# Hate Crime Bill Set to Pass?



## William Joyce

VDARE.com: Blog Articles » &#8220;Hate&#8221; Bill To Be Rammed Through Tomorrow?


----------



## xotoxi

William Joyce said:


> VDARE.com: Blog Articles » Hate Bill To Be Rammed Through Tomorrow?


 
Are you afraid that you'll have a few extra years tacked on when you bust up a fags face?


----------



## William Joyce

xotoxi said:


> William Joyce said:
> 
> 
> 
> VDARE.com: Blog Articles » Hate Bill To Be Rammed Through Tomorrow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you afraid that you'll have a few extra years tacked on when you bust up a fags face?
Click to expand...


If the same thing doesn't happen because someone was assaulted on Cleveland's "Beat Up a White Kid Day", YES.

Problem is, that's not what the "hate crime" supporters have in mind.


----------



## xotoxi

William Joyce said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> William Joyce said:
> 
> 
> 
> VDARE.com: Blog Articles » Hate Bill To Be Rammed Through Tomorrow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you afraid that you'll have a few extra years tacked on when you bust up a fags face?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the same thing doesn't happen because someone was assaulted on Cleveland's "Beat Up a White Kid Day", YES.
Click to expand...

 



> (1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--


 
There is nothing in the law saying "this law will be only enforced in crimes committed by whites".


----------



## Sinatra

It is remarkable how people are condoning special sentencing considerations for a crime based upon who the crime was committed against.

If a Black kills a White -  is that a "Hate Crime"?

If someone screams out "Faggot!" during a gay pride parade, is that a "hate crime"?  Should it not just be stupidity protected by Free Speech.

What of MSNBC's mocking of a woman's gender, her physical appearance, etc - is that a "hate crime"?

This is just silly political leftist posturing that will lead the legal system down a terribly misguided path.

Political feel-goodism that becomes law is a truly dangerous development...


----------



## xotoxi

Sinatra said:


> If someone screams out "Faggot!" during a gay pride parade, is that a "hate crime"? Should it not just be stupidity protected by Free Speech.


 
I wonder if the exerpt from the proposed law will answer your question.



> (1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--


 
Well, it looks like you're safe to attend a gay pride parade and yell faggot at others.  Maybe you'll "convert" a few.


----------



## WillowTree

Sinatra said:


> It is remarkable how people are condoning special sentencing considerations for a crime based upon who the crime was committed against.
> 
> If a Black kills a White -  is that a "Hate Crime"?
> 
> If someone screams out "Faggot!" during a gay pride parade, is that a "hate crime"?  Should it not just be stupidity protected by Free Speech.
> 
> *What of MSNBC's mocking of a woman's gender, her physical appearance, etc - is that a "hate crime"?*
> 
> This is just silly political leftist posturing that will lead the legal system down a terribly misguided path.
> 
> Political feel-goodism that becomes law is a truly dangerous development...






Not to a lefty,, hell they cheered MSNBC


----------



## Red Dawn

Sinatra said:


> It is remarkable how people are condoning special sentencing considerations for a crime based upon who the crime was committed against.
> 
> *If a Black kills a White -  is that a "Hate Crime"?*
> ...





Yes, if its racially motivated. 

You Cons are always so misinformed about this.  I've been on the FBI hate crimes data base.   Racially motivated crimes against whites are prosecuted, just like any other hate crime. 

Sean Hannity has been lying to you, and fucking you like a little bitch.


----------



## Red Dawn

Sinatra said:


> If a Black kills a White -  is that a "Hate Crime"?




Do you want to come back here and admit you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about?





FBI Hate Crimes Statistics 2007.






racially motivated hate crimes against whites ARE prosecuted.  And given the demographics - there's relatively few minorities in the country to commit hate crimes on whites - the statistics look pretty balanced, proportional to demographics. 


Will you admit Sean Hannity has been lying to you?   Or not?


----------



## Red Dawn

Just as I suspected. 

A bunch of pansy assed white guys whine that hate crimes laws don't apply to, or protect white people. 

And then when I show them the FBI website, that shows that white people ARE protected by hate crimes laws and racially motiviated crime, the little chicken shits dissapear from the thread.


----------



## KittenKoder

Actually, if you look at those statistics you provided it does show that anti-white crime is punished far less than it happens.

Also, the bill is another great example of "give an inch ...".


----------



## Red Dawn

KittenKoder said:


> Actually, if you look at those statistics you provided it does show that anti-white crime is punished far less than it happens.
> 
> .





That's demographics. 

There's far fewer minorities in this country than white people.  So by definition, and by simple mathematics, the odds of a white person being attacked by a person of color is exponentially less, that a person of color getting attacked by a white person. 

Its basic arithmetic. 

Let me know if you have any more questions.


----------



## KittenKoder

Red Dawn said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if you look at those statistics you provided it does show that anti-white crime is punished far less than it happens.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's demographics.
> 
> There's far fewer minorities in this country than white people.  So by definition, and by simple mathematics, the odds of a white person being attacked by a person of color is exponentially less, that a person of color getting attacked by a white person.
> 
> Its basic arithmetic.
> 
> Let me know if you have any more questions.
Click to expand...


Really ... by my calculations that offers more victims as well, so the numbers should be closer because of that alone. Then by personal experience I see just as much crime done against white people as there is against black people if not more, and often they do target white people specifically. Sorry, but the statistics still show that anti-white crime is less prosecuted than anti-black crime.


----------



## William Joyce

xotoxi said:


> There is nothing in the law saying "this law will be only enforced in crimes committed by whites".



Sure there is.  It's called "the law of political correctness."  It is unwritten, but the most powerful law in existence.


----------



## xotoxi

William Joyce said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the law saying "this law will be only enforced in crimes committed by whites".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure there is. It's called "the law of political correctness." It is unwritten, but the most powerful law in existence.
Click to expand...

 
Bullshit.


----------



## William Joyce

Red Dawn said:


> Just as I suspected.
> 
> A bunch of pansy assed white guys whine that hate crimes laws don't apply to, or protect white people.
> 
> And then when I show them the FBI website, that shows that white people ARE protected by hate crimes laws and racially motiviated crime, the little chicken shits dissapear from the thread.



I love it.  If we just complain, we are "pansy assed white guys" who whine.  But then your team starts hyperventilating that we are going to become violent.

So which is it?  Logically, one wouldn't be worried about potential violent confrontation with cowards.


----------



## Tank

If a man attacks women because he hates women, should this be a "hate crime"?


----------



## jillian

Sinatra said:


> It is remarkable how people are condoning special sentencing considerations for a crime based upon who the crime was committed against.



Actually, there are always different sentencing considerations based on intent. 

I always find it remarkable that anyone would be upset that goverment tries to stop people from being victimized by people who are full of hate just because of what someone is born.


----------



## DiamondDave

A crime is a crime... assault is no different if done because of a skin color than it is if you just detest the person because they insulted you...

This is redundant "feel good" law

Assault is assault... battery is battery... murder is murder

None of there crimes are done out of friendliness


----------



## WillowTree

equal protection under the law.. scratch that,,, fair and impartial justice, scratch that,,, justice is blind,,,,scratch that!


----------



## Skeptik

Why should an act of violence motivated by greed or lust be less serious than one motivated by hate?


----------



## Angel Heart

Hate is part of motive to kill or hurt but should have no effect on the mandatory sentencing.

Has there been any change with defining sexual differences that are protected. If not it "protects" NAMBLA's members too.


----------



## Angel Heart

xotoxi said:


> William Joyce said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you afraid that you'll have a few extra years tacked on when you bust up a fags face?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the same thing doesn't happen because someone was assaulted on Cleveland's "Beat Up a White Kid Day", YES.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the law saying "this law will be only enforced in crimes committed by whites".
Click to expand...


The reason for the murder shouldn't have anything to do with the sentencing. If it's 1st degree murder then it's first degree murder. Hate is no more than the motive.


----------



## Angel Heart

skeptik said:


> why should an act of violence motivated by greed or lust be less serious than one motivated by hate?



bingo!!!


----------



## Coloradomtnman

KittenKoder said:


> Really ... by my calculations that offers more victims as well, so the numbers should be closer because of that alone. Then by personal experience I see just as much crime done against white people as there is against black people if not more, and often they do target white people specifically. Sorry, but the statistics still show that anti-white crime is less prosecuted than anti-black crime.



Just because they are more potential victims doesn't make for more crimes of hatred.  You need more criminals for there to be more hate crimes.

If we were talking about robbery, that would potentially be different.

And I'm sorry, but anecdotal evidence is simply not going to be convincing.  I've personally seen it go both ways.


----------



## William Joyce

Skeptik said:


> Why should an act of violence motivated by greed or lust be less serious than one motivated by hate?



Because the judgment could be made that one or the other is more socially harmful or repugnant.  A robbery, for instance, is more of an attack on the property a person happens to have, while a hate crime is more of an attack on the person themselves.  I would not be happy about having my wallet stolen or being beaten for being white, but the latter is a hell of a lot scarier to me because there are more steps I can take to prevent wallet-theft than race-beating (i.e., I can't change my race).

That doesn't seem all that crazy to me.

But obviously, I understand why white people are skeptical of "hate crimes" in their application -- they were conceived as a weapon against us, are not applied equally, and tend to criminalize politically incorrect thinking.


----------



## Red Dawn

William Joyce said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as I suspected.
> 
> A bunch of pansy assed white guys whine that hate crimes laws don't apply to, or protect white people.
> 
> And then when I show them the FBI website, that shows that white people ARE protected by hate crimes laws and racially motiviated crime, the little chicken shits dissapear from the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it.  If we just complain, we are "pansy assed white guys" who whine.  But then your team starts hyperventilating that we are going to become violent.
> 
> So which is it?  Logically, one wouldn't be worried about potential violent confrontation with cowards.
Click to expand...




It was your whiny compadres that moaned that white people weren't protected legally from racially motivated crimes. 

Y'all were wrong.  White people are as protected by hate crimes law as anyone else. 

It would be nice if your whiny compadres would admit they were wrong.


----------



## Red Dawn

DiamondDave said:


> A crime is a crime... assault is no different if done because of a skin color than it is if you just detest the person because they insulted you...
> 
> This is redundant "feel good" law
> 
> Assault is assault... battery is battery... murder is murder
> 
> None of there crimes are done out of friendliness



Random crime can affect anyone. 

But, If you're singled-out and attacked because you are jewsih, black, hispanic, or white, the perp should be subject to stiffer penalties, and additional charges. 

Its as simple as that. 

Hate crimes laws protect everyone from racially motivated crime. 

I wish you NeoCons could just admit you didn't know that.   You thought Sean hannity was telling you the truth, when he said hate crimes laws are special perks for people of color.   

Hannity lied to you.   You should get used to that.


----------



## DiamondDave

Red Dawn said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> A crime is a crime... assault is no different if done because of a skin color than it is if you just detest the person because they insulted you...
> 
> This is redundant "feel good" law
> 
> Assault is assault... battery is battery... murder is murder
> 
> None of there crimes are done out of friendliness
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Random crime can affect anyone.
> 
> But, If you're singled-out and attacked because you are jewsih, black, hispanic, or white, the perp should be subject to stiffer penalties, and additional charges.
> 
> Its as simple as that.
> 
> Hate crimes laws protect everyone from racially motivated crime.
> 
> I wish you NeoCons could just admit you didn't know that.   You thought Sean hannity was telling you the truth, when he said hate crimes laws are special perks for people of color.
> 
> Hannity lied to you.   You should get used to that.
Click to expand...


But if you're singled out because you have a blue shirt, or a wallet, or because you smell like peaches, or because you have a big nose, or because you have brown eyes...

IT MAKES NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE

Assault is assault... battery is battery... murder is murder

Next.... try and understand what a Neocon truly is before you keep spouting the term off improperly
Next... I don't listen to Rush, or Hannity, or whatever... but nice try


----------



## Tech_Esq

Red Dawn said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if you look at those statistics you provided it does show that anti-white crime is punished far less than it happens.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's demographics.
> 
> There's far fewer minorities in this country than white people.  So by definition, and by simple mathematics, the odds of a white person being attacked by a person of color is exponentially less, that a person of color getting attacked by a white person.
> 
> Its basic arithmetic.
> 
> Let me know if you have any more questions.
Click to expand...


I have one. Why are blacks victimized by racial minorities in a demographically disproportionate percentage?


----------



## Tech_Esq

The simple fact is there is no legally justifiable reason to have "hate" crime laws. There is no justification to add an "extra" punishment for motivation. 

Motive is not an element of any other crime and it should not be an element of criminal offense. It serves no purpose.


----------



## eots

William Joyce said:


> VDARE.com: Blog Articles » &#8220;Hate&#8221; Bill To Be Rammed Through Tomorrow?



I hate ... hate crime bills and hate people that support or pass hate crime bills...is that a crime ? what if I think... if we see one.. we should push them down the stairs...is that a crime  ?  what if I  said..if you see one of those hate crime people..give em good push for me preferable by some stairs ?...how does this hate thing work ?


----------



## WillowTree

so what I'm hearing is that today the Democrats voted against an amendment that would exclude pedophiles from protection under this bill (means pedophiles are a protected group) but denied protection from hate crimes to our returning vets.. that's screwy as hell.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Well as bad as it is... The Dems DID make Pedophiles a protected class... in this bill...

Which I think pretty much seals the deal on the Left being the ideology of debauchery of EVERY CONCEIVABLE STRIPE.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

eots said:


> William Joyce said:
> 
> 
> 
> VDARE.com: Blog Articles » Hate Bill To Be Rammed Through Tomorrow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate ... hate crime bills and hate people that support or pass hate crime bills...is that a crime ? what if I think... if we see one.. we should push them down the stairs...is that a crime  ?  what if I  said..if you see one of those hate crime people..give em good push for me preferable by some stairs ?...how does this hate thing work ?
Click to expand...


Well Under this bill, if your child is molested and you kick the shit out of that cockpolisher, you will very likely be subjected to the substantially increased penalties, above simple assualt...  

In effect, this bill makes it clear that the ideological left that has written it up, and is soon to pass it and will inevitably sign it, will have determined that pedophilia is a protected class, not at all distinct from...  HOMOSEXUALITY.  

Anyone care to open that debate back up?  

Could we have some of the usual suspects come forward to declare once again that the ideological left and the Democrat Party which advocates for the left is NOT the most vile pack of cultural subversives on earth?

They're the personification of evil... and this is the first "OFFICIAL" step towards normalizing adult/child sex...


----------



## Sinatra

PubliusInfinitum said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> William Joyce said:
> 
> 
> 
> VDARE.com: Blog Articles » Hate Bill To Be Rammed Through Tomorrow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate ... hate crime bills and hate people that support or pass hate crime bills...is that a crime ? what if I think... if we see one.. we should push them down the stairs...is that a crime  ?  what if I  said..if you see one of those hate crime people..give em good push for me preferable by some stairs ?...how does this hate thing work ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well Under this bill, if your child is molested and you kick the shit out of that cockpolisher, you will very likely be subjected to the substantially increased penalties, above simple assualt...
> 
> In effect, this bill makes it clear that the ideological left that has written it up, and is soon to pass it and will inevitably sign it, will have determined that pedophilia is a protected class, not at all distinct from...  HOMOSEXUALITY.
> 
> Anyone care to open that debate back up?
> 
> Could we have some of the usual suspects come forward to declare once again that the ideological left and the Democrat Party which advocates for the left is NOT the most vile pack of cultural subversives on earth?
> 
> They're the personification of evil... and this is the first "OFFICIAL" step towards normalizing adult/child sex...
Click to expand...



This is so outrageous as to invite parody, but then again, it is shockingly serious as well.

Good lord....


----------



## William Joyce

Tech_Esq said:


> The simple fact is there is no legally justifiable reason to have "hate" crime laws. There is no justification to add an "extra" punishment for motivation.
> 
> Motive is not an element of any other crime and it should not be an element of criminal offense. It serves no purpose.



But if I kill my wife because she's dying of a painful cancer, is 97 years old, and ASKED ME TO, isn't that different fom me killing my wife out of the blue to collect insurance money?


----------



## DamnYankee

Hate Crime Legislation - Back Door to Censorship
By James Simpson


An extension of the Hate Crimes law recently passed the House of Representatives which will essentially codify into national law the "speech codes" that are smothering academic freedom on college campuses today. This law is the back door method Obama and his fellow socialists will use to stifle free speech in this country, as explained in an informative article by Jerry Kane at American Daughter. 


To heck with the "Fairness Doctrine." Who needs to limit censorship to the airwaves? This legislation will silence anyone who disagrees with them.


Hate crimes legislation has its roots in the communist-inspired, so-called Frankfurt School founded in Frankfurt, Germany by Bolsheviks in the 1920s. Its goal was to implement communism in the West quietly by gradually subverting popular culture -- a movement known as Cultural Marxism. One of its leading lights, Herbert Marcuse, opined that the prevailing Western social order is repressive by definition and discriminates against minorities simply by existing. 


This creates a phenomenon he called "repressive tolerance" because even though other views are allowed within Western culture -- you know, by that insignificant little old thing called the First Amendment -- the Capitalist view is still permitted. It goes without saying that Marcuse considered that to be unacceptable. 

Instead, he proposed what he called "partisan tolerance," i.e. tolerating the views of those "repressed minorities" only -- who Marcuse assumes share his partisan hatred for everything noncommunist -- while actively muzzling the views of the majority. 

So now we have a word for Democrats' eye-popping hypocrisy when they wrap themselves in the mantle of free speech while simultaneously attempting to suppress non-Leftist ideas. We have a word for the Left's double standard in championing "repressed minorities" only when those minorities share their politics, while savaging principled, accomplished minorities like Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell or Janice Rogers Brown. We have an explanation for why so many college campuses, supposedly the society's heart of open-minded intellectual inquiry, actively, even violently intimidate conservative speakers -- when they let them onto campus at all. 


They have been practicing "partisan tolerance." That is, tolerance of the extreme Left and virulent intolerance of anything else.
continued....



American Thinker: Hate Crime Legislation - Back Door to Censorship


----------



## editec

DiamondDave said:


> A crime is a crime... assault is no different if done because of a skin color than it is if you just detest the person because they insulted you...
> 
> This is redundant "feel good" law
> 
> Assault is assault... battery is battery... murder is murder
> 
> None of there crimes are done out of friendliness


 
How about burning a cross in a front yard of a recently arrived Black family who just moved into a formerly all White neighborhood

Is that merely criminal mischief or is that really a hate crime?

How about if A White person moves into a Black neighborhood and somebody smashes their vehicle and paints "Get out Whitey"?

Is that a hate crime or is that just vandalism?

Your simplistic view of the way law should work is totally out of step with how the world really works, don't you think?

Or do you think the law should be blind to reality and pretend that there aren't such hate crimes whose purpose is to TERRORIZE not only the victim, but the class that victim is a member of?

The problem with hate crimes is that they have to establish motive of the criminal.

But of course motive is always an important consideration in every type of crime and I don't see any of you bitching about that.

Why's that?


----------



## catzmeow

Tech_Esq said:


> Motive is not an element of any other crime and it should not be an element of criminal offense. It serves no purpose.



You're so wrong, Tech.  It allows the left to establish thoughts as a criminal category on their own and is the first step towards establishing a human rights commission so they can censor our words, next.


----------



## catzmeow

editec said:


> How about burning a cross in a front yard of a recently arrived Black family who just moved into a formerly all White neighborhood



It's up to the prosecutor and local state laws, but I'd say that this falls into the category of terroristic threats.



> How about if A White person moves into a Black neighborhood and somebody smashes their vehicle and paints "Get out Whitey"?



Unlikely to be charged as a hate crime, anywhere, ever.  See, hate crime is really about certain protected classes of victims, and white people don't count.

Further, cases like this are rarely solved, so it doesn't matter what they are charged as.



> Or do you think the law should be blind to reality and pretend that there aren't such hate crimes whose purpose is to TERRORIZE not only the victim, but the class that victim is a member of?



So, when CLS 18th Street members shoot up the White Fence neighborhood, how exactly is this different?



> But of course motive is always an important consideration in every type of crime and I don't see any of you bitching about that.



In determining guilt, yes.  In setting sentence, not so much in the way that you mean.


----------



## catzmeow

jillian said:


> I always find it remarkable that anyone would be upset that goverment tries to stop people from being victimized by people who are full of hate just because of what someone is born.



But in all truthfulness, laws like this DON'T stop people from being victimized.  They in essence set up a new criminal charge:  thinking the wrong thoughts about the wrong people.

And, that seems anti-First Amendment, to me at least.

So, it's not about protecting victims.  It's about not allowing any further erosion of the constitution and bill of rights.


If we want to protect victims, there are plenty of things we can do that don't require an erosion of civil liberties.

