And the Republican retardary continues. No wonder Specter left the party.

This is so completely disgusting. What an embarrassment.

You have got to be shiatting me.

That rumor's been around for years. He might have been cruising the bars looking for drugs, but he was still killed because he was gay.

What an evil, hate-filled c*nt.

The House Republican chosen to lead the charge against including women, people with disabilities, and gays in America's already-existing hate crimes law - existing law already counts violent crime based on the race, religion or national origin of the victim as a "hate crime" - just referred on the US House floor to Matthew Shepard's murder as "a hoax."

that is possibly the most poorly written paragraph in internet history.

Hate crimes are highly debatable on their own. You don't have to make up lies and dishonor victims of intolerance like that.

But, when you're working with a maximum of 3 neurons, I suppose the intelliget high road is out of the question.

What the HELL is wrong with you people??

Look, I don't agree with "hate crimes" legislation because I don't think someone should be punished MORE for their thoughts, but there are PERFECTLY VALID arguments against it. Why would you resort to this??

Jaboobinator: This is so completely disgusting. What an embarrassment.

Frankly, I'm surprised something this stupid and hateful didn't originate with Michele Bachmann.

Where did she get this robbery angle from? I've never heard anything remotely like that before, and usually "wharrgarrbl" at least has some origin in fact.

what_now: What the HELL is wrong with you people??

Look, I don't agree with "hate crimes" legislation because I don't think someone should be punished MORE for their thoughts, but there are PERFECTLY VALID arguments against it. Why would you resort to this??

And this.

what_now: What the HELL is wrong with you people??

Look, I don't agree with "hate crimes" legislation because I don't think someone should be punished MORE for their thoughts, but there are PERFECTLY VALID arguments against it. Why would you resort to this??

I think the point is to say something so over the top appalling that we as rational people are completely unable respond without losing our shiat.

Wow, just wow...

coco ebert: What an evil, hate-filled c*nt.

That's being kind...

Yes, let's just pretend that reality didn't happen and just go with your moronic little Republican dreamland.

what_now: Look, I don't agree with "hate crimes" legislation because I don't think someone should be punished MORE for their thoughts, but there are PERFECTLY VALID arguments against it. Why would you resort to this??

Then do you think that a terrorist who kills someone with a bomb should get the same punishment as a man who kills someone in a crime of passion? One could also argue that being harsher on the terrorist is punishing his or her "thoughts". I'm not necessarily for hate crime legislation, I'm just saying that states often give harsher punishments for terrorists because of the intent of their crime (i.e. provoke fear and insecurity in society and so on). In a sense, someone who commits a hate crime is a terrorist. I think, however, that it's hard to delineate between someone who kills because they hate someone else on the basis of race and someone who kills because they want to send a message to that racial group.

what_now: Why would you resort to this??

Crazy like a Virginia Fox.....No, strike that. Just crazy.

If someone's trying to rob you and you realize it, I think the first instinct would be to punch him on the spot. Not drive him to the middle of nowhere, brutally beat him, tie him to a fence and leave him for dead.

I got physically "gay bashed" once. Suffice it to say not one of my favorite experiences, and it's not like I was never beat up before. But for a "self-hating" gay as I tend to be, it was not a good time for me mentally.

Despite that, I still don't know if I agree with hate crimes or not, but Shepard's killers certainly make me think twice.

Normally I'd laugh at the self-inflicted damage this will cause, but this is beyond bad taste and ventures into a realm of disgust that I almost didn't know I was capable of.

What a f*cking worthless piece of sh*t.

What is it with the republican party and their stupid, whiny, obnoxious women?

coco ebert: Then do you think that a terrorist who kills someone with a bomb should get the same punishment as a man who kills someone in a crime of passion?

Well, the terrorist would be charged with first degree murder because he planned it out, and the other guy with second degree murder.

Likewise, if someone goes out planning to "kill a homo" that's first degree murder, but if he freaks out because a gay guy hits on him and kills the guy it's second degree murder.

DrySocket: What is it with the republican party and their stupid, whiny, obnoxious women?

Typical lib intolerance. You should embrace their hate-filled ignorant wimmins.

Diogenes: Despite that, I still don't know if I agree with hate crimes or not, but Shepard's killers certainly make me think twice.

Well, when I'm crowded Queen of Everything we will completely revamp the criminal justice system so that violent people get dealt with much, much more harshly than they do now.

We will of course pay for this by legalizing drugs and freeing all the non violent drug offenders.

DrySocket: What is it with the republican party and their stupid, whiny, obnoxious women?

Their stupid obnoxious whiny men?

but if he freaks out because a gay guy hits on him and kills the guy it's second degree murder.

really?

Tigger: but if he freaks out because a gay guy hits on him and kills the guy it's second degree murder.

really?

Yeah- a crime of passion is usually not first degree murder.

Diogenes: what_now: Why would you resort to this??

Crazy like a Virginia Fox.....No, strike that. Just crazy.

If someone's trying to rob you and you realize it, I think the first instinct would be to punch him on the spot. Not drive him to the middle of nowhere, brutally beat him, tie him to a fence and leave him for dead.

I got physically "gay bashed" once. Suffice it to say not one of my favorite experiences, and it's not like I was never beat up before. But for a "self-hating" gay as I tend to be, it was not a good time for me mentally.

Despite that, I still don't know if I agree with hate crimes or not, but Shepard's killers certainly make me think twice.

"Hard cases make bad law." Bias is a motive, and a reprehensible one, but not a crime in and of itself.

TFA seems to have left out the fact that the kid's mother was in the audience when this windbag spouted off. What a nasty biatch.

Yeah- a crime of passion is usually not first degree murder.

I'm fully aware of that but the question is "that gay guy hit on me" sufficient to make it second degree. Would it be sufficient if I killed a woman for hitting on me?

Diogenes: Despite that, I still don't know if I agree with hate crimes or not, but Shepard's killers certainly make me think twice.

It probably would make me think twice, except that both of his murderers received sentences of life in prison, even without the existence of hate-crimes laws.

what_now: Tigger: but if he freaks out because a gay guy hits on him and kills the guy it's second degree murder.

really?

Yeah- a crime of passion is usually not first degree murder.

I remember "the gay panic" defense being used in a court case for a guy that killed another guy for hitting on him. Not quite the same thing as walking in on your partner with another. I'm not sure what the jury ended up ruling though.

Wow. Rarely do politicians shock me anymore, especially GOPers. But wow.

remember "the gay panic" defense being used

I thought gay panic was when you get to Caribou Coffee and realise that the trim on your puma trainers doesn't match the stripe in your shirt.

Wow. Stay completely unclassy, GOP.

And please, get reduced to a tiny fringe minority party of complete irrelevance because everyone is so turned off by hate-fueled bigots. Then maybe a national party full of people with principles along with conservative leanings will emerge again.

Oh dear jesus.

Jack Shepard unavailable for comment.

wage0048: Frankly, I'm surprised something this stupid and hateful didn't originate with Michele Bachmann.

I bet she is too. Was probably thinking "that biotch is stealing my thunder!"

...

Being ignorant is one thing. Being ignorant in front of others while in public office takes an unwavering dedication to stupidity.

I would just like to add, that as someone who thinks there are very logical, sound, legal and policy reasons to argue against hate crimes legislation in general, and federal hate crimes legislation in particular, you, Madame Congresswoman Foxx, ARE NOT HELPING.

My open letter to the GOP.



Dear GOP,

EABOD and DIAF. kkthxbai.


~cannotsuggestaname

Did you know that all the Jews who worked in Matthew Shepard got an email telling them not to show up on the day he was killed? Think about it.

The first part of the statement is, according to the Wikipedia article the source links to containing the testimony of the killers, correct. The second part, according to that same article, is not correct. Shepard was killed in a robbery, but his killers apparently decided that he would be an easy mark for a robbery precisely because he was gay.

coco ebert: Then do you think that a terrorist who kills someone with a bomb should get the same punishment as a man who kills someone in a crime of passion? One could also argue that being harsher on the terrorist is punishing his or her "thoughts". I'm not necessarily for hate crime legislation, I'm just saying that states often give harsher punishments for terrorists because of the intent of their crime (i.e. provoke fear and insecurity in society and so on). In a sense, someone who commits a hate crime is a terrorist. I think, however, that it's hard to delineate between someone who kills because they hate someone else on the basis of race and someone who kills because they want to send a message to that racial group.

There's a difference between being biased against a group of people and premeditating a crime. The former is little more than an emotional reaction. Premeditation is something conscious and controlled - a decision to go through with a crime after having thought about it and made a conscious choice to go ahead.

