You might be a liberal if

wroughtn_harv · Sep 17, 2002

Re: You might be a liberal if (chapter V)

As I recall the Dirkhising case was about a young man whose parents knew the attackers and permitted him to hang out with them. It was a horrible crime.

As in the cases where a child is kidnapped and killed is treated differently by the media versus the ones where a family member does the crime. The Dirkhising was almost as much about poor parenting and allowing children to be put at risk as it was about homosexual murder.

If the victim had been kidnapped and brutally murdered by strangers then the national media would have been on it like chicken on a June bug.

The Shepard case was about an attack upon a segment of our society. It stopped the heart of every parent of a gay or lesbian. I know. I have a gay son.

Hate crime legislation isn't about deviant lifestyle. Unless of course you consider living black or poor or religiously as deviant. Hate crime legislation came into being just like any other criminal laws do. There were situations where existing laws were being made a mockery of and new legislation was needed to stop it. It's not unlike the present administration calling for added punishment for white collar crime.

There is no great conspiracy. It's all about common sense and stopping abuse of the law.

Anonymous Poster · Sep 17, 2002

Re: You might be a liberal if (chapter V)

 The Dirkhising was almost as much about poor parenting and allowing children to be put at risk as it was about homosexual murder. 

You have got to be kidding me! Funny how the left has totally objected to this line of thinking in the Daniel Van Damm case, isn't it?

 If the victim had been kidnapped and brutally murdered by strangers then the national media would have been on it like chicken on a June bug. 

That may be the spin of the left but this country bumpkin doesn't buy that BS for a minute.

 There were situations where existing laws were being made a mockery of and new legislation was needed to stop it. 

What in the world is the matter with REQUIRING existing laws being enforced instead of making new laws that will be made a mockery of. People that are making a mockery of a law are not going to stop making a mockery of a different law just because somebody says, "And this time we are really really really mad and we really really really mean it this time."

The Dirkhising case was disgusting, the Shepard case was disgusting and the national media decided the Shepard case was the only one that was newsworthy. They did that because of their agenda and Harv, I think you know it. Your explanation requires some real Rube Goldgerg contortions and a little bit of denial to make it come home.

Hate crimes legislation is BS. Prosecutors, Defense lawyers, Judges, and law enforcement officials that "make a mockery of existing laws" should be removed from their positions and not rewarded with more laws to ignore, contort, or manipulate.

wroughtn_harv · Sep 18, 2002

Re: You might be a liberal if (chapter V)

Morning Kent,

You have got to be kidding me! Funny how the left has totally objected to this line of thinking in the Daniel Van Damm case, isn't it?

If the left is the justice system then yes the justice system refused to put into play the mother's behavior the night Daniel was kidnapped and murdered.

The Dirkhising boy was spending time with the perps with his mother's permission. He was sleeping over, again with her permission. Of course it must be mentioned that her relationship was more with older man whom she trusted. It was his lover who had the fascination with the boy and instigated his terrible assault and murder.

Mrs. Van Damm did nothing to put her child at risk for kidnapping and murder. Her behavior while different from yours or mine wasn't the issue.

Hate crimes legislation is BS. Prosecutors, Defense lawyers, Judges, and law enforcement officials that "make a mockery of existing laws" should be removed from their positions and not rewarded with more laws to ignore, contort, or manipulate.

Maybe you can give us some examples of these criminals in power and what they've done. It would also be nice to hear exactly what would be your criteria choosing those who replace them.

I know that's a lot to ask. But without supporting criteria your statement sounds like a rant.

I'm just trying to help you out here.

Anonymous Poster · Sep 18, 2002

Re: You might be a liberal if (chapter V)

Good Morning to you too, Harv!

 If the left is the justice system then yes the justice system refused to put into play the mother's behavior the night Daniel was kidnapped and murdered. 

Not what I'm talking about. The left in this case are the liberal talking heads in the media that were whining about how outrageous it was that some conservatives were trying to put the parents on trial. The legal system would have had to file a different case to try the parents.

