Fred Thompson on living with terror

Is it?

Isn't it?

Your thought that it is, is not sufficient to demonstrate that it is. Assuming we agree on what is is.

It is!

I concur!

I'm glad we agree

QUOTE TREEE!

Are you?

Nobody agrees!

Actually, he said Iran's nuclear ambitions combined with their support for Hamas and their leader's declaration that Israel needs to be wiped from the face of the earth by fire from heaven pretty much ensures that the status quo isn't going to stand, and in that case Israel is likely to take a much more pro-active stance against its enemies who continue to openly admit they are working toward their destruction.

While I like his stance on Israel, the rest of his politics make me sick to my stomach.

* Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Fuck him in the ear
* Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
He can go to hell
* Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
Fuck him, fuck him for robbing us of a valuable research tool (we dont have to create a whole person god damn it, we would have used it to directly make stem cells)

# Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)

Miserable son of a bitch

# Voted NO on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)

I can respect this

# Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)

Fuck him sideways with a god damn chainsaw

# Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)

Asshole

# Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)

Ok

# Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
# Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)

He deserves to go to the 5th level of hell.

# Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)

Fuck him, again

* Voted NO on $1.15 billion year to continue the COPS program. (May 1999)

Not familiar with the program, cant comment.

* Voted YES on limiting death penalty appeals. (Apr 1996)

Yes, because obviously we need to remove safeguards on our already inaccurate and unjust penal system.

* Voted YES on limiting product liability punitive damage awards. (Mar 1996)

Protecting big business from being punished for making dangerous products... yeah...

* Voted YES on restricting class-action lawsuits. (Dec 1995)

See above

* Voted YES on repealing federal speed limits. (Jun 1995)
hmm... interesting...


* Voted YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)

Because obviously what a drug addict needs is more prison time, as opposed to being rehabilitated and given the tools they need to keep off drugs...


* Voted YES on spending international development funds on drug control. (Jul 1996)

Those funds could have been better used.

Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)

75M USD on programs that dont work... nice

* Voted YES on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)

Fuck him

* Voted YES on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Not familiar, cant comment

* Voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)

*shakes angry fist*

* Voted NO on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)

Cant comment.

* Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Yes, because obviously, drilling for oil is much better than finding alternatives. Fucking prick, can someone say "oil company shill" I know I can.

* Voted YES on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)

YAY nuclear power!



* Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)

Wait... so he voted no on closing a loophole in existing gun laws so that criminals would have legal access to guns? Yeah, that makes sense...

* Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
*rolleyes*

* Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
*rolleyes* I am anti-gun control, but god damn, background checks just make sense. Had a decent background check been run, the guy who shot up Va Tech would have gotten his guns, because the guy at the store would have known he was dangerously insane.

* Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)

YAY!

* Voted NO on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
* Voted NO on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
* Voted YES on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)

On all three Drug Company Shill

* Voted NO on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 2000)

Yes, because the poor shouldnt be able to have life-saving medication for chronic health problems *rolleyes*

* Voted YES on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul 1999)

Dick

* Voted NO on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998)

Because cancer is our friend

* Voted YES on Medicare means-testing. (Jun 1997)
* Voted NO on medical savings acounts. (Apr 1996)

So this guy is basically anti-healthcare... OK

Thompson is a conservative? Say it isn't so!

Actually, more than half of those make me want to vote for him more. Pro nuclear power, pro-gun, anti-hate crime legislation (all of it should be flushed down the toilet).

And what the fuck is up with setting aside highway funds for minorities? Maybe training for discrimination for police officers, but what services should the highway system be assigning to minorities that aren't being used by everyone?

Here we see why he won't be taking votes from Ron Paul.

If you dont like hate crime legislation that is fine. But if it exists it should protect EVERYONE, not just a few select groups of individuals. At this point, if someone kicks the shit out of Bulldog for being a christian, they get a higher sentence than if I get the shit kicked out of me for being gay.

If it exists it should be all or nothing, but Thompson voted to keep me a second class citizen. He can choke on his own vomit for all I care.

So adding you to the select group of individuals makes it OK while if someone bashes my head in they get less of a sentence? Yeah, its OK as long as you got yours. LOL.

The very concept of hate crime legislation is it protects some people more than others. If it didn't there'd be no need for the legislation, you'd just increase the punishment for the crime across the board.

It shouldn't exist at all. No one's life should be valued more than anyone elses .

No, you are strawmanning hate crime legislation. What it does is punish the REASONS why someone is killed. Killing someone for economic reasons is considered less heinous than killing someone because they are of a different race. The hate crime is the only crime other than serial murder for which there is no understandable motive. it is essentially motivated by pure evil.

A black person is not more valuable than a white person under existing hate crime law. If a black person kills a white person because they are white, the same laws apply and the murder gets punished accordingly under hate crime statutes.

