| 0 |
Subject: Hate crimes bill
Posted by: Perm Dude
- [4645347] Fri, May 04, 2007, 12:12
There's been some discussion here and there on the hate crimes bill that Bush is planning to veto. The bill is purporting to add homosexuality to the list of groups protected (though there is a little more than that--the bill does appear to expand the law as well in this area, taking over state laws and so on).
Bush appears to be against this for "federalist" reasons and that's fine. But I don't think that he would sign this anyway, and the expansion of the law is a big cover. I would like to see the Dems pass a bill without expanding the law--simply adding "sexual preference" to the list--and see what Bush does.
I'm on record as being against hate crimes. I don't think thoughts, no matter how repulsive, should be punished. Actions? Sure. But not thoughts.
And I think we really have to question whether this law actually prevents any crime at all. If not, we shouldn't be doing it. My libertarian streak is saying that the government simply shouldn't go there. |
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] |
| 112 | Tree, in L.A.
ID: 33052019
Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 16:28
|
More and more I am starting to see radical Liberalism as a religion and in this case, gays are like a sacred cow.
What the f*ck are you talking about?
jag you can't just say gays, the new buzzwords are gays and trans-genders.
What the f*ck are you talking about?
And you can't say just Aids or just HIV, it's got to be HIV-Aids
What the f*ck are you talking about?
that is an impressive display of consecutive, completely wrong, completely hate-filled, and way out of left field posts.
i'd tell you what is wrong with each of them, but i think the ignorance in all three of you is so deeply ingrained in your soul, to quote Hollywood Henderson, i don't think you could spell CAT if i spotted you the C and the A, and i sure don't think you could understand what is wrong with your posts, even in just the facts alone.
|
| 113 | J-Bar
ID: 40082021
Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 18:48
|
tree tree tree tree tree maybe you should go back to post 55 and read and then please explain to me how my post was hate-filled or is it your own blindness and bias that is showing
|
| 114 | bibA
ID: 53022118
Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 19:10
|
Actually, I can't see this as a political issue. Has it traditionally been liberals and Democrats who have called for stiffer penalties? Maybe, and maybe not, but my perception has been that conservatives and Republicans have usually been the most pleased with harsher sentences for law breakers. Reading these boards would make one think that the right is leaning towards being soft on some crimes, and the liberals are okay with longer prison terms, at least for certain crimes.
|
| 115 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 19:53
|
make one think that the right is leaning towards being soft on some crimes
Which crimes? The ones commited by acts or by thoughts?
|
| 116 | Jag
ID: 360261522
Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 19:59
|
Excuse me, I am looking for the Guru political forum, this can't be it, because there are 4 posters on this thread, who don't own a Hilary Fathead.
|
| 117 | J-Bar
ID: 40082021
Mon, Jan 21, 2008, 21:31
|
lmao jag
|
| 118 | AirJar
ID: 351123160
Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 00:29
|
Here's a link to a story that illustrates what we are discussing. The cops have arrested him under a 'hate crime' statute and investigating whether he 'intended' to do something because of 'hate'.
Bombs Meant for Hate Crimes?
Here's my point. If, in fact, he did deface the cars and the building...there's already a penalty for that. Why attach a stiffer penalty? He had pipe bombs. He if intended on using these, there is already a penalty. Why attach a stiffer penalty? The guy is being held on a $300,000 bond for graffiti because the graffiti was anti-Semitic. Hell, every gang-banger is guilty of graffiti...when was the last time one of them was held for $300K?
I AM NOT defending this guy but the cops are bringing additional charges because they think he was thinking a certain thing and that's what provoked his actions. Why can't they just say "hey, you wanted to blow something up." No. Now it's "you wanted to blow something up because...."
It doesn't say what race or economic status the guy is but let's assume he's white, Christian and working class. If he were to blow up a Jewish synagogue it's a 'hate crime' but if he were to blow up a Catholic church...that's not a hate crime? Why?
Again, goes back to my earlier post about all crimes being hate crimes. "Oh, you blew up a building made for people that are different than you, we can charge you with this and...this...also." "Oh, you blew up a building for people like you, we'll charge you with ...only this...because we can't charge you with the other thing."
I'm awaiting the posts twisting my words...
|
| 120 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 06:16
|
I'm awaiting the posts twisting my words...