But this law isn't REALLY about protecting victims.  Laws AREN'T about protecting victims.  Laws are to define conduct that is legal and illegal.  And killing someone is already illegal.  So is a threat encoded into graffiti.  As is burning a cross in someone's yard.

If we wanted to protect victims, we'd utilize the funding mechanisms already in place to develop programs FOR VICTIMS through BJA or OJP or one of the half dozen other alphabet soup federal agencies.


----------



## jgbkab

Tech_Esq said:


> The simple fact is there is no legally justifiable reason to have "hate" crime laws. There is no justification to add an "extra" punishment for motivation.
> 
> Motive is not an element of any other crime and it should not be an element of criminal offense. It serves no purpose.



Actually, I think there is. Think about hate crimes of the past. I mean real hate crimes when there was no Federal Law to protect against hate crimes. And then a jury of peers acquit certain persons because they would sympathize with the accused and how they felt about the victims. If a white person lived in a black city and most of the residents hated white people, then more than likely a jury would acquit the criminals.


----------



## Gunny

WillowTree said:


> so what I'm hearing is that today the Democrats voted against an amendment that would exclude pedophiles from protection under this bill (means pedophiles are a protected group) but denied protection from hate crimes to our returning vets.. that's screwy as hell.



Absurd.  Pedophiles don't deserve to breathe much less have special protection.  Anyone that can't understand hating peds needs to go get the screws in their heads torqued back down.


----------



## Gunny

jgbkab said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> The simple fact is there is no legally justifiable reason to have "hate" crime laws. There is no justification to add an "extra" punishment for motivation.
> 
> Motive is not an element of any other crime and it should not be an element of criminal offense. It serves no purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I think there is. Think about hate crimes of the past. I mean real hate crimes when there was no Federal Law to protect against hate crimes. And then a jury of peers acquit certain persons because they would sympathize with the accused and how they felt about the victims. If a white person lived in a black city and most of the residents hated white people, then more than likely a jury would acquit the criminals.
Click to expand...


Much better to have a jury of your "peers" decide what you were thinking, right?  Basically, we all better hope that any future altercations with other humans is solely with those of one's own ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation.

Just wait ... we're already starting on fat people .... who's next?


----------



## catzmeow

jgbkab said:


> If a white person lived in a black city and most of the residents hated white people, then more than likely a jury would acquit the criminals.



It's not 1967 anymore, dude.  And, changing the law won't change that issue because the defendant will STILL be entitled to a jury trial.

Also, remember OJ Simpson?

*cough*


----------



## jgbkab

catzmeow said:


> jgbkab said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a white person lived in a black city and most of the residents hated white people, then more than likely a jury would acquit the criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not 1967 anymore, dude.  And, changing the law won't change that issue because the defendant will STILL be entitled to a jury trial.
> 
> Also, remember OJ Simpson?
> 
> *cough*
Click to expand...


Really? Who would have known with all the racists and bigots around here. And it depends on whether the jury is from the immediate community or from places other than your own community.

And OJ is the exception and not the rule.


----------



## jillian

catzmeow said:


> jgbkab said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a white person lived in a black city and most of the residents hated white people, then more than likely a jury would acquit the criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not 1967 anymore, dude.  And, changing the law won't change that issue because the defendant will STILL be entitled to a jury trial.
> 
> Also, remember OJ Simpson?
> 
> *cough*
Click to expand...


As much as people want to call that a "race" issue, it was really an issue of terrible prosecution and incompetent judge. Maybe they shouldn't have made him try on the glove or maybe Mark Fuhrman shouldn't have walked around with the blood evidence.


----------



## catzmeow

jgbkab said:


> Really? Who would have known with all the racists and bigots around here. And it depends on whether the jury is from the immediate community or from places other than your own community.
> 
> And OJ is the exception and not the rule.




Changing the law is not going to change the composition of juries.


----------



## catzmeow

jillian said:


> As much as people want to call that a "race" issue, it was really an issue of terrible prosecution and incompetent judge. Maybe they shouldn't have made him try on the glove or maybe Mark Fuhrman shouldn't have walked around with the blood evidence.



True.  But, race did play a role in the jury's decision.


----------



## catzmeow

jgbkab said:


> Really? Who would have known with all the racists and bigots around here.




Feel free to name names.  Do you consider me a racist/bigot because I consider this unnecessary legislation?


----------



## jgbkab

catzmeow said:


> jgbkab said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Who would have known with all the racists and bigots around here. And it depends on whether the jury is from the immediate community or from places other than your own community.
> 
> And OJ is the exception and not the rule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Changing the law is not going to change the composition of juries.
Click to expand...


But the venue does.


----------



## jgbkab

catzmeow said:


> jgbkab said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Who would have known with all the racists and bigots around here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to name names.  Do you consider me a racist/bigot because I consider this unnecessary legislation?
Click to expand...


Why are you so defensive? I didn't even imply that you were. But they are here and are vocal. No, I don't consider you a racist or a bigot and I really don't believe we've had any interaction before now. You have a different view of the legislation and we were discussing it. That's all.


----------



## jgbkab

catzmeow said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> As much as people want to call that a "race" issue, it was really an issue of terrible prosecution and incompetent judge. Maybe they shouldn't have made him try on the glove or maybe Mark Fuhrman shouldn't have walked around with the blood evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.  But, race did play a role in the jury's decision.
Click to expand...


I believe it was the dough that made the difference. If OJ wouldn't have had the money for the legal team he had, it would have been a one day trial.


----------



## jillian

jgbkab said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> As much as people want to call that a "race" issue, it was really an issue of terrible prosecution and incompetent judge. Maybe they shouldn't have made him try on the glove or maybe Mark Fuhrman shouldn't have walked around with the blood evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.  But, race did play a role in the jury's decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe it was the dough that made the difference. If OJ wouldn't have had the money for the legal team he had, it would have been a one day trial.
Click to expand...


Perhaps... as with anything else, socio economic status enables you to buy a good defense... not that it helped Phil Spector since the evidence was so bad. But I also think OJ was a hero to them... and before they were going to put him in jail, they wanted the evidence to be right. Plus, it gave them the chance to give the finger to the LAPD which had a pretty bad history.


----------



## WillowTree

jgbkab said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jgbkab said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Who would have known with all the racists and bigots around here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to name names.  Do you consider me a racist/bigot because I consider this unnecessary legislation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you so defensive? I didn't even imply that you were. But they are here and are vocal. No, I don't consider you a racist or a bigot and I really don't believe we've had any interaction before now. You have a different view of the legislation and we were discussing it. That's all.
Click to expand...





mostly the bigotry and racist comments on this board come from people of color directed at white people.. talk about hypocrisy!


----------



## del

hate-crime laws serve a symbolic function, not a practical one: they proclaim that crimes fueled by certain types of bias are especially repugnant, but that is the same as proclaiming that crimes fueled by other types of bias, or by motives having nothing to do with bias, are not quite as awful. 


is that a message any decent society should wish to promote?


----------



## jgbkab

WillowTree said:


> jgbkab said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to name names.  Do you consider me a racist/bigot because I consider this unnecessary legislation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you so defensive? I didn't even imply that you were. But they are here and are vocal. No, I don't consider you a racist or a bigot and I really don't believe we've had any interaction before now. You have a different view of the legislation and we were discussing it. That's all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mostly the bigotry and racist comments on this board come from people of color directed at white people.. talk about hypocrisy!
Click to expand...


Really? That is a bold statement. Can you give examples of these statements and the people that make them?


----------



## jgbkab

del said:


> hate-crime laws serve a symbolic function, not a practical one: they proclaim that crimes fueled by certain types of bias are especially repugnant, but that is the same as proclaiming that crimes fueled by other types of bias, or by motives having nothing to do with bias, are not quite as awful.
> 
> 
> is that a message any decent society should wish to promote?



Then why not have set sentences for any type of crime conviction regardless of the crime?


----------



## WillowTree

jgbkab said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jgbkab said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you so defensive? I didn't even imply that you were. But they are here and are vocal. No, I don't consider you a racist or a bigot and I really don't believe we've had any interaction before now. You have a different view of the legislation and we were discussing it. That's all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mostly the bigotry and racist comments on this board come from people of color directed at white people.. talk about hypocrisy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? That is a bold statement. Can you give examples of these statements and the people that make them?
Click to expand...





just go down to race and race relations and do a little reading whydonchya?


----------



## jgbkab

WillowTree said:


> jgbkab said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> mostly the bigotry and racist comments on this board come from people of color directed at white people.. talk about hypocrisy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? That is a bold statement. Can you give examples of these statements and the people that make them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just go down to race and race relations and do a little reading whydonchya?
Click to expand...


So I guess that means you can't? Cool.


----------



## WillowTree

jgbkab said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jgbkab said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? That is a bold statement. Can you give examples of these statements and the people that make them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just go down to race and race relations and do a little reading whydonchya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I guess that means you can't? Cool.
Click to expand...





It means whatever you want it to mean dosen't it? donkeyface!


----------



## jgbkab

WillowTree said:


> jgbkab said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> just go down to race and race relations and do a little reading whydonchya?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess that means you can't? Cool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means whatever you want it to mean dosen't it? donkeyface!
Click to expand...


No, it just shows your ignorance.


----------



## WillowTree

jgbkab said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jgbkab said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess that means you can't? Cool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means whatever you want it to mean dosen't it? donkeyface!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it just shows your ignorance.
Click to expand...









those who read can decide.. I offered you a source.. take it or leave it.


----------



## jgbkab

I asked for your examples and not a source. But I'll be the donkeyface and hee haw at you.


----------



## WillowTree

jgbkab said:


> I asked for your examples and not a source. But I'll be the donkeyface and hee haw at you.





I don't jump through hoops, you want evidence that I am right or wrong. go down to race and race relations,, you don't? then don't.. it's just that simple.


----------



## jillian

del said:


> hate-crime laws serve a symbolic function, not a practical one: they proclaim that crimes fueled by certain types of bias are especially repugnant,



is that a bad thing?



> ut that is the same as proclaiming that crimes fueled by other types of bias, or by motives having nothing to do with bias, are not quite as awful.
> 
> 
> is that a message any decent society should wish to promote?



I don't think that's the message. The message is that if you can't control your hatred, society is going to respond.


----------



## jgbkab

WillowTree said:


> jgbkab said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked for your examples and not a source. But I'll be the donkeyface and hee haw at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't jump through hoops, you want evidence that I am right or wrong. go down to race and race relations,, you don't? then don't.. it's just that simple.
Click to expand...


Look, you made a statement. I questioned it. You provided nothing but I needed go somewhere else to prove you right or wrong. Why? I didn't say you were right or wrong. You made the statement, you provide the facts. If not, then it's not on me.


----------



## del

jillian said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> hate-crime laws serve a symbolic function, not a practical one: they proclaim that crimes fueled by certain types of bias are especially repugnant,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is that a bad thing?symbolism? no, but it's not good law, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ut that is the same as proclaiming that crimes fueled by other types of bias, or by motives having nothing to do with bias, are not quite as awful.
> 
> 
> is that a message any decent society should wish to promote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that's the message. The message is that if you can't control your hatred, society is going to respond.
Click to expand...


and society doesn't respond now? i'm sorry, i think this is a bad idea; the apotheosis of "feel good" legislation.

 FWIW, i feel the same way about the death penalty for killing a police officer.


----------



## WillowTree

jgbkab said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jgbkab said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked for your examples and not a source. But I'll be the donkeyface and hee haw at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't jump through hoops, you want evidence that I am right or wrong. go down to race and race relations,, you don't? then don't.. it's just that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, you made a statement. I questioned it. You provided nothing but I needed go somewhere else to prove you right or wrong. Why? I didn't say you were right or wrong. You made the statement, you provide the facts. If not, then it's not on me.
Click to expand...





I offered you the source to back up my statement,, take it or leave it! what's wrong? afraid of what you will see?


----------



## jgbkab

WillowTree said:


> jgbkab said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't jump through hoops, you want evidence that I am right or wrong. go down to race and race relations,, you don't? then don't.. it's just that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, you made a statement. I questioned it. You provided nothing but I needed go somewhere else to prove you right or wrong. Why? I didn't say you were right or wrong. You made the statement, you provide the facts. If not, then it's not on me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I offered you the source to back up my statement,, take it or leave it! what's wrong? afraid of what you will see?
Click to expand...


So Willow, I went and looked at the first four entries and it seems that the score is whites = 26 and non-white = 9. Should I go to the fifth entry?


----------



## jillian

del said:


> COLOR="Red"]symbolism? no, but it's not good law, IMO.[/COLOR]



I don't know. Having seen what "hate crimes " have done a la pogroms, nazis, lynchings, beatings of gays... I'd say I'm grateful for those kinds of laws. Different perspective, I guess.



> ut that is the same as proclaiming that crimes fueled by other types of bias, or by motives having nothing to do with bias, are not quite as awful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and society doesn't respond now? i'm sorry, i think this is a bad idea; the apotheosis of "feel good" legislation.
> 
> FWIW, i feel the same way about the death penalty for killing a police officer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I think some loser who thinks they can victimize someone for their race, religion or sexuality needs a little extra deterrance.
> 
> At least you're consistent as far as the police officer goes. But I'm ok with that, too.... albeit in the confines of my own questions about the death penalty.
Click to expand...


----------



## Shogun

*Again, I think some loser who thinks they can victimize someone for their race, religion or sexuality needs a little extra deterrance.*


irony!


----------



## catzmeow

jgbkab said:


> But the venue does.



federal juries are drawn from the same pool as local juries.


----------



## catzmeow

jillian said:


> I don't know. Having seen what "hate crimes " have done a la pogroms, nazis, lynchings, beatings of gays... I'd say I'm grateful for those kinds of laws. Different perspective, I guess.



You realize that those behaviors were already illeal when they happened, right?  That didn't keep them from happening.

Have murder laws stopped murders?


----------



## jgbkab

catzmeow said:


> jgbkab said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the venue does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> federal juries are drawn from the same pool as local juries.
Click to expand...


I don't know where you're from or how big your Federal district is, but here where I'm at, my Federal district is much bigger than my city or county for that matter. So that would not be correct in all cases.


----------



## catzmeow

jgbkab said:


> I don't know where you're from or how big your Federal district is, but here where I'm at, my Federal district is much bigger than my city or county for that matter. So that would not be correct in all cases.



I've worked with USAO's all over the U.S., and it's still largely correct.  In my case, I think our USAO covers all of the western panhandle of Florida.  That would still be demographically similar to a jury drawn only from my town.

So, in the case of a hate crime that occurs in rural Alabama, for instance, the jury pool is STILL going to be drawn largely from rural Alabama.


----------



## jillian

Shogun said:


> irony!



depends on who you think the racist losers are, doesn't it?


I vote you.


----------



## Shogun

jillian said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> irony!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depends on who you think the racist losers are, doesn't it?
> 
> 
> I vote you.
Click to expand...


Why don't you make a bigger ass out of yourself and repeat that same statement APPLIED TO ISRAEL, jill?




Indeed, tell me all about which of us is the racist loser, ya racist loser.


----------



## KittenKoder

The only reason I am starting to support these things is because of all the shit I see, even on here, which just makes me want to see the people against certain groups just because they are "sinfull" lose rights. I won't hide that fact. I hate "hate crime legislation" normally, but I'll take the lesser of two evils ...


----------



## jgbkab

catzmeow said:


> jgbkab said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you're from or how big your Federal district is, but here where I'm at, my Federal district is much bigger than my city or county for that matter. So that would not be correct in all cases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've worked with USAO's all over the U.S., and it's still largely correct.  In my case, I think our USAO covers all of the western panhandle of Florida.  That would still be demographically similar to a jury drawn only from my town.
> 
> So, in the case of a hate crime that occurs in rural Alabama, for instance, the jury pool is STILL going to be drawn largely from rural Alabama.
Click to expand...


I don't know much about Alabama. But I doubt that the federal jury pool would consist of mostly members from the immediate community where the crime may have occurred. I may be mistaken though.


----------



## catzmeow

jgbkab said:


> I don't know much about Alabama. But I doubt that the federal jury pool would consist of mostly members from the immediate community where the crime may have occurred. I may be mistaken though.



They would still be demographically similar.  THey are not going to be significantly different.  They are also going to utilize the existing jury pool in the area where the crime was committed and the charges are filed.


----------



## submarinepainter

I am curious how this kind of law is going to be interpreted? Will say for example will a Male cross-dresser male be charged with a hate crime for attacking a girl because she looks nicer than the Cross-dresser ?


----------



## Nik

submarinepainte said:


> I am curious how this kind of law is going to be interpreted? Will say for example will a Male cross-dresser male be charged with a hate crime for attacking a girl because she looks nicer than the Cross-dresser ?



No.  Any more stupid questions?


----------



## DamnYankee

jillian said:


> jgbkab said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.  But, race did play a role in the jury's decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it was the dough that made the difference. If OJ wouldn't have had the money for the legal team he had, it would have been a one day trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps... as with anything else, socio economic status enables you to buy a good defense... not that it helped Phil Spector since the evidence was so bad. But I also think OJ was a hero to them... and before they were going to put him in jail, they wanted the evidence to be right. Plus, it gave them the chance to give the finger to the LAPD which had a pretty bad history.
Click to expand...


I believe you nailed it with the "hero". I don't think any of us really wanted to believe that he could have done such a thing, and race had nothing to do with it.


----------



## submarinepainter

Nik said:


> submarinepainte said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious how this kind of law is going to be interpreted? Will say for example will a Male cross-dresser male be charged with a hate crime for attacking a girl because she looks nicer than the Cross-dresser ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Any more stupid questions?
Click to expand...


So we are to believe that the law would be applied fairly but it really won't , you have anymore stupid answers?


----------



## catzmeow

submarinepainte said:


> So we are to believe that the law would be applied fairly but it really won't , you have anymore stupid answers?



Nik thinks he's super smart, Subby.  He's a law student.


----------



## KittenKoder

submarinepainte said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> submarinepainte said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am curious how this kind of law is going to be interpreted? Will say for example will a Male cross-dresser male be charged with a hate crime for attacking a girl because she looks nicer than the Cross-dresser ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Any more stupid questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we are to believe that the law would be applied fairly but it really won't , you have anymore stupid answers?
Click to expand...


While there are no stupid questions, this one is an uninformed one (in your first post). First, the attack mentioned would not have been based on hatred of the generic girl, but would be of jealousy of appearance. Secondly cross-dressers don't care about "looking better" than anyone else, especially GG's, however a transgendered may care that much, but would be more likely to commit suicide from a lack of acceptance instead of attacking another person.


----------



## Yurt

catzmeow said:


> submarinepainte said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we are to believe that the law would be applied fairly but it really won't , you have anymore stupid answers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik thinks he's super smart, Subby.  *He's a law student*.
Click to expand...


----------



## catzmeow

Yurt said:


>



Impressive, innit?


----------



## Yurt

catzmeow said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Impressive, innit?
Click to expand...


or scary


----------



## catzmeow

What the world needs more of, by all means, is attorneys.


----------



## sarahgop

if  hate is a  crime wont  we all be  in prison?


----------



## Yurt

catzmeow said:


> What the world needs more of, by all means, is attorneys.



absolutely and we need more laws created, thousands more laws


----------



## catzmeow

Well, laws hold nearly infinite power to eliminate criminality.


----------



## Yurt

catzmeow said:


> Well, laws hold nearly infinite power to eliminate criminality.



and yet they infinitely convert human behavior into criminality, civic or criminal.


----------



## Nik

Yurt said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Impressive, innit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> or scary
Click to expand...


Of course.  Knowledge is terrifying to people like you.


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> What the world needs more of, by all means, is attorneys.



Because there is somehow a glut of attorneys from top law schools looking to work for legal aid?


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> there is a glut of attorneys



Like a broken clock, you got at least one part right.


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is a glut of attorneys
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like a broken clock, you got at least one part right.
Click to expand...


Way to avoid answering the question.  There isn't a glut of attorneys from top law schools in this field.  If you had ever done any public service work, you'd know that.


----------



## Tech_Esq

catzmeow said:


> What the world needs more of, by all means, is attorneys.



It's a terrible way to make a living. I could wish for nothing better for Nik to experience.

Have a nice life Nik.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Nik said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the world needs more of, by all means, is attorneys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is somehow a glut of attorneys from top law schools looking to work for legal aid?
Click to expand...


Have you ever worked for Legal Aid Nik?


----------



## Nik

Tech_Esq said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the world needs more of, by all means, is attorneys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is somehow a glut of attorneys from top law schools looking to work for legal aid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever worked for Legal Aid Nik?
Click to expand...


Yes.


----------



## Nik

Tech_Esq said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the world needs more of, by all means, is attorneys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a terrible way to make a living. I could wish for nothing better for Nik to experience.
> 
> Have a nice life Nik.
Click to expand...


