If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   On today's Governing With Insane People: Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) is debating what a hate crime is, when the wheels fall off and he starts talking about bestiality, sex with corpses and of course voting for a black man. Let's watch   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 277
    More: Weird  
•       •       •

3907 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Oct 2009 at 1:17 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



277 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-10-08 05:21:10 PM
Knara: Magorn: Knara: BeesNuts: Its why pedophiles are so likely to offend multiple times and re-offend if you let them out of jail.

Except that the DOJ's own statistics show that sex offenders are amongst the least likely to re-offend amongst all felony offenders.

sex offenders generally?, yes, Pedophilliac Sex offenders? no.

Give me a citation where the distinction is made.


Link (new window)

Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.

Baseline recidivism = 67.5%

Of the 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, 5.3% were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years of release.

General sex-offender recidivism = 5.3%

Approximately 4,300 child molesters were released from prisons in 15 States in 1994. An estimated 3.3% of these 4,300 were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years of release from prison.

Pedophillic sex-offender recidivism = 3.3%
 
2009-10-08 05:26:28 PM
punchaprep - Well this thread is done for. We got people saying children can consent to anything


Who's saying children can consent to anything?

I think you're reading comprehension may be off. Even Skinnyhead, who started this ridiculous derailment, wasn't saying it's okay for kids to agree to sex.

He was saying they can actually consent, (i.e. say "yes, I would like to touch your pee-pee") but that they had no legal standing to give that consent... which is a true and factual statement.

Yes, a kid can consent to anything... but they do not have the legal standing for it to matter.

Yes, a 50 year old Marine who's three sheets to the wind can consent to a tattoo, but because he is intoxicated, he does not have the legal standing for it to matter.

The child's consent would not be a defense for anyone who engaged them sexually, and the Marine's consent would not be a defense for the tattoo artist who inked him when was tanked.
 
2009-10-08 05:29:36 PM
I'm farkying someone in this thread as "kiddie diddling troll". I won't say who because I don't want him to get another green arrow. See if you can figure it out!
 
2009-10-08 05:31:22 PM
Barbigazi: There is a class of troll that waits until a thread is dead or dying to say farked up shiat and get the last word.

Is that better or worse than a troll that names himself BARBI, then gets pissed off when farkers think he is a girl?
 
2009-10-08 05:34:56 PM
Cubicle Jockey: Link (new window)

Thanks; I was getting kind of curious about that.
 
2009-10-08 05:37:51 PM
citizen_stew: I don't think its fair to give homosexuals a special pass in society, why not just let them be equal?


Im drunk at a bar, get into fight with annoying guy = get thrown out of bar

Im drunk at a bar, get into fight with annoying gay guy = I just commited a felony.


I love how those begging for equality are actually trying to legislate themselves superiority and special privaledges.




You are mistaken, beating up a gay guy because he is annoying isn't a hate crime. Beating up a gay guy because he is gay is.
 
2009-10-08 05:37:53 PM
SkinnyHead: ValisIV: Perhaps because at the start of the thread, you said that liberals wanted to make this sort of thing legal and accepted, because we are trying to make gay marriage legal and accepted. Then when we all said that children can't consent and that it totally different that 2 consenting adults, you went off about how it was a sexual orientation, and blah blah blah blah and more stupid semantics about consenting, just to try and tie liberals to a worthless strawman we fought against from the beginning. You tried some semantic crap to tie us to a revolting position that we argued against from the start. This is the just the end of your attempts to weasel a position onto us that we in no way hold or endorse.

Here's a recap: The topic of the thread was how the congressman was "insane" because he argued that the term "sexual orientation" could be interpreted by courts broadly to include things like pedophilia, necrophilia and zoosexuality. That's not insane. Lawmakers should carefully consider how legislation will be interpreted.

The discussion about consent came about because some were claiming that pedophilia cannot be a sexual orientation because children are below the age of consent. I simply observed that age of consent has nothing to do with the interpretation of "sexual orientation." Then I got a flood of mindless challenges attacking my description of age of consent as a "legal fiction" (which it is).

And when some idiots accused me of supporting NAMBLA and the like, I just gave it right back to them. That's all.


Good synopsis.
 
2009-10-08 06:02:56 PM
lantawa: Good synopsis.

Sure, other than the fact that SkinnyHead's conception of "sexual orientation" is flawed and deliberately misleading. Further, his original introduction of the "legal fiction" card was as follows: "The idea that children cannot consent is a legal fiction", which is laughable on its face, though he later shifted his position to claiming that he had simply described "age of consent" as legal fiction.

Thus, having introduced not one but two ridiculous arguments, SkinnyHead now appears to have lost track of his own comments and seems to be confusing (perhaps deliberately) those addressing these points with his own creative reimaginations of the assertions that he himself made.

Ultimately though, this is probably all moot and thoroughly futile, as SkinnyHead is almost certainly a troll and an alt.
 
2009-10-08 06:03:20 PM
citizen_stew: Antimatter: citizen_stew: I don't think its fair to give homosexuals a special pass in society, why not just let them be equal?


Im drunk at a bar, get into fight with annoying guy = get thrown out of bar

Im drunk at a bar, get into fight with annoying gay guy = I just commited a felony.


I love how those begging for equality are actually trying to legislate themselves superiority and special privileges.

That's not how hate crime legislation works.

to get charged as a hate crime, the primary motivation has to be your attacking the gay guy because he's gay, as an act of terrorism/hatred against gay people.


As we all know, the "hate" card will be pulled and the liberal judges will uphold it. Just like tis okay to beat up white kids but if you beat up a black kid it is a hate crime.

Shouldnt be how it is, but the reality is that they will use this new power and pull that card at will.

Why not just be equal?


"As we all know"? More like, "As I'd like to believe."

You should do yourself a favor and stop talking until you know what you're talking about. Of course some people are going to try to take advantage of the system. Everyone does. It doesn't mean that hate crime legislation isn't a good thing.

The government has trial attorneys who are trained in weeding out the people you fear are going to abuse the system and who will make an example of them when they are caught. Stop with the fearmongering.
 
2009-10-08 06:17:59 PM
El Morro: You should do yourself a favor and stop talking until you know what you're talking about. Of course some people are going to try to take advantage of the system. Everyone does. It doesn't mean that hate crime legislation isn't a good thing.

The government has trial attorneys who are trained in weeding out the people you fear are going to abuse the system and who will make an example of them when they are caught. Stop with the fearmongering.


You've obviousely never lived in San Francisco. Enjoy your alternate reality. In the real world, the hard working middle class straight white man is becoming obsolete. Check your local corporation for proof.

We need to be equal, equally judged, equally fined, equally everything. No on should be more protected froma good ass kicking than another. It's part of life.
 
2009-10-08 06:26:33 PM
Hobodeluxe: what a Gomer.

Seriously who votes for these inbred knuckledraggers?


Southerners, generally speaking.
 
2009-10-08 06:41:19 PM
Cubicle Jockey: Knara: Magorn: Knara: BeesNuts: Its why pedophiles are so likely to offend multiple times and re-offend if you let them out of jail.

Except that the DOJ's own statistics show that sex offenders are amongst the least likely to re-offend amongst all felony offenders.

sex offenders generally?, yes, Pedophilliac Sex offenders? no.

Give me a citation where the distinction is made.

Link (new window)

Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.

Baseline recidivism = 67.5%

Of the 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, 5.3% were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years of release.

General sex-offender recidivism = 5.3%

Approximately 4,300 child molesters were released from prisons in 15 States in 1994. An estimated 3.3% of these 4,300 were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years of release from prison.

Pedophillic sex-offender recidivism = 3.3%


Sounds about right. The figures are older than in the newer one (which was from 2005, IIRC), but they're in the same ballpark.
 
2009-10-08 06:44:35 PM
citizen_stew: El Morro: You should do yourself a favor and stop talking until you know what you're talking about. Of course some people are going to try to take advantage of the system. Everyone does. It doesn't mean that hate crime legislation isn't a good thing.

The government has trial attorneys who are trained in weeding out the people you fear are going to abuse the system and who will make an example of them when they are caught. Stop with the fearmongering.

You've obviousely never lived in San Francisco. Enjoy your alternate reality. In the real world, the hard working middle class straight white man is becoming obsolete. Check your local corporation for proof.

We need to be equal, equally judged, equally fined, equally everything. No on should be more protected froma good ass kicking than another. It's part of life.


Read as: that homo deserved a good ass kicking.
 
2009-10-08 07:03:14 PM
Linux_Yes: i wish someone would give him a corpse so he could get his nut.

another republican freak in D.C. so hard to imagine that.


Louie jumped the shark on this one.

Actually, Louie is a really nice guy. And he genuinely believes what he says.