Can we also take odds on the first person to call you a bigot? The liberals just love to submit themselves to the emotion of outrage, but not at the expense of self loathing.
|
| 121 | AirJar
ID: 351123160
Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 08:07
|
Well Boxman, they are better than everyone because they care more about the poor plight of segments of people that can't defend themselves. [wink]
"Oh, you don't want them to have a separate law that protects them more than you. You must be a bigot!"
|
| 122 | Boldwin
ID: 1055190
Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 10:49
|
Tree can't understand what anyone is saying but hey, he can spell cat. Nothing changes.
|
| 123 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Tue, Jan 22, 2008, 16:16
|
It doesn't say what race or economic status the guy is but let's assume he's white, Christian and working class. If he were to blow up a Jewish synagogue it's a 'hate crime' but if he were to blow up a Catholic church...that's not a hate crime? Why?
Just for the fun of it.
If he were a far right, radical even Christian, the "Catholics are really the anti christ" type Christian, and was blowing up a Catholic church for that reason...
Yes that would be a hate crime.
But I only answered for mild entertainment, not because I am interested in this thread anymore.
I'll take it a step further. If he was black, and he blew up a synagogue because he believed all Jews are evil, that would also be a hate crime.
Again going back to my perspective, the only reason the "hate crime law" would need to be invoked, is if a jurisdiction downplayed the crime and failed to prosecute properly.
As MBJ has told us though, in America, (And I admit, I wasn't aware of this) all criminals are treated completely equally so this would never happen.
Therefore, I no longer have a reason to defend the hate crime bill position in this thread, because everyone is treated completely equally in the American court system, as all the cons on the board are aware.
|
| 124 | AirJar
ID: 351123160
Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 21:51
|
nerve: Again going back to my perspective, the only reason the "hate crime law" would need to be invoked, is if a jurisdiction downplayed the crime and failed to prosecute properly.
So we should look to the federal gov't to protect us?
If we don't like how our local gov't is handling a law we elect new people the govern the will of the people. If you want to jump straight to DC for solutions...well, that's a slippery slope we have already started down.
|
| 125 | AirJar
ID: 351123160
Wed, Jan 23, 2008, 21:52
|
whoops..."new people the govern" should be:
new people to govern
|
| 126 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sat, Oct 31, 2009, 14:58
|
Complete text of S.909: The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
Have at it, Boldylocks.
|
| 127 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sun, Nov 01, 2009, 06:27
|
Also known as the pedophile protection act. It's not about equality. It's not about hate. It's about forcing society to approve of every sort of immorality and deviancy. It's about outlawing a decent society.
|
| 128 | bibA
Leader
ID: 261028117
Sun, Nov 01, 2009, 09:45
|
So lemme get this straight. A loon shoots up a synagogue because he hates Jews, and is subsequently arrested and prosecuted for the shooting itself. When a hate crime enhancement is added to the charges, the prosecution is now reflecting our approval of every sort of immoral deviancy.
|
| 129 | mith
ID: 591028110
Sun, Nov 01, 2009, 11:29
|
I was hoping for an explanation of how this criminalizes bible readings.
|
| 130 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Tue, Nov 03, 2009, 12:06
|
The Bible is against immoral behavior such as but by no means limited to homosexuality. Or hadn't you heard? But now absolutely any deviancy whatsoever can claim privileged legal status.
|
| 131 | CanadianHack
ID: 19856214
Tue, Nov 03, 2009, 12:22
|
The Bible is pro immoral behavior. For example, flooding and killing every human on earth (save for one family) and every animal on earth (save for a couple of each species) is lauded as a good thing to do.
One (of many) problems with Baldwin is that her doesn't have a moral compass at all. he just blindly accepts whatever his Bible, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or any of his other idols tell him to - especially if it makes liberals or Obama look badly. He has no moral compass of his own and the moral compasses he claims to use are in favor of the killing of millions of people, plants and animals. That is the height of immorality.
|
| 132 | WiddleAvi
ID: 895017
Tue, Nov 03, 2009, 12:41
|
Exactly CH - When it was time for the Jews to claim Israel they just went to war with whoever was there at the time. There are countless wars in the bible all with 'god's support'.
|
| 133 | Mith
Dude
ID: 01629107
Tue, Nov 03, 2009, 12:44
|
#130: Are you going to point out to the language in the hate crimes bill that criminalizes bible readings or not? As far as I can tell, you still have to actually commit an act of violence in order to be guilty of a hate crime. So unless you go to a church where it's followed by sacrificing homosexuals at the altar, your Leviticus readings are still in compliance with the law.
