OK, sure. Your statement needs no proof at all, I'll just accept it as fact.
I learned it by watching you Dad! I LEARNED IT BY WATCHING YOU!
Do you think there is a difference in a crime and a hate crime?
No. Just because someone dislikes me over the color of my skin (and yes, I've had that happen) has no bearing on
what they did or did not do to me.
He said I'm "gonna do this and get this outcome". He did that, and got the expected outcome. But that had little to do with him. That makes total sense.
He didn't invent DNA testing.
Much like Al Gore did not invent the internet.
He capitalized on the culmination of decades of research.
As I said, the funding he issued to the matter eased the process somewhat. But, in the long run, it would have happened with or without him, and the difference between the two is fairly minimal.
What? The internet did it?
In times of economic growth, the unemployment rate drops. When the Fed chooses not to slow the growth of the economy, and unemployment drops below what is considered the natural level of unemployment, there are an awful lot of people with jobs who would not otherwise have had them.
These people, obviously, are less inclined to turn to crime. What is fueling the boom is almost irrelevant. It could have been a massive worldwide rise in demand for Peeps, so long as more people are employed, more money is spent, and the aggregate demand and supply curves shift to the right (lolmacroeconomics).
Yes, but those hicks are wrong. This country is constitutionally obligated to provide that choice to women.
Not so much.
The Constitution has no obligation to allow women to abort fetuses.
The legal precedent is just that: a precedent. That can be overturned with relative ease, and is obviously something that the more religious types among us have been attempting to do for some time now.
The nature of the decision itself is rather muddled, blurring together some due process, equal protection, right to privacy, and a smattering of other precedents to create something that with a justification that is, on the whole, rather nebulous.
In issuing the decision, the court strayed into territory that they probably should not have, though it was almost undoubtedly
necessary. By this, I mean that the court strayed into territory of defining
humanity, and at what point a human is permitted the rights we all enjoy under the Constitution.
So
no, we cannot simply arbitrarily declare the ignorant, uptight hicks to be
wrong. Nor, if you notice, did I. I consider them to be ignorant uptight hicks because the reason
why they oppose abortion has little to do with logic, and a lot to do with religious propaganda written over a thousand years ago.
Why they oppose it, however, does not necessarily mean that it is wrong
to oppose it.
I really don't know what to say to your slanted information.
Funny, I knew what to say to yours. You had, much like Tok, an awful lot of "this happened", with a relative dearth of actual evidence supporting your conclusion that Clinton caused it.
Except for the whole getting elected part. Tell me why it is a supergenious like you chose a Final Fantasy forum to release all this wonderful knowledge to the world?
What makes you think that this is the only place where I dispense the wisdom generated by my super genius?
You are correct in one thing though. I do not trust politicians.
Nobody should
trust politicians, unless you're trusting them to try and get re-elected. Which, in a perfect world, would mean that they listen to their electorate and try to satisfy their wants and demands.
Sadly, we do not live in a perfect world.
And finally...
Halifrien said:
There's a difference between causing someone's death when you've planned it for six months in advance or when you accidentally hit them with your car.
Yes, that is quite true. Murder 1 vs Manslaughter. A better example would have been Murder 1 vs Murder 2, premeditated vs crime of passion.
But in this case, I fail to see the relevance. Premeditated murder because I stand to profit from your death vs premeditated murder because you slept with my wife vs premeditated murder because I don't like the color of your skin.
The first man hated no one, he merely saw an opportunity for profit. We can leave him out for the remainder of this example, as while he does illustrate a point, it's not as relevant as the last two.
The second and third men murdered out of hatred. But hate crime laws do not recognize his "hate" as being valid. The racist will be punished more severely than a man with the same motivation (hatred).
Do you begin to see how this law could be considered unconstitutional?