I'm in no way defending what he said. I just wanted to point out that he is not a Freeper "Obama is a socialistseekritmuslinbirthcertificate" freak so he can pander to the some of the idiots he represents.

/why do I bother?
 
2009-10-08 07:46:33 PM
What a wentz...
 
2009-10-08 08:50:07 PM
fernt: That's easy:

Three black guys kill a white guy because they hate white guys:
- not a hate crime - it's America's fault because of slavery

Three white guys kill a black guy because they hate black guys:
- hate crime - obviously

Apparently you cannot commit a hate crime against a white person unless they're a homosexual.


Actually you are quite wrong about this, there have been instances of minorities committing hate crimes vs. majorities, you are just too goddamn stupid to use google.

"After a white youth from Guthrie, Kentucky, was killed by several black males in Robertson County, Tennessee, for displaying on his truck the confederate flag, the emblem of the youth's high school, regional tensions flared, marked by cross burnings and other incidents. CRS worked with Federal, State and local officials to restore racial order, including assistance to the mayor of Guthrie in establishing a Community Relations Commission to help maintain stability." That quote comes from this link on by the USDOJ. http://www.usdoj.gov/crs/pubs/htecrm.htm (new window)


/EAT IT FERNT

and I wouldn't bother biatching about me only providing one link because just as /b/ is not your personal army.....

FARK IS NOT YOUR PERSONAL RESEARCH ASSISTANT!


but since I'm so nice, here's one from longbeach.

Link (new window)


Hope ya die painfully, and that IS a hate statement; because I am biased against ignoramus farkwads that run their mouth before using google.
 
2009-10-08 08:54:38 PM
Bill_Wick's_Friend: fernt: That's easy:

Three black guys kill a white guy because they hate white guys:
- not a hate crime - it's America's fault because of slavery

Three white guys kill a black guy because they hate black guys:
- hate crime - obviously

Apparently you cannot commit a hate crime against a white person unless they're a homosexual.

Young on old hate crime (new window)

Black on white hate crime (new window)

Black on white hate crime (new window)

Etc etc etc. These stories were all "hidden" in obscure sources like the New York Times and LA Weekly.

Are you lying or just incredibly stupid -- so stupid that you can't even do a simple google search before you spout your nonsense?

(Having read your posts before, I'm gonna have to go with "really really stupid, uninquisitive, easily led, quick to believe rumour and innuendo, paranoid and insulated".)


I wish I had read the whole thread :(


Then I wouldn't have had to ... ya know... put in effort.


but still, from now on when we post links to idiots on FARK
we should this:
FARK IS NOT YOUR PERSONAL RESEARCH ASSISTANT


Nice links though.
 
2009-10-08 09:38:26 PM
Also, didn't the US Supreme Court case that upheld hate crime legislation originate with blacks who targeted a white person?


Yes, yes it was. The Black kids saw a movie, Mississippi Burning, I think, and decided to "get some payback" by beating up the first White kid they saw. They were charged for a hate crime, which was upheld.

But, yeah, Black kids never get charged for hate crimes, except when they do.
 
2009-10-08 09:49:01 PM
sweetmelissa31: Hobodeluxe: Seriously who votes for these inbred knuckledraggers?

To be fair, he does represent his constituency of inbred knuckledraggers.


After going to college in the district he represents, I can verify that this is 100% true
 
2009-10-08 10:30:37 PM
sisterinarms: So besides homosexuals, bi's, transgenders & atheists who isn't covered by hate crime laws? Everyone else seems covered. The current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, color, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity, 18 U.S.C. § 245, (see 1969 law, infra). So most people protesting the addition are covered by the law already. Interesting.

Those are my thoughts as well. As I mentioned in another thread, hate crimes legislation should really have an all or nothing application.
 
2009-10-08 10:42:10 PM
Highway61Revisited citizen_stew: El Morro: You should do yourself a favor and stop talking until you know what you're talking about. Of course some people are going to try to take advantage of the system. Everyone does. It doesn't mean that hate crime legislation isn't a good thing.

The government has trial attorneys who are trained in weeding out the people you fear are going to abuse the system and who will make an example of them when they are caught. Stop with the fearmongering.

You've obviousely never lived in San Francisco. Enjoy your alternate reality. In the real world, the hard working middle class straight white man is becoming obsolete. Check your local corporation for proof.

We need to be equal, equally judged, equally fined, equally everything. No on should be more protected froma good ass kicking than another. It's part of life.