#131: Your post lives up to your name. The New Testament significantly changes the context of the Old Testament.
|
| 134 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Tue, Nov 03, 2009, 16:26
|
What a strawman Hack invents in order to tar me. As well as calling God immoral. Wow, the kind of famous last words the Godless make so blythely. I don't adjust my moral compass according to anything other than the Bible. Widdle God had given those countries in the promised land 400 years to demonstrate that they were bad beyond redemtion. He had judged and sentenced them and given their land away to another people. And he had judged them, in large part because they were so immoral that they killed their inconvenient children so as to be free to commit more immorality. Has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it? MITH 1) The bill goes farther than making deviants' lives more valuable than anyone else's... With the advent of the federal hate crimes law, the concept of equal justice is no longer a reality in the United States. More alarming than the special status the government now accords certain segments of society is a provision in the law that allows for the prosecution of those who appear to "incite" or provide motivation for a hate crime. An individual can be held liable for a hate crime even if his "exercise of religion, speech, expression, or association was not intended to plan or prepare for an act of physical violence or incite an imminent act of physical violence against another." When the language in the hate crime bill is coupled with the provision in another federal statute, the results are sobering. The federal aiding and abetting law states that an individual is liable for a federal crime even if they do not physically perform it, so as long as they "induce," counsel, aid or abet it. "Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal," the law says. The provision in the new legislation along with that of existing federal law makes clear that the bill is intended to squelch opposition to homosexuality and similar behaviors. According to the provisions in the new hate crimes law, if a person attended a church service and heard a sermon from the Book of Romans condemning homosexual behavior as sinful, and subsequently assaulted a person that was homosexual, the preacher could be charged with inciting, inducing or abetting a hate crime. If you think that scenario is farfetched, you need only to take a look at Canada, Great Britain or Europe to see the effects hate crimes legislation has had on those who believe homosexual behavior is immoral. Fines and jail time have been levied on those who have dared transgress the law. One other aspect of the new hate crimes legislation makes the intent of the law suspicious. Why was it hidden away in a defense appropriation bill? If the legislation is so meritorious and good for America, why not let it stand alone? The hate crimes law is nothing more than a stick that will be used to beat into silence those who believe homosexual behavior is wrong. And if you think there isn't room for mischief ask yourself if Rush Limbaugh hasn't already been accused without basis in fact for Matthew Shepherd's death. Ask yourself how eagerly gay activists will be to throw a net of accusations and legal jeapardy over as many people as they can.2) Considering that story of Sodom and Gomorrah provides context to all the other scriptural condemnations of homosexuality leaves no wiggle room for controversy over God's feelings on the matter.
|
| 135 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Tue, Nov 03, 2009, 16:38
|
More context... ...and by reducing the cities Sodīom and Go·morīrah to ashes he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly persons of things to come. - 2 Peter 2:6
|
| 136 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Tue, Nov 03, 2009, 16:38
|
"And if you think there isn't room for mischief ask yourself if Rush Limbaugh hasn't already been accused without basis in fact for Matthew Shepherd's death."
I must have missed the arrest and trial. Or are you trying to conflate gibbering in the media with actual crimes? Because, try as you might to make them one and the same, they aren't even close and you know it.
|
| 137 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Tue, Nov 03, 2009, 16:45
|
I must have missed the arrest and trial. What you missed was that this 'hate' crime legislation wasn't in place at the time. Application of PC 'justice', and kangaroo trials are capricious. They will pick their targets and push it as far as they can get away with given the state of the cultural decline as it exists at any given time.
|
| 138 | Mith
ID: 43914286
Tue, Nov 03, 2009, 19:14
|
An individual can be held liable for a hate crime even if his "exercise of religion, speech, expression, or association was not intended to plan or prepare for an act of physical violence or incite an imminent act of physical violence against another.
That the Baptist Press News publishes this sentence does not make it so, as much as you obviously wish it were true. I swear I've never met someone who so pines for victimhood as you do.
