollar Store version of THE Captain. The packaging looks similar, but the flavor is vastly disappointing.

By B.P.O.E.

January 2, 2008 1:32 PM | Link to this

Wow, Glenn. I’m sorry if I offended you. I will try to be more politically correct and say all the right things about Christmas next time. There is a time and a place for political correctness and I guess this is one of them. Though in this case its more of a matter of being Religiously Correct, isn’t it?. I’ll try to be more RC in the future.

I should have kept the fight with my neighbor on Christmas to myself. Fighting on Christmas is an abomination. Sorry.

By Claude

January 2, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this

If a black lesbian is beaten and robbed, the proper response to the crime is not to ponder the question of whether the mugger chose his victim because she’s black, or because she’s gay, or because she’s a woman, or just because she had a wallet. The proper response to the crime is to arrest and prosecute the mugger. Why is a crime motivated by money not as serious as a “hate crime”?

By Grand Poobah

January 2, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this

Glad you liked the material, sir. Feel free to steal. Then folks’ll think that YOU’RE the genius instead of the over-nursed qweef-bubble you truly R.

The Grand and Magnanimous Poobah beqweefs beneficence upon all the rabble.

So it is blogged. So it is logged.

By aquagirl

January 2, 2008 2:36 PM | Link to this

claude @ 2:17, because a crime motivated by “passion” isn’t as serious as a crime motivated by premeditated thought. Duh.

By Shark Sammich

January 2, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this

Claude, if you really are interested in discussing this and not just trolling—

(big if)

The thinking behind an additional degree of criminality behind what would be, already, a heinous crime, is that when a “black lesbian” (your example) is harmed for being a black lesbian, it’s not just the individual being terrorized, but the community she belongs to as well.

By the way, I’m not necessarily a big fan of hate crime legislation; I believe that such instances of terror against a community can be acknowledged during sentencing.

But I do understand why such laws are on the books, and I am not terribly sympathetic the the arguments against, particularly as advanced by Jim Wooten today.

By @@

January 2, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this

I’ve never understood the reasoning that would support such a bill but since it’s one that is promoting by those from the sensitive, not sensible lefts, it requires no reasoning.

Were these two guys convicted under Hate Crime legislation?

A 13-year-old boy in Arkansas dies after a horrific sexual crime but much of the national media ignore the story. Conservative columnists and other critics think they know why — because the boy’s accused killers are gay.

If not, why not? Here’s some media outlet responses as to why not:

The contrast between the coverage of homosexuals murdering a seventh-grader in Arkansas and straights murdering Matthew Shepard, a homosexual college student in Wyoming, was striking. The Washington Post printed over 80 stories about the Shepard case since the murder last year. It has run one 59-word story about the Dirkhising murder, on Saturday, October 30, and that didn’t even appear in the edition that is widely distributed in the greater Washington, D.C. area.

That was eight days after The Washington Times put the story on page one, five days after Les Kinsolving, a Baltimore radio talk show host, had asked White House spokesman Joe Lockhart if President Clinton would comment on the Dirkhising murder as he had on the Shepard case, and a day after the AP finally put the story on the national wire. The Washington Post’s ombudsman explained her paper’s failure to cover the story, saying, in effect, that it doesn’t report murders outside the Washington area unless, like the Shepard murder, the editors think they teach a lesson or are exceptionally newsworthy.

Jonathan Gregg, a senior editor at Time, gave this explanation in a column in Time Daily on line: *“The reason the Dirkhising story received so little play is because it offered no lessons. Shepard’s murder touches on a host of complex and timely issues: intolerance, society’s attitudes toward gays and the pressure to conform, the use of violence as a means of confronting one’s demons. Jesse Dirkhising’s death gives us nothing except the depravity of two sick men. There is no lesson here, no moral of tolerance, no hope to be gleaned in the punishment of the perpetrators. To be somehow equated with these monsters would be a bitter legacy indeed for Matthew Shepard.”*

Somebody’s got some splaining to do.

I hate it when explanations are so shallow that nobody would even bother to get their feet wet.

By George Plimpton

January 2, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this

“claude @ 2:17, because a crime motivated by “passion” isn’t as serious as a crime motivated by premeditated thought. Duh.”

But isn’t your argument that a hate crime deserves another tier of punishment on top of the actual crime against the person? And isn’t that hate, “passion?” Perhaps you miswrote, or do you really view a crime motivated by hate as less serious?

I abhor hate crime, but those who seek its codification seem to me to want to simply add a legal label to those convicted, as if the true nature of these criminals might go unnoticed and thus, the public not have the opportunity to be properly outraged. Sorry, but we all know what James Earl Ray’s motivation was. And whether there is a hate crime statute or not, prosecutors will continue to use motive in making their cases.

Hate crimes legislation, in two many cases, is just political posturing and therefore a waste of time.

By Greg

January 2, 2008 3:59 PM | Link to this

Motive can be difficult to prove in a criminal case. While people have committed crimes throughout history for all sorts of reasons, society feels compelled to target hate crimes as deserving special consideration and harsher punishments.