Read as: that homo deserved a good ass kicking.
...'cause he made me feel kinda tingly.
 
2009-10-09 12:35:33 AM
The part about race seems weird. He just kinda drops it there, talks about Alan Keyes and goes back to his crazy point. As someone upthread said, if you disagree with the president "Because he happens to be black" yes, you are a racist, I don't care how many times you voted for Alan Keyes. But, its not relevant. I think his rant would be better suited if he stuck to talking about things he doesn't know about i.e. the definitions of orientation. But even if it was decided that pedophiles, zoolophiles(?) and necrophiliacs counted as sexual orientation all it means is that people get longer prison terms for killing them, it doesn't mean you have to strike all the laws off the books. It would be a curious legal crossroads but its a leap in logic to say that this would repeal age of consent laws. That's like going from point A to Neptune.
 
2009-10-09 08:10:27 AM
Biological Ali: Well, using your own logic, liberals apparently view white people as victims and black people as victimizers, going by the Supreme Court case that upheld hate crime laws. Liberals must really hate black people, I guess.

And it had to go all the way to the Supreme Court because? Oh what's that, you just proved my point?

Hate crime bills are stupid. Crime is crime. Yet if you insist on following this path of stupidity at least apply the stupidity to everyone equally.
 
2009-10-09 09:49:26 AM
citizen_stew: El Morro: You should do yourself a favor and stop talking until you know what you're talking about. Of course some people are going to try to take advantage of the system. Everyone does. It doesn't mean that hate crime legislation isn't a good thing.

The government has trial attorneys who are trained in weeding out the people you fear are going to abuse the system and who will make an example of them when they are caught. Stop with the fearmongering.

You've obviousely never lived in San Francisco. Enjoy your alternate reality. In the real world, the hard working middle class straight white man is becoming obsolete. Check your local corporation for proof.

We need to be equal, equally judged, equally fined, equally everything. No on should be more protected froma good ass kicking than another. It's part of life.


Way to tip your hand, there.

SkinnyHead: And when some idiots accused me of supporting NAMBLA and the like, I just gave it right back to them. That's all.

img384.imageshack.us

What about when people accuse you of being an alt, and posting proof of it?
What about the fact that you've already been exposed as a fake and yet you continue to sh*t all over threads?
Why can't you man up enough to let us know who you really are, and need to hide behind a fake account to let us know how you REALLY feel?

Sometimes I really think Drew keeps people like you just for the page clicks. It's a shame, really. Fark is good enough. He should just check the IP's for duplicate accounts and kick the trolls. It ruins Fark.
 
2009-10-09 01:04:21 PM
MonkeyVegetables: HawgWild: MonkeyVegetables: one time when he was little someone raped his dog

/he raped his dog

You said "raped his dog" twice.

i like raping his dog


It's not rape if it barks twice.
 
2009-10-09 01:05:22 PM
El Morro: citizen_stew: El Morro: You should do yourself a favor and stop talking until you know what you're talking about. Of course some people are going to try to take advantage of the system. Everyone does. It doesn't mean that hate crime legislation isn't a good thing.

The government has trial attorneys who are trained in weeding out the people you fear are going to abuse the system and who will make an example of them when they are caught. Stop with the fearmongering.

You've obviousely never lived in San Francisco. Enjoy your alternate reality. In the real world, the hard working middle class straight white man is becoming obsolete. Check your local corporation for proof.

We need to be equal, equally judged, equally fined, equally everything. No on should be more protected froma good ass kicking than another. It's part of life.

Way to tip your hand, there.

SkinnyHead: And when some idiots accused me of supporting NAMBLA and the like, I just gave it right back to them. That's all.



What about when people accuse you of being an alt, and posting proof of it?
What about the fact that you've already been exposed as a fake and yet you continue to sh*t all over threads?
Why can't you man up enough to let us know who you really are, and need to hide behind a fake account to let us know how you REALLY feel?

Sometimes I really think Drew keeps people like you just for the page clicks. It's a shame, really. Fark is good enough. He should just check the IP's for duplicate accounts and kick the trolls. It ruins Fark.


Holy crap, that's hilarious. I knew he was a shiathead, but I didn't realize how much of a shiathead.
 
2009-10-09 01:14:30 PM
Antimatter:
There are is but three one orientations: Bisexual, heterosexual, and homosexual.

Everything else is a fetish.




Fixed that for all the politically correct hacks out there...
 
Displayed 27 of 277 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report