Your reliance on these ridiculously distorted extrapolations is the primary reason those two doorknobs are the only forum allies you can get to stick around. Why would anyone with half a brain want to be in the position of having to so regularly choose between crossing his only conservative ally and supporting such utter nonsense?
|
| 139 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Tue, Nov 03, 2009, 20:23
|
It's already happened in Canada and it's coming here. Prosecution merely for stating what the Bible says.
|
| 140 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Tue, Nov 03, 2009, 20:36
|
Canadian citizens doesn't enjoy the same rights as US citizens--believe it or not, they are considered by most to be a separate country with separate laws. It is silly and unserious to imply otherwise.
|
| 141 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Tue, Nov 03, 2009, 20:48
|
For a would-be mayor you are remarkably non-serious. I of course implied no such thing. Liberals and gay activists are seeking to criminalize Christian speech.
|
| 142 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Tue, Nov 03, 2009, 23:01
|
Alert to sane people: the beast has been uncaged.
|
| 143 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Wed, Nov 04, 2009, 00:08
|
Liberals and gay activists are seeking to criminalize Christian speech.
if we're talking about reality, then no. if we're talking about the crazy things your mind comes up with, then yes, most likely.
|
| 144 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Wed, Nov 04, 2009, 04:12
|
Canada fines people thousands of dollars for putting Bible verses on billboards. Students get suspended for wearing what they think of homosexuality on their t-shirts. Employees get fired for uttering the mildest disagreements after a gay digs and digs his oppinion out of him. We all know where Obama, Barney Frank and the wise Latina are on this issue. We all know how far queer activists would be willing to push this. What exactly do any of you feel is far-fetched about expecting liberals to do what they do? You think the first amendment really means anything to them? That was already killed with this bill.
|
| 145 | Mith
ID: 43914286
Wed, Nov 04, 2009, 07:00
|
It's already happened in Canada and it's coming here. Prosecution merely for stating what the Bible says.
No.
Hate crime laws which were explicitly written to require an act of violence to apply were not used to incarcerate nonviolent bible readings in Canada.
Canada's Human Rights Act explicitly criminalizes discrimination, which is judged and tried by something called the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act states that it is discriminatory to communicate by phone or Internet any material "that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt." This is obviously very different language from what is in The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act and it is housed in a much different legal structure to boot.
So again, no, ridiculously distorted extrapolation you pasted into #134 has *not* already happened in Canada. Sorry, Boldy, you'll have to get your victimology fix someplace else. Best of luck to you.
|
| 146 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Wed, Nov 04, 2009, 08:41
|
And when it's applied the very same, what will you say? Just for the sake of argument...*roll*...as if it wasn't going to be.
|
| 147 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Wed, Nov 04, 2009, 08:55
|
And when it's applied the very same, what will you say?
the problem with nearly every single one of your arguments is that they are hyperbole, only you intend for them to be taking literally.
very little of what you say is based on any sort of reality IN THIS COUNTRY, and its rules and laws. you take what happens in other places - be it another nation, the bible, or your mind - and apply it as if it is the gold standard and will be applied equally here in the US, disregarding the implausibility of it all.
|
| 148 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Wed, Nov 04, 2009, 09:51
|
It's not improbable, you think it's a great idea, you expect it to happen, you will offer no apology when it does happen to those you called crazy for predicting it, and you are predictably dishonest and disingenuous.
|
| 149 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Wed, Nov 04, 2009, 10:14
|
It's not improbable,
it is highly improbable.
you think it's a great idea,
i never said that, and furthermore, i think it's a terrible idea.
not the first time you've put words into my mouth and presumed to know what i think...so i realize that it's falling on your deaf ears, but if you're going to attempt to state my position on something with another of your lies, i need to refute that for the lurkers in these parts.
you expect it to happen,
i've said several times i can't even imagine it happening - you're the one with expectations here.
you will offer no apology when it does happen to those you called crazy for predicting it,
actually, those people would get a huge mea culpa from me. and, if our country went in that direction - which is quite Rovian and Cheney-like in base and design - i would fight it tooth and nail.
and you are predictably dishonest and disingenuous.
whatever. no one on this board is more dishonest, and disingenuous than you. i've stated my position - your ignorance and/or hubris refuses you to allow me to think for myself, nor for you to accept my position on the matter.
|
| 150 | biliruben's lawyer..
Dude
ID: 014826271
Wed, Nov 04, 2009, 12:10
|
the problem with nearly every single one of your arguments is that they are hyperbole, only you intend for them to be taking literally.
Baldwin plaeasethink about that true statement - even though tree sasid it.
Having read this Act - i can't see that it does anything, really, aside from give some local law enforecement an avenue to fight for some federal dollars. This bill is purely window dressing - unless, as I suppose Baldwin would assert, it is setting the table for more penicious legislation down the rode.
|
| 151 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Wed, Nov 04, 2009, 12:16
|
Except of course that only when actively seeking out monsters under the bed can we even begin to contemplate what pernicious legislation might conceivably come down the road.
