Obama Administration Opposes UN Anti-Defamation Laws

Religion • Views: 4,720

The Obama administration, through Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, came out strongly today against the Organization of the Islamic Conference’s efforts to get the UN Human Rights Council to adopt resolutions barring the defamation of religion. By “religion,” the OIC means “Islam.”

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized on Monday an attempt by Islamic countries to prohibit defamation of religions, saying such policies would restrict free speech.

“Some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies… . I strongly disagree,” Clinton said. “The protection of speech about religion is particularly important since persons of different faiths will inevitably hold divergent views on religious questions.”

While unnamed in Clinton’s speech, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a group of 56 Islamic nations, has been pushing hard for the U.N. Human Rights Council to adopt resolutions that broadly bar the defamation of religion. The effort has raised concerns that such resolutions could be used to justify crackdowns on free speech in Muslim countries.

Earlier today, President Obama signed into law a new hate crimes bill that has been enraging the religious right, because it extends federal hate crimes to include assaults against people due to sexual orientation.

Jump to bottom

568 comments
1 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 3:56:16pm

What about turning-the-other-cheek legislation?

2 wrenchwench  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 3:56:56pm

Good for him.

3 Randall Gross  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 3:56:56pm

Excellent news both. I’m not in favor of hate laws, but if we must have them then gays are a minority that needs their protection as well as the others.

4 Velvet Elvis  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 3:57:38pm

Well, this is a counterpoint for whoever it was in the last thread that said Obama was weak on foreign policy.

5 Fenway_Nation  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 3:58:41pm
Earlier today, President Obama signed a new hate crimes bill into law that has been enraging the religious right, because it extends federal hate crimes to include assaults against people because of sexual orientation

Which was tucked into a military spending bill…kinda makes me wonder why it couldn’t have been a seperate piece of legislation in its own right with a straigh up or down vote…

Or are any other groups (blacks, latinos etc) are currently protected by already exisitng legislation.

6 [deleted]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 3:59:14pm
7 Four More Tears  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 3:59:33pm

Such weak gods that need us mortals to defend them so vehemently.

8 Randall Gross  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 3:59:37pm

Now how is Whirled Nuts Daily and Jerome going to be able to spin this into “Obama’s a sekret musllim” smears?

9 Sharmuta  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 3:59:54pm

Bravo to the administration for doing the right thing and protecting American values- and the values of other countries who allow for free expression. The right to criticize faith has been a cornerstone of Enlightenment thinking, and I’m glad our country will not tolerate this sort of imposition.

10 Yashmak  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:00:27pm
Earlier today, President Obama signed a new hate crimes bill into law that has been enraging the religious right, because it extends federal hate crimes to include assaults against people because of sexual orientation.

If you’re going to have “hate crimes” laws, it’s nice to include gender preference…but “hate crimes” laws in general have always struck me as just a short step removed from “thought crimes”.

11 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:00:29pm

Dissing someone’s religion is a long way from beating someone up. One may argue that one can lead to the other, but not necessarily so, and part of civilized discourse is being able to discuss other people’s religion, even in a negative tone, without immediately inciting violence.

12 Fenway_Nation  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:00:42pm

re: #4 Conservative Moonbat

Well, this is a counterpoint for whoever it was in the last thread that said Obama was weak on foreign policy.


OMG! I’m so wrong! 0bama is a machevellian chessmaster whos complex machinations exhibit stregth and confidence that only a skilled charismatic and experienced leader could display!!

//

13 wrenchwench  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:01:01pm

re: #6 MandyManners

Those who believe he’s really a Muslim will wind up scratching their heads.

Along with whatever other scratching those flea-bitten numbskulls are already doing…

14 Four More Tears  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:02:15pm

re: #12 Fenway_Nation

Does spelling his name with a zero really make you feel good about yourself?

15 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:02:19pm

re: #13 wrenchwench

Along with whatever other scratching those flea-bitten numbskulls are already doing…

An apostate Muslim! The worst kind! What sort of monster do we have on our hands?!?

16 Cokezero  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:02:40pm

Both awesome developments, IMHO.

17 jaunte  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:02:59pm

Nice work on both issues.

18 Stanley Sea  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:03:29pm

re: #5 Fenway_Nation

Which was tucked into a military spending bill…kinda makes me wonder why it couldn’t have been a seperate piece of legislation in its own right with a straigh up or down vote…

Or are any other groups (blacks, latinos etc) are currently protected by already exisitng legislation.

Regarding why was this attached to the military spending bill? Remember the credit card fee bill back in May? That’s the one where Tom Coburn of OK attached the gun in national parks amendment. It was signed.

19 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:03:30pm

re: #4 Conservative Moonbat

Well, this is a counterpoint for whoever it was in the last thread that said Obama was weak on foreign policy.

This is a reasonable move on Obama’s part, but it doesn’t speak to his complete foreign policy. It doesn’t make him weak, or stronger, it has merit in the case of this issue.

I prefer to examine each foreign policy decision and weigh it for it’s merit.

20 lastlaugh  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:04:02pm

re: #10 Yashmak

but “hate crimes” laws in general have always struck me as just a short step removed from “thought crimes”.

Isn’t killing someone because they’re gay much more unacceptable to society than say, a drug deal gone south? Motivation matters, it always has.

21 karmic_inquisitor  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:04:02pm

When the exercise of a freedom becomes limited by those who would be offended by such, it is no longer a freedom but a privilege. A privilege extended by those who would be offended. And because that which is “offensive” is highly subjective no reliable standard can exist.

So, in this case, free speech would simply be reduced to the speech that Islamists are willing to put up with that day.

Good for Obama and Clinton. Yet another indication that the bulk of Bush’s policies regarding the WOT were grounded in common sense.

22 Linden Arden  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:04:37pm

All systems of belief should be open to scrutiny.

That is called Open Society. Only zealots object to examination of their belief system.


Socrates would be proud.

23 Eowyn2  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:04:46pm

I am glad that Hilary and Obama stood up to the Arab league but I am disappointed that the hate crime legislation was attached to the military spending bill.

I have always despised riders and I always will. Any piece of legislation that cannot stand on its own should not be a piece of legislation.

This goes for riders from both sides of the aisle and has nothing to do with the rider itself.

24 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:05:04pm

re: #20 lastlaugh

Isn’t killing someone because they’re gay much more unacceptable to society than say, a drug deal gone south? Motivation matters, it always has.


Motivation matters, but I think it should be reflected in the sentencing guidelines rather than in the legislation itself.

25 karmic_inquisitor  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:05:35pm

re: #22 Linden Arden

Only zealots object to examination of their belief system.

I find that quite objectionable.

/

26 freