Republican Bandwagon

[Ethan]

I'm nervous about the Republicans taking back power. They are usually good with finance and economics, support a strong defence, etc. All things that I like. However Republicans vote for, and vote against crazy ****. I mean the fact that almost all Republicans voted against the Matthew Shepard bill that makes it possible to charge homophobic violence as a hate crime...astounds me.

Why can't I find socially liberal Republicans? Jesus.

 

[Grei]

Still watching the election results, and I'm loving it It's great to see the House go to the party that knows what they're doing. I think that if Boxer's seat gets taken, then GOP might have a chance at the Senate, though O'Donnel was kind of a bummer. But what's certain is that GOP has the House, and therefore Nancy Pelosi is gone. And the Democrats aren't going to have much of a majority in the Senate at all.

Are you insinuating that arrogant, controlling, conservative tightwads are the ones who "know what they are doing?" You're quite the comedian, kid.

 

[BigLutz]

I'm nervous about the Republicans taking back power. They are usually good with finance and economics, support a strong defence, etc. All things that I like. However Republicans vote for, and vote against crazy ****. I mean the fact that almost all Republicans voted against the Matthew Shepard bill that makes it possible to charge homophobic violence as a hate crime...astounds me.

Why can't I find socially liberal Republicans? Jesus.

Well it's interesting to point out that so many of these new Republicans will be Tea Party types who are socially moderate or liberal.

That being said I can see the logic in voting against it and it really has very little to do with being socially liberal, moderate, or conservative.

The logic is that if some one attacks you, that should be a punishable crime, just because you are Gay, or Black, or Jewish, or what ever shouldn't heighten the crime any more than if they did it because you said something about them behind their back, or stole their girlfriend.

If one guy beats the hell out of me because I called him something behind his back.

And down the street another guy gets the hell beat out of him because he is gay.

The punishment should be the same for both counts, the guy down the street shouldn't get 5 extra years in prison because he was homophobic.

Are you insinuating that arrogant, controlling, conservative tightwads are the ones who "know what they are doing?" You're quite the comedian, kid.

Seeing what happened over the last two years, a monkey would know more of what to do than the idiots in power.

 

[Grei]

If one guy beats the hell out of me because I called him something behind his back.

And down the street another guy gets the hell beat out of him because he is gay.

The punishment should be the same for both counts, the guy down the street shouldn't get 5 extra years in prison because he was homophobic.

I suppose that makes sense, but it's worrisome when you wonder what else most Republicans are against if they're almost entirely in non-support of an anti-homophobia bill.

I feel the bill would have been effective in curbing the amount of homophobia-related murders, however. It would have at least deterred people from killing due to ignorance.

Seeing what happened over the last two years, a monkey would know more of what to do than the idiots in power.

There's nothing saying those Democrats who would be coming in wouldn't have a better idea of how to run things than those who are allegedly idiots.

What is idiotic is the notion that an entire party doesn't have a clue on what they are doing, especially when that side happens to more often be supportive of basic human rights (why only one party seems to support these rights is beyond me).

 

[CSolarstorm]

I am willing to compromise on abortion and gay rights now. When it comes down to it, in my own view I'm going to viciously stand up for gay rights, but I don't agree with the hate crimes idea, amd I don't think it makes sense to vote against someone who might have knowledge on how to help govern just because they don't agree with these two wedge issues. I think now we have to consider the idea that some people are actually homophobic-phobic and it's not really that big a deal to not ally with gay rights.

 

[BigLutz]

I suppose that makes sense, but it's worrisome when you wonder what else most Republicans are against if they're almost entirely in non-support of an anti-homophobia bill.

I feel the bill would have been effective in curbing the amount of homophobia-related murders, however. It would have at least deterred people from killing due to ignorance.

It is doubtful it would curb anything, tacking a few extra years onto a sentence isn't going to curb some one's anger or violence. Especially when the original sentence is much larger than anything tacked on.

There's nothing saying those Democrats who would be coming in wouldn't have a better idea of how to run things than those who are allegedly idiots.

What is idiotic is the notion that an entire party doesn't have a clue on what they are doing, especially when that side happens to more often be supportive of basic human rights (why only one party seems to support these rights is beyond me).

