Originally Posted By mele <<Also, when are you going to pay me for losing our next terror attack bet? This is the original post of the thread.>> You sicken me.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Does anyone else read posts 110 and 112 and get an image of a kid laying on the ground, having a temper tantrum?>> Well, it isn't easy defending an indefensible position.
Originally Posted By jonvn The declarations in post 110 notwithstanding, the law says differently, and always has said differently regarding motive.
Originally Posted By jonvn The declarations in post 110 notwithstanding, the law says differently, and always has said differently regarding motive.
Originally Posted By DAR Let's take the Matthew Shepard case. We all know he was killed because he was gay not question about that. But let's day nobody knew he was gay or he was straight and he was killed while being robbed. Does that make it any less painful for his loved one's?
Originally Posted By mele I'd say the fact that he was tortured and murdered for being gay made his death even more painful. He wasn't murdered for money, he was murdered for who he was. They loved him for who he was. Learning first hand how depraved some people are is a horrifying lesson. Yes, definitely more painful.
Originally Posted By barboy "I'd say the fact that he was tortured and murdered for being gay made his death even more painful" not to me--- a gay death is just as sad as a straight one
Originally Posted By mele Well, you aren't his parent or one of his loved ones. I know for a fact that it made his death more painful for his the people who loved him (and that was what DAR asked).
Originally Posted By mele Beau isn't worth the effort it would take to hate him. Joking about getting paid and stating "I win" when a woman is dead is plain sickening.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy mele, RT made a bet with me about who would commit the next terror attack. I said Mulsims he said enyone else on the planet. Does he sicken you also or have you not thought it through like usual? You think I like the fact that somebody died at the hands of a terrorist? My point about who is committing these crimes is proven as usual. Oh, I could care less about the motive when it comes to sending this guy to the gas chamber. His victim is still dead regardless of why he did it.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Well, you aren't his parent or one of his loved ones. I know for a fact that it made his death more painful for his the people who loved him (and that was what DAR asked).>> Well all I know is that when my friend's sister was killed a few years ago by a drunk driver on Christmas Eve, her family has never said,"well at least she didn't die because of who she was."
Originally Posted By mele Beau, I saw you bet RT. I didn't read where he took you up on it. Do I think you like the fact that someone died at the hands of a terrorist? Yup, I think you were gagging over your excitement that "you won". DAR, there is horrible pain when you lose someone, but there are aspects that can make the loss even more painful. Nothing would lessen the pain, but there are things that can make it even worse.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<The declarations in post 110 notwithstanding, the law says differently, and always has said differently regarding motive.>> We know what the law now says. What I and a few other thinking people are saying is that the law is flawed and it is a horrible idea. It is a way for liberals and politically correct confused moderates to give an extra bonus of more jail time to someone who they say is a bigot, a homophobe or a hatemonger. Screw the First ammendment and free speech or thought. If you are someone who attacked someone because you had hate in your mind at the time ( thought police ) then we are going to make you pay extra big time you bigot you. Get this straight. Victims are victims. A murder victim is not less dead nor more dead because his killer murdered him in a state of bigoted passion. If I get mugged today by a guy who wants my money, why should he get less of a sentence than a guy who didn't like salespeople? But that the kind of thing that could happen with this insane category of crime. It's just more liberal garbage brought to us by people operating on emotion and not common sense or logic.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Beau, I saw you bet RT. I didn't read where he took you up on it. Do I think you like the fact that someone died at the hands of a terrorist? Yup, I think you were gagging over your excitement that "you won".>> Then you need to read a little more carefully and get a clue. Your going to come on hre and say I was excited someone was killed? How sick is that. The guy who decided he was going to kill some Jews in Seattle just happened to be a Muslim..... imagine that. It was ironic it happened not one day after RT and I were debating who is going to cause the next terror attack. Ironic but not surprising because people who are honest know who is going to commit the next terror attack somewhere in the world.. and it sure isn't going to be Pat Robertson or Jerry falwell or James Dobson or any of their members.
Originally Posted By mele Yes, you're right Beau. You showed so much sadness about the crime: "Hey RoadTrip, our bet about who will commit the next terror attack in America lasted one day. I win." You get a clue.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Sure mele, I was excited an innocent woman was killed by a crazed muslim just so I could come on some message board and declare victory in a bet RT will never pay. You must not have read the rest of the thread and the thoughs about what happened, but why would I be surprised by that? I was simply making the point that a Muslim did indeed commit the next terror attack in America and it took all of one day for it to happen.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder This has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Nothing. It has every thing to do with acting on feelings of hate. Certainly, Shephard's death hurt just as much as the girl killed by a drunk driver. The difference however, is Shephard would likely still be alive had he not been gay while unfortunately, the girl would still be dead. Shephard was killed because of who and what he was, and when who or what he was MOTIVATES someone to act against him illegally, then the enhancement of hate is added. The people that killed Shephard were free to hate gays al they wanted. Killing him for being gay, which is what it was, is the hate crime. It's a very simple distinction to make and hate crime enhancements have bipartisan support. Why some people try to torture the issue into something else entirely speaks more about them than we really want or need to know.
Originally Posted By DAR <<The difference however, is Shephard would likely still be alive had he not been gay while unfortunately, the girl would still be dead>> How do we know if wasn't gay he would still be alive? I'll agree to an extent that the odds would be in his favor for being alive. But you can't be a hundred percent certain. And Beau aren't you in the WSOP?
Originally Posted By Shooba >>Joking about getting paid and stating "I win" when a woman is dead is plain sickening.<< Couldn't agree more. An absolutely repugnant human being and a complete waste of life.