Sucks for you if you picked something to go into that you hate.  I actually enjoy it.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Nik said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is somehow a glut of attorneys from top law schools looking to work for legal aid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever worked for Legal Aid Nik?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...


As have I. Only, as an attorney. Now, how exactly were demeaning the attorneys that work in Legal Services?


----------



## Tech_Esq

Nik said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the world needs more of, by all means, is attorneys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a terrible way to make a living. I could wish for nothing better for Nik to experience.
> 
> Have a nice life Nik.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sucks for you if you picked something to go into that you hate.  I actually enjoy it.
Click to expand...


That tells me an infinite amount about you. More than you could possibly suspect.


----------



## Nik

Tech_Esq said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever worked for Legal Aid Nik?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As have I. Only, as an attorney. Now, how exactly were demeaning the attorneys that work in Legal Services?
Click to expand...


Good for you.  And your second sentence is incoherent.


----------



## Nik

Tech_Esq said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a terrible way to make a living. I could wish for nothing better for Nik to experience.
> 
> Have a nice life Nik.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sucks for you if you picked something to go into that you hate.  I actually enjoy it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That tells me an infinite amount about you. More than you could possibly suspect.
Click to expand...


Oh brilliant internet psychologist.  Do tell me what infinite founts of wisdom and information you got from me from that one sentence, that a poor mortal like me just couldn't suspect.

Tone down the arrogance a bit, jackass.  You really aren't that insightful.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Nik said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As have I. Only, as an attorney. Now, how exactly were demeaning the attorneys that work in Legal Services?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good for you.  And your second sentence is incoherent.
Click to expand...




> Because there is somehow a glut of attorneys from top law schools looking to work for legal aid?



Their law schools weren't good enough for you Nik. Or, perhaps you think that if you go to a "top law school" your brain is better. Is that the argument you're making? 

Why don't you just come right out with it instead of beating around the bush?


----------



## Tech_Esq

Nik said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sucks for you if you picked something to go into that you hate.  I actually enjoy it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That tells me an infinite amount about you. More than you could possibly suspect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh brilliant internet psychologist.  Do tell me what infinite founts of wisdom and information you got from me from that one sentence, that a poor mortal like me just couldn't suspect.
> 
> Tone down the arrogance a bit, jackass.  You really aren't that insightful.
Click to expand...


Whatever Nik. Have nice life. You're one to talk about arrogance. You're only miffed that I'm acting more arrogant than you. LOL


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> Way to avoid answering the question.  There isn't a glut of attorneys from top law schools in this field.  If you had ever done any public service work, you'd know that.



Wow, you're an inspiration to us all.  Thank heavens for selfless public servants like you.  From the top law schools, of course.


----------



## catzmeow

Tech_Esq said:


> You're only miffed that I'm acting more arrogant than you. LOL



Isn't that an individual sport in the Attorney Olympics?


----------



## Nik

Tech_Esq said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> As have I. Only, as an attorney. Now, how exactly were demeaning the attorneys that work in Legal Services?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you.  And your second sentence is incoherent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is somehow a glut of attorneys from top law schools looking to work for legal aid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their law schools weren't good enough for you Nik. Or, perhaps you think that if you go to a "top law school" your brain is better. Is that the argument you're making?
> 
> Why don't you just come right out with it instead of beating around the bush?
Click to expand...


Umm, yes.  People who go to top law schools are generally smarter.  Having taught people who scored a wide variety of scores on the LSAT, I am pretty confident of that fact.


----------



## Nik

Tech_Esq said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> That tells me an infinite amount about you. More than you could possibly suspect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh brilliant internet psychologist.  Do tell me what infinite founts of wisdom and information you got from me from that one sentence, that a poor mortal like me just couldn't suspect.
> 
> Tone down the arrogance a bit, jackass.  You really aren't that insightful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever Nik. Have nice life. You're one to talk about arrogance. You're only miffed that I'm acting more arrogant than you. LOL
Click to expand...


I will.  And its not arrogance, its simple fact.  There is a reason why biglaw recruits from the top law schools, and why you can't get in at a lesser school unless you are in the top 10-20% of your class.


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Way to avoid answering the question.  There isn't a glut of attorneys from top law schools in this field.  If you had ever done any public service work, you'd know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you're an inspiration to us all.  Thank heavens for selfless public servants like you.  From the top law schools, of course.
Click to expand...


Not really.  Lots of people are doing what I do.  Just not enough.


----------



## Tech_Esq

catzmeow said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're only miffed that I'm acting more arrogant than you. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that an individual sport in the Attorney Olympics?
Click to expand...


Comes with the snake skin suit.


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're only miffed that I'm acting more arrogant than you. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that an individual sport in the Attorney Olympics?
Click to expand...


Funny that you couldn't find time to post in the other hate crimes thread where you got your ass handed to you, but have the time to spew your bullshit here when its just personal insults.


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> Not really.  Lots of people are doing what I do.  Just not enough.



I suspect that has to do more with the recession than any selflessness on your part.

If I were ever to practice law, unlikely at this point in my life because I'd have to go back to school and start all over again at the bottom of the pile, I'd go into prosecution.


----------



## del

Nik said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're only miffed that I'm acting more arrogant than you. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that an individual sport in the Attorney Olympics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny that you couldn't find time to post in the other hate crimes thread where you got your ass handed to you, but have the time to spew your bullshit here when its just personal insults.
Click to expand...


i must have missed the part where somebody got their ass handed to them.


but you were telling us how brilliant you are....
sorry for the interruption. 
carry on. 
i'm hanging on your every word.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Nik said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh brilliant internet psychologist.  Do tell me what infinite founts of wisdom and information you got from me from that one sentence, that a poor mortal like me just couldn't suspect.
> 
> Tone down the arrogance a bit, jackass.  You really aren't that insightful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever Nik. Have nice life. You're one to talk about arrogance. You're only miffed that I'm acting more arrogant than you. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will.  And its not arrogance, its simple fact.  There is a reason why biglaw recruits from the top law schools, and why you can't get in at a lesser school unless you are in the top 10-20% of your class.
Click to expand...


Catz -- don't bother with this one. He's thoroughly indoctrinated. He might be able to recover his mind in 5 years or so, if he really tries. Doubtful though. He says he "really likes it" that's a sure sign he won't be recovering soon.


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  Lots of people are doing what I do.  Just not enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that has to do more with the recession than any selflessness on your part.
> 
> If I were ever to practice law, unlikely at this point in my life because I'd have to go back to school and start all over again at the bottom of the pile, I'd go into prosecution.
Click to expand...


Actually its extremely hard to get jobs in public interest right now due to the recession.  Recent grads who want to go into public interest are getting fucked.  At least where I live.

But why don't you talk some more about shit you know nothing about?


----------



## Nik

del said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that an individual sport in the Attorney Olympics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny that you couldn't find time to post in the other hate crimes thread where you got your ass handed to you, but have the time to spew your bullshit here when its just personal insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i must have missed the part where somebody got their ass handed to them.
> 
> 
> but you were telling us how brilliant you are....
> sorry for the interruption.
> carry on.
> i'm hanging on your every word.
Click to expand...


Of course you did.  We used words that were too complicated for your simple mind.  

And no, I never said I was brilliant.  But keep on with the lies, Del.


----------



## del

Nik said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  Lots of people are doing what I do.  Just not enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that has to do more with the recession than any selflessness on your part.
> 
> If I were ever to practice law, unlikely at this point in my life because I'd have to go back to school and start all over again at the bottom of the pile, I'd go into prosecution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually its extremely hard to get jobs in public interest right now due to the recession.  Recent grads who want to go into public interest are getting fucked.  At least where I live.
> 
> But why don't you talk some more about shit you know nothing about?
Click to expand...


no need. you're doing a fabulous job.


----------



## Nik

Tech_Esq said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever Nik. Have nice life. You're one to talk about arrogance. You're only miffed that I'm acting more arrogant than you. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will.  And its not arrogance, its simple fact.  There is a reason why biglaw recruits from the top law schools, and why you can't get in at a lesser school unless you are in the top 10-20% of your class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Catz -- don't bother with this one. He's thoroughly indoctrinated. He might be able to recover his mind in 5 years or so, if he really tries. Doubtful though. He says he "really likes it" that's a sure sign he won't be recovering soon.
Click to expand...


Aww, how cute.  Your trying so hard to analyze me, and  yet you still are so wrong.  A for effort though!


----------



## Nik

del said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that has to do more with the recession than any selflessness on your part.
> 
> If I were ever to practice law, unlikely at this point in my life because I'd have to go back to school and start all over again at the bottom of the pile, I'd go into prosecution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually its extremely hard to get jobs in public interest right now due to the recession.  Recent grads who want to go into public interest are getting fucked.  At least where I live.
> 
> But why don't you talk some more about shit you know nothing about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no need. you're doing a fabulous job.
Click to expand...


Currently we are discussing, because Catz can't seem to debate anything without making it personal, my life and what I am doing with it.  

So your claim is that I know nothing about my life, and what I enjoy/want to do with my life?

Fail.  Try again?


----------



## Tech_Esq

Nik said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will.  And its not arrogance, its simple fact.  There is a reason why biglaw recruits from the top law schools, and why you can't get in at a lesser school unless you are in the top 10-20% of your class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Catz -- don't bother with this one. He's thoroughly indoctrinated. He might be able to recover his mind in 5 years or so, if he really tries. Doubtful though. He says he "really likes it" that's a sure sign he won't be recovering soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aww, how cute.  Your trying so hard to analyze me, and  yet you still are so wrong.  A for effort though!
Click to expand...


Nikie boy, I've seen more attorneys come and go than you could possibly imagine. I've seen them in all kinds of settings. At trial, in a ramshackle apartment talking to an indigent client, in jails getting criminals to sign divorce papers, in high pressure IP mills. In boutique sexy law firms with clients you know from national headlines parading in and out with mobs of press killing each other outside their doors.

It's not about you. You're a by-product of the system. You may figure that out someday if you ever get over yourself.


----------



## del

Nik said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually its extremely hard to get jobs in public interest right now due to the recession.  Recent grads who want to go into public interest are getting fucked.  At least where I live.
> 
> But why don't you talk some more about shit you know nothing about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no need. you're doing a fabulous job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Currently we are discussing, because Catz can't seem to debate anything without making it personal, my life and what I am doing with it.
> 
> So your claim is that I know nothing about my life, and what I enjoy/want to do with my life?
> 
> Fail.  Try again?
Click to expand...


no thanks. you're too easy.


----------



## Nik

Tech_Esq said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Catz -- don't bother with this one. He's thoroughly indoctrinated. He might be able to recover his mind in 5 years or so, if he really tries. Doubtful though. He says he "really likes it" that's a sure sign he won't be recovering soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aww, how cute.  Your trying so hard to analyze me, and  yet you still are so wrong.  A for effort though!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nikie boy, I've seen more attorneys come and go than you could possibly imagine. I've seen them in all kinds of settings. At trial, in a ramshackle apartment talking to an indigent client, in jails getting criminals to sign divorce papers, in high pressure IP mills. In boutique sexy law firms with clients you know from national headlines parading in and out with mobs of press killing each other outside their doors.
> 
> It's not about you. You're a by-product of the system. You may figure that out someday if you ever get over yourself.
Click to expand...


Of course... I can't imagine numbers that high!.  And I am sure a fresh new face to the law.  Its not like I've been around this kind of shit since I was 10, both parents being involved in the law and all.  

But do tell how if its "not about me", you were able to glean so much from something I personally said?  

Aside from that, I don't have any pretensions about the law.  Legal Aid does a lot of good work, but the law is fucked up in any number of ways, and the adversarial system is somewhat of a strange one.  And no, I'm not a "by-product" of the system.  Its influenced me, surely, but I am not a creation of it.


----------



## Nik

del said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> no need. you're doing a fabulous job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Currently we are discussing, because Catz can't seem to debate anything without making it personal, my life and what I am doing with it.
> 
> So your claim is that I know nothing about my life, and what I enjoy/want to do with my life?
> 
> Fail.  Try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no thanks. you're too easy.
Click to expand...


And you've never been one to take an easy shot at someone 

Its not me being too easy thats the problem.  We both know that, lil one.


----------



## jillian

ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> I believe you nailed it with the "hero". I don't think any of us really wanted to believe that he could have done such a thing, and race had nothing to do with it.



That was pretty much my feeling on the subject. But people who are racist (regardless of what race they are part of) see the world through a very narrow prism.


----------



## del

Nik said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Currently we are discussing, because Catz can't seem to debate anything without making it personal, my life and what I am doing with it.
> 
> So your claim is that I know nothing about my life, and what I enjoy/want to do with my life?
> 
> Fail.  Try again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no thanks. you're too easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you've never been one to take an easy shot at someone
> 
> Its not me being too easy thats the problem.  We both know that, lil one.
Click to expand...


no, i've always been one to take easy shots, but even i have standards.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Nik said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aww, how cute.  Your trying so hard to analyze me, and  yet you still are so wrong.  A for effort though!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nikie boy, I've seen more attorneys come and go than you could possibly imagine. I've seen them in all kinds of settings. At trial, in a ramshackle apartment talking to an indigent client, in jails getting criminals to sign divorce papers, in high pressure IP mills. In boutique sexy law firms with clients you know from national headlines parading in and out with mobs of press killing each other outside their doors.
> 
> It's not about you. You're a by-product of the system. You may figure that out someday if you ever get over yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course... I can't imagine numbers that high!.  And I am sure a fresh new face to the law.  Its not like I've been around this kind of shit since I was 10, both parents being involved in the law and all.
> 
> But do tell how if its "not about me", you were able to glean so much from something I personally said?
> 
> Aside from that, I don't have any pretensions about the law.  Legal Aid does a lot of good work, but the law is fucked up in any number of ways, and the adversarial system is somewhat of a strange one.  *And no, I'm not a "by-product" of the system.*  Its influenced me, surely, but I am not a creation of it.
Click to expand...


Then you should stop sounding like one. 

Maybe you are just feeling guilty and trying to justify the expense. I don't know. But you are sure doing a good job at spouting the company line. Perhaps one day you'll find out that all the really good minds didn't make it to Harvard and Yale after all. 

Yes, there is a reason biglaw does what it does, but it doesn't have much to do with what you think it does.

Why do the government agencies higher disproportionately from George Washington and American?

Any ideas?


----------



## Nik

del said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> no thanks. you're too easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you've never been one to take an easy shot at someone
> 
> Its not me being too easy thats the problem.  We both know that, lil one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, i've always been one to take easy shots, but even i have standards.
Click to expand...


Hey, good job.  After posting in numerous threads attacking me numerous times, you finally said something that was actually a decent response.

Good job lil one.  It makes me so proud to see you grow <3


----------



## jillian

Tech_Esq said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the world needs more of, by all means, is attorneys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a terrible way to make a living. I could wish for nothing better for Nik to experience.
> 
> Have a nice life Nik.
Click to expand...


Why do you think it's a terrible way to make a living? I've had good jobs and bad, but in general, I've found it pretty interesting.

And there are far worse ways to make a living.


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> Actually its extremely hard to get jobs in public interest right now due to the recession.  Recent grads who want to go into public interest are getting fucked.  At least where I live.
> 
> But why don't you talk some more about shit you know nothing about?



Ah, true.  It's been a long fucking time since I was a wet-behind-the-ears hasn't-had-the-dumb-rubbed-off-yet-recent-college-graduate.  21 years, in fact.  And I've been in the same field now for 19.


----------



## del

Nik said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you've never been one to take an easy shot at someone
> 
> Its not me being too easy thats the problem.  We both know that, lil one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, i've always been one to take easy shots, but even i have standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, good job.  After posting in numerous threads attacking me numerous times, you finally said something that was actually a decent response.
> 
> Good job lil one.  It makes me so proud to see you grow <3
Click to expand...


as i stated previously, you're too easy.


----------



## Nik

Tech_Esq said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nikie boy, I've seen more attorneys come and go than you could possibly imagine. I've seen them in all kinds of settings. At trial, in a ramshackle apartment talking to an indigent client, in jails getting criminals to sign divorce papers, in high pressure IP mills. In boutique sexy law firms with clients you know from national headlines parading in and out with mobs of press killing each other outside their doors.
> 
> It's not about you. You're a by-product of the system. You may figure that out someday if you ever get over yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course... I can't imagine numbers that high!.  And I am sure a fresh new face to the law.  Its not like I've been around this kind of shit since I was 10, both parents being involved in the law and all.
> 
> But do tell how if its "not about me", you were able to glean so much from something I personally said?
> 
> Aside from that, I don't have any pretensions about the law.  Legal Aid does a lot of good work, but the law is fucked up in any number of ways, and the adversarial system is somewhat of a strange one.  *And no, I'm not a "by-product" of the system.*  Its influenced me, surely, but I am not a creation of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should stop sounding like one.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you should stop assuming I do based off of a few statements.  



> Maybe you are just feeling guilty and trying to justify the expense. I don't know. But you are sure doing a good job at spouting the company line. Perhaps one day you'll find out that all the really good minds didn't make it to Harvard and Yale after all.



oh, and what "company line" would that be?  And no, not all the good minds go to harvard and yale.  But there is definitely a difference in intelligence.  

Sounds like someone went to a bad law school and had a shitty career that they hated as a result.  Don't be bitter, baby.  



> Yes, there is a reason biglaw does what it does, but it doesn't have much to do with what you think it does.



Oh, then do enlighten me.  



> Why do the government agencies higher disproportionately from George Washington and American?



I wasn't aware that they do.  In at least one area, they don't.  I couldn't be assed to look up more government agencies.  

USDOJ: OARM: Law Schools Attended By 2007-2008 Honors Program Hires

But IF that is the case, and you'd have to prove to me that it was, it would be because of location.  
Any ideas?[/QUOTE]

Edit: 

They don't actually have #'s on the site, actually, so its unclear.


----------



## jillian

Gunny said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what I'm hearing is that today the Democrats voted against an amendment that would exclude pedophiles from protection under this bill (means pedophiles are a protected group) but denied protection from hate crimes to our returning vets.. that's screwy as hell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absurd.  Pedophiles don't deserve to breathe much less have special protection.  Anyone that can't understand hating peds needs to go get the screws in their heads torqued back down.
Click to expand...


Good thing the bill in question doesn't protect pedophiles except in the tortured brains of true nutters.


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually its extremely hard to get jobs in public interest right now due to the recession.  Recent grads who want to go into public interest are getting fucked.  At least where I live.
> 
> But why don't you talk some more about shit you know nothing about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, true.  It's been a long fucking time since I was a wet-behind-the-ears hasn't-had-the-dumb-rubbed-off-yet-recent-college-graduate.  21 years, in fact.  And I've been in the same field now for 19.
Click to expand...


Now you are just an old moron instead of a young moron.  Congrats!

But good job at admitting you don't know what the hell you are talking about.  First sign of honesty I've seen from you so far.


----------



## Nik

del said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, i've always been one to take easy shots, but even i have standards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, good job.  After posting in numerous threads attacking me numerous times, you finally said something that was actually a decent response.
> 
> Good job lil one.  It makes me so proud to see you grow <3
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> as i stated previously, you're too easy.
Click to expand...


Oooh.  Lame.  Again.  

Well you had one flash of mediocrity at least.  So keep on givin it the old college try!


----------



## Shogun

jillian said:


> ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you nailed it with the "hero". I don't think any of us really wanted to believe that he could have done such a thing, and race had nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was pretty much my feeling on the subject. But people who are racist (regardless of what race they are part of) see the world through a very narrow prism.
Click to expand...


funny.. I didn't see that you applied your "people shouldnt be be judged by their race and religion" to israel...


talk about narrow.


----------



## Tech_Esq

jillian said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the world needs more of, by all means, is attorneys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a terrible way to make a living. I could wish for nothing better for Nik to experience.
> 
> Have a nice life Nik.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think it's a terrible way to make a living? I've had good jobs and bad, but in general, I've found it pretty interesting.
> 
> And there are far worse ways to make a living.
Click to expand...


Well, of course, my personal experience (some of which was doing what Nik is about to do). But, after all, that was rather limited, in the vast scheme of things. 

So, additional info that goes into that analysis. You ever look at every lawyer's job satisfaction survey that's come out in the last 20 years? Ever look at the number of lawyers that say they would love to be doing something else if they could? Pretty high percentage. And remember, some were lying to themselves because of all the time, effort and money that was put in to getting them where they are today.

Third, as a somewhat disinterested observer for the last 15 years of law firm interactions in all types of law firms. I've worked in the offices of the number one patent prosecution firm. (No, I won't say). I've seen how associates and even partners are treated. I've seen large and small dirt law firms. "Real law" firms....lol...that practice grind it out local law. I haven't seen too many people that were happy doing what they do every day.