Except those Democrats that are coming in are beholden to the three who have screwed up already. Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. Like it or not that is their leadership and they would be responsible to follow it no matter how they agree or disagree with it.

As such the Republicans bring with them new leadership and with that new and in many ways better ideas to get this country back on track and get the damage undone to this country.

 

[Ethan]

I'm currently split on who I want for Minnesota Governor. There's Tom Emmer, the most conservative them. He's both socially and economically conservative having recieved an endorsement from Sarah Palin herself and our last governor Pawlenty. I don't know if I like him. He's introduced a bill in the Minnesota legislature that would ban same-sex marriage and define as only one man and one woman. I guess looking back on what SunnyC said, it shouldn't be that big of a deal. Normally I wouldn't care if he simply held those beliefs. After all, Barack Obama himself believes that marriage is between one man and one woman.

I just have issue when you go out of your way, and clog our legislature just to make sure that gay couples will never get married. A lot of the time the gay community is critisized for being so militant about their agenda when there are bigger issues. Well fine. The same should apply for conservatives then. You shouldn't be fighting in congress and draw everyones attention to fight and vote over this bill designed to keep marriage away from people when there are tons of other things you could devote your resources and time to. This tells me Tom Emmer doesn't really have priorities in order. He doesn't even want to recognize civil unions either. I mean, come on man. Throw us a bone, geez.

I am willing to compromise on abortion and gay rights now. When it comes down to it, in my own view I'm going to viciously stand up for gay rights, but I don't agree with the hate crimes idea, amd I don't think it makes sense to vote against someone who might have knowledge on how to help govern just because they don't agree with these two wedge issues. I think now we have to consider the idea that some people are actually homophobic-phobic and it's not really that big a deal to not ally with gay rights.

It's yes and no for me. Part of me says that the issue of gay marriage will go to the supreme court in which they will decide whether or not gay marriage is legal everywhere. At least that's as far as I understand it, I could be wrong. So, if the supreme court is just going to legalize gay marriage in every state, then let's go ahead and elect conservative politicians if they are just going to be struck down on one issue we disagree with them on anyway. If the supreme court votes not in our favor, then these guys are in charge of whether gays get their rights or not. Domestic issues are just as big as economic ones in my opinion. Justice and equality matter just as much as cash flow.

I think I'll be supporting Tom Horner. He's an independent and in Minnesota independents actually have a chance in hell at winning. And from what I've been reading of him(and I consider myself a good read of character), he actually genuinely seems like a nice person too. He supports necessary tax cuts and budget cuts for our state knowing we can't afford to go on spending like crazy. Mark Dayton is just a crazy idiot. I mean, he was on TIME magazines top five worst senators. I can't imagine him being a good GOVERNOR.

 

[GhostAnime]

The punishment should be the same for both counts, the guy down the street shouldn't get 5 extra years in prison because he was homophobic.

I think part of the reason why the system is supported is because it helps keep actual racist, sexist, or homophobic people out of society longer.

The issue still comes up in how to prove cases like this, however.

 

[penguinofhonor]

The logic is that if some one attacks you, that should be a punishable crime, just because you are Gay, or Black, or Jewish, or what ever shouldn't heighten the crime any more than if they did it because you said something about them behind their back, or stole their girlfriend.

If one guy beats the hell out of me because I called him something behind his back.

And down the street another guy gets the hell beat out of him because he is gay.

The punishment should be the same for both counts, the guy down the street shouldn't get 5 extra years in prison because he was homophobic.

Except not all crimes are in a vacuum. Hate crimes reinforce years of prejudice and hatred and force minority communities to live in fear. It's hard enough when crimes against minorities aren't investigated as thoroughly.

Longer prison sentences for hate crimes aren't simply to discourage them more than regular crimes, it's because they cause more damage than regular crimes.

 

[BigLutz]

I think part of the reason why the system is supported is because it helps keep actual racist, sexist, or homophobic people out of society longer.

The issue still comes up in how to prove cases like this, however.

Except not all crimes are in a vacuum. Hate crimes reinforce years of prejudice and hatred and force minority communities to live in fear. It's hard enough when crimes against minorities aren't investigated as thoroughly.