GLBTQ people, are the ONLY class of citizens who are not protected by hate crime legislation. We are less than EVERYONE else in the eyes of the law because it is LESS evil (by nature of being less worthy of punishment) to kill us because we are gay, than to kill Jamal because he is black.

I suggest you actually study what hate crime legislation is and why it exists legally before you denounce it.

No, hate crime legislation is retarded. Crime is crime. If we are to punish thought we're going to have to get some durn good mind telepaths.

I'm sorry, but that's just dumb.

All that does is make people feel good.

I used to agree with it, but it was because it made me feel good.
Then, I realized, it was dumb.

Want higher sentences? Raise 'em for anyone who attacks anyone.

Reasons don't mean shit, except on Oprah.

Okay, I'll try to put it in clearer perspective.

Guy beats you up cuz you're gay.

Okay, fine, granted, the guy's a homophobic piece of shit.

And okay, he gets a higher sentence, and you feel good he's locked away longer, so he won't come back and get you.

Okay, now you've got your generic violent asshole.
Beats up anyone.
Kicks my teeth in just cuz he didn't like the way I looked at him, or maybe that day, he doesn't like people with brown hair.

Well, there's no hate crime legislation to protect me, I just gotta mark the day of his parole on the calender, and worry.

Why? Cuz I like chicks?
How's that fair?

And should I lobby for brown haired people to be a protected class?
How far does this shit go?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought there was supposed to be such a thing as "equal protection under the law".

Hate crime laws suppose that one group is more entitled than another.

No; they suppose that people who commit crimes for particular reasons are less likely to rehabilitate than people who commit crimes for other reasons and therefore should be imprisoned for longer terms, or at least that's what the well written ones suppose. You might, of course, disagree with and debate the supposition, but it's a perfectly reasonable one upon which to base criminal sentencing if it's true.

How inane. How about just not giving them parole if they aren't rehabillatated, and as lenght of sentencing should be discretionary to the judge they should have the leeway to give the maximum to those individuals they feel have committed a crime deserving of more punishment within the same criteria.

.....

Why didn't you take precautions to arm yourself against attack? [/tangent]

On the basis of Herpetologist's post, Thompson might just be my candidate.

Nonsense. Hate crime sentencing laws may or may not be optimal and wise, but they are reasonable if you buy the premise that people who perpetrate hate crimes are more likely recidivists than people who commit crimes for other reasons.

It's pretty rare that I see an ostensible conservative argue in favor of more discretion in parole and sentencing. Do you mean it generally, or does hate crime sentencing just throw you for that big a loop? If you mean it, I'd say that I agree. There should be more discretion in all sentencing, and much more discretion in parole, with much shorter mandatory minimum sentences in general. Absent a general change in the sentencing laws though, enhanced hate crimes sentencing makes a lot of sense if you believe that people who perpetrate hate crimes are more likely recidivists.

I suggest that you study it. 32 of the 50 states include sexual orientation as a protected group for their state hate crime legislation. 14% of all hate crimes are prosecuted against those who target GLBTQ people.

Federal law on hate crimes only apply to acts that were committed while the victim was engaged in a federally protect act, such as voting, or applied across state lines, such as kidnapping. The vast majority of crimes in the US are not covered by Federal hate crime legislation, instead by whatever hate crime legislation is instituted at the state and local level.

Guns and bullets are expensive, and the forcefield belt I'm trying to cobble from junk keeps blowing up.

Meh. Thompson is just another Establishment Republican. Nothing new or exciting here.

He'll go up like a rocket and come down like a stick.

As we've seen time and time again, what you consider reasonable and I consider reasonable are two entirely different animals.

If there is more reason to believe hate crime individuals are more likely to be recidivists (and I'd love to see those stats), then it can be handled without adding an additional crime to the individual for holding a belief set we don't agree with. Giving maximum sentencing in addition with denying parole for those we don't believe rehabilitated easily fits that criteria without violating the first amendment and penalizing people for their thought process. The crime is the same, whether the guy murders you to get your wallet or because he doesn't like the color of your skin - it's still murder.

I absolutely believe that their should be discretion at the court level in sentencing - I would say just about every friend I have agrees to that regardless of their political outlook. That doesn't mean you are soft on crime, it means that not all crimes are equal, and discretion from the bench should be allowed for unusual or unique circumstances.

Personally I think it's just feel good legislation - according to an article by George Will, hate crimes as currently prosecuted represent seven one hundredths of one percent of all crime, and of those crimes 60% are non-violent, representing vandalism or verbal abuse. Do we really need additional legislation to cover this? Or could it be done by using the system appropriately as it is already constituted?

But then, legislators couldn't brag to their constituents about what changes they've made to protect them then. Which I believe is what this is primarily about.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2007/05/13/hate_crime_laws

Start simpler. You need to build one of these: