Liberaltarianism

[Doktor Howl]

Maybe he confused Hate Crimes with Hate Speech.

Personally, I think Crime should be crime and you should get an equal sentence for your crime if your victim is the same gender preference/skin color or different... but hate crimes are about crimes, not speech.

Interesting.  So should ANY motive be considered in the sentencing of a crime?

[Disco Pickle]

Wait a second... you would rather be with a party that has a fringe who want to control abortion, make us a 'Christian Nation', define marriage as heterosexual, put prayer in school, etc that with a party that has a fringe that wants to ban hate speech (a misguided but well intentioned concept).

Really?

I can see not being a Democrat because you don't like big government or lots of government programs etc... but because a crackpot minority wants to ban hate speech?

*twitch* *twitch*

I only cited one of my reasons for not being in the Democratic party.  I have more.

but it's is kind of like being against the republicans because a crack pot and vocal minority want's prayer in schools.  There are plenty of better reasons to not like Republicans.

As to all the things you listed as being wanted by the religious right branch of the Repubs, I personally can't stand them, as I've already said.  But you do nothing to marginalize their voice in the party from out side of it here, as you can't vote in the primary against those sorts unless you're registered with the party.

the fact is Im not going to completely agree with a lot either party puts out.  There are rational democratic policies and there are rational republican policies.  There are crazies in both.

Florida tends to lean republican locally in my city and my district so I figure it's better to have a say on whether we elect a douch bag or a turd sandwich.

Howl, I didn't say any bills had been written.  I said there is an element in the Democratic party who wants that sort of thing.  Never said there was a law.  You asked for one and since there isn't one, obviously I cannot site it.   I shouldn't have blanket condemned the entire democratic party for wanting this and pointed out that it's a small group of them.

It seems that it would fly though in that there seems to be a lot of blanket condemnation of groups of people going on here.

[Disco Pickle]

Maybe he confused Hate Crimes with Hate Speech.

Personally, I think Crime should be crime and you should get an equal sentence for your crime if your victim is the same gender preference/skin color or different... but hate crimes are about crimes, not speech.

Interesting.  So should ANY motive be considered in the sentencing of a crime?

they already are.  and there are levels of crime (1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree, manslaughter, etc.) that cover if there was a motive at all.  That should be sufficient and has been for years.

[Doktor Howl]

I only cited one of my reasons for not being in the Democratic party.  I have more.

You didn't actually cite anything.

Howl, I didn't say any bills had been written.  I said there is an element in the Democratic party who wants that sort of thing.  

Yeah, and you didn't back it up with a quote or citation.  

But why let that stop you?  Why not just chew on that shit sandwich, while hollering about some guy, somewhere, who wants to outlaw hate speech?

Why not side with the party that considers women property (Orrin Hatch, lol), Gays to be abberations and non-persons (Inhofe, Hatch, Butters, et al)?  I mean, those things actually being espoused are not nearly as bad as some alleged politician allegedly wanting to outlaw hate speech.

Like I've said, teh democratic party is no prize, but the GOP is a festering mass of everything that's been wrong with this country since William Jennings Bryant, and it honestly puzzles me why anyone with a functioning frontal lobe would vote for them, unless that person makes in excess of $350K/yr.

[Doktor Howl]

Maybe he confused Hate Crimes with Hate Speech.

Personally, I think Crime should be crime and you should get an equal sentence for your crime if your victim is the same gender preference/skin color or different... but hate crimes are about crimes, not speech.

Interesting.  So should ANY motive be considered in the sentencing of a crime?

they already are.  and there are levels of crime (1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree, manslaughter, etc.) that cover if there was a motive at all.  That should be sufficient and has been for years.

I was asking Ratatosk to clarify his statement...But since you're in, let me ask you this:  IF there are motives involved, are any motives more serious than any others?

[Disco Pickle]

Maybe he confused Hate Crimes with Hate Speech.

Personally, I think Crime should be crime and you should get an equal sentence for your crime if your victim is the same gender preference/skin color or different... but hate crimes are about crimes, not speech.

Interesting.  So should ANY motive be considered in the sentencing of a crime?

they already are.  and there are levels of crime (1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree, manslaughter, etc.) that cover if there was a motive at all.  That should be sufficient and has been for years.

I was asking Ratatosk to clarify his statement...But since you're in, let me ask you this:  IF there are motives involved, are any motives more serious than any others?

Never heard it asked that way, so I'd like to give this some thought before I commit to a view, but my initial response is that intent should be the most serious motive, and is if I'm not mistaken.

but I see what you're getting at and it just seems to cloud the water even more.

[Doktor Howl]

Maybe he confused Hate Crimes with Hate Speech.

Personally, I think Crime should be crime and you should get an equal sentence for your crime if your victim is the same gender preference/skin color or different... but hate crimes are about crimes, not speech.

Interesting.  So should ANY motive be considered in the sentencing of a crime?

they already are.  and there are levels of crime (1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree, manslaughter, etc.) that cover if there was a motive at all.  That should be sufficient and has been for years.

