Did these people write letters to the judge in the case asking for a lighter sentence?
You could have saved yourself the bother of all that typing and admitted you were wrong (again).
All spoke out in favour of having Humphries having character witnesses.
Have you read Joe Brolly’s tweets?
To use Joe’s exact words, in your denial that a defendant should be accorded the opportunity to defend himself, “you’ve reached the normal limit for Compulsory Temporary Moral Outrage. Do not be concerned about this.”
You were asked to address the points Robert Reich made, the primary one being that it is a windfall giveaway for the top 1%, and designed specifically to gut social services for those in need.
You haven’t done so.
The kicker here is that Trump doesn’t even have the guts to do it himself - he’ll pass it on to the next administration, when Republicans will demand budgets for Medicare and social security be slashed because the budget deficit has spiralled, purely as a result of him slashing tax receipts by giving a windfall to the top 1%.
The irony is strong with this one, given that Berkeley, despite the insane attempts by Republicans to gut third level education in the US is internationally recognised as a world class seat of learning.
You are widely recognised on this forum as a far right, racist nutcase and a shameless apologist for the worst excesses of robber baron capitalism.
Sam Harris is a liberal mate, and while I may disagree with many of his opinions, he is a serious intellectual and scientist with a significant body of literary work. He is the exact opposite of yourself, a liberal with zero accomplishments other than ranting on an obscure internet forum.
Nobody is arguing that character witnesses should not be available to defendants. The argument is that those who wrote the character witnesses in this specific case have a very dubious sense of morality, given the already very lenient sentencing available to the judge. Clearly they (and you) feel that grooming and having sex with a minor is not that big a deal.
i) You said he was left-wing. That’s because you don’t know the difference between “left-wing” and “liberal”, because you’re stupid.
ii) He’s not a liberal. You also believe this because you’re stupid.
iii) He is not a serious intellectual. Serious intellectuals do not entertain and spread racist pseudoscience.
iv) You have no other argument than to make ad hominem attacks, and I’m living rent-free in your head. Well, certainly my online demolitions of you are.
I presume you’ll referring admiringly to the work of Kevin McDonald soon, the racist’s favourite pseudo-intellectual.
You have zero notion of the fiscal realities in the US. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are doomed to fail with the next few decades, regardless of the current tax regime or the proposed one. Economic growth is actually the only possible savior of these programs, given the demographics in the US. The same is true in Europe.
This is exactly what you are arguing.
Again, ad hominem attacks which are entirely fictional in their premise.
Again, the irony is strong, given you’ve consistently proved that it is yourself who believes having sex with minors is not a big deal, as you proved as regards your defence of Milo Yiannopoulos, as well as non-minor sexual abuse, given your constant defence of Donald Trump.
Sexual abuse is only a big deal for you when you think you can score political points from it - just as it is for Trump, the sexual assaulter-in-chief.
Sam Harris is a liberal, only an extreme left wing nutcase would argue otherwise. He is brave enough to tackle the insanity of Islam which has many liberals, especially on the left, denouncing him as an Islamophobe. Criticizing the lunatic beliefs of religion is not racism.
The wet dream of your politics, and that of Trump, is for that to happen.
And how do you make that happen? By slashing tax receipts.
Slash and burn economics, also called “voodoo economics”.
“Trickle down economics”, or “siphon-up” economics, as it should be called, is an utter sham and a disgrace.
And idiots like you whose brains are so small that they cannot conceive of anything else are a disgrace to humanity.
Economic growth does not occur when the rich are given vast tax breaks. You’d think you’d have learned that lesson after the disaster of Bush’s tax cuts. You’d think you’d have learned that lesson after the disaster of what Kansas did.
Actually, it’s no surprise you didn’t, because you’re the type that walks into a glass door, and instead of opening it, keeps trying to walk through it.
[quote=“Sidney, post:2471, topic:10941, full:true”]
This is exactly what you are arguing. [/quote]
It isn’t. Every defendant has the right to character witnesses. It is possible to hold that opinion and also have the opinion that the two who wrote character witness statements for Humpheries, given the circumstances of he case, are absolute cunts with a very dubious moral compass, like yourself.
You’ve just repeated the false information you posted in your previous post on that topic.
You’ve added nothing new and not dealt with a single point I’ve made about him.
Critiquing religion is not racist. Generalising in fascistic terms about all Muslims, and only Muslims, is.
That’s what he does, that’s what you do.
This is Racism 101.
You obviously have read nothing by Sam Harris. He is extremely critical of all Abrahamic religions, but obviously most so regarding the most lunatic and harmful of them. You are making the classic error of confusing attacking ideas with attacking the people who hold them.
You talking about morality is absolutely hilarious, given that you have proved, and admitted by branding yourself as a believer in the batshit crazy, cult-like ideology of Libertarianism, that you are a true believer in social Darwinism.
Again, you prove it above with your cheerleading for massive tax cuts for the top 1% at the expense of state-provided health and social services.
You don’t even know what his ideas are, mate, given that I had to put right as to what they are.
And you haven’t come back on a single one.
The rich are not getting “vast” tax breaks. People of high income pay 39.5% federal tax, 7.5% social security, a variable state tax, medicare and medicaid taxes, property tax etc. What tax rate do you think high earners should pay? 100%?
The only ones getting a significant tax break are corporations of all sizes, and I’ve explained why that is good for the economy, but unsurprising you don’t understand that. Low corporate taxes, especially for small businesses, make sense to stimulate economic growth. Where do you think economic growth comes from? The government?
The US economy boomed when the top tax rate was 90%.
Vast tax cuts for the richest in society have proven to be a disaster for society everywhere they’ve been tried. hey increase inequality, they depress markets, they gut health and social services.
The most prosperous countries in the world. those that actually believe in a society for all, have high taxes.
But to hell with facts.
You have zero comprehension of what Sam Harris ideas are. The people who attack him on his views on Islam are cowards who are afraid to criticize toxic violent ideology in case they offend someone.
You are confusing individual tax rates and corporate tax rates. High earners already pay the vast share of individual taxes. The problem that has to be addressed is tax avoidance as the 0.1% hold their wealth offshore to avoid tax. No politician has the balls to tackle that as the 0.1% are also their donors. If tax avoidance were tackled there would be no issue with funding social programs.