Then that legislation would actually have to be passed.
Then it would actually have to be enforced.
Then it would actually have to be found constitutional (yes, gasp, checks and balances and all that).
Then it would have to not endure such a public backlaash that the perpetrators of said hypothetical legislation wouldn't end up on the wrong end of the sword they crafted.
Rather than deal with about five increasingly ludicrous if/then statements, I'd really rather just deal with the reality of what we have in front of us. Because if we get to construct arguments based on multiple degrees of what could theoretically possibly happen, then there really isn't any point--we can just draw up whichever goofball fantasy world we want. (As clearly demonstrated in this thread.)
|
| 152 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Thu, Nov 05, 2009, 05:05
|
SZ Liberal activist judges tried to ram gay marriage down an unwilling public's throats when it wasn't even law. It's been defeated at the ballot 31-0. But that hasn't stopped numerous activist courts from trying to impose it. Give those courts this legislation and the army of drama queens the gay activist lobby will bring before the court and you are sure to be eating those words...or pretending you don't have to against all evidence to the contrary.
|
| 153 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Thu, Nov 05, 2009, 05:16
|
Dwet Then that legislation would actually have to be passed. They are going to pass the defense appropriation bill. There is a reason they tacked it as a rider onto the most garanteed to pass bill on the planet. Not even Obama dares to defund the military in wartime. Then it would actually have to be enforced. Tell it to the Philidelphia police who already act as if it were law. Then it would actually have to be found constitutional (yes, gasp, checks and balances and all that). What's the balance of power since the wise latina was installed? Then it would have to not endure such a public backlaash that the perpetrators of said hypothetical legislation wouldn't end up on the wrong end of the sword they crafted. What language was that in? Exactly how do you even backlash against that? That law makes protest against itself illegal. Act Up would be out there provoking a fight and dragging in the protesters before a court the very first protest march.
|
| 154 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Thu, Nov 05, 2009, 10:59
|
Bol,
Cocaine's a helluva drug, apparently.
You do make one good point though (mark it down folks: November 5, 2009, 10:00 Central time!!!!)--this sort of thing really shouldn't be tacked onto a defense appropriations bill. It ought to stand on its own merits.
As should countless other things that get snuck into appropriations bills, of course. As long as your outrage about this process isn't selective, I'm genuinely applauding you.
The rest of your comments are pretty LOL-worthy, but you hit the mark there. Congratulations.
|
| 155 | Mith
Dude
ID: 01629107
Thu, Nov 05, 2009, 13:46
|
As long as your outrage about this process isn't selective
laugh
|
| 156 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Thu, Nov 05, 2009, 14:33
|
Hey, I'm tryin' to be nice here.
|
| 157 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Thu, Nov 05, 2009, 15:53
|
A little faint praise, a little inappropriate laughter, and your compadres on the left will pretend to not notice that your post was totally Fisked.
|
| 158 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Thu, Nov 05, 2009, 16:01
|
Not even Obama dares to defund the military in wartime
Your assumptions are showing here...Obama isn't interested in defunding the military in wartime.
Years from now, your views on gay marriage will be looked at the same way we look back on those against interracial marriage. Yeah, in the 1950's if people had tried to put up for a vote whether blacks and whites can marry they would have been defeated all over the place as well.
You are a master cherry picker. When something goes your way at the poll you point to it being some sort of mandate. When it doesn't, you turn into a victimologist.
|
| 159 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Thu, Nov 05, 2009, 16:12
|
Technically as soon as the defense appropriation bill passes it will be illegal to say anything derogotory about a coprophiliac and his...
|
| 160 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Thu, Nov 05, 2009, 16:13
|
Whew...caught myself just in time. I don't know if the defense appropriation bill has been passed.
|
| 161 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Thu, Nov 05, 2009, 16:20
|
A little faint praise, a little inappropriate laughter, and your compadres on the left will pretend to not notice that your post was totally Fisked.
more unintentional comedy from the guy who won't meet the challenges proposed to him, who backs down from challenges he makes himself, who spreads lies about those he claims to know, who tells others how they think, and so on, and so forth.
your posts are rich, because with them, i know i'm good for several laughs a day.
|
| 162 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Thu, Nov 05, 2009, 22:35
|
You were about as close to Carlton Fisk (or, for that matter, Alfonso Ribiero a.k.a Carlton on the Fresh Prince of Bel Air) as you were to saying anything meaningful there, B.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|