If you had a burning desire to practice law and you've maintained it through to today, congratulations. You are one of the few. But, high lawyer job satisfaction is neither my experience nor my observation.


----------



## DamnYankee

jillian said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> COLOR="Red"]symbolism? no, but it's not good law, IMO.[/COLOR]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. Having seen what "hate crimes " have done a la pogroms, nazis, lynchings, beatings of gays... I'd say I'm grateful for those kinds of laws. Different perspective, I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ut that is the same as proclaiming that crimes fueled by other types of bias, or by motives having nothing to do with bias, are not quite as awful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and society doesn't respond now? i'm sorry, i think this is a bad idea; the apotheosis of "feel good" legislation.
> 
> FWIW, i feel the same way about the death penalty for killing a police officer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I think some loser who thinks they can victimize someone for their race, religion or sexuality needs a little extra deterrance.
> 
> At least you're consistent as far as the police officer goes. But I'm ok with that, too.... albeit in the confines of my own questions about the death penalty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your rationale. Presuming that you're anti-death penalty (correct?), and the death penalty is supposed to be a deterrent, how is that different than the "extra deterrence" you'd like to see for "hate crimes"?
Click to expand...


----------



## Nik

Tech_Esq said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a terrible way to make a living. I could wish for nothing better for Nik to experience.
> 
> Have a nice life Nik.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think it's a terrible way to make a living? I've had good jobs and bad, but in general, I've found it pretty interesting.
> 
> And there are far worse ways to make a living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, of course, my personal experience (some of which was doing what Nik is about to do). But, after all, that was rather limited, in the vast scheme of things.
> 
> So, additional info that goes into that analysis. You ever look at every lawyer's job satisfaction survey that's come out in the last 20 years? Ever look at the number of lawyers that say they would love to be doing something else if they could? Pretty high percentage. And remember, some were lying to themselves because of all the time, effort and money that was put in to getting them where they are today.
> 
> Third, as a somewhat disinterested observer for the last 15 years of law firm interactions in all types of law firms. I've worked in the offices of the number one patent prosecution firm. (No, I won't say). I've seen how associates and even partners are treated. I've seen large and small dirt law firms. "Real law" firms....lol...that practice grind it out local law. I haven't seen too many people that were happy doing what they do every day.
> 
> If you had a burning desire to practice law and you've maintained it through to today, congratulations. You are one of the few. But, high lawyer job satisfaction is neither my experience nor my observation.
Click to expand...


Lots and lots of attorneys are unhappy doing what they do.  Its a demanding job.  But lots of people went to law school because they didn't know what else they wanted to do, or went because they liked the money potential.  Those two reasons are a recipe for unhappiness.  

I was aware of all of this going in.  But I have a get out of jail free card.  Many of the top schools have programs that pay back your loans after you do public interest for x number of years.  I happen to go to one of those schools.  So essentially, my education is paid for after a number of years in public service work.  Aside from that, I already have a job that I get paid obscenely well for, to do work that I know I definitely enjoy.  So whatever happens, I'm in a pretty good spot.  

As for the hell of law school, if you go to a top school, its not.  Not if you merely want to do average.  I have no desire, nor a need, to work myself to the bone to get A's.  And so I merely skate by with average grades, and instead I fill my time with enjoying the city I live in, my girlfriend, and my (paying) job that I've maintained throughout law school.


----------



## Yurt

Nik said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Impressive, innit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or scary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course.  Knowledge is terrifying to people like you.
Click to expand...


if you didn't understand the humor in that, then yes, it is scary that YOU are in lawschool and might pass a state bar...

do you think you're better or more intelligent than me because you are in lawschool?


----------



## Nik

Yurt said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> or scary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.  Knowledge is terrifying to people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you didn't understand the humor in that, then yes, it is scary that YOU are in lawschool and might pass a state bar...
Click to expand...


Generally people don't find it humorous to find themselves mocked.  



> do you think you're better or more intelligent than me because you are in lawschool?



No, but I do think I am more intelligent than you based on your inability to reason.


----------



## del

Yurt said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> or scary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.  Knowledge is terrifying to people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you didn't understand the humor in that, then yes, it is scary that YOU are in lawschool and might pass a state bar...
> 
> do you think you're better or more intelligent than me because you are in lawschool?
Click to expand...


asked and answered.


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> But good job at admitting you don't know what the hell you are talking about.  First sign of honesty I've seen from you so far.



True.  You have an advantage over me in the "unemployed know-nothing" category.  Yay you!  It's been a long time since I was an unemployed college student just starting out in the world.  

And since that time, I've worked with more criminals, guns, homicides, robberies, aggravated assaults, weapons offenses, murderers, rapists, and thugs than you will probably EVER deal with, unless you become a prosecutor.


----------



## Yurt

Nik said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.  Knowledge is terrifying to people like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you didn't understand the humor in that, then yes, it is scary that YOU are in lawschool and might pass a state bar...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Generally people don't find it humorous to find themselves mocked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you think you're better or more intelligent than me because you are in lawschool?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but I do think I am more intelligent than you based on your inability to reason.
Click to expand...


i didn't realize you would take such great offense to it....but its nice to you that you don't mind insulting back and be serious about it, so i guess in your world, two wrongs do make a right...

if i were you, i really wouldn't brag about your reasoning skills over mine, it shows immaturity...and makes you look stupid for having to brag about something you don't really have


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> But good job at admitting you don't know what the hell you are talking about.  First sign of honesty I've seen from you so far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.  You have an advantage over me in the "unemployed know-nothing" category.  Yay you!
Click to expand...


Umm, no.  As stated, I am employed.  I just know the state of the economy right now, and the situation of recent grads.  Besides the fact that, even if I were not employed it wouldn't be a problem since I am still currently in school.


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> Umm, no.  As stated, I am employed.  I just know the state of the economy right now, and the situation of recent grads.  Besides the fact that, even if I were not employed it wouldn't be a problem since I am still currently in school.



It's great that you teach people how to take the LSAT, but that doesn't mean you know dick about criminal law.  Or for that matter, criminals.  It's all theory to you.

I doubt you've ever sat across from a victim of a shooting.  Or, interviewed a suspect who has "racist" tattooed on his forehead.  Or, gone out into a neighborhood where violence is prevalent, and met with a family whose house was shot up.

None of this stuff is real to you, it's all classroom lecture and abstract.  That's the difference between you, Nik, and tech and I.  And you totally WON'T get it until you've done the real work.


----------



## Nik

Yurt said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you didn't understand the humor in that, then yes, it is scary that YOU are in lawschool and might pass a state bar...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Generally people don't find it humorous to find themselves mocked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you think you're better or more intelligent than me because you are in lawschool?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but I do think I am more intelligent than you based on your inability to reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i didn't realize you would take such great offense to it....but its nice to you that you don't mind insulting back and be serious about it, so i guess in your world, two wrongs do make a right...
Click to expand...


I don't take great offense.  But nor do I find it humorous.  And no I don't mind insulting you back, but I don't expect you to find my insults humorous.  



> if i were you, i really wouldn't brag about your reasoning skills over mine, it shows immaturity...and makes you look stupid for having to brag about something you don't really have



I wasn't "bragging".  You asked a question, I answered it.  Bragging would be me going everywhere and telling people how much smarter I am than you.  I haven't done that.  In fact, I made no comparison until you asked me a direct question.  

Nice circular reasoning there too.  I am stupid because I brag about being smart, although I am stupid?  Yeah.  Logic fail.  And you wonder why I think I am more intelligent than you?


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, no.  As stated, I am employed.  I just know the state of the economy right now, and the situation of recent grads.  Besides the fact that, even if I were not employed it wouldn't be a problem since I am still currently in school.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's great that you teach people how to take the LSAT, but that doesn't mean you know dick about criminal law.  Or for that matter, criminals.
Click to expand...


Umm, congratulations.  Yes, you probably know more than me about the field you specifically went into, and I am not in.  What exactly is your point here?


----------



## del

Nik said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, no.  As stated, I am employed.  I just know the state of the economy right now, and the situation of recent grads.  Besides the fact that, even if I were not employed it wouldn't be a problem since I am still currently in school.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's great that you teach people how to take the LSAT, but that doesn't mean you know dick about criminal law.  Or for that matter, criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm, congratulations.  Yes, you probably know more than me about the field you specifically went into, and I am not in.  What exactly is your point here?
Click to expand...


um, that you're talking out of your ass?

just a guess


----------



## Nik

del said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's great that you teach people how to take the LSAT, but that doesn't mean you know dick about criminal law.  Or for that matter, criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, congratulations.  Yes, you probably know more than me about the field you specifically went into, and I am not in.  What exactly is your point here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> um, that you're talking out of your ass?
> 
> just a guess
Click to expand...


Yes, I am talking out of my ass about the criminal justice system.

Ah, you are going back to the hate crimes.  So you want to go back to the topic after you flew away?

Sure, lets go.  But avoid appeals to authority and other obvious flaws.  You aren't an authority.  Thanks.

When were we talking about criminal law again?


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, no.  As stated, I am employed.  I just know the state of the economy right now, and the situation of recent grads.  Besides the fact that, even if I were not employed it wouldn't be a problem since I am still currently in school.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's great that you teach people how to take the LSAT, but that doesn't mean you know dick about criminal law.  Or for that matter, criminals.  It's all theory to you.
> 
> I doubt you've ever sat across from a victim of a shooting.  Or, interviewed a suspect who has "racist" tattooed on his forehead.  Or, gone out into a neighborhood where violence is prevalent, and met with a family whose house was shot up.
> 
> None of this stuff is real to you, it's all classroom lecture and abstract.  That's the difference between you, Nik, and tech and I.  And you totally WON'T get it until you've done the real work.
Click to expand...


Last time you tried to make shit up about me, you failed.  Sure you want to try it again?

And yes, I've had some experience dealing with indigent individuals.  No, this isn't "abstract" to me.  I also have just a little bit of experience dealing with homophobia and homophobic issues.  Actually, quite a lot.  More than you, I guarantee it.


----------



## Yurt

Nik said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Generally people don't find it humorous to find themselves mocked.
> 
> 
> 
> No, but I do think I am more intelligent than you based on your inability to reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i didn't realize you would take such great offense to it....but its nice to you that you don't mind insulting back and be serious about it, so i guess in your world, two wrongs do make a right...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't take great offense.  But nor do I find it humorous.  And no I don't mind insulting you back, but I don't expect you to find my insults humorous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if i were you, i really wouldn't brag about your reasoning skills over mine, it shows immaturity...and makes you look stupid for having to brag about something you don't really have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't "bragging".  You asked a question, I answered it.  Bragging would be me going everywhere and telling people how much smarter I am than you.  I haven't done that.  In fact, I made no comparison until you asked me a direct question.
> 
> Nice circular reasoning there too.  I am stupid because I brag about being smart, although I am stupid?  Yeah.  Logic fail.  And you wonder why I think I am more intelligent than you?
Click to expand...


since you're in lawschool, you should know that you did not in fact just answer my question, you said "no" then you expounded that it wasn't lawschool, it was my reasoning vs. your superior reasoning skills.  i never asked about that, nor did i raise it anything about reasoning....you seemed to be touting the fact of your attendance as lawschool as somehow you being more intelligent as you said knowledge makes me scared, e.g., you being in lawschool makes me a afraid of your knowledge gained in lawschool.  

you're obviously very naive and have never heard the statement:  those who brag often have the least, IOW, they do not have that which they brag about.  thanks for proving you live in under a rock....


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> Umm, congratulations.  Yes, you probably know more than me about the field you specifically went into, and I am not in.  What exactly is your point here?



Your law background is meaningless to this discussion because you don't understand the real world application of law.  That's abundantly clear from your posts on this topic.  Hence, every one of your snide comments shouts, clearly, "I just graduated from law school, but I don't know dick about practicing law."

I find it funny, that's all.


----------



## catzmeow

del said:


> um, that you're talking out of your ass?
> 
> just a guess





We have a winner.


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> Sure, lets go.  But avoid appeals to authority and other obvious flaws.  You aren't an authority.  Thanks.
> 
> When were we talking about criminal law again?



Actually, hate crimes legislation IS criminal law.  

  

So much for Nik's attempts at being an authority.


----------



## Nik

Yurt said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> i didn't realize you would take such great offense to it....but its nice to you that you don't mind insulting back and be serious about it, so i guess in your world, two wrongs do make a right...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't take great offense.  But nor do I find it humorous.  And no I don't mind insulting you back, but I don't expect you to find my insults humorous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if i were you, i really wouldn't brag about your reasoning skills over mine, it shows immaturity...and makes you look stupid for having to brag about something you don't really have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't "bragging".  You asked a question, I answered it.  Bragging would be me going everywhere and telling people how much smarter I am than you.  I haven't done that.  In fact, I made no comparison until you asked me a direct question.
> 
> Nice circular reasoning there too.  I am stupid because I brag about being smart, although I am stupid?  Yeah.  Logic fail.  And you wonder why I think I am more intelligent than you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> since you're in lawschool, you should know that you did not in fact just answer my question, you said "no" then you expounded that it wasn't lawschool, it was my reasoning vs. your superior reasoning skills.  i never asked about that, nor did i raise it anything about reasoning....you seemed to be touting the fact of your attendance as lawschool as somehow you being more intelligent as you said knowledge makes me scared, e.g., you being in lawschool makes me a afraid of your knowledge gained in lawschool.
> 
> you're obviously very naive and have never heard the statement:  those who brag often have the least, IOW, they do not have that which they brag about.  thanks for proving you live in under a rock....
Click to expand...


Oy.  I don't answer questions to give the minimum amount of information possible.  This back and forth is annoying enough, without doing that.  I answer what seems to be the thrust of your question, not the base minimum question.  You, presumably, aren't a lawyer, so I see no reason to treat your questions as technical, precise ones.


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, congratulations.  Yes, you probably know more than me about the field you specifically went into, and I am not in.  What exactly is your point here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your law background is meaningless to this discussion because you don't understand the real world application of law.  That's abundantly clear from your posts on this topic.  Hence, every one of your snide comments shouts, clearly, "I just graduated from law school, but I don't know dick about practicing law."
> 
> I find it funny, that's all.
Click to expand...


If its so meaningless, why are you focused on it so hard?  Why can't you just discuss actual issues?


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> You, presumably, aren't a lawyer, so I see no reason to treat your questions as technical, precise ones.



Nor are you.  So, I see no reason to treat your objections to my answers as technical, precise ones.


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, lets go.  But avoid appeals to authority and other obvious flaws.  You aren't an authority.  Thanks.
> 
> When were we talking about criminal law again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, hate crimes legislation IS criminal law.
> 
> 
> 
> So much for Nik's attempts at being an authority.
Click to expand...


Try reading it again.  And I never claimed to be an authority.  I try not to traffic in obvious flaws, unlike you.


----------



## del

Nik said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, congratulations.  Yes, you probably know more than me about the field you specifically went into, and I am not in.  What exactly is your point here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> um, that you're talking out of your ass?
> 
> just a guess
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I am talking out of my ass about the criminal justice system.
> 
> Ah, you are going back to the hate crimes.  So you want to go back to the topic after you flew away?
> 
> Sure, lets go.  But avoid appeals to authority and other obvious flaws.  You aren't an authority.  Thanks.
> 
> When were we talking about criminal law again?
Click to expand...


i never flew away nor did i claim to be an authority; that would be you.. 

i'm pretty sure hate *crime* law would fall under the criminal law rubric, but of course, you'd know better.


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, presumably, aren't a lawyer, so I see no reason to treat your questions as technical, precise ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor are you.  So, I see no reason to treat your objections to my answers as technical, precise ones.
Click to expand...


Then don't.  You clearly don't even have the capacity to do so, so the fact that you won't try to do so is not troubling to me.


----------



## Nik

del said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> um, that you're talking out of your ass?
> 
> just a guess
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I am talking out of my ass about the criminal justice system.
> 
> Ah, you are going back to the hate crimes.  So you want to go back to the topic after you flew away?
> 
> Sure, lets go.  But avoid appeals to authority and other obvious flaws.  You aren't an authority.  Thanks.
> 
> When were we talking about criminal law again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i never flew away nor did i claim to be an authority; that would be you..
> 
> i'm pretty sure hate *crime* law would fall under the criminal law rubric, but of course, you'd know better.
Click to expand...


Check the edit, genius.  

And no, I never claimed to be an authority.  Whassamatter, don't know what the word means?  I'll wait while you go look it up


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> If its so meaningless, why are you focused on it so hard?  Why can't you just discuss actual issues?



Because you've attempted to set yourself up as an authority here, who doesn't need to provide evidence.  And, you've pretended to know more, and be more intelligent, than the rest of us.

I was working with racists when you were still in grade school, darlin.'  Scary ones.  Who committed hate crimes, and stabbed people to death.

You have NO IDEA how the law deals with those offenders, and what works (or doesn't).  It's clear from your posts.

As I've stated now, a dozen or more times, you are a fuzzy headed liberal who thinks hate crimes legislation is a nice idea, but has no idea how it will work in the real world.  Your answer to everything, as a recent law school graduate, is "more laws."  And you have people who work in the field of justice here who are telling you that the solution to race/hate crimes isn't MORE LAWS, but better enforcement of EXISTING LAWS.

Jesus-f-christ.


----------



## Yurt

Nik said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't take great offense.  But nor do I find it humorous.  And no I don't mind insulting you back, but I don't expect you to find my insults humorous.
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't "bragging".  You asked a question, I answered it.  Bragging would be me going everywhere and telling people how much smarter I am than you.  I haven't done that.  In fact, I made no comparison until you asked me a direct question.
> 
> Nice circular reasoning there too.  I am stupid because I brag about being smart, although I am stupid?  Yeah.  Logic fail.  And you wonder why I think I am more intelligent than you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> since you're in lawschool, you should know that you did not in fact just answer my question, you said "no" then you expounded that it wasn't lawschool, it was my reasoning vs. your superior reasoning skills.  i never asked about that, nor did i raise it anything about reasoning....you seemed to be touting the fact of your attendance as lawschool as somehow you being more intelligent as you said knowledge makes me scared, e.g., you being in lawschool makes me a afraid of your knowledge gained in lawschool.
> 
> you're obviously very naive and have never heard the statement:  those who brag often have the least, IOW, they do not have that which they brag about.  thanks for proving you live in under a rock....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oy.  I don't answer questions to give the minimum amount of information possible.  This back and forth is annoying enough, without doing that.  I answer what seems to be the thrust of your question, not the base minimum question.  You, presumably, aren't a lawyer, so I see no reason to treat your questions as technical, precise ones.
Click to expand...


and you are a lawyer? 

a piece of advice, do not assume anything about anyone...it will more often than not come back to haunt you.  i still tell myself that almost everyday, assuming things, especially in law, is not smart and usually causes you to overlook key facts or issues.


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> Then don't.  You clearly don't even have the capacity to do so, so the fact that you won't try to do so is not troubling to me.



Dude, you don't even know enough to understand that hate crimes legislation proposes an enhanced penalty under criminal statutes for certain types of crimes.  Hence, is CRIMINAL LAW.

Pardon me while I laugh my ass off at you.


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> If its so meaningless, why are you focused on it so hard?  Why can't you just discuss actual issues?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you've attempted to set yourself up as an authority here, who doesn't need to provide evidence.  And, you've pretended to know more, and be more intelligent, than the rest of us.
Click to expand...


No, I haven't.  I never referred to my own experience in the actual argument.   Never referred to the fact that I have a law background.  YOU brought it up.  



> I was working with racists when you were still in grade school, darlin.'  Scary ones.  With guns, who committed hate crimes, and stabbed people to death.



Congrats.  I was getting beaten up in grade school cause of who my parents were.  No guns though, thankfully.  



> You have NO IDEA how the law deals with those offenders, and what works (or doesn't).  It's clear from your posts.



As I said, avoid the appeal to authority.  Surely with your extensive legal experience, you should know that 



> As I've stated now, a dozen or more times, you are a fuzzy headed liberal who thinks hate crimes legislation is a nice idea, but has no idea how it will work in the real world.



Oy.  Of course.  While you are the wise, learned one who has "experience in criminal law".  Congrats.  That doesn't make you an expert on hate crimes legislation, or hate crimes law.


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> If its so meaningless, why are you focused on it so hard?  Why can't you just discuss actual issues?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you've attempted to set yourself up as an authority here, who doesn't need to provide evidence.  And, you've pretended to know more, and be more intelligent, than the rest of us.
> 
> I was working with racists when you were still in grade school, darlin.'  Scary ones.  Who committed hate crimes, and stabbed people to death.
> 
> You have NO IDEA how the law deals with those offenders, and what works (or doesn't).  It's clear from your posts.
> 
> As I've stated now, a dozen or more times, you are a fuzzy headed liberal who thinks hate crimes legislation is a nice idea, but has no idea how it will work in the real world.  Your answer to everything, as a recent law school graduate, is "more laws."  And you have people who work in the field of justice here who are telling you that the solution to race/hate crimes isn't MORE LAWS, but better enforcement of EXISTING LAWS.
> 
> Jesus-f-christ.
Click to expand...