I was asking Ratatosk to clarify his statement...But since you're in, let me ask you this:  IF there are motives involved, are any motives more serious than any others?

Never heard it asked that way, so I'd like to give this some thought before I commit to a view, but my initial response is that intent should be the most serious motive, and is if I'm not mistaken.

but I see what you're getting at and it just seems to cloud the water even more.

Legal issues are inherently cloudy, unless your name is Draco. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Maybe he confused Hate Crimes with Hate Speech.

Personally, I think Crime should be crime and you should get an equal sentence for your crime if your victim is the same gender preference/skin color or different... but hate crimes are about crimes, not speech.

Interesting.  So should ANY motive be considered in the sentencing of a crime?

Sure, but those should be based on the intent of the perpetrator. That is, Manslaughter and 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree murder etc.

If you PLAN to murder person X because of Money you are just as guilty of murder as someone who PLANNED to murder person X because he was Gay or Black.

[Disco Pickle]

I only cited one of my reasons for not being in the Democratic party.  I have more.

You didn't actually cite anything.

Howl, I didn't say any bills had been written.  I said there is an element in the Democratic party who wants that sort of thing.  

Yeah, and you didn't back it up with a quote or citation.  

But why let that stop you?  Why not just chew on that shit sandwich, while hollering about some guy, somewhere, who wants to outlaw hate speech?

Why not side with the party that considers women property (Orrin Hatch, lol), Gays to be abberations and non-persons (Inhofe, Hatch, Butters, et al)?  I mean, those things actually being espoused are not nearly as bad as some alleged politician allegedly wanting to outlaw hate speech.

Like I've said, teh democratic party is no prize, but the GOP is a festering mass of everything that's been wrong with this country since William Jennings Bryant, and it honestly puzzles me why anyone with a functioning frontal lobe would vote for them, unless that person makes in excess of $350K/yr.

I didn't holler about any guy anywhere.  

again, I can be a member of the party and still disagree with the fringes of the party.  

just because there are people in the Democratic party who are also members of PETA, if you're a Democrat then you're on the side of animals = humans, amirite?

cite the Orrin Hatch lol if you would.  Not that he doesn't think this way, I don't know much about the guy, but I'd find it an interesting read.

here's a quote from him I do agree with though.

"So, if the Muslims own that property, that private property, and they want to build a mosque there, they should have the right to do so,"

that can be found here: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/republican-orrin-hatch-stands-up-for-cordoba-house-video.php

As I said, voting democrat locally is a loosing battle, as they never get elected here.  I'm less interested in national politics than I am in local.

[Disco Pickle]

Maybe he confused Hate Crimes with Hate Speech.

Personally, I think Crime should be crime and you should get an equal sentence for your crime if your victim is the same gender preference/skin color or different... but hate crimes are about crimes, not speech.

Interesting.  So should ANY motive be considered in the sentencing of a crime?

Sure, but those should be based on the intent of the perpetrator. That is, Manslaughter and 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree murder etc.

If you PLAN to murder person X because of Money you are just as guilty of murder as someone who PLANNED to murder person X because he was Gay or Black.

this is what I've always thought of as the correct motorcycle.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I wish we could give the Libertarians an island. They could take everything they own with them, and start their own perfect society.

I hear the Aleutians aren't in use.

I can't understand why they don't just move to Somalia.

As I understand it, the Somalis just aren't "pure" enough for an unrestrained, laissez faire economy.

Not sure why.

Poor darkies.   They don't know how to do it Right™, like the White Man does. Or would, if only Big Government would stop holding him down.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I don't think that Somila is an example of Libertarianism... I mean you can argue that its some form of anarchy (the chaotic lack of any sort of functioning government) but even that is different than Anarchism the political philosophy.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I can't site any laws currently on the books.  Doesn't mean there isn't a faction that wants this sort of thing to be illegal, which is actually exactly what I said, not that there WAS, but that there were ones who WANTED to.

Listen. Speaking as a Republican, you are embarrassing me.

If you can't produce any citations (they don't have to be links; you can cite offline sources) then "if doesn't mean they don't exist" is an embarrassingly weak argument that undermines everything else you posit. What you are doing is presenting hearsay as the support for your reasoning, which makes you look really foolish and uninformed.

Please, just don't. It makes us few other holdout Nixonians look bad.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I wish we could give the Libertarians an island. They could take everything they own with them, and start their own perfect society.

It's been done, with predictable results:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Minerva

It doesn't sound like anyone ever actually lived there. It remained undeveloped and purely theoretical even to the date of its failure and reclamation by the Tongans.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I don't think that Somila is an example of Libertarianism... I mean you can argue that its some form of anarchy (the chaotic lack of any sort of functioning government) but even that is different than Anarchism the political philosophy.

No, but there's no government there to keep the cream from reaching the top.

I mean, just about any American with a little capital should be able to go there and live free, right? Maybe even take advantage of the situation to make their fortune... so why do all of the guys screaming about wanting a free market not go to Somalia and take advantage of theirs?