On the larger issue, I certainly think racial/religious/gender/sexual orientation bias should be an aggravating factor in determining the sentence of a criminal after conviction, but I don't think it should make any crime inherently worse than an identical crime committed for money or for thrills.

coco ebert: what_now: Look, I don't agree with "hate crimes" legislation because I don't think someone should be punished MORE for their thoughts, but there are PERFECTLY VALID arguments against it. Why would you resort to this??

Then do you think that a terrorist who kills someone with a bomb should get the same punishment as a man who kills someone in a crime of passion?

If a bomb is involved, the crime would be premeditated, and there are probably multiple counts of attempted murder than can be applied as well.

I've been really making a concerted effort to not get angry at conservatives when we disagree, to think rationally about their arguments.

This is too much though. fark you, lady. I'm sure if someone raped you and stole your purse you'd agree it was just a robbery, right?

I would just like to add, that as someone who thinks there are very logical, sound, legal and policy reasons to argue against hate crimes legislation in general, and federal hate crimes legislation in particular, you, Madame Congresswoman Foxx, ARE NOT HELPING.

It is an argument of the form "we should not unify with Mexico because it will lead to child rape"

MasterThief: On the larger issue, I certainly think racial/religious/gender/sexual orientation bias should be an aggravating factor in determining the sentence of a criminal after conviction, but I don't think it should make any crime inherently worse than an identical crime committed for money or for thrills.

This. Having different crimes doesn't make any sense but there should be some impact in terms of sentencing.

Nabb1: I would just like to add, that as someone who thinks there are very logical, sound, legal and policy reasons to argue against hate crimes legislation in general, and federal hate crimes legislation in particular, you, Madame Congresswoman Foxx, ARE NOT HELPING.

"Smartconservativeville" is becoming a ghost town.

darkyn: MasterThief: On the larger issue, I certainly think racial/religious/gender/sexual orientation bias should be an aggravating factor in determining the sentence of a criminal after conviction, but I don't think it should make any crime inherently worse than an identical crime committed for money or for thrills.

This. Having different crimes doesn't make any sense but there should be some impact in terms of sentencing.

Well, that's basically a semantic difference, isn't it?

I want to apologize for this lady. She's the rep of my tiny-ass little district, which she won handily in a fight against Vernon Robinson.

I was working with another local GOP campaign at the time, and Foxx's entire campaign boiled down to "I'm more racist than the other guy. (new window)"

I doubt it makes you feel any better, but she really, really does symbolize the GOP and their constituents in the area, and a HUGE reason why they drive away younger folks like me. Nothing like hearing your aldermen break out into racism and jew-baiting in the middle of a town meeting.

DamnYankees: Well, that's basically a semantic difference, isn't it?

IANAL, so I certainly wouldn't claim any expertise. However, different levels of murder and manslaughter are often based on motive and I would imagine that being motivated by hate would be yet another aspect in that determination. I would argue that the danger to society would be proportionally greater rather than the person being more deserving of a harsher sentence.

Action Replay Nick: Nabb1: I would just like to add, that as someone who thinks there are very logical, sound, legal and policy reasons to argue against hate crimes legislation in general, and federal hate crimes legislation in particular, you, Madame Congresswoman Foxx, ARE NOT HELPING.

"Smartconservativeville" is becoming a ghost town.

I know a fair amount of liberals who are opposed to hate crime legislation as well, which is why I think appealing to people's sense of civil liberties is a better way to go than lobbing an inflammatory barb like that. Especially with the kid's mother in attendance. What a maroon.

darkyn: DamnYankees: Well, that's basically a semantic difference, isn't it?

IANAL, so I certainly wouldn't claim any expertise. However, different levels of murder and manslaughter are often based on motive and I would imagine that being motivated by hate would be yet another aspect in that determination. I would argue that the danger to society would be proportionally greater rather than the person being more deserving of a harsher sentence.

No, those are based on intent. Motive is an element in evidence, but the intent is a different issue altogether. If someone shoots you, the issue of whether they intended to shoot you or simply mishandled the firearm is a different question than whether they shot you based on some sort of bias. I don't have a problem with bias being used to establish motive. I don't have a problem with bias being used in the sentencing phase (so long as it doesn't extend the maximum sentence for the crime itself). I just don't think it should be its own category of crime.