Ok.  Lets explore this for a moment.  What exactly do you know about people who don't commit crimes because of laws that exist?

Because thats part of the issue here.  And your experience tells you jack shit about them.  You have a one sided, ignorant viewpoint that is cabined from your work.  Try and expand it a little bit.  You are NOT an expert on why people commit crimes, just because you work in the criminal justice system.


----------



## Yurt

Nik said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, lets go.  But avoid appeals to authority and other obvious flaws.  You aren't an authority.  Thanks.
> 
> When were we talking about criminal law again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, hate crimes legislation IS criminal law.
> 
> 
> 
> So much for Nik's attempts at being an authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try reading it again.  And I never claimed to be an authority.  I try not to traffic in obvious flaws, unlike you.
Click to expand...


you have more than one person telling you that you're throwing your lawschool attendance around like a brag or like it makes you superior, you might want to reevaluate the way you come accross as it could just be that you are coming across that way.


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't.  You clearly don't even have the capacity to do so, so the fact that you won't try to do so is not troubling to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you don't even know enough to understand that hate crimes legislation proposes an enhanced penalty under criminal statutes for certain types of crimes.  Hence, is CRIMINAL LAW.
> 
> Pardon me while I laugh my ass off at you.
Click to expand...


Oy.  I explained this already, dumbshit.  I didn't realizing you were going back and actually talking about hate crimes legislation again.  I thought you were still, oddly, focused on me and my career.  

As I said, check the edit.


----------



## Nik

Yurt said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> since you're in lawschool, you should know that you did not in fact just answer my question, you said "no" then you expounded that it wasn't lawschool, it was my reasoning vs. your superior reasoning skills.  i never asked about that, nor did i raise it anything about reasoning....you seemed to be touting the fact of your attendance as lawschool as somehow you being more intelligent as you said knowledge makes me scared, e.g., you being in lawschool makes me a afraid of your knowledge gained in lawschool.
> 
> you're obviously very naive and have never heard the statement:  those who brag often have the least, IOW, they do not have that which they brag about.  thanks for proving you live in under a rock....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oy.  I don't answer questions to give the minimum amount of information possible.  This back and forth is annoying enough, without doing that.  I answer what seems to be the thrust of your question, not the base minimum question.  You, presumably, aren't a lawyer, so I see no reason to treat your questions as technical, precise ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and you are a lawyer?
> 
> a piece of advice, do not assume anything about anyone...it will more often than not come back to haunt you.  i still tell myself that almost everyday, assuming things, especially in law, is not smart and usually causes you to overlook key facts or issues.
Click to expand...


I'm not assuming your not a lawyer.  I'm acting as if you aren't, until I have some evidence otherwise.  Acting as if you were, especially here, would lead to you being more confused than you already seem to be.


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> As I said, check the edit.



Too late, at this point.  You've already been outed.


----------



## del

Nik said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I am talking out of my ass about the criminal justice system.
> 
> Ah, you are going back to the hate crimes.  So you want to go back to the topic after you flew away?
> 
> Sure, lets go.  But avoid appeals to authority and other obvious flaws.  You aren't an authority.  Thanks.
> 
> When were we talking about criminal law again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i never flew away nor did i claim to be an authority; that would be you..
> 
> i'm pretty sure hate *crime* law would fall under the criminal law rubric, but of course, you'd know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check the edit, genius.
> 
> And no, I never claimed to be an authority.  Whassamatter, don't know what the word means?  I'll wait while you go look it up
Click to expand...


check what edit, asshat?


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> Then don't.  You clearly don't even have the capacity to do so, so the fact that you won't try to do so is not troubling to me.



And you wonder why people think you're an arrogant, wet-behind-the ears, know-nothing.


----------



## Nik

Yurt said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, hate crimes legislation IS criminal law.
> 
> 
> 
> So much for Nik's attempts at being an authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading it again.  And I never claimed to be an authority.  I try not to traffic in obvious flaws, unlike you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you have more than one person telling you that you're throwing your lawschool attendance around like a brag or like it makes you superior, you might want to reevaluate the way you come accross as it could just be that you are coming across that way.
Click to expand...


Congratulations.  Then there is more than one person who is acting like a total moron.  Go back to the earlier pages in this thread.  Who exactly was it who brought up my law school attendance?  It wasn't me, thats for sure.


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, check the edit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too late, at this point.  You've already been outed.
Click to expand...


Yeah, except the edit was from BEFORE you pointed it out.

Fail.


----------



## Nik

del said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> i never flew away nor did i claim to be an authority; that would be you..
> 
> i'm pretty sure hate *crime* law would fall under the criminal law rubric, but of course, you'd know better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check the edit, genius.
> 
> And no, I never claimed to be an authority.  Whassamatter, don't know what the word means?  I'll wait while you go look it up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> check what edit, asshat?
Click to expand...


Oy.  At first I said we weren't talking about the criminal justice system since we, you know, weren't.  We were focused on me, and my career, because you all can't seem to focus on anything more substantial.

Then I realized that you, or whoever it was, was going back to the original issue of hate crimes legislation.  Hence the edit.


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> Ok.  Lets explore this for a moment.  What exactly do you know about people who don't commit crimes because of laws that exist?
> 
> Because thats part of the issue here.  And your experience tells you jack shit about them.  You have a one sided, ignorant viewpoint that is cabined from your work.  Try and expand it a little bit.  You are NOT an expert on why people commit crimes, just because you work in the criminal justice system.



Wrong.  Hate crimes laws DO NOT DETER racists from committing crimes.  They INSPIRE THEM.  It gives them a bully pulpit, a place to show the world how downtrodden they are, and how they are fighting the good fight against evil ________. (fill in the relevant blank).  I know this from working with white supremacists and skinheads FOR YEARS.

Furthermore, I have been involved in drafting and helping to pass sentencing enhancements at the state level. I KNOW how they work, intricately.  You have no idea who I am, and what I do.  You're a student who knows just enough to sound educated, but not enough to keep from getting into trouble in a discussion of the tangibles.

So, don't call this an appeal to authority.  You asked what I know.  What I know is the real world application of enhancements, how they are prosecuted, and how they work.  My area of specialization is gangs, but the applications of enhancements are basically the same.  I'm not a prosecutor, but I understand this issue as well as most prosecutors do, and better than 95% of other types of lawyers.  The corporate types don't have a clue how enhancements work.

Just as clearly as I know what I know, it's clear that you *don't know *what *you don't know*.  And sometimes, in the real world, learning what you DON'T KNOW is pretty damn important.

I can tell from your responses here that all of this is theoretical to you.  It's OBVIOUS.

That's what's hilarious about your claims that I'm using an appeal to authority.  YOU ARE TOO, in your own misguided way.  You believe that because you're a law student, you're an authority ON THE LAW.  But the fact of the matter is that you've probably never drafted a piece of actual legislation, looking for possible pitfalls that will ultimately hang up the very people that the law is intended to help (prosecutors) and you have no idea how these enhancements play out in the real world.

TFF.  

Here's the thing, law student.  When you actually get out and start practicing law, be prepared to be fucking SCHOOLED by quite a few non-law school graduates.  When you get out there working in the real world, if you plan to work with criminals, there are going to be a lot of people who don't give a shit where you went to school.  That part of your lfe is over.  What matters is what you can DO.  And at this point, you can't do dick.

That's where you rank on the scheme of things, fancy law degree, and all.  It's going to take you YEARS to earn the respect, daily, that you feel entitled to at this moment in time simply because of the name of your law school.

And there are going to be a shit ton of old heads out there, like me, who are going to be laughing our asses off every time you step in it, like you did in this thread.  We expect it of you, and you WILL NOT DISAPPOINT.

You're all ego and no substance right now.  but you'll learn...oh yes, you'll learn.


----------



## del

Nik said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Check the edit, genius.
> 
> And no, I never claimed to be an authority.  Whassamatter, don't know what the word means?  I'll wait while you go look it up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> check what edit, asshat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oy.  At first I said we weren't talking about the criminal justice system since we, you know, weren't.  We were focused on me, and my career, because you all can't seem to focus on anything more substantial.
> 
> Then I realized that you, or whoever it was, was going back to the original issue of hate crimes legislation.  Hence the edit.
Click to expand...


no, you're focused on you.
i'm laughing at you.


see the difference?


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't.  You clearly don't even have the capacity to do so, so the fact that you won't try to do so is not troubling to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you wonder why people think you're an arrogant, wet-behind-the ears, know-nothing.
Click to expand...


No, I don't wonder about it.  When I show people are wrong, and I do it harshly, they generally think I am arrogant.  Sorry that I have so little patience for your stupidity.  If you want someone to coddle you, find someone else.


----------



## Yurt

Nik said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oy.  I don't answer questions to give the minimum amount of information possible.  This back and forth is annoying enough, without doing that.  I answer what seems to be the thrust of your question, not the base minimum question.  You, presumably, aren't a lawyer, so I see no reason to treat your questions as technical, precise ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you are a lawyer?
> 
> a piece of advice, do not assume anything about anyone...it will more often than not come back to haunt you.  i still tell myself that almost everyday, assuming things, especially in law, is not smart and usually causes you to overlook key facts or issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not assuming your not a lawyer.  I'm acting as if you aren't, until I have some evidence otherwise.  Acting as if you were, especially here, would lead to you being more confused than you already seem to be.
Click to expand...


i would stop talking about yourself and lawschool, its embarassing....whether i am a lawyer or not has no bearing on my stature here.  i don't run around telling people i'm in lawschool or i am a lawyer in the hopes that this fact alone bolster's my point.  

and dude, do you really want to keep up the insults about reasoning?  then wtf did you bitch about being mocked in the first place?


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  Lets explore this for a moment.  What exactly do you know about people who don't commit crimes because of laws that exist?
> 
> Because thats part of the issue here.  And your experience tells you jack shit about them.  You have a one sided, ignorant viewpoint that is cabined from your work.  Try and expand it a little bit.  You are NOT an expert on why people commit crimes, just because you work in the criminal justice system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Hate crimes laws DO NOT DETER racists from committing crimes.  They INSPIRE THEM.  It gives them a bully pulpit, a place to show the world how trodden upon they are, and how they are fighting the good fight against evil ________. (fill in the relevant blank).  I know this from working with, and doing training for years on, white supremacists and extremist groups.
Click to expand...


Yes, of course.   I'll take your word for it.  




> Furthermore, I have been involved in drafting and helping to pass sentencing enhancements at the state level. I KNOW how they work, intricately.



Sure you have.  



> So, don't call this an appeal to authority.  You asked what I knew.  What I know is the real world application of enhancements, how they are prosecuted, and how they work.  Clearly, you don't.



No, I didn't ask what you knew.  You volunteered it.  Bragging, one might say 



> I can tell from your responses here that all of this is theoretical to you.  It's SO OBVIOUS.



Of course you can.  You and Tech are little internet psychologists. 

Sorry, but its not theoretical to me.  Its real.  



> That's what's hilarious about your claims that I'm using an appeal to authority.  YOU ARE TOO, in your own misguided way.  You believe that because you're a law student, you're an authority ON THE LAW.  But the fact of the matter is that you've probably never drafted a piece of legislation, and you have no idea how these enhancements play out in the real world.
> 
> TFF.



Of course.  I'm using an appeal to authority...despite the fact that I've never appealed to my own authority.  Its a "mental" appeal to authority


----------



## Nik

del said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> check what edit, asshat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oy.  At first I said we weren't talking about the criminal justice system since we, you know, weren't.  We were focused on me, and my career, because you all can't seem to focus on anything more substantial.
> 
> Then I realized that you, or whoever it was, was going back to the original issue of hate crimes legislation.  Hence the edit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, you're focused on you.
> i'm laughing at you.
> 
> 
> see the difference?
Click to expand...


I didn't bring me up, genius.


----------



## Nik

Yurt said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you are a lawyer?
> 
> a piece of advice, do not assume anything about anyone...it will more often than not come back to haunt you.  i still tell myself that almost everyday, assuming things, especially in law, is not smart and usually causes you to overlook key facts or issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not assuming your not a lawyer.  I'm acting as if you aren't, until I have some evidence otherwise.  Acting as if you were, especially here, would lead to you being more confused than you already seem to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i would stop talking about yourself and lawschool, its embarassing....whether i am a lawyer or not has no bearing on my stature here.  i don't run around telling people i'm in lawschool or i am a lawyer in the hopes that this fact alone bolster's my point.
Click to expand...


Neither do I.  Of course you've all made the same, demonstrably false, point by now.  Surprise, surprise.  



> and dude, do you really want to keep up the insults about reasoning?  then wtf did you bitch about being mocked in the first place?



Umm, I haven't bitched about being mocked.  I find it amusing, really.  Its hilarious to see you all pile onto one person, and still lose.


----------



## del

Nik said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oy.  At first I said we weren't talking about the criminal justice system since we, you know, weren't.  We were focused on me, and my career, because you all can't seem to focus on anything more substantial.
> 
> Then I realized that you, or whoever it was, was going back to the original issue of hate crimes legislation.  Hence the edit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, you're focused on you.
> i'm laughing at you.
> 
> 
> see the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't bring me up, genius.
Click to expand...


i didn't think you brought you up.


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> No, I don't wonder about it.  When I show people are wrong, and I do it harshly, they generally think I am arrogant.  Sorry that I have so little patience for your stupidity.  If you want someone to coddle you, find someone else.



The problem being that you have only shown yourself to be an idiot in this thread.  Anyone who knows anything at all about this issue (Skydancer doesn't count, we know she's retarded) knows you've totally stepped in it, repeatedly.

As for me, I'm just savoring the lamentation of the women.


----------



## Nik

del said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, you're focused on you.
> i'm laughing at you.
> 
> 
> see the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't bring me up, genius.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i didn't think you brought you up.
> i assumed you were brought up by XXXXXXXXX. you couldn't have achieved your persona in a vacuum nor without help.
> am i close?
Click to expand...


Nope.


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> Ok.  Lets explore this for a moment.  What exactly do you know



Heh.

Try to keep track of what you ask for, grasshopper.  You're looking really tarded right now.  I know why criminals commit crimes.  I deal with the research daily.

Please.  Feel free to keep digging. This is fucking funny.


----------



## del

Nik said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't bring me up, genius.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i didn't think you brought you up. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. you couldn't have achieved your persona in a vacuum nor without help.
> am i close?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.
Click to expand...


xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't wonder about it.  When I show people are wrong, and I do it harshly, they generally think I am arrogant.  Sorry that I have so little patience for your stupidity.  If you want someone to coddle you, find someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem being that you have only shown yourself to be an idiot in this thread.  Anyone who knows anything at all about this issue (Skydancer doesn't count, we know she's retarded) knows you've totally stepped in it, repeatedly.
> 
> As for me, I'm just savoring the lamentation of the women.
Click to expand...


tsk tsk.  Appealing to authority again.  And after I pointed out the flaw to you.


----------



## catzmeow

Del,

Are stupid people smart enough to know how stupid they are?

Just wondering.

Catz


----------



## catzmeow

Also, Nik, I'd like to know what law school you attend.  A work associate and I have a wager to settle.


----------



## del

catzmeow said:


> Del,
> 
> Are stupid people smart enough to know how stupid they are?
> 
> Just wondering.
> 
> Catz



i refuse to answer on the grounds that i may incriminate myself.


----------



## catzmeow

del said:


> i refuse to answer on the grounds that i may incriminate myself.



Didn't you hear?  Bush et. al. eliminated that particular right from the Bill of Rights, dude, back in 2006.  Sorry you missed it.


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  Lets explore this for a moment.  What exactly do you know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh.
> 
> Try to keep track of what you ask for, grasshopper.  You're looking really tarded right now.  I know why criminals commit crimes.  I deal with the research daily.
> 
> Please.  Feel free to keep digging. This is fucking funny.
Click to expand...


Hahaha.  Way to take the quote completely out of context.  I didn't ask what you knew, I asked you what you knew about something *you know jack shit about*.  Because its IMPOSSIBLE to know what I asked you about.

Wow.  I knew you were a dishonest shithead, but that really takes the cake.


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Del,
> 
> Are stupid people smart enough to know how stupid they are?
> 
> Just wondering.
> 
> Catz



Since you don't know, the answer seems to be no


----------



## Yurt

catzmeow said:


> Also, Nik, I'd like to know what law school you attend.  A work associate and I have a wager to settle.



let me in


----------



## del

catzmeow said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> i refuse to answer on the grounds that i may incriminate myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you hear?  Bush et. al. eliminated that particular right from the Bill of Rights, dude, back in 2006.  Sorry you missed it.
Click to expand...


*shrug*

i don't get out much.


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Also, Nik, I'd like to know what law school you attend.  A work associate and I have a wager to settle.



Umm, no.


----------



## Yurt

i'm beginning to doubt he has even gone to lawschool...


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, Nik, I'd like to know what law school you attend.  A work associate and I have a wager to settle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, no.
Click to expand...


Dude, I don't have any intention of stalking you, and there are probably hundreds of students in your particular school.  I just want to know who to credit with producing such a distinctive student.


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> Hahaha.  Way to take the quote completely out of context.  I didn't ask what you knew, I asked you what you knew about something *you know jack shit about*.  Because its IMPOSSIBLE to know what I asked you about.
> .



Actually, it's entirely possible to know what you're asking about.  You're asking about a perceived deterrance effect of putting new statutes into place on the books.

And the fact of the matter is that we know a great deal about that particular issue.  We know that passing new laws doesn't really HAVE a deterrance effect.  We know this because gang enhancements have not particularly had an effect of limiting gang crime in California and a number of other states.  And, that's the closest parellel that you are going to find to hate crimes enhancements, because it speaks to motive and lengthens a perpetrator's sentence.

All you have to do is look at California and ask yourself:  Have gang crimes gone up or down since the STEP Act was passed?  (up, way up).

Then, you look at the rest of the U.S., and you ask yourself (or you look at SPLC stats):  Have hate crimes gone down since hate crimes legislation passed in 1995?  (again, the answer is up...because hate crime tends to fluctuate most closely with the economy--when the economy is in the shitter, hate crimes go up).

You think these questions are unanswerable because you've only looked at law in the most general sense.  But there is a whole world out there that you know literally NOTHING about.  And, there are almost 80 years of research on offending patterns, and why criminals commit crimes, and why they recidivate, and the like.

Furthermore, you asked those questions snidely, thinking that they were unanswerable, and that you'd show the stupid old woman non-law student a thing or two.

All you showed is how much you still have to learn.


----------



## catzmeow

p.s.  Nik has been thoroughly pwned on this thread.


----------



## catzmeow

Yurt said:


> i'm beginning to doubt he has even gone to lawschool...



I think he's a secretary for someone who goes to law school.


----------



## Nik

Yurt said:


> i'm beginning to doubt he has even gone to lawschool...



Oh noes.  Yurt doesn't believe me.  My life is all in shambles now ;(


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm beginning to doubt he has even gone to lawschool...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh noes.  Yurt doesn't believe me.  My life is all in shambles now ;(
Click to expand...


Don't blame Yurt, you were a moron before he ever encountered you.


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, Nik, I'd like to know what law school you attend.  A work associate and I have a wager to settle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, I don't have any intention of stalking you, and there are probably hundreds of students in your particular school.  I just want to know who to credit with producing such a distinctive student.
Click to expand...


Sure you aren't.  You've only been discussing my credentials for the past 10 pages.


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hahaha.  Way to take the quote completely out of context.  I didn't ask what you knew, I asked you what you knew about something *you know jack shit about*.  Because its IMPOSSIBLE to know what I asked you about.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's entirely possible to know what you're asking about.  You're asking about a *perceived* deterrance effect of putting new statutes into place on the books.
> 
> And the fact of the matter is that we know a great deal about that particular issue.  We know that passing new laws doesn't really HAVE a deterrance effect.  We know this because gang enhancements have not particularly had an effect of limiting gang crime in California and a number of other states.  *And, that's the closest parellel that you are going to find to hate crimes enhancements,* because it speaks to motive and lengthens a perpetrator's sentence.
> 
> All you have to do is look at California and ask yourself:  Have gang crimes gone up or down since the STEP Act was passed?  (up, way up).
> 
> Then, you look at the rest of the U.S., and you ask yourself (or you look at SPLC stats):  Have hate crimes gone down since hate crimes legislation passed in 1995?  (again, the answer is up...because hate crime tends to fluctuate most closely with the economy--when the economy is in the shitter, hate crimes go up).
> 
> You think these questions are unanswerable because you've only looked at law in the most general sense.  But there is a whole world out there that you know literally NOTHING about.  And, there are almost 80 years of research on offending patterns, and why criminals commit crimes, and why they recidivate, and the like.
> 
> Furthermore, you asked those questions snidely, thinking that they were unanswerable, and that you'd show the stupid old woman non-law student a thing or two.
> 
> All you showed is how much you still have to learn.
Click to expand...