This is a dangerous trend because in order to prove what a person was thinking at the time of the crime, the prosecution will be likely to investigate the defendant’s associations and ideologies.

Instead of letting the state court system do its job, the federal government would like the power to step in and prosecute certain cases because the perpetrator, or more likely the victim, was a member of a certain group.

Mumia Abu-Jamal and those supporting his cause lament the fact that the prosecution brought up his affiliation with the Black Panthers and his anti-police rhetoric at the time of his sentencing, yet that is exactly what hate crime legislation would accomplish.

No matter how righteous the intentions, in the context of a free society, we must punish crimes — not ideologies.

By aquagirl

January 2, 2008 4:02 PM | Link to this

In accordance with Sammich’s reasoning, the point of hate crimes is terrorization—“teach ‘em a lesson.” Like you, I’m not a big fan of hate crimes legislation, but I do have an understanding of why the homosexuals in @@’s example weren’t convicted of a hate crime. They were just plain sickos being sickos, not targeting kids because they want them to go away or move out of the neighborhood.

Contrast that with someone who paints swastikas on a synagogue. Don’t you think that’s a far different crime than kids tagging the wall of the QT? Like killing a human being, acts are judged and prosecuted according to intent, even in classification. Ask Genarlow Wilson.

So yes, I think there should be and additonal “tier” just as there should be an additional “tier” added to a repeated drunk driver who kills a person, as opposed to a driver who conks out from diabetes at the wheel and kills. And I think it’s amusing to see how dismissive conservatives are of this concept when they spend little time complaining about the Patriot act or other legalities that impose harsh penalties for “hate” crimes involving terrorism.

By Some guy named Joey

January 2, 2008 4:08 PM | Link to this

@@,

Obviously, the crime against the 13 year old is heinous but the fact that a same-sex rape is involved does not mean the perpetrators are/were gay. As you probably know, sexual assualt rarely involves sexuality…it’s a crime of violence and power.

You are really presenting a “false analogy”. Real gay people rarely are violent against others, gay or straight…you never hear about a group of gay guys beating up a guy outside of a straight bar…

However, gay men and women are bashed quite regularly in this country with Mathew Shepherds case being one of the most known about.

The fact is there are many instances of assaults on gays that are actually more violent than the Mathew Shepherd case…some occuring here in Atlanta..yet these rarely are in the news either…you would have to read a gay related media site to know about them.

By @@

January 2, 2008 4:33 PM | Link to this

Joey:

Young Jesse Dirkhising was used to fulfill a personal gratification not unlike those who perpetrate hate crimes. I see no difference between those perpetrators and those who would seek to demean, harm or murder ANY human being for their personal gratification.

My point was not that the two men were gay (which they admitted to being) but that the media did not offer coverage of the story in fear that it would reflect badly on gays. Poor Jesse’s murder went unpublicized in the interest of what exactly?

No swap of one for the other is acceptable in my book of decency. You put your heinous where you want. I, however will not award my heinous label to only those causes which draw sympathy from the left.

By Craig also

January 2, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this

The difference, at at, is that the two sickos who killed the boy in Arkansas, were involved in repeated consensual get togethers, and he died accidentally. What they did was heinous, and they are deservedly spending life in prison. But they didn’t randomly target the kid because he was straight.

And no I don’t think hate crimes should be punished more severely than any crime - the punks who killed Matthew Shepherd are also doing life in prison.

But the motive for the two crimes was not the same at all.

By Dusty

January 2, 2008 4:42 PM | Link to this

Uh oh…

aquagirl at 4:02 has once more forgotten that we are at WAR!!! Patriots are not complaining about harsh penalties for “hate” crimes involving terrorism says aquagirl. Being at war is a “hate crime”? Protections against terrorism are “hate crimes”??

What next? We should convict the whole country of hate crimes for going to war against terrorism?

Obviously some of our liberals have gone off the deep end to make crazy comments about anyone who fights against killer terrorism. I guess the idea is to fight by sweetly running away. That seems politically correct for liberals.

But then again, what’s new?

By @@

January 2, 2008 4:50 PM | Link to this

Craig also:

No, not because he was straight but because he was an easy (an eighth grader I might add) target.

It comes down to proving the motive and underlying ideas behind the crime. In the case of Jesse Dirkhising it looks as though the two men only repeatedly raped and ultimately suffocated the boy with his own underwear because they enjoyed it, not because they “hated” him. Gee, I’m relieved Craig, are you? His death was just an accident. An unintended consequence resulting from their enjoyment.

By Grand Poobah

January 2, 2008 4:53 PM | Link to this

We do prosecute criminals based on thought, jbmlaw, just witness first, and second degree murder charges. (they determine which one after they give you the third degree)…. also witness voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Then of course there is the act of loving someone to death. As a stand up comic, I kill audiences on a regular basis.

Top of the world, ma.

By @@

January 2, 2008 5:03 PM | Link to this

Here’s something else for the leftists here to ponder. I’ve noticed how liberals like to laugh/use people to further their own agendas.