Longer prison sentences for hate crimes aren't simply to discourage them more than regular crimes, it's because they cause more damage than regular crimes.

Both of you do not seem to get it, the system is supposed to exist in a vacuum, there is a reason why the statue of Justice has a blindfold on. We are not supposed to give a sentence that is longer because the victim was black, or gay, or anything special. The crime, the action, should be what determines the punishment. And when you set up a system where you have one set of punishment for one type of people, and another set of punishments for another type of people, even though their actions are the same. You are taking off that blindfold.

 

[GhostAnime]

And when you set up a system where you have one set of punishment for one type of people, and another set of punishments for another type of people, even though their actions are the same. You are taking off that blindfold.

So what about juveniles and adults not receiving the same punishment?

 

[BigLutz]

So what about juveniles and adults not receiving the same punishment?

Now you are getting into specific age differences, obviously juveniles cannot be sent to a adult prison. That being said all juvenile crime is, and should be treated the same. If a child beats up a 5th grader for calling him stupid, that should be no different for a child who beats up a 5th grader for being Gay.

 

[Pokemonmaster Bill]

No-Affiliation ftw

 

[Ethan]

Both of you do not seem to get it, the system is supposed to exist in a vacuum, there is a reason why the statue of Justice has a blindfold on. We are not supposed to give a sentence that is longer because the victim was black, or gay, or anything special. The crime, the action, should be what determines the punishment. And when you set up a system where you have one set of punishment for one type of people, and another set of punishments for another type of people, even though their actions are the same. You are taking off that blindfold.

Well with the case of Matthew Shepard the Prosecutors intent wasn't to give the criminals in question longer sentences by charging them with a hate crime. They were already getting life. It was about classifying something for what it was, a crime committed out of bigotry and hate. We already have hate crimes for the murder of Blacks and other minorities that you mentioned (as far as I'm aware) and ever if you disagree with that even it doesn't make sense to keep another minority out when all the others are already on the books, so to speak.

And our justice system recognizes intent and not just action. That's why we can charge people with conspiracy to commit murder. People that kill in self defense are weighed differently than people that kill others out of malice. The actions are the same and they are treated differently under the law. Before you say "But killing in self defense is different" or "comparing apples to oranges" that's exactly my point. It is different! Motive matters. Your reasons for killing someone simply do matter under the law.

Now you are getting into specific age differences, obviously juveniles cannot be sent to a adult prison. That being said all juvenile crime is, and should be treated the same. If a child beats up a 5th grader for calling him stupid, that should be no different for a child who beats up a 5th grader for being Gay.

Juveniles can be sent to adult prisons Mr. Lutz. It's actually not that uncommon of an occurence.

http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/issues/adultjails/factsheet.html

 

[BigLutz]

Well with the case of Matthew Shepard the Prosecutors intent wasn't to give the criminals in question longer sentences by charging them with a hate crime. They were already getting life. It was about classifying something for what it was, a crime committed out of bigotry and hate. We already have hate crimes for the murder of Blacks and other minorities that you mentioned (as far as I'm aware) and ever if you disagree with that even it doesn't make sense to keep another minority out when all the others are already on the books, so to speak.

Well personally I am against all hate crimes laws, and see them really as Unconstitutional. So I would rather see a repeal of it not a addition to it.

And our justice system recognizes intent and not just action. That's why we can charge people with conspiracy to commit murder. People that kill in self defense are weighed differently than people that kill others out of malice. The actions are the same and they are treated differently under the law. Before you say "But killing in self defense is different" or "comparing apples to oranges" that's exactly my point. It is different! Motive matters. Your reasons for killing someone simply do matter under the law.

I could write down on how you are proven wrong, but I believe this article sums it up.

Until recently, motives only mattered in proving the mens rea of a crime, ie, the desire to commit the crime. Motive matters in murder, for instance; a drunk driver can kill a pedestrian and a person can kill a spouse to collect on the insurance. Both happen with depressing regularity. The difference is that the latter had an explicit desire to kill (for profit) while the other had a depraved indifference to life but no explicit desire to kill, and that’s why they get charged with different crimes.

However, we don’t differentiate between murder for profit and murder for a particular animus of hate. Doing that creates a subtle but significant change in which the state has suddenly become the arbiter of thought, determining different outcomes based on thought despite the similarity of crime.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/01/hate-crimes-law-violates-constitution-in-two-ways/

And of course the article follows it up with why it is unconstitutional.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Long story short: When you pass laws which assign greater guilt to certain parties for committing the same crimes, based on nothing more than what they were thinking at the time and the “class” of citizens who were the victims, then you are providing unequal protection of the laws. You are assigning a higher value to the lives, liberty and property of some victims than others based on their sexual orientation, their race, skin color, religion, etc.

 

[penguinofhonor]

Both of you do not seem to get it, the system is supposed to exist in a vacuum, there is a reason why the statue of Justice has a blindfold on. We are not supposed to give a sentence that is longer because the victim was black, or gay, or anything special. The crime, the action, should be what determines the punishment. And when you set up a system where you have one set of punishment for one type of people, and another set of punishments for another type of people, even though their actions are the same. You are taking off that blindfold.

You're not getting it. The punishment is not worse because "oh those poor gays," it's worse because the damage done is worse. A more severe crime that hurts more people deserves more punishment.

 

[Grei]

Well personally I am against all hate crimes laws, and see them really as Unconstitutional. So I would rather see a repeal of it not a addition to it.



I could write down on how you are proven wrong, but I believe this article sums it up.



http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/01/hate-crimes-law-violates-constitution-in-two-ways/

And of course the article follows it up with why it is unconstitutional.

...

So, you're saying that it's unconstitutional to take intent into account?

I'm sorry, but I find that stupid. The purpose of punishing people and throwing them in jail is to attempt to show them the gravity of what they have done and, often with more success than the former, to prevent the person who is going to jail from committing the same crime again. There are other purposes but I regard those as some of the main ones.

Now, if someone is out hunting game (legally, of course) and accidentally kills someone--a fellow hunter, for example, should they go to jail for as long as someone who intentionally murdered someone out of malice? No. I'm not going to get into how constitutional or unconstitutional that is, that's a matter of actually taking each case and evaluating them for what they are. Intent needs to be taken into account, because the world isn't so black and white where a murder is simply a murder and nothing but a murder.

I mean, going to jail and messing with one's record sort of screws them over enough as it is, especially if they're innocent and intended on living a successful life. If intent wasn't taken into account, that hunter who accidentally killed another person could get a life sentence for a small mistake, a twitch of the finger. The world's not so simple.

 

[arceus7]

Intent doesn't mean a thing when its already done.

 

[BigLutz]

...
So, you're saying that it's unconstitutional to take intent into account?

No I am saying it is unconstitutional because you have two seperate crimes, both with the same intent, both with the same outcome, both with the same motive, but with two different punishments because you have created a separate class of people.

You're not getting it. The punishment is not worse because "oh those poor gays," it's worse because the damage done is worse. A more severe crime that hurts more people deserves more punishment.

Damage done is worse? If I have two murders, both planned, both carried out in the same fashion, and both resulting in the deaths of their target, but one is gay, how is that a more severe crime than the murder done to the straight person?

We have EQUAL justice under the law, it does not matter if it scares gays, or blacks, or hispanics, or what ever, you have EQUAL justice. Meaning a murder of a gay person deserves the EXACT same punishment of a murder of a straight person. If you are unable to get that I would suggest you read the constitution again.

 

[The_Boss_Giygas]

Yes we should have equal punishments for all. It's not against the law to be racists, KKK members don't get arrested just because they spout hate speech in public. When one commits a crime against some one and then they are found out to be racists only then do they get a special punishment because of being racists an turning the crime into a hate crime. Basically it's not against the law to be racists but if you commit a crime in the name of racism then you get special punishments for it, makes little sense.

How you can say all men are created equal when we decide to divide crime victims by race or religion and so on, making them seem unequal.

Anyways, back to the Republican Bandwagon, it's no surprise that what happened, happened. Now I wonder how things will happen from here on out, will Obama's plans have a tougher time getting done (not like they where getting done before) or will a republican house "crash" the system or make it "function" again.
CA has a democratic gov now I also wonder how he'll clean up the Terminator's destruction, not that Arnold was that bad, but still.