Liberals, Can You Answer This?

Question

As a liberal:

If you hear a news report of a man beat nearly to death because he is a minority or gay will you rally about punishing the bigot who committed the terrible crime?

If so, when you hear a news report of a man beat nearly to death for his money, by a minority, do you start talking about the poor disadvantaged person who is forced to commit such acts to survive?

Answer 1

Easy.

No, and no.

I'm not going to many rallies lately, and I lived among "poor, disadvantaged" thieves long enough to agree that they usually deservedly get what's coming to them.


However, I do think that singling someone out for assault for reasons of race, gender or gender identity, religion, sexual preference, national origin, whatever is worthy of additional judicial scrutiny and additional penalties if proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Answer 2

Targeting a group of people with acts of violence because they are of color, gay or because they are women should be catagorized as hate crimes and shouldn't be tolerated at all. I don't care who the perpetrators are.
The crime of beating someone for their money happens mostly to poor people as well perpetrated by other poor people. You do the crime, you should do the time. Just like people busted for coke should have equal time as those busted for crack. Coke is usually used by middle class and the rich while crack is used primarily by the poor. But there is no real difference in the drug. they come from the same source. But coke users, when caught get far less punishment than crack users. Either make it equal time or legalize both. But mixed messages must be stopped.

Answer 3

I suppose I could see where some people would come to those conclusions.

I try to stay consistent with my ideals.

I'm not exactly sure why there's a specific crime for "hate", as most violent crimes are a result of hate.

Any person involved in beating another person, regardless of who they are or social status, should be locked away for a long long time.

Answer 4

Do the crime - do the time.
Regardless of race, wealth or sexual preference of either party, the perpetrator needs to pull time for the act he committed.

Answer 5

Yes, hate crimes are especially insidious because it makes an entire group of people a target simply for who they are. It is a form of terrorism.

For those without money who commit acts of violence, they don't solely target rich people, but anyone that they can.

Answer 6

Look at your history. It is not the liberals who excuse--or ever have excused--a criminal because of the nature of his victim.

That dishonor is strictly a conservative trait--from the racists who opposed anti-lynching laws to the so-called "Christians" who applauded bombings of abortion clinics to the bigots who today oppose phate crime legislation because of conservative's endorsement of violence against gays.

It is not the liberals but the conservatives who oposed civil rights, women's rights, laws prohibiting the rape of wives by their husbands--and more.

There is a long record of dishonor here. And it is all on the conservative side. That is the history. Read it--and be ashamed.

Answer 7

We would both men to stand trial and both to have the best defence possible.
Where is the inconsistency?

Answer 8

totaly agree with u there! just a teen and im completely against most liberal beliefs

Answer 9

Not a liberal.

No. Any violent crime is hideous. Unfortunately, neo-cons only care when the victim is affluent.

Answer 10

Rush wasn't on today, was he? You're floundering pretty badly trying to make a point.