Extension of justice for targeted minorities.

[Darius871]

Things like this are why we need a split Congress/Presidency and a line-item veto.

Wouldn't it be easier to just ban substantive riders to appropriations bills?

[DinoDoc]

Wouldn't it just be easier to ban substantive riders to appropriations bills?

This is Congress we're talking about here. Do you actually think they'd ban earmarks?

[Darius871]

Wouldn't it just be easier to ban substantive riders to appropriations bills?

This is Congress we're talking about here. Do you actually think they'd ban earmarks?

Earmarks are appropriations, not substantive riders. One allocates money, while the other simply declares the illegality of certain conduct by private individuals.

[loinburger]

Again, if 90 percent of white people had voted for McCain, would they not be considered racist? Yes or no. I guarantee you if that had happened, it would be the top story. We'd be hearing nothing but 'racism is king in America', etc.

You are beyond hope.

The percentage of white people voting for Kerry and Gore was in the 40-50% range. Had that jumped to the 80-100% range for the 2008 election then it would likely have been indicative of racism.

The percentage of black people who voted for Kerry and Gore was in the 90-100% range. It stayed that way for the 2008 election. In short, you are an idiot.

Let me get this straight. Do you sincerely believe there are no racist democrats?

I never said that there are no racist democrats, I just said that you're an idiot. You're claiming that the fact that over 90% of blacks voted Obama is indicative of racism while failing to process that over 90% of blacks voted for Gore and Kerry. Also you are using fictitious events as evidence of racism (?) among democrats ("if this fictitious event had occurred then the democrats would have reacted in a racist manner ergo democrats are racist"). I'm not sure if you're trying to prove that black people are racist or that democrats are racist or I don't know what, but you are failing to do so and you are also making claims that are completely irrelevant. An analogous argument: "There are some neo-Nazis who don't like Jews." "Oh yeah? Well there are some Catholics who don't like Jews!" Well no ****, there are over a billion Catholics in the world so odds are that for any given thing there's a subset of Catholics that don't like it, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the extreme levels of anti-Semitism among neo-Nazis. By and large, are Republicans more or less racist than Democrats? By and large, are Southerners more or less racist than Northerners? By and large, are white people more or less racist than black people? By and large, you probably don't care - you're just posting **** as usual. "Black people are racist too, so why are people so up in arms about white racism???" Probably because, by and large, there is a greater tendency for white racists to lynch black people than vice versa.

Given that there are anti-Semitic neo-Nazis and anti-Semitic Catholics, and assuming for simplicity's sake that there are only two levels of anti-Semitism ("not anti-Semitic at all" and "likes to make anti-Semitic jokes") and that there is no overlap between Catholics and neo-Nazis, then how many anti-Semitic Catholics would there have to be for the Catholic Church to be just as anti-Semitic as the neo-Nazi Party?

[DanS]

The KKK was founded in Pulaski, Tennessee by Confederate veterans and always remained much stronger in the south.

This is not true. The Midwest had the KKK crown for maybe 30 or 40 years. There were many fewer lynchings quite simply because there were many fewer blacks to lynch. Also, the KKK in the North had more of an anti-Catholic/Jewish immigrant tilt.

[Riesstiu IV]

Wow, I'm a klansman. Piss off.

So you don't deny being a fat goat****ing Canadian dumb****?

[loinburger]

Who's scruffy-looking???

[Solomwi]

Got the point.

But if I kill somebody just because I don't like him, it's murder. If I kill somebody by accident, it's manslaughter. If I kill somebody because I think they're aliens sent from out of space to enslave us, I'll get some other interesting treatment.

What I'm asking, even if it's mostly to play devil's advocate, is that don't we already take motivation into consideration in lots of cases? And do you object to that?

Don't confuse intent with motivation. The difference between murder and manslaughter is intent. It doesn't matter whether you intentionally killed your victim because you don't like him or because you thought he was a space alien. It's murder either way, because you meant to kill him. In the accident scenario, what matters is that you didn't mean to kill the victim. It's a question of whether you wanted to kill the victim, rather than why.

[Ben Kenobi]

So you don't deny being a fat goat****ing Canadian dumb****?

1. I'm not fat. Don't know why you think I am. I'm 140 and 5'5''.
2. I don't **** goats.
3. I do admit to being a Canadian.

[Ben Kenobi]

Had that jumped to the 80-100% range for the 2008 election then it would likely have been indicative of racism.

Thank you. This double standard is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm glad to see you agree with me.

You're claiming that the fact that over 90% of blacks voted Obama is indicative of racism

I said 97 percent. This means that the percentage of the black vote going to a white candidate declined by over 50 percent. I consider that to be indicative of racism. Oddly the 'Racist majority' actually saw more people vote for Obama than they did for Kerry.

I'm not sure if you're trying to prove that black people are racist

Not all of them. Some like Condi Rice are considered to be house *****ers by their racist brethren for the crime of supporting a white candidate.

By and large, are Republicans more or less racist than Democrats?

I don't think so. Look at how the Democrats treated the appointment of Justice Thomas, and contrast that to how the Republicans treated Thurgood Marshall. Even 25 years earlier, Republicans were far more accepting of a black liberal justice, than Democrats were accepting of a Black conservative.

By and large, are Southerners more or less racist than Northerners?

I see more racism up here in Canada every day than when I was in TX. My answer would be an outright no. Northerners by and large are more racist, more likely to hire someone based on the colour of their skin rather than on their merits. Canada is terrible.

By and large, are white people more or less racist than black people?

I'd argue no, based on my own experiences.

Probably because, by and large, there is a greater tendency for white racists to lynch black people than vice versa.

When was the last lynching? I can't recall. Oh wait, that was in the Democrat South. Right, I see.

[loinburger]

Thank you. This double standard is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm glad to see you agree with me.

You are an idiot.

Edit: Or a troll. Or both.

[Zkribbler]

Don't confuse intent with motivation.

In law, "intent" has a broader definition that "motivation."

One type of intent arises from motivation: You do something for a specific reason. Example: You take a female minor across state lines for immoral purposes, or you enter the dwelling place of another, intending to commit a felony or larceny therein.

The second "intent" is when you do something, for a specific reason which is permissible, but knowing it will create a harm. Example, you are at a dinner and want to sit down and eat but you have no chair. You take the chair of a blind person just as he's beginning to lower himself to sit in it. Your motivation is to sit down. But, you know the blind man will fall. This is sufficent for "intent."

[Monk]

Don't confuse intent with motivation. The difference between murder and manslaughter is intent. It doesn't matter whether you intentionally killed your victim because you don't like him or because you thought he was a space alien. It's murder either way, because you meant to kill him.

Got it. But it seems there's a bullet we have to bite then. Suppose that tomorrow we find somebody who played a part in the 9-11 terrorist operations. Would you argue that it should be irrelevant in the eyes of the law whether he wanted to strike against the ungodly Americans in the name of Allah, or rather just did it for financial gain?

[DanS]

It would be handled differently, of course (venue, security, etc.). But I don't think it would or should make a difference in the ultimate punishment.

F.e., don't know that the Washington Sniper was motivated by religion, but he was prosecuted under terrorism laws anyway and is going to be executed.

[SlowwHand]