Lets see.  So you've presented me evidence of one case where they may have worked (you don't know that they did, since its impossible to take into account other factors), and the case isn't even about hate crimes.

Yeah.  Like I said, you know jack shit.


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> Lets see.  So you've presented me evidence of one case where they may have worked (you don't know that they did, since its impossible to take into account other factors), and the case isn't even about hate crimes.
> 
> Yeah.  Like I said, you know jack shit.



Actually, gang enhancements exist in about 25 states now, and have failed to reduce gang crime in every single one of them.  Hate crime enhancements have ALSO failed to reduce crime.

I'm not talking about a "case," I'm talking about the ramifications of passing a law in terms of crime statistics.  Guess they didn't teach you that when you were researching "cases" in the law library.


----------



## del

Nik said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hahaha.  Way to take the quote completely out of context.  I didn't ask what you knew, I asked you what you knew about something *you know jack shit about*.  Because its IMPOSSIBLE to know what I asked you about.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's entirely possible to know what you're asking about.  You're asking about a *perceived* deterrance effect of putting new statutes into place on the books.
> 
> And the fact of the matter is that we know a great deal about that particular issue.  We know that passing new laws doesn't really HAVE a deterrance effect.  We know this because gang enhancements have not particularly had an effect of limiting gang crime in California and a number of other states.  *And, that's the closest parellel that you are going to find to hate crimes enhancements,* because it speaks to motive and lengthens a perpetrator's sentence.
> 
> All you have to do is look at California and ask yourself:  Have gang crimes gone up or down since the STEP Act was passed?  (up, way up).
> 
> Then, you look at the rest of the U.S., and you ask yourself (or you look at SPLC stats):  Have hate crimes gone down since hate crimes legislation passed in 1995?  (again, the answer is up...because hate crime tends to fluctuate most closely with the economy--when the economy is in the shitter, hate crimes go up).
> 
> You think these questions are unanswerable because you've only looked at law in the most general sense.  But there is a whole world out there that you know literally NOTHING about.  And, there are almost 80 years of research on offending patterns, and why criminals commit crimes, and why they recidivate, and the like.
> 
> Furthermore, you asked those questions snidely, thinking that they were unanswerable, and that you'd show the stupid old woman non-law student a thing or two.
> 
> All you showed is how much you still have to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets see.  So you've presented me evidence of one case where they may have worked (you don't know that they did, since its impossible to take into account other factors), and the case isn't even about hate crimes.
> 
> Yeah.  Like I said, you know jack shit.
Click to expand...


snappy comeback but a fail.


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> p.s.  Nik has been thoroughly pwned on this thread.



Of course.  Between your appeals to authority, your repeated lies, and your continued misunderstanding of basic facts, you sure have owned me.  I feel positively humbled by your moves such as declaring yourself the winner because you have so much experience (which you don't detail...while inquiring as to my personal details).


----------



## catzmeow

del said:


> snappy comeback but a fail.



Some might even call it an epic fail, with Davidesque flair.


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> (which you don't detail...while inquiring as to my personal details).



19 years working in the field of gangs, and I live in Florida.  I'd say that's an equivalent level of detail.

Also, I graduated from William Jewell College.

Feel safer now?


----------



## Ravi

This thread is a hate crime.


----------



## catzmeow

Ravi said:


> This thread is a hate crime.



I would call it a humor crime, personally.


----------



## del

Ravi said:


> This thread is a hate crime.



it's pretty ugly, i'll give you that.

i blame bush.


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see.  So you've presented me evidence of one case where they may have worked (you don't know that they did, since its impossible to take into account other factors), and the case isn't even about hate crimes.
> 
> Yeah.  Like I said, you know jack shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, gang enhancements exist in about 25 states now, and have failed to reduce gang crime in every single one of them.  Hate crime enhancements have ALSO failed to reduce crime.
> 
> I'm not talking about a "case," I'm talking about the ramifications of passing a law in terms of crime statistics.  Guess they didn't teach you that when you were researching "cases" in the law library.
Click to expand...


Actually you were talking about one case.  California laws=one case.  

By the way, there are other reasons to implement the laws other than the one that hate crime laws reduce crime.


----------



## del

Nik said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see.  So you've presented me evidence of one case where they may have worked (you don't know that they did, since its impossible to take into account other factors), and the case isn't even about hate crimes.
> 
> Yeah.  Like I said, you know jack shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, gang enhancements exist in about 25 states now, and have failed to reduce gang crime in every single one of them.  Hate crime enhancements have ALSO failed to reduce crime.
> 
> I'm not talking about a "case," I'm talking about the ramifications of passing a law in terms of crime statistics.  Guess they didn't teach you that when you were researching "cases" in the law library.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually you were talking about one case.  California laws=one case.
> 
> By the way, there are other reasons to implement the laws other than the one that hate crime laws reduce crime.
Click to expand...


such as?


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> Actually you were talking about one case.  California laws=one case.



California's STEP Act is actually the model for legislation implemented in over 20 different states.

You know, for someone who is such a proponent of enhancement legislation, it's kind of sad how little research you've actually DONE on the effects of enhancement legislation.


----------



## catzmeow

del said:


> such as?



It makes him feel warm and fluffy on the inside, like the Pillsbury Fucking Doughboy.


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> (which you don't detail...while inquiring as to my personal details).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 19 years working in the field of gangs, and I live in Florida.  I'd say that's an equivalent level of detail.
> 
> Also, I graduated from William Jewell College.
> 
> Feel safer now?
Click to expand...


I've said what year I am.  That narrows it down to about 100-450 individuals if I told you which school I went too.  I'll pass on giving you that information.


----------



## Nik

del said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, gang enhancements exist in about 25 states now, and have failed to reduce gang crime in every single one of them.  Hate crime enhancements have ALSO failed to reduce crime.
> 
> I'm not talking about a "case," I'm talking about the ramifications of passing a law in terms of crime statistics.  Guess they didn't teach you that when you were researching "cases" in the law library.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you were talking about one case.  California laws=one case.
> 
> By the way, there are other reasons to implement the laws other than the one that hate crime laws reduce crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> such as?
Click to expand...


Symbolic value.


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you were talking about one case.  California laws=one case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California's STEP Act is actually the model for legislation implemented in over 20 different states.
> 
> You know, for someone who is such a proponent of enhancement legislation, it's kind of sad how little research you've actually DONE on the effects of enhancement legislation.
Click to expand...


Thats nice.  Whether the legislation is the same or not isn't relevant.  What other factors exist in the case are whats relevant.


----------



## del

Nik said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you were talking about one case.  California laws=one case.
> 
> By the way, there are other reasons to implement the laws other than the one that hate crime laws reduce crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> such as?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Symbolic value.
Click to expand...


you're kidding right?


----------



## jgbkab

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you were talking about one case.  California laws=one case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California's STEP Act is actually the model for legislation implemented in over 20 different states.
> 
> You know, for someone who is such a proponent of enhancement legislation, it's kind of sad how little research you've actually DONE on the effects of enhancement legislation.
Click to expand...


So if enforcing the existing laws doesn't work and additional hate crime laws don't work, what do you think is the solution?


----------



## Yurt

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm beginning to doubt he has even gone to lawschool...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh noes.  Yurt doesn't believe me.  My life is all in shambles now ;(
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't blame Yurt, you were a moron before he ever encountered you.
Click to expand...


----------



## Nik

del said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> such as?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Symbolic value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're kidding right?
Click to expand...


No.  Acceptance by the federal government that they, specifically, have a right not be targeted for their sexual orientation is important to many people.  Because many of them HAVE been specifically targeted for their sexual orientation.


----------



## Nik

Oy.  I accept that you guys are all having fun attempting to beat up on the one guy, since you can't handle it yourselves.  But really, do try to avoid patting each other on the back at every turn.  Yes, you are all in a cute little circle jerk where you are all thinking in lock step in with each other.  Your even making the same flaws, which is really quite endearing.  But try to at least pretend you have a point and aren't just having fun attacking someone as a group.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Nik said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course... I can't imagine numbers that high!.  And I am sure a fresh new face to the law.  Its not like I've been around this kind of shit since I was 10, both parents being involved in the law and all.
> 
> But do tell how if its "not about me", you were able to glean so much from something I personally said?
> 
> Aside from that, I don't have any pretensions about the law.  Legal Aid does a lot of good work, but the law is fucked up in any number of ways, and the adversarial system is somewhat of a strange one.  *And no, I'm not a "by-product" of the system.*  Its influenced me, surely, but I am not a creation of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should stop sounding like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should stop assuming I do based off of a few statements.
> 
> 
> 
> oh, and what "company line" would that be?  And no, not all the good minds go to harvard and yale.  But there is definitely a difference in intelligence.
> 
> Sounds like someone went to a bad law school and had a shitty career that they hated as a result.  Don't be bitter, baby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there is a reason biglaw does what it does, but it doesn't have much to do with what you think it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, then do enlighten me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do the government agencies higher disproportionately from George Washington and American?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that they do.  In at least one area, they don't.  I couldn't be assed to look up more government agencies.
> 
> USDOJ: OARM: Law Schools Attended By 2007-2008 Honors Program Hires
> 
> But IF that is the case, and you'd have to prove to me that it was, it would be because of location.
> Any ideas?
Click to expand...


Edit: 

They don't actually have #'s on the site, actually, so its unclear.[/QUOTE]

LOL.....you are verging on a complete wreck. Some would argue and say you aren't verging.

At any rate, since you asked, I went to a reasonably top law school. In the top 25 or so anyway. So, strike one. I hated practicing law and there was no where within the "actual practice of law" that I felt like I would enjoy, so I left it to do something constructive with my life. 

Oh, I was full of piss and vinegar at first. Teaching those nasty landlords a lesson. Defending those poor unfortunates. Even though practicing that kind of law was distinctly not why I went to law school. After a few years of it, well....time will tell. You decide. Some people actually like it. I've seen them. Most of those are asshole pricks. (which I was becoming. Unknown to me at the time but I had a divorce in my future if I'd stayed on that road.)

Unlike you, I know what they hire there, because I've been there. They hire in those numbers not merely because of location but because of the network. If location was all it was, there would also be large numbers from Georgetown, Catholic and Howard not to mention George Mason. All respected law schools and all within 10 miles of DC. But, that isn't what happens.


----------



## del

Nik said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Symbolic value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're kidding right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Acceptance by the federal government that they, specifically, have a right not be targeted for their sexual orientation is important to many people.  Because many of them HAVE been specifically targeted for their sexual orientation.
Click to expand...


damn, do you really believe that will make any difference to people who actually commit the crimes? do you think they'll say to themselves " if i beat up this gay dude, i'll be committing a federal crime? i better not."

all i can do is shake my head.


----------



## Tech_Esq

del said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're kidding right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Acceptance by the federal government that they, specifically, have a right not be targeted for their sexual orientation is important to many people.  Because many of them HAVE been specifically targeted for their sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> damn, do you really believe that will make any difference to people who actually commit the crimes? do you think they'll say to themselves " if i beat up this gay dude, i'll be committing a federal crime? i better not."
> 
> all i can do is shake my head.
Click to expand...


In all fairness to Nik, it isn't his fault. The professors are very much in earnest as they impart this tripe to the young skulls filled with mush. It's very difficult to deal with the authority, the bias, the political agenda of people that are supposed to be dispassionately imparting knowledge to their students.

So, don't blame Nik for successfully being able to regurgitate the mess he's been taught.


----------



## del

Tech_Esq said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Acceptance by the federal government that they, specifically, have a right not be targeted for their sexual orientation is important to many people.  Because many of them HAVE been specifically targeted for their sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> damn, do you really believe that will make any difference to people who actually commit the crimes? do you think they'll say to themselves " if i beat up this gay dude, i'll be committing a federal crime? i better not."
> 
> all i can do is shake my head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all fairness to Nik, it isn't his fault. The professors are very much in earnest as they impart this tripe to the young skulls filled with mush. It's very difficult to deal with the authority, the bias, the political agenda of people that are supposed to be dispassionately imparting knowledge to their students.
> 
> So, don't blame Nik for successfully being able to regurgitate the mess he's been taught.
Click to expand...


oh, i don't. the idea that a law should be passed for its symbolic value alone is pretty rich with irony though.


----------



## Ravi

Tech_Esq said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Acceptance by the federal government that they, specifically, have a right not be targeted for their sexual orientation is important to many people.  Because many of them HAVE been specifically targeted for their sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> damn, do you really believe that will make any difference to people who actually commit the crimes? do you think they'll say to themselves " if i beat up this gay dude, i'll be committing a federal crime? i better not."
> 
> all i can do is shake my head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all fairness to Nik, it isn't his fault. The professors are very much in earnest as they impart this tripe to the young skulls filled with mush. It's very difficult to deal with the authority, the bias, the political agenda of people that are supposed to be dispassionately imparting knowledge to their students.
> 
> So, don't blame Nik for successfully being able to regurgitate the mess he's been taught.
Click to expand...

 Where is anyone taught that?


----------



## Tech_Esq

Ravi said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> damn, do you really believe that will make any difference to people who actually commit the crimes? do you think they'll say to themselves " if i beat up this gay dude, i'll be committing a federal crime? i better not."
> 
> all i can do is shake my head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all fairness to Nik, it isn't his fault. The professors are very much in earnest as they impart this tripe to the young skulls filled with mush. It's very difficult to deal with the authority, the bias, the political agenda of people that are supposed to be dispassionately imparting knowledge to their students.
> 
> So, don't blame Nik for successfully being able to regurgitate the mess he's been taught.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is anyone taught that?
Click to expand...


Only in law school.

You would blanch at my list of law school professors and their pet topics. Here's a glimpse:

First year:

Professor Williams - Property Law - First 6 weeks of class concerning the fact that women are not chattel property. 

Professor Hagger - Torts - People don't have any more right to what they earn than any other person in society. Self avowed socialist (no he didn't say to which hyphen of socialism he belonged, Agna).

Professor Raskin - Criminal Law - Also Chief Counsel of the Rainbow Push Coalition and current state senator in Maryland. Brought Jesse Jackson to our class to tell us about voting rights for DC.

And finally, a guest professor for Legislation class, the Chief Counsel for the ACLU.

Hmmmpff......and me a righty. No wonder I did law school in 2 1/2 years. Had to get out of that nut house.


----------



## catzmeow

jgbkab said:


> So if enforcing the existing laws doesn't work and additional hate crime laws don't work, what do you think is the solution?



Actually, I think that enforcing existing laws DOES in fact work.  So does aggressive intel collection on known hate groups who are involved in criminal activities, such as the Nazi Lowriders, and others.  Because, shockingly enough, hate crime groups are OFTEN involved in a host of other activities, from publishing recruitment materials to trafficking in illegal weapons and drugs.

Shut down one member with a hate crime, and it's like the hydra.  Another head rises up, and they have a martyr for the cause.  Shut down the ENTIRE GROUP through proactive investigation, and you stop ALL of their criminal activities.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking that just because I don't support federal hate crimes legislation that I'm soft on racists and criminals.  I'm not.


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> No.  Acceptance by the federal government that they, specifically, have a right not be targeted for their sexual orientation is important to many people.  Because many of them HAVE been specifically targeted for their sexual orientation.



If a person is targeted by a criminal or violent act for their sexual orientation, there are already LAWS ON THE BOOKS for prosecuting that criminal act.  Aggressive, effective prosecution SENDS THAT SAME MESSAGE, without the special hate crimes label.

And, if the acts aren't criminal, then the law doesn't apply anyway.  Passing this law is not going to:

1)  Increase tolerance of gays/lesbians.
2)  Stop people from staring at you when you walk down the sidewalk hand in hand with your boyfriend.
3)  Push your company to give you partner benefits.

You have this fuzzy-headed notion that passing a federal hate crimes law will suddenly make life a cakewalk for gays/lesbians.  And the fact of the matter is that it won't.

NOTHING WILL CHANGE, except that you'll have federal prosecutors grandstanding and politicizing cases, instead of local ones.  The jury pools won't change.  I've seen nothing to convince me that USAOs are somehow more effective or professional or credible than local prosecutors, plus, most of them are from the local area ANYWAY, and attended the same law schools as the local prosecutors.  

These cases will STILL RELY on the same types of people, in virtually the same settings, to prosecute these crimes.  And they will fall short in EXACTLY the same ways that they currently do.

Jeez, you are naive.


----------



## catzmeow

p.s.  Didn't they teach you in law schools that laws aren't passed for symbolic value?  That's what resolutions are for.


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> Oy.  I accept that you guys are all having fun attempting to beat up on the one guy, since you can't handle it yourselves.  But really, do try to avoid patting each other on the back at every turn.  Yes, you are all in a cute little circle jerk where you are all thinking in lock step in with each other.  Your even making the same flaws, which is really quite endearing.  But try to at least pretend you have a point and aren't just having fun attacking someone as a group.



If you want to be some kind of legal badass, it's really Oi.  Just a tip, mind you.  Oy makes you sound like your Jewish granny.


----------



## Nik

Tech_Esq said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should stop sounding like one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should stop assuming I do based off of a few statements.
> 
> 
> 
> oh, and what "company line" would that be?  And no, not all the good minds go to harvard and yale.  But there is definitely a difference in intelligence.
> 
> Sounds like someone went to a bad law school and had a shitty career that they hated as a result.  Don't be bitter, baby.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, then do enlighten me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do the government agencies higher disproportionately from George Washington and American?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that they do.  In at least one area, they don't.  I couldn't be assed to look up more government agencies.
> 
> USDOJ: OARM: Law Schools Attended By 2007-2008 Honors Program Hires
> 
> But IF that is the case, and you'd have to prove to me that it was, it would be because of location.
> Any ideas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Edit:
> 
> They don't actually have #'s on the site, actually, so its unclear.
Click to expand...


LOL.....you are verging on a complete wreck. Some would argue and say you aren't verging.

At any rate, since you asked, I went to a reasonably top law school. In the top 25 or so anyway. So, strike one. I hated practicing law and there was no where within the "actual practice of law" that I felt like I would enjoy, so I left it to do something constructive with my life. 

Oh, I was full of piss and vinegar at first. Teaching those nasty landlords a lesson. Defending those poor unfortunates. Even though practicing that kind of law was distinctly not why I went to law school. After a few years of it, well....time will tell. You decide. Some people actually like it. I've seen them. Most of those are asshole pricks. (which I was becoming. Unknown to me at the time but I had a divorce in my future if I'd stayed on that road.)

Unlike you, I know what they hire there, because I've been there. They hire in those numbers not merely because of location but because of the network. If location was all it was, there would also be large numbers from Georgetown, Catholic and Howard not to mention George Mason. All respected law schools and all within 10 miles of DC. But, that isn't what happens.[/QUOTE]

And some would argue that the hate crimes bill covers pedophilia.  People argue all sorts of asinine things.  

And if you don't enjoy practicing law, you should probably leave.  You made the right choice.

As for you trying to teach those "nasty landlords a lesson", I'm not.  I am actually doing housing shit at the moment, but I'm not trying to teach anyone a lesson.  Some are unethical, some are not, but regardless most of the people who we represent will be on the streets if we lose.  So its pretty important to me.  But its really not about teaching anyone a lesson.  

Umm, congratulations for having been there.  I'm really quite impressed.  I wonder if anyones going to accuse you of bragging about it 

Biglaw is less about network and more about prestige.  Of course the two complement each other, but you don't get hired just cause of networking.


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> p.s.  Didn't they teach you in law schools that laws aren't passed for symbolic value?  That's what resolutions are for.



Unsurprisingly, they don't teach your personal opinions about the world in law school.  Laws are passed for any number of reasons.  Symbolism can be one of them.


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oy.  I accept that you guys are all having fun attempting to beat up on the one guy, since you can't handle it yourselves.  But really, do try to avoid patting each other on the back at every turn.  Yes, you are all in a cute little circle jerk where you are all thinking in lock step in with each other.  Your even making the same flaws, which is really quite endearing.  But try to at least pretend you have a point and aren't just having fun attacking someone as a group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to be some kind of legal badass, it's really Oi.  Just a tip, mind you.  Oy makes you sound like your Jewish granny.
Click to expand...


I don't, I'm not, and I never claimed I was.  You and the rest of your circle jerk have done more to talk up my ego and legal skills than I ever have.


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> Laws are passed for any number of reasons.  Symbolism can be one of them.



Not in the category of CRIMINAL LAW, dumbass.


----------



## Nik

del said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're kidding right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Acceptance by the federal government that they, specifically, have a right not be targeted for their sexual orientation is important to many people.  Because many of them HAVE been specifically targeted for their sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> damn, do you really believe that will make any difference to people who actually commit the crimes? do you think they'll say to themselves " if i beat up this gay dude, i'll be committing a federal crime? i better not."
> 
> all i can do is shake my head.
Click to expand...


The impact isn't on the people who commit the crimes.  Its on the people who feel threatened who are now part of a protected class.


----------



## Nik

Tech_Esq said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Acceptance by the federal government that they, specifically, have a right not be targeted for their sexual orientation is important to many people.  Because many of them HAVE been specifically targeted for their sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> damn, do you really believe that will make any difference to people who actually commit the crimes? do you think they'll say to themselves " if i beat up this gay dude, i'll be committing a federal crime? i better not."
> 
> all i can do is shake my head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all fairness to Nik, it isn't his fault. The professors are very much in earnest as they impart this tripe to the young skulls filled with mush. It's very difficult to deal with the authority, the bias, the political agenda of people that are supposed to be dispassionately imparting knowledge to their students.
> 
> So, don't blame Nik for successfully being able to regurgitate the mess he's been taught.
Click to expand...


Wow.  Good job making shit up there.  I'm not actually regurgitating anything.  But yay for internet psychology!


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws are passed for any number of reasons.  Symbolism can be one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the category of CRIMINAL LAW, dumbass.
Click to expand...


Really?  Please point to me where its disallowed to pass criminal laws for symbolic reasons.


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> Really?  Please point to me where its disallowed to pass criminal laws for symbolic reasons.



Please state your question again in English.


----------



## del

Nik said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Acceptance by the federal government that they, specifically, have a right not be targeted for their sexual orientation is important to many people.  Because many of them HAVE been specifically targeted for their sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> damn, do you really believe that will make any difference to people who actually commit the crimes? do you think they'll say to themselves " if i beat up this gay dude, i'll be committing a federal crime? i better not."
> 
> all i can do is shake my head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The impact isn't on the people who commit the crimes.  Its on the people who feel threatened who are now part of a protected class.
Click to expand...


that's even more stupid. they will be no safer than they were before; in fact, they may be less safe if they think that this *symbolic* law protects them. 

can you name another "symbolic" criminal law for me and show me how well it did or did not work? i can't think of one.


----------



## Nik

Tech_Esq said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> In all fairness to Nik, it isn't his fault. The professors are very much in earnest as they impart this tripe to the young skulls filled with mush. It's very difficult to deal with the authority, the bias, the political agenda of people that are supposed to be dispassionately imparting knowledge to their students.
> 
> So, don't blame Nik for successfully being able to regurgitate the mess he's been taught.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is anyone taught that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only in law school.
> 
> You would blanch at my list of law school professors and their pet topics. Here's a glimpse:
> 
> First year:
> 
> Professor Williams - Property Law - First 6 weeks of class concerning the fact that women are not chattel property.
> 
> Professor Hagger - Torts - People don't have any more right to what they earn than any other person in society. Self avowed socialist (no he didn't say to which hyphen of socialism he belonged, Agna).
> 
> Professor Raskin - Criminal Law - Also Chief Counsel of the Rainbow Push Coalition and current state senator in Maryland. Brought Jesse Jackson to our class to tell us about voting rights for DC.
> 
> And finally, a guest professor for Legislation class, the Chief Counsel for the ACLU.
> 
> Hmmmpff......and me a righty. No wonder I did law school in 2 1/2 years. Had to get out of that nut house.
Click to expand...


Most of my professors were hired because of the groundworking work they've done in their field, not because of their political beliefs.  Not sure what kind of fucked up school you went too.

Of course, its not the case that doing groundbreaking work makes you a good prof.  But they definitely weren't hired for their ideology.  By the way...see Berkeley (omg, the liberal bastion of the world!!!!!!) and their defense of Yoo for a stark counterexample.


----------



## Nik

:





catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Please point to me where its disallowed to pass criminal laws for symbolic reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please state your question again in English.
Click to expand...


That is english.  Don't blame me if you lack reading comprehension.  Oh, sorry...you don't want me to be arrogant.  Well I'm sure its my fault that you can't read


----------



## jgbkab

catzmeow said:


> jgbkab said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if enforcing the existing laws doesn't work and additional hate crime laws don't work, what do you think is the solution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I think that enforcing existing laws DOES in fact work.  So does aggressive intel collection on known hate groups who are involved in criminal activities, such as the Nazi Lowriders, and others.  Because, shockingly enough, hate crime groups are OFTEN involved in a host of other activities, from publishing recruitment materials to trafficking in illegal weapons and drugs.
> 
> Shut down one member with a hate crime, and it's like the hydra.  Another head rises up, and they have a martyr for the cause.  Shut down the ENTIRE GROUP through proactive investigation, and you stop ALL of their criminal activities.
> 
> Please don't make the mistake of thinking that just because I don't support federal hate crimes legislation that I'm soft on racists and criminals.  I'm not.
Click to expand...


But you said that we should be enforcing the laws that we have. If the laws we already enforce and hate crime legislation aren't deterrents, what else is there? 

Even if you shut down the group doesn't mean that another group won't take it's place. I DO NOT THINK you're a racist nor do I THINK that you are soft on racists. But you see racism in your line of work. Why do you think the people you come in contact with are racists? What would be a deterrent of hate crimes? The existing laws and enforcement of these laws don't deter hate crimes much or else you wouldn't have been doing what you do for so long. 

I believe the problem is that what's being done is counterproductive. Race relations are really no better than they were 10, 20 or 30 years ago. People just hide it better and gear up for the big race war. Something better has to be done. You say the answer is not hate crime legislation and I say it's not existing laws. Now what?


----------



## Nik

del said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> damn, do you really believe that will make any difference to people who actually commit the crimes? do you think they'll say to themselves " if i beat up this gay dude, i'll be committing a federal crime? i better not."
> 
> all i can do is shake my head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The impact isn't on the people who commit the crimes.  Its on the people who feel threatened who are now part of a protected class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's even more stupid. they will be no safer than they were before; in fact, they may be less safe if they think that this *symbolic* law protects them.
Click to expand...


Nobody thinks that hate crime laws are going to make the protected class 100% safe.  



> can you name another "symbolic" criminal law for me and show me how well it did or did not work? i can't think of one.



There are plenty of laws making things illegal because of the symbolism inherent in them.


----------



## del

Nik said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> The impact isn't on the people who commit the crimes.  Its on the people who feel threatened who are now part of a protected class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's even more stupid. they will be no safer than they were before; in fact, they may be less safe if they think that this *symbolic* law protects them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody thinks that hate crime laws are going to make the protected class 100% safe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you name another "symbolic" criminal law for me and show me how well it did or did not work? i can't think of one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are plenty of laws making things illegal because of the symbolism inherent in them.
Click to expand...


name one.


----------



## Nik

del said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's even more stupid. they will be no safer than they were before; in fact, they may be less safe if they think that this *symbolic* law protects them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody thinks that hate crime laws are going to make the protected class 100% safe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you name another "symbolic" criminal law for me and show me how well it did or did not work? i can't think of one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are plenty of laws making things illegal because of the symbolism inherent in them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> name one.
Click to expand...


Flipping off a cop.  Burning crosses on someones lawn.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Nik said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the world needs more of, by all means, is attorneys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a terrible way to make a living. I could wish for nothing better for Nik to experience.
> 
> Have a nice life Nik.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sucks for you if you picked something to go into that you hate.  I actually enjoy it.
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO...

No...  Say it isn't so..  Nik is an officer of the court?  

LOL... Sweet Mother...

Tell me Nik...  in what discipline have you settled?

Clearly, you're no litigator...  so... what?  Some quiet corner of Real-Estate or Tax law?


----------



## Nik

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a terrible way to make a living. I could wish for nothing better for Nik to experience.
> 
> Have a nice life Nik.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sucks for you if you picked something to go into that you hate.  I actually enjoy it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO...
> 
> No...  Say it isn't so..  Nik is an officer of the court?
> 
> LOL... Sweet Mother...
> 
> Tell me Nik...  in what discipline have you settled?
> 
> Clearly, you're no litigator...  so... what?  Some quiet corner of Real-Estate or Tax law?
Click to expand...


And yet someone else creepily interested in my personal details.  Try reading the thread, genius.


----------



## Yurt

Nik said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sucks for you if you picked something to go into that you hate.  I actually enjoy it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO...
> 
> No...  Say it isn't so..  Nik is an officer of the court?
> 
> LOL... Sweet Mother...
> 
> Tell me Nik...  in what discipline have you settled?
> 
> Clearly, you're no litigator...  so... what?  Some quiet corner of Real-Estate or Tax law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet someone else creepily interested in my personal details.  Try reading the thread, genius.
Click to expand...


maybe you should stop bragging about how great you are and how great your LSAT was and how you make $100/hr teaching LSAT review and how your school is in the top....

cliff note version for you:

stop bragging about yourself so much


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> Flipping off a cop.



Not statutorily illegal, but will probably get you stopped and questioned.  That's not the same thing as being arrested and charged, though.



> Burning crosses on someones lawn.



This isn't illegal for symbolic reasons, it's illegal because it is VANDALISM.  TRESPASSING.  TERRORISTIC THREATS.  And, potentially ARSON.

Are they actually teaching you the law in school?


----------



## catzmeow

Yurt said:


> maybe you should stop bragging about how great you are and how great your LSAT was and how you make $100/hr teaching LSAT review and how your school is in the top....
> 
> cliff note version for you:
> 
> stop bragging about yourself so much



Don't kill the schadenfreudian buzz, dude.


----------



## Nik

Yurt said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO...
> 
> No...  Say it isn't so..  Nik is an officer of the court?
> 
> LOL... Sweet Mother...
> 
> Tell me Nik...  in what discipline have you settled?
> 
> Clearly, you're no litigator...  so... what?  Some quiet corner of Real-Estate or Tax law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet someone else creepily interested in my personal details.  Try reading the thread, genius.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> maybe you should stop bragging about how great you are and how great your LSAT was and how you make $100/hr teaching LSAT review and how your school is in the top....
> 
> cliff note version for you:
> 
> stop bragging about yourself so much
Click to expand...


I'm not quite sure how to stop "bragging" about myself, considering I'm not bringing it up.  YOU and others like you talking about my qualifications isn't me bragging.  But nice try there.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Nik said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody thinks that hate crime laws are going to make the protected class 100% safe.
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of laws making things illegal because of the symbolism inherent in them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> name one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Flipping off a cop.  Burning crosses on someones lawn.
Click to expand...



I'll grant ya the Cop Flip... but cross burning on someones lawn necessarily includes multiple violations...  , breeching the peace, treaspassing, property damage and of course it's an indisputable overt act designed to threaten someones personal safety...  

Off the top of my head I'd say that the laws prohibiting drug use are symbolic...  

And I am not advocating lifting those laws... as they serve the public interests...  

I WOULD advocate lifting those laws, where it could be negotiated that all forms of public subsidy would be lifted, with regard to healthcare, subsistance for minor children and so on...  Meaning that the drug addled individual would face the stark realities... should they abuse the substance... choose the wrong substance, the wrong dosage or the wrong dealer.  

As a general rule, nature has a fantastic remedy for chronic drug abuse and that is STARVATION and all of the lovely effects of exposure... particularly in the winter.

With regards to the Children... where a drug abuser knows that their children are being cared for, even minimally, they can rationalize continued abuse of their DOC...  Where they look over and see the boney shell of their once healthy child... THAT is some serious reality and such tends to bring the message right on HOME: GROW THE HELL UP AND TEND TO YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES!

But until then the symbol of the Drug laws serves as a poor, but otherwise viable alternative.


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flipping off a cop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not statutorily illegal, but will probably get you stopped and questioned.  That's not the same thing as being arrested and charged, though.
Click to expand...


Hmm I could swear there was a USSC case on point on this.  Not sure where it is now.  Well, in any case, you can look at obscenity laws instead.  




> Burning crosses on someones lawn.



This isn't illegal for symbolic reasons, it's illegal because it is VANDALISM.  TRESPASSING.  TERRORISTIC THREATS.  And, potentially ARSON.

Are they actually teaching you the law in school?[/QUOTE]

Care to explain why its different if you burn a newspaper on someones lawn, as opposed to a cross?


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> maybe you should stop bragging about how great you are and how great your LSAT was and how you make $100/hr teaching LSAT review and how your school is in the top....
> 
> cliff note version for you:
> 
> stop bragging about yourself so much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't kill the schadenfreudian buzz, dude.
Click to expand...


Enjoying your circle jerk, are you?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Nik said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sucks for you if you picked something to go into that you hate.  I actually enjoy it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO...
> 
> No...  Say it isn't so..  Nik is an officer of the court?
> 
> LOL... Sweet Mother...
> 
> Tell me Nik...  in what discipline have you settled?
> 
> Clearly, you're no litigator...  so... what?  Some quiet corner of Real-Estate or Tax law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet someone else creepily interested in my personal details.  Try reading the thread, genius.
Click to expand...



Didn't read the thread clue-less... I read the "I actually enjoy it."

Now when one considers that your declaration was in response to the discussion of the practice of Law as a means to eat... and you ended your declaration with the pronoun 'it'...  referring to the aforementioned subject... the conclusion was fairly obvious...

But given that I had not read the thread... I phrased the point to impart the benefit of the doubt...

Of course, if you were MUCH of a Lawyer... you'd know that.  Hell if you were much of a law student... you'd know that.

LOL... If you just were not an ignoramous... you'd know that.

As to the answer...  the means by which you sustain your pathetic existance, presents no where NEAR the level of curiosity which would require I read through this thread ...

There's not much about the subject that is not already known and the opinions of those who are contributing to the thread, are no exception...  

But I don't blame ya for this sudden reticence... I can't imagine that whatever it is you're doin' provides much to bark about; and given your score today... I'd say you could use the break; so as a humanitarian and all around great guy... I'll drop it.


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> Hmm I could swear there was a USSC case on point on this.  Not sure where it is now.  Well, in any case, you can look at obscenity laws instead.



Why do you consider obscenity laws to be "symbolic" in nature?



> Care to explain why its different if you burn a newspaper on someones lawn, as opposed to a cross?



You could be charged with vandalism, trespassing, and potentially arson, depending on how much damage the burning newspaper did, and how offended the residents were.  So, the main difference is in the threatening intent, which would be covered by terroristic threats.


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> Enjoying your circle jerk, are you?



 I'm enjoying watching you squirm.


----------



## Ravi

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm I could swear there was a USSC case on point on this.  Not sure where it is now.  Well, in any case, you can look at obscenity laws instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you consider obscenity laws to be "symbolic" in nature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to explain why its different if you burn a newspaper on someones lawn, as opposed to a cross?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could be charged with vandalism, trespassing, and potentially arson, depending on how much damage the burning newspaper did, and how offended the residents were.  So, the main difference is in the threatening intent, which would be covered by terroristic threats.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it would be better to call them all terrorist threats. But then what would we call attacks by AQ?


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm I could swear there was a USSC case on point on this.  Not sure where it is now.  Well, in any case, you can look at obscenity laws instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you consider obscenity laws to be "symbolic" in nature?
Click to expand...


Because obscenity causes no tangible harm.  




> Care to explain why its different if you burn a newspaper on someones lawn, as opposed to a cross?



You could be charged with vandalism, trespassing, and potentially arson, depending on how much damage the burning newspaper did, and how offended the residents were.  So, the main difference is in the threatening intent, which would be covered by terroristic threats.[/QUOTE]

Yeah and the threatening intent comes in from the symbolism of the cross as opposed to the newspaper.


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoying your circle jerk, are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm enjoying watching you squirm.
Click to expand...


Lmao.  Yes, I am squirming so much.  Your overwhelming brilliance has left me dazzled


----------



## Nik

Ravi said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm I could swear there was a USSC case on point on this.  Not sure where it is now.  Well, in any case, you can look at obscenity laws instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you consider obscenity laws to be "symbolic" in nature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to explain why its different if you burn a newspaper on someones lawn, as opposed to a cross?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could be charged with vandalism, trespassing, and potentially arson, depending on how much damage the burning newspaper did, and how offended the residents were.  So, the main difference is in the threatening intent, which would be covered by terroristic threats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps it would be better to call them all terrorist threats. But then what would we call attacks by AQ?
Click to expand...


Super duper terrorist threats!


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Nik said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flipping off a cop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not statutorily illegal, but will probably get you stopped and questioned.  That's not the same thing as being arrested and charged, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm I could swear there was a USSC case on point on this.  Not sure where it is now.  Well, in any case, you can look at obscenity laws instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Burning crosses on someones lawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't illegal for symbolic reasons, it's illegal because it is VANDALISM.  TRESPASSING.  TERRORISTIC THREATS.  And, potentially ARSON.
> 
> Are they actually teaching you the law in school?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to explain why its different if you burn a newspaper on someones lawn, as opposed to a cross?
Click to expand...


LOL... 

Well one might look to the whole history of Cross burning, where the cross burnee... was found shortly after the Cross Burning... in an exceptionally dead condition...  Burned to a crisp... Hung, after a brutal ass beating which resulted in a broken neck... I am talking GOOD AND DEAD here...

While the history of burning newspapers in the front yard is littered with burnt grass... conspicous consumption of adult beverages, hot dogs and smors for the kids... and the obligatory instances where someone breaks out the guitar and never quiiite gets around to actually singing a whole song; ending in the inevitable declarations where someone is going to KICK SOMEONE ASS...


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> Because obscenity causes no tangible harm.



Proof?




> Yeah and the threatening intent comes in from the symbolism of the cross as opposed to the newspaper.



For the record, threats are a criminal act.  They are not symbolic.


----------



## catzmeow

Ravi said:


> Perhaps it would be better to call them all terrorist threats. But then what would we call attacks by AQ?



A terroristic threat is a specific type of act:

Terroristic Threat Law & Legal Definition



> A terroristic threat is a crime generally involving a threat to commit violence communicated with the intent to terrorize another, to cause evacuation of a building, or to cause serious public inconvenience, in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. It may mean an offense against property or involving danger to another person that may include but is not limited to recklessly endangering another person, harassment, stalking, ethnic intimidation, and criminal mischief.
> 
> The following is an example of a Texas statute dealing with terroristic threats:
> 
> TERRORISTIC THREAT
> 
> (a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:
> 
> cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;
> place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;
> prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a building; room; place of assembly; place to which the public has access; place of employment or occupation; aircraft, automobile, or other form of conveyance; or other public place;
> cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service;
> place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury; or
> influence the conduct or activities of a branch or agency of the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state.




See, this conduct is already illegal, without hate crimes legislation.


----------



## DamnYankee

Nik said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oy.  I don't answer questions to give the minimum amount of information possible.  This back and forth is annoying enough, without doing that.  I answer what seems to be the thrust of your question, not the base minimum question.  You, presumably, aren't a lawyer, so I see no reason to treat your questions as technical, precise ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you are a lawyer?
> 
> a piece of advice, do not assume anything about anyone...it will more often than not come back to haunt you.  i still tell myself that almost everyday, assuming things, especially in law, is not smart and usually causes you to overlook key facts or issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not assuming your not a lawyer.  I'm acting as if you aren't, until I have some evidence otherwise.  Acting as if you were, especially here, would lead to you being more confused than you already seem to be.
Click to expand...



That is the arrogance that generally gets attorneys in trouble. They presume, that because the person they are dealing with isn't, they know more about a specific law. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Many an attorney has been "hog tied", so to speak, for such a presumption in our agency.


----------



## Ravi

hmmm...I wonder if that is true in all states.

It kind of makes acts of terrorism on a grand scale smaller if you can convict someone of terrorism for burning a cross on someone's lawn.


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because obscenity causes no tangible harm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof?
Click to expand...


Umm, what?  Its a word.  It means nothing until we attach value to it.  Symbolic value, in fact.  Because it is, by itself, worth nothing.  




> Yeah and the threatening intent comes in from the symbolism of the cross as opposed to the newspaper.



For the record, threats are a criminal act.  They are not symbolic.[/QUOTE]

Oy.  There is nothing implicitly threatening about burning something.  Its what you burn that makes it threatening or not.  I.e. the symbol of a burning cross.

Man, you are really trying to dodge this.


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps it would be better to call them all terrorist threats. But then what would we call attacks by AQ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A terroristic threat is a specific type of act:
> 
> Terroristic Threat Law & Legal Definition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A terroristic threat is a crime generally involving a threat to commit violence communicated with the intent to terrorize another, to cause evacuation of a building, or to cause serious public inconvenience, in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. It may mean an offense against property or involving danger to another person that may include but is not limited to recklessly endangering another person, harassment, stalking, ethnic intimidation, and criminal mischief.
> 
> The following is an example of a Texas statute dealing with terroristic threats:
> 
> TERRORISTIC THREAT
> 
> (a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:
> 
> cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;
> place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;
> prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a building; room; place of assembly; place to which the public has access; place of employment or occupation; aircraft, automobile, or other form of conveyance; or other public place;
> cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service;
> place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury; or
> influence the conduct or activities of a branch or agency of the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *See, this conduct is already illegal, without hate crimes legislation*.
Click to expand...



Moron.  Try re-reading the thread to figure out what we are talking about here.


----------



## Nik

ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you are a lawyer?
> 
> a piece of advice, do not assume anything about anyone...it will more often than not come back to haunt you.  i still tell myself that almost everyday, assuming things, especially in law, is not smart and usually causes you to overlook key facts or issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not assuming your not a lawyer.  I'm acting as if you aren't, until I have some evidence otherwise.  Acting as if you were, especially here, would lead to you being more confused than you already seem to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is the arrogance that generally gets attorneys in trouble. They presume, that because the person they are dealing with isn't, they know more about a specific law. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Many an attorney has been "hog tied", so to speak, for such a presumption in our agency.
Click to expand...


I wasn't talking about a specific law, I was talking about a certain type of talking, and thinking.  One that if you aren't trained in it, its very hard to do.  That and theres no point in speaking purely logically here.  People won't get it, and besides that its not effective unless you start from the ground up.


----------



## catzmeow

Ravi said:


> hmmm...I wonder if that is true in all states.
> 
> It kind of makes acts of terrorism on a grand scale smaller if you can convict someone of terrorism for burning a cross on someone's lawn.



It isn't a conviction for terrorism, it is a conviction for a THREAT of terror.  Terroristic threat are actions taken to create fear and mayhem.  So, terorism, only on a much smaller scale.  In essence, a hate crime.

I think most states prosecute terroristic threats.  The charge dates back to the civil rights era, if not before.  WAYYY before hate crimes legislation became "necessary."


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> Umm, what?  Its a word.  It means nothing until we attach value to it.  Symbolic value, in fact.  Because it is, by itself, worth nothing.



YOu stated that obscenity causes no harm.  Please prove this claim.  



> Oy.  There is nothing implicitly threatening about burning something.  Its what you burn that makes it threatening or not.  I.e. the symbol of a burning cross.
> 
> Man, you are really trying to dodge this.



Actually, there IS something implicitly threatening about burning something.  That's why it would be charged as a terroristic threat.  It is not a SYMBOL, at all, it is an implied threat of physical harm.  Imminent harm, in fact.

I'm guessing you haven't covered this in class yet.


----------



## catzmeow

Nik said:


> Moron.  Try re-reading the thread to figure out what we are talking about here.



Sadly, I have a far better idea of what we are discussing here than you have at any point in this thread, Mr. Future Lawyer.


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, what?  Its a word.  It means nothing until we attach value to it.  Symbolic value, in fact.  Because it is, by itself, worth nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu stated that obscenity causes no harm.  Please prove this claim.
Click to expand...


No, I said tangible harm.  I already explained it.  



> Oy.  There is nothing implicitly threatening about burning something.  Its what you burn that makes it threatening or not.  I.e. the symbol of a burning cross.
> 
> Man, you are really trying to dodge this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there IS something implicitly threatening about burning something.  That's why it would be charged as a terroristic threat.  It is not a SYMBOL, at all, it is an implied threat of physical harm.  Imminent harm, in fact.
> 
> I'm guessing you haven't covered this in class yet.
Click to expand...


No, actually theres not.  Theres nothing threatening about burning a piece of paper.


----------



## Nik

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.  Try re-reading the thread to figure out what we are talking about here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, I have a far better idea of what we are discussing here than you have at any point in this thread, Mr. Future Lawyer.
Click to expand...


Of course you do, in your own mind.  Unfortunately what you think is significantly different from reality.



> See, this conduct is already illegal, without hate crimes legislation.



Nobody was claiming that hate crime legislation would somehow make terroristic threats illegal.  Not sure where you pulled that one from.


----------



## Yurt

Nik said:


> ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not assuming your not a lawyer.  I'm acting as if you aren't, until I have some evidence otherwise.  Acting as if you were, especially here, would lead to you being more confused than you already seem to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the arrogance that generally gets attorneys in trouble. They presume, that because the person they are dealing with isn't, they know more about a specific law. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Many an attorney has been "hog tied", so to speak, for such a presumption in our agency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about a specific law, I was talking about a certain type of talking, and thinking.  One that if you aren't trained in it, its very hard to do.  That and theres no point in speaking purely logically here.  People won't get it, and besides that its not effective unless you start from the ground up.
Click to expand...


you see, there is the arrogance i spoke of.  you think you are so fucking smart and that your logic is the only true logic.  you think that (overall) only those trained in the law can understand the nuances of the law and converse about it.  your arrogance is going to get the best of you.  just because someone doesn't think like you, does not mean they are not a lawyer.  it is the height of stupidity and arrogance to claim someone on the internet, whom you've never met, never seen practice law, is either a lousy lawyer, or went to a fucked up lawschool....you obviously have a god complex and if you don't change it, you won't go far.


----------



## Nik

Yurt said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the arrogance that generally gets attorneys in trouble. They presume, that because the person they are dealing with isn't, they know more about a specific law. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Many an attorney has been "hog tied", so to speak, for such a presumption in our agency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about a specific law, I was talking about a certain type of talking, and thinking.  One that if you aren't trained in it, its very hard to do.  That and theres no point in speaking purely logically here.  People won't get it, and besides that its not effective unless you start from the ground up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you see, there is the arrogance i spoke of.  you think you are so fucking smart and that your logic is the only true logic.
Click to expand...


Umm, no, I make logical mistakes as well.  But yes, there is only one true logic.  I also don't make that many of them.  



> you think that (overall) only those trained in the law can understand the nuances of the law and converse about it.



I wasn't talking about the law, I was talking about logic.  



> your arrogance is going to get the best of you.  just because someone doesn't think like you, does not mean they are not a lawyer.



See what you meant to say is that just because someone isn't a lawyer doesn't mean they can't think like me.  Instead you incorrectly reversed the sufficient and the necessary conditions here.  



> it is the height of stupidity and arrogance to claim someone on the internet, whom you've never met, never seen practice law, is either a lousy lawyer, or went to a fucked up lawschool....you obviously have a god complex and if you don't change it, you won't go far.



When did I claim anyone was a lousy lawyer?  And I claimed someone went to a fucked up law school in the context of...wait for it...*him explaining how his law school was fucked up*.  Yes, truly the height of arrogance.  

Is it perhaps as arrogant as doubting whether someone on the internet, whom you've never met, etc, etc, has ever been to law school, as you and Catz did?

Or perhapsas arrogant  presuming to give advice to someone on the internet as you've been attempting to do?

Or perhaps as arrogant as attempting to describe my entire psyche as Tech attempted to do?

Yeah.  But I'm the arrogant one here


----------



## Nik

Yurt said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the arrogance that generally gets attorneys in trouble. They presume, that because the person they are dealing with isn't, they know more about a specific law. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Many an attorney has been "hog tied", so to speak, for such a presumption in our agency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about a specific law, I was talking about a certain type of talking, and thinking.  One that if you aren't trained in it, its very hard to do.  That and theres no point in speaking purely logically here.  People won't get it, and besides that its not effective unless you start from the ground up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you see, there is the arrogance i spoke of.  you think you are so fucking smart and that your logic is the only true logic.  you think that (overall) only those trained in the law can understand the nuances of the law and converse about it.  your arrogance is going to get the best of you.  just because someone doesn't think like you, does not mean they are not a lawyer.  it is the height of stupidity and arrogance to claim someone on the internet, whom you've never met, never seen practice law, is either a lousy lawyer, or went to a fucked up lawschool....you obviously have a god complex and if you don't change it, you won't go far.
Click to expand...


By the way.  Me thinking I'm good at logic isn't me being arrogant.  I get paid to be good at logic, and I am.  If you think being aware of ones own strengths is arrogant, then go for it.  Your views have little to no credibility in my eyes, as you've really shown a great deal of ignorance and pettiness.


----------



## Yurt

Nik said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about a specific law, I was talking about a certain type of talking, and thinking.  One that if you aren't trained in it, its very hard to do.  That and theres no point in speaking purely logically here.  People won't get it, and besides that its not effective unless you start from the ground up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you see, there is the arrogance i spoke of.  you think you are so fucking smart and that your logic is the only true logic.  you think that (overall) only those trained in the law can understand the nuances of the law and converse about it.  your arrogance is going to get the best of you.  just because someone doesn't think like you, does not mean they are not a lawyer.  it is the height of stupidity and arrogance to claim someone on the internet, whom you've never met, never seen practice law, is either a lousy lawyer, or went to a fucked up lawschool....you obviously have a god complex and if you don't change it, you won't go far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the way.  Me thinking I'm good at logic isn't me being arrogant.  I get paid to be good at logic, and I am.  If you think being aware of ones own strengths is arrogant, then go for it.  Your views have little to no credibility in my eyes, as you've really shown a great deal of ignorance and pettiness.
Click to expand...


if you can't consider any other logic than your own and you dismiss all other logic, you will fail at a being a lawyer.  a good lawyer is confident that he is right, but he does not dismiss outright his opponent's argument, in fact he or she explores it, knows it and can predict it.  your attitude is one that dismisses outright, and for that you will miss vital issues and harm your cases and your clients.  

and yes, i am the pot calling the kettle, i try and learn more each day and continue striving to better myself...


----------



## Nik

Yurt said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> you see, there is the arrogance i spoke of.  you think you are so fucking smart and that your logic is the only true logic.  you think that (overall) only those trained in the law can understand the nuances of the law and converse about it.  your arrogance is going to get the best of you.  just because someone doesn't think like you, does not mean they are not a lawyer.  it is the height of stupidity and arrogance to claim someone on the internet, whom you've never met, never seen practice law, is either a lousy lawyer, or went to a fucked up lawschool....you obviously have a god complex and if you don't change it, you won't go far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way.  Me thinking I'm good at logic isn't me being arrogant.  I get paid to be good at logic, and I am.  If you think being aware of ones own strengths is arrogant, then go for it.  Your views have little to no credibility in my eyes, as you've really shown a great deal of ignorance and pettiness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you can't consider any other logic than your own and you dismiss all other logic, you will fail at a being a lawyer.
Click to expand...


Merely because you are wrong, or your logic is bad doesn't mean I dismiss all logic.  Yet another logical fail from you.  You are pretty bad at this.  That I dismiss YOUR logic does not mean I dismiss ALL logic.  



> a good lawyer is confident that he is right, but he does not dismiss outright his opponent's argument, in fact he or she explores it, knows it and can predict it.



Your arguments are quite predictable, at least when it comes to issues.  And thats only when facing a good lawyer.  When facing a bad lawyer, they are impossible to predict.  Because who knows what type of erratic bullshit they might come up with?  

As for exploring your arguments, I have.  And I've shown why they are asinine.  And instead of addressing that, you merely keep making up flaws about me.  



> your attitude is one that dismisses outright, and for that you will miss vital issues and harm your cases and your clients.
> 
> and yes, i am the pot calling the kettle, i try and learn more each day and continue striving to better myself...



Right.  Which is why you go around the board making the same specious arguments over and over again, eh?


----------



## Yurt

Nik said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way.  Me thinking I'm good at logic isn't me being arrogant.  I get paid to be good at logic, and I am.  If you think being aware of ones own strengths is arrogant, then go for it.  Your views have little to no credibility in my eyes, as you've really shown a great deal of ignorance and pettiness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you can't consider any other logic than your own and you dismiss all other logic, you will fail at a being a lawyer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Merely because you are wrong, or your logic is bad doesn't mean I dismiss all logic.  Yet another logical fail from you.  You are pretty bad at this.  That I dismiss YOUR logic does not mean I dismiss ALL logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a good lawyer is confident that he is right, but he does not dismiss outright his opponent's argument, in fact he or she explores it, knows it and can predict it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Your arguments are quite predictable, at least when it comes to issues.  And thats only when facing a good lawyer*.  When facing a bad lawyer, they are impossible to predict.  Because who knows what type of erratic bullshit they might come up with?
> 
> As for exploring your arguments, I have.  And I've shown why they are asinine.  And instead of addressing that, you merely keep making up flaws about me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your attitude is one that dismisses outright, and for that you will miss vital issues and harm your cases and your clients.
> 
> and yes, i am the pot calling the kettle, i try and learn more each day and continue striving to better myself...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.  Which is why you go around the board making the same specious arguments over and over again, eh?
Click to expand...


do you even realize that your "arguments" are virtually nothing but telling others they "fail" and their logic sucks.  in almost every instance you do not explain how, you merely conclude....

btw, do you realize that you called me a good lawyer?  how that meshes with me having "pretty bad" logic is well.................a logic FAIL


----------



## del

Nik said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody thinks that hate crime laws are going to make the protected class 100% safe.
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of laws making things illegal because of the symbolism inherent in them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> name one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Flipping off a cop.  Burning crosses on someones lawn.
Click to expand...


last i checked flipping off a cop isn't against the law.
i don't think vandalism laws are intended to be symbolic, either.
wanna give it another shot?


----------



## submarinepainter

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Way to avoid answering the question.  There isn't a glut of attorneys from top law schools in this field.  If you had ever done any public service work, you'd know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you're an inspiration to us all.  Thank heavens for selfless public servants like you.  From the top law schools, of course.
Click to expand...


He should volunteer for lawyers without borders ! I think they need top notch lawyers.

Lawyers Without Borders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Nik

Yurt said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you can't consider any other logic than your own and you dismiss all other logic, you will fail at a being a lawyer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Merely because you are wrong, or your logic is bad doesn't mean I dismiss all logic.  Yet another logical fail from you.  You are pretty bad at this.  That I dismiss YOUR logic does not mean I dismiss ALL logic.
> 
> 
> 
> *Your arguments are quite predictable, at least when it comes to issues.  And thats only when facing a good lawyer*.  When facing a bad lawyer, they are impossible to predict.  Because who knows what type of erratic bullshit they might come up with?
> 
> As for exploring your arguments, I have.  And I've shown why they are asinine.  And instead of addressing that, you merely keep making up flaws about me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your attitude is one that dismisses outright, and for that you will miss vital issues and harm your cases and your clients.
> 
> and yes, i am the pot calling the kettle, i try and learn more each day and continue striving to better myself...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.  Which is why you go around the board making the same specious arguments over and over again, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do you even realize that your "arguments" are virtually nothing but telling others they "fail" and their logic sucks.  in almost every instance you do not explain how, you merely conclude....
> 
> btw, do you realize that you called me a good lawyer?  how that meshes with me having "pretty bad" logic is well.................a logic FAIL
Click to expand...


No...I didn't.  

If good lawyer then predictable logic is what I said.  This is not the same as  saying if predictable logic  then good lawyer.  If you were a good lawyer, then you would have predictable logic.  However, you merely have predictable logic which doesn't necessarily mean anything else.

Gee...but so sorry I don't have respect for your logic skills.  Sorry that I'm arrogant when I have to deal with this like this.


----------



## Nik

del said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> name one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flipping off a cop.  Burning crosses on someones lawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> last i checked flipping off a cop isn't against the law.
> i don't think vandalism laws are intended to be symbolic, either.
> wanna give it another shot?
Click to expand...


Try reading the rest of the thread, genius.  Oh, and good job at infringing on the ToS there.  

You are quite the fuck up it seems.


----------



## del

Nik said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flipping off a cop.  Burning crosses on someones lawn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> last i checked flipping off a cop isn't against the law.
> i don't think vandalism laws are intended to be symbolic, either.
> wanna give it another shot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try reading the rest of the thread, genius.  Oh, and good job at infringing on the ToS there.
> 
> You are quite the fuck up it seems.
Click to expand...


i did. you're still failing.

genius.


----------



## Yurt

Nik said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely because you are wrong, or your logic is bad doesn't mean I dismiss all logic.  Yet another logical fail from you.  You are pretty bad at this.  That I dismiss YOUR logic does not mean I dismiss ALL logic.
> 
> 
> 
> *Your arguments are quite predictable, at least when it comes to issues.  And thats only when facing a good lawyer*.  When facing a bad lawyer, they are impossible to predict.  Because who knows what type of erratic bullshit they might come up with?
> 
> As for exploring your arguments, I have.  And I've shown why they are asinine.  And instead of addressing that, you merely keep making up flaws about me.
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  Which is why you go around the board making the same specious arguments over and over again, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you even realize that your "arguments" are virtually nothing but telling others they "fail" and their logic sucks.  in almost every instance you do not explain how, you merely conclude....
> 
> btw, do you realize that you called me a good lawyer?  how that meshes with me having "pretty bad" logic is well.................a logic FAIL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...I didn't.
> 
> If good lawyer then predictable logic is what I said.  This is not the same as  saying if predictable logic  then good lawyer.  If you were a good lawyer, then you would have predictable logic.  However, you merely have predictable logic which doesn't necessarily mean anything else.
> 
> Gee...but so sorry I don't have respect for your logic skills.  Sorry that I'm arrogant when I have to deal with this like this.
Click to expand...


lsat games...let me show you what you said and show you the error of your logic:

Your arguments are quite predictable, at least when it comes to issues.  And thats *only* when facing a good lawyer

so, you said predictable arguments are only when facing a good lawyer...then you said

if i was a good lawyer, i would have predictable logic

but i only have predictable logic

given the above, i must be a lawyer since that ONLY when facing a good lawyer

since i am in fact a lawyer, you did in fact call me good


----------



## DamnYankee

[quote: Nik]Umm, no, I make logical mistakes as well. But yes, there is only one true logic. I also don't make that many of them.[/quote]

I rest my case.


----------



## Gunny

Nik said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't.  You clearly don't even have the capacity to do so, so the fact that you won't try to do so is not troubling to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you wonder why people think you're an arrogant, wet-behind-the ears, know-nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't wonder about it.  When I show people are wrong, and I do it harshly, they generally think I am arrogant.  Sorry that I have so little patience for your stupidity.  If you want someone to coddle you, find someone else.
Click to expand...


When have you ever shown anyone to be wrong?  All I've ever seen from you is spewing leftwingnut rhetoric as if it was fact.  Your harshness that you appear to be so proud of is nothing more than a lack of manners. 

You aren't even original.  The leftwignnut, hate-filled, blind and stupid parrot quota was filled long before you, as it will be when you're long gone.


----------



## catzmeow

Thread killer.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Nik said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about a specific law, I was talking about a certain type of talking, and thinking.  One that if you aren't trained in it, its very hard to do.  That and theres no point in speaking purely logically here.  People won't get it, and besides that its not effective unless you start from the ground up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you see, there is the arrogance i spoke of.  you think you are so fucking smart and that your logic is the only true logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm, no, I make logical mistakes as well.  But yes, there is only one true logic.  I also don't make that many of them.
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about the law, I was talking about logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your arrogance is going to get the best of you.  just because someone doesn't think like you, does not mean they are not a lawyer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See what you meant to say is that just because someone isn't a lawyer doesn't mean they can't think like me.  Instead you incorrectly reversed the sufficient and the necessary conditions here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is the height of stupidity and arrogance to claim someone on the internet, whom you've never met, never seen practice law, is either a lousy lawyer, or went to a fucked up lawschool....you obviously have a god complex and if you don't change it, you won't go far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did I claim anyone was a lousy lawyer?  And I claimed someone went to a fucked up law school in the context of...wait for it...*him explaining how his law school was fucked up*.  Yes, truly the height of arrogance.
> 
> Is it perhaps as arrogant as doubting whether someone on the internet, whom you've never met, etc, etc, has ever been to law school, as you and Catz did?
> 
> Or perhapsas arrogant  presuming to give advice to someone on the internet as you've been attempting to do?
> 
> Or perhaps as arrogant as attempting to describe my entire psyche as Tech attempted to do?
> 
> Yeah.  But I'm the arrogant one here
Click to expand...


Actually, I wasn't saying my law school was fucked up, I was explaining that I had leftwing nut professors. You had the same, but you thought of that as a feature rather than being fucked up.

Again, how many times do I have to say this, it was not about you. I realize that is a shock to your ego, but it really isn't all about you. The views you express were symptomatic of a larger phenomenon. All I did was point that out. You chose to personalize it and make it all about you. Not that my intent was to exclude you from the group I was discussing, I intended to include you, but I know nothing of your psyche nor do I care analyze it.

I tried to wish you a nice life and get you to move along, but you just had to come back for more and more. I see from how the thread progressed that pretty much everyone but you eventually got the same opinion of you. Congrats on being obvious and consistent.


----------