 Maybe you can give us some examples of these criminals in power and what they've done. It would also be nice to hear exactly what would be your criteria choosing those who replace them. 

Harv, this was your premise. You are the one that said that hate crimes legislation was necessary because a mockery was being made of existing law. You are the one that did not provide any details, it was your rant. My reply was simply to your unsubstantiated comments.

 It would also be nice to hear exactly what would be your criteria choosing those who replace them. 

The last time I checked we had a system to do just that. Some judges are appointed and some are elected. I would suspect the process would continue as is. There would, of course, be a vacancy after the impeachment that would need to be filled but the normal process (election or appointment) will take care of that quite nicely. Police officers would simply be fired (including the Chief, if involved) and replacements selected as their predecessors were, and lawyers .... I have a boat load of suggestions for that profession but I'll stick to our current system. Where I live that means the prosecutor is elected so he can be tossed at the next election. Defense attorneys, well, it depends on what you mean by "mockery". If you mean, something illegal happened then they can be disbarred. If you mean incompetence that is where it gets sticky because you would like to see honor and ethics by their law firm kick in. I'll leave the rest of that response to your imagination because I'm sure you know a lawyer that wouldn't fit that description and then would accuse me of making a broad brush statement. I would like to mention though that anyone that, as an attorney, makes a mockery of the law and remains in a law firm --- the law firm is the problem.

 I'm just trying to help you out here. 

Thanks Harv but I really don't need your help. You state a premise and then try to turn it out to be mine. Instead of helping me you could probably better use your time rereading your own posts.

The problem with your posts and mine is that it is really a waste off energy to even participate in political discussions with people that consider themselves informed. You'll always be a liberal and I'll always be a conservative (or worse!!!! a libertarian). The people and the actions of those people that we are talking about can be used as fodder for one belief or the other to "prove" the ideology wrong but that would not be the case. The ideology is what it is (those of us to the right of center understand the use of "is" in this sentence) but sometimes people torture it and thus confuse the issue for some. For me it is very clear, whether articulated to your satisfaction or not is irrelevant to me.

As for me, today, I have the day off and am heading to the farm to hit the tractor and walk the trails in the woods. I don't get many of these days so I'll end here and head off to something far more productive.

Kent

Boone · Sep 18, 2002

Re: You might be a liberal if (chapter V)

Gnawbone wrote:
I know of no newspaper that carries either columnist .... were it not fo rthe internet, I would not have access to either of these people.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I hit the Bozell link off the Drudge site and this is what I found. Looks like Bozell is another successful writer similar to Coulter's success. Hard to imagine that you could not find Bozell's articles in the public library. He states his work appears in publications such as Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, The New York Post, The L.A. Times and National Review.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Founder and President of the Media Research Center, L. Brent Bozell III runs the largest media watchdog organization in America. Established in 1987, the MRC has made “media bias” a household term, tracking it and printing the compiled evidence daily. Mr. Bozell is a nationally syndicated writer whose work appears in publications such as Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, The New York Post, The L.A. Times and National Review. Below is a collection of this year's News columns or click here for an archive of Mr. Bozell's Entertainment columns.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

You claim there is no media bias

Fact GE owns NBC. Fact, GE is a large defense contractor. Fact, FOX is owned by Murdock a conservative and has hired republican consultant Roger Ailes to run his news bureau. ABC is owned by Disney. CBS used to be owned by Westinghouse which also built nuclear reactors, but has recently been purchased by Viacom. Fact Jennings is what you described him, a talking head. Fact news editors determine what the news will be.

Partisan Affiliation of Sources, Where Identifiable Republican Democrat 3rd Party/Independent
ABC 73 % 27 % 0.7 %
CBS 76 % 23 % 1.2 %
NBC 75 % 25 % 0.2 %
TOTAL 75 % 24 % 1 %

*62% of all partisan sources were administration officials; George Bush alone accounted for 33% of the total. When these are set aside, the remaining partisan sources were 51% Republican and 48% Democrat, suggesting a strong advantage overall for the party that held the White House.

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/power-sources-release.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I am suggesting you read some of their works and then check the source material they quote to see whether, in fact, there are instances of a vast left-wing media conspiracy.
Or, you can continue to believe what you believe
=======================================

A 1998 FAIR survey of the opinions of the Washington press corps found that journalists were more conservative-- not more liberal-- than the general public on major economic issues such as trade, taxes, Social Security, health care and corporate power.

Chuck52 · Sep 18, 2002

Re: You might be a liberal if (chapter V)

You know Harv, I do have to kind of agree with Kent about the general idea of Hate Crimes....I don't know if this is an example of open-mindedness on my part or indicative of a hole in my head. Unless a new law addresses a really separate class of crime, why have another law? The motivation for a crime is already included in the process of trial and sentencing, isn't it? Murder in the heat of passion is sometimes dealt with differently than cold, calculated murder, sometimes more leniently. If "hate" for a group was part of the motivation, there would appear to be nothing in the present laws which would prohibit this being taken into account in the sentencing, is there? I do get nervous when we seem to be legislating morality, whether you're talking drug use, sexual activity, or bigotry. You have the right to be a bigot. If you murder someone because of that and I get to decide your fate, you get the maximum, without need for another law. Not because you are a bigot, but because you committed a crime with that as your motivation.

Chuck

Wingnut · Sep 18, 2002

Re: You might be a liberal if (chapter V)

I hit the Bozell link off the Drudge site simply supports what I said ... if not for the internet 
A 1998 FAIR survey ...
Your point is, I guess, that if a left wing think tank says there's no bias, it must be so?
I can find you studies proving that fluoride in the water kills and that fluoride in the water saves teeth. Which is correct?
The NRA says people kill people ... Handguns, Inc. says guns kill people? They cite the same statistics and get different results.
As has been noted by prior posters, exit interviews with media folks shows that 95%+ voted Democrat ... and that was in 2000 .... does that count any less than a 4 year old statistic from FAIR?
I guess this stands at:
Liberals believe that the media has a right wing bias.
Non-liberals believe the media is controlled by a bunch of socialists who are trying to subvert (and destroy) the country from within.

I'm squarely in the socialist conspiracy camp!

finally (whew)
Fact news editors determine what the news will be
That may be a fact to you .... but, to me, news is what happens ... reporting is what news editors use to give their slant of the events! Of course, the media has always thought they were the news ...

That makes me believe that news is viewed as follows:
Liberals: news is the feelings of people who were involved, witnessed or heard about the event. Bigger news is how it personally affected the talking heads when they heard about it.
Non-liberals: news is facts about the event.

btw ... I really enjoyed the statistics. Since GW was invisible, basically, pre-2000, I assume these are current stats .... it would be interesting to see the exact same stats from 1998. I'm sure they would be exactly the same ... chortle.

pete

Anonymous Poster · Sep 18, 2002

Re: You might be a liberal if (chapter V)

I spent NO time checking your "facts" since the very first word you wrotes was the beginning of an incorrect statement:

 Gnawbone wrote:
I know of no newspaper that carries either columnist .... were it not fo rthe internet, I would not have access to either of these people. 

I (gnawbone) did not write what you attributed to me.... it was somebody else. Get it right, please.

Kent

Wingnut · Sep 18, 2002

Re: You might be a liberal if (chapter V)

he was replying to my post .... but I considered (as did you) it an indication of the care that he took in research .... I think this thread is deader than media honesty! On to threads on how all our old friends are!

Boone · Sep 19, 2002

Re: You might be a liberal if (chapter V)

I (gnawbone) did not write what you attributed to me.... it was somebody else. Get it right, please.
-----------------------------------------------------------

I'm very sory about confusing the posts. Please accept my apology.