Furthermore, if I say Obama is clean and articulate, I'm racist, but when Harry Reid says it, it's a complement.

wat

Maybe I should just be alone for the rest of my life.

 

At least then I'll get to keep my john. :mellow:

Furthermore, if I say Obama is clean and articulate, I'm racist, but when Harry Reid says it, it's a complement.

wat

Excuse me, that was Joe Biden.

 

 

 

Harry Reid said that he was electable because he was light skinned and with no negro dialect.

 

 

My apologies for confusing the two.

 

 

 

EDIT:

Also, I think its a bit unfair that the Black Panthers aren't prosecuted for voter intimidation, even though they were filmed outside of a polling place with a nightstick.

Furthermore, if I say Obama is clean and articulate, I'm racist, but when Harry Reid says it, it's a complement.

wat

Excuse me, that was Joe Biden.

 

[vid]

 

Harry Reid said that he was electable because he was light skinned and with no negro dialect.

 

[vid]

 

My apologies for confusing the two.

Oh haha, I forgot about that little incident. Joe Biden does say his fair share of stupid things.

I guess I just don't agree. You guys seem to be saying that since these things have happened for a long time means we shouldn't discuss them and/or strive to end them.

 

People who don't agree with you != people don't care about these issues.

Question(s) - Should a crime be judged by the extent of the harm caused towards the victim, or should it be judged on the basis of who it's inflicted to and who it's inflicted by? Should we measure 'harm' by the potential harm that could have occurred, or should we measure 'harm' by the injuries sustained - e.g. if someone was attacked with a knife, but left with only minor cuts? Could you place psychological harm on the same scale as physical harm, e.g. in the cases of an assault vs rape? In other words, are all types of harm equal?

Question - Should a crime be judged by the extent of it, or should it be judged on the cost/harm incurred by the victim(s)? Should we take into account the social status of the victim/alleged perpetrator? Should it be measured in potential harm, or real harm inflicted? How seriously could you treat psychological trauma? Could you quantify these and place them on the same scale as physical injury?

 

The cases of rape, attempted rape and other similar heinous crimes carry a myriad of problems in the processes of the judicial system. How can we fix them?

 

It seems there's a myriad of determinants for judging a crime.

Stop talking like a dictionary and then maybe I'll try to answer your post.

 

OT: It still makes me laugh that JB is VP. He seems like the closest thing the Dems have to Sarah Palin :P

I supposedly talk like a dictionary now? How should I go about fixing that? It may be the fact that I'm writing posts too quickly, therefore the incomplete thoughts that I've written becomes difficult to interpret.

 

The basic gist of the above post - How do we go about determining how bad a crime is (thus determining how much punishment the convicted should receive) if there's so many variables?

 

Or, alternately, what should we do if the issue becomes unfair convictions due to accounting irrelevant details - such as gender/ethnicity? An example of a scenario may be when there's a conviction of domestic violence; female perpetrators get less punishment in comparison to their male counterpart, for an equal offense (on the basis of the male is stronger than female argument, which is highly flawed). How could you argue that this is fair? It's simply discriminatory.

 

EDIT - grammatical fixes in both posts.

I don't see the double standard there.

I can't comment on anything Al Sharpton says or else I'm a racist, but any liberal is allowed to say anything they want about Clarence Thomas, Allen West, or Herman Cain. Furthermore, if I say Obama is clean and articulate, I'm racist, but when Harry Reid says it, it's a complement.

 

I can go on and on for each example, but if you haven't realized it yet, you may never understand it, and I'm seriously late for that clan meeting. :rolleyes:

 

Are you trolling?

I didn't know I talked 'like a dictionary'. How should I go about fixing that? The basic gist of my post was simply; How should we determine how bad a crime is, if there's so many determinants that's disputably unaccounted for, and is it fair to account for things that could be considered irrelevant to the jurisdiction? I don't see it as fair to consider causing a broken nose towards a male party as less serious as causing a broken nose towards a female party, for instance.

 

I do notice that there's a few grammatical errors in that quote - I shall fix that in due course.

It seems like you're trying to use as many big words as possible, and yet your use of them (combined with incorrect grammar and poor usage) makes your posts very hard to understand.

 

I have no idea what you're actually trying to say.

I realise that my thoughts were incoherent, so I've corrected my posts. I write poorly composed posts more frequently when I don't get enough rest, or if I'm writing my posts too hastily. Please read the revised version for a better understanding of what I meant.

 

EDIT - I've always used the same kind of terminology, as when it's used correctly, it provides clarity. The problem is just the fact that I can't phrase it into a legible sentence when I'm tired, so it causes confusion at times.

 

I do replace unnecessarily complex terms that's synonymous with more simplistic, easily understandable terms though, as to do otherwise would be pointless and counterproductive.

Well based on what I can gather from your post, who committed the crime should be irrelevant unless they're underage.

That's the issue - those who belong in ethnic minorities are still more likely to be jailed for a crime than a white person.