I was visiting a liberal blogsite yesterday and stumbled on a post where somebody said this little ditty was the funniest thing they’d seen in 2007.

Not entirely sure of what we’d accomplished, if anything, the seven hour trip home was euphoric and surreal, punctuated with contagious bouts of uproarious laughter.

I’m not sure what they accomplished either but I know at whose expense they tried to accomplish something.

Those individuals which I view as “special”. To leftists they’re a joke.

By Grand Poobah

January 2, 2008 5:19 PM | Link to this

There, there, @@

You are the one spreading the hate, not the liberals. You posted the link. Yes, You did. When are U going to take responsibility for your own hate? When are U going to accept who you are? Trust me, we have.

But the great poobah doesn’t wish to spread blame; that accompishes nothing. You are forgiven, @@, and now the grand poobah tells you to go and hate no more.

The grand poobah decrees that all leftists will leave @@ alone. SO it is blogged, so it is logged.

By Jackie

January 2, 2008 5:20 PM | Link to this

@Glenn,

THE DRAFT SHOULD BE STARTED AGAIN. For all of us that really support our troops, sitting at home and going shopping is not support. The military has an obligation of 15 months for EACH tour in Iraq and they are not guaranteed the same amount of time at home between tours. Divorce rates are at record levels, suicides are at record levels, desertion is - on a percentage basis - higher than during Viet Nam. If you have noticed, the insurgents in Iraq are beginning to stir again while Dubya and his crew are trying to find excuses to attack Iran. The professional military has told Dubya if something isn’t done to relieve the stress on the ground troops by the sprint of this year, the Army and Marines will be broken. As a side note, the news does not report that there are more than 60,000 RECOGNIZED soldiers with Post Traumatic Syndrome. These are folks that are no longer on active duty. Wonder what happens when some event triggers one of these one of these untreated casualties of this criminal action.

By Jackie

January 2, 2008 5:26 PM | Link to this

The news reports the Justice Department is beginning an investigation into the CIA interrogations and the missing tapes of those interrogations. Wonder if Mr. Mukasey will sully his reputation to the extent of his predecessor?

By Grand Poobah

January 2, 2008 5:28 PM | Link to this

The Grand Poobah cautions the multiple-alias trolls today who have posted to themselves that their syntactical choices give them away as morons. Try using a dialect when you reply to yourself, like Redneck does. Just drop the “g” off of your gerunds and you’ll fool enough people to get by.

The Grand Poobah tutors all, he knows all, he sees all.

By Craig also

January 2, 2008 5:32 PM | Link to this

Try actually reading my post, at at. I wasn’t defending them - they’re scum, and deservedly locked away.

The crimes however, were entirely different, in spite of your constant effort to portray conservatives as victims of some “liberal medai cabal.”

By @@

January 2, 2008 5:38 PM | Link to this

Grand PooBall:

It wasn’t my intention but my link following on the heels of your killing people with your comic routine was personally rewarding. BTW, while tripping through cyberspace I found a site tailor-made for your talents. They’ve given you the part of Self-Righteous Man. Seeing how you profess to have all knowledge, carnal or otherwise.

Self-Righteous man: I did something wrong (tears and makeup run from his eyes) I loved a piece of plastic. But, the good part is I got the demon out of it. I patched it, and it is sitting in the front row. I was able to get thirty-four psi back into it with my air compressor. The patch was successful. She is whole again.

My apologies if that site offends anyone here but a brief perusal revealed it to be a perfect fit for our PoliFore.

By Grand Poobah

January 2, 2008 5:45 PM | Link to this

The Grand Poobah forbids anyone to click on the virus link that @@ think’s were dumb enough to click on. The grand poobah protects all hardrives from virus cookies and stuff.

By @@

January 2, 2008 5:54 PM | Link to this

Craig also:

I did read it and I acknowledge your disdain. What this comment from you has to do with anything does escape me though:

The difference, at at, is that the two sickos who killed the boy in Arkansas, were involved in repeated consensual get togethers, and he died accidentally.

What does young Jesse have to do with their consensual acts? Are you implying that Jesse was a consenting 13-year old and thereby complicit in his own death?

Look, several of you have posted that you don’t agree with the Hate Crime Bill but yet you support it because you understand it? I find that to be contradictory.

Somebody ^^^ up there made a good point. While liberals are opposed to having background checks on activities they’ll have to allow those kind of checks if this Hate Crime legislation is allowed to stand. I’m just sayin’….

you can’t have it both ways.

By @@

January 2, 2008 5:58 PM | Link to this

Grand PooBall:

Are you one of those dumb bloggers who doesn’t use protection against viruses? I guess when your mate is plastic it’s not necessary eh?

By Craig also

January 2, 2008 6:03 PM | Link to this

Poobah I apologize and throw myself at your mercy for continuing to engage at at. I hope you will go easy on me - and it won’t happen again.

By @@

January 2, 2008 6:08 PM | Link to this

Sorry POO, I forgot to link to that site.

It’s satire. You profess to be an authority. Just thought you might enjoy.

Again, my apologies. I think I saw some profanity in there somewhere. Right up Poo’s dark alley it is.