That's the issue - those who belong in ethnic minorities are still more likely to be jailed for a crime than a white person.

That's also because those in ethnic minorities are likely to be poorer, and as a result more likely to commit crime in the first place.

I know, it's been taken into account. The convicted are more likely to go to jail. The question in dispute is whether they deserve their sentences, and whether it's fair to have a seemingly discriminatory justice system.

 

EDIT - That's interesting. Some of the findings are incomplete because they have biases of their own. The point still stands though.

I don't see the double standard there.

I can't comment on anything Al Sharpton says or else I'm a racist, but any liberal is allowed to say anything they want about Clarence Thomas, Allen West, or Herman Cain. Furthermore, if I say Obama is clean and articulate, I'm racist, but when Harry Reid says it, it's a complement.

 

I can go on and on for each example, but if you haven't realized it yet, you may never understand it, and I'm seriously late for that clan meeting. :rolleyes:

 

Are you trolling?

Nope.

 

When George W. Bush pronounces nuclear wrong, he's an idiot. When Barrack Obama pronounces Navy corpsmen wrong, everyone ignores it.

Nope.

 

When George W. Bush pronounces nuclear wrong, he's an idiot. When Barrack Obama pronounces Navy corpsmen wrong, everyone ignores it.

That pronunciation (Nuclear, as Bush pronounced it) is widespread enough that you might as well say it's part of some dialect or another.

When George W. Bush pronounces nuclear wrong, he's an idiot. When Barrack Obama pronounces Navy corpsmen wrong, everyone ignores it.

Bush won a lot of popularity because he talked like "one of them", the common man and woman. You're not seriously blaming anyone for holding double standards when they're promoting an image Bush himself wanted, are you?

I don't see the double standard there.

I can't comment on anything Al Sharpton says or else I'm a racist, but any liberal is allowed to say anything they want about Clarence Thomas, Allen West, or Herman Cain. Furthermore, if I say Obama is clean and articulate, I'm racist, but when Harry Reid says it, it's a complement.

 

I can go on and on for each example, but if you haven't realized it yet, you may never understand it, and I'm seriously late for that clan meeting. :rolleyes:

 

Are you trolling?

Nope.

 

When George W. Bush pronounces nuclear wrong, he's an idiot. When Barrack Obama pronounces Navy corpsmen wrong, everyone ignores it.

 

If he pronounces things wrong why would you want to call him articulate?

When George W. Bush pronounces nuclear wrong, he's an idiot. When Barrack Obama pronounces Navy corpsmen wrong, everyone ignores it.

Bush won a lot of popularity because he talked like "one of them", the common man and woman. You're not seriously blaming anyone for holding double standards when they're promoting an image Bush himself wanted, are you?

I'm certain Bush loved being called an idiot. :rolleyes:

It's not that leaders occasionally make gaffes that I care about, it's how the media and others treat it afterwards.

 

Last comparison between Bush and Obama. There was media outrage when Bush played 24 rounds of golf in his first three years as President (he never played after that). Obama has played 90 or more.

Didn't Bush take like 900 days total in holidays though?

Didn't Bush take like 900 days total in holidays though?

That count is the number of days away from the White House. Its unrealistic to think that Bush did nothing each or any of those days, most of them were to his ranch in Texas, where his staff would go too.

I didn't know I talked 'like a dictionary'. How should I go about fixing that? The basic gist of my post was simply; How should we determine how bad a crime is, if there's so many determinants that's disputably unaccounted for, and is it fair to account for things that could be considered irrelevant to the jurisdiction? I don't see it as fair to consider causing a broken nose towards a male party as less serious as causing a broken nose towards a female party, for instance.

 

I do notice that there's a few grammatical errors in that quote - I shall fix that in due course.

It seems like you're trying to use as many big words as possible, and yet your use of them (combined with incorrect grammar and poor usage) makes your posts very hard to understand.

Somebody needed to say this.

I didn't know I talked 'like a dictionary'. How should I go about fixing that? The basic gist of my post was simply; How should we determine how bad a crime is, if there's so many determinants that's disputably unaccounted for, and is it fair to account for things that could be considered irrelevant to the jurisdiction? I don't see it as fair to consider causing a broken nose towards a male party as less serious as causing a broken nose towards a female party, for instance.

 

I do notice that there's a few grammatical errors in that quote - I shall fix that in due course.

It seems like you're trying to use as many big words as possible, and yet your use of them (combined with incorrect grammar and poor usage) makes your posts very hard to understand.

Somebody needed to say this.

 

It's only difficult to understand when it's phrased poorly, or grammatically incorrect. Why quote him and derail this thread? I've fixed those posts already.

 

I've already stated before - thoughts are jumbled and incoherent when written hastily. It's normal.

You talk like that in the majority of posts, using unnecessarily complicated words that don't even fit the context of the sentence, seemingly in an attempt to display your superior knowledge of vocabulary. That is not limited to just this thread, or those posts. But now we're off-topic, so that's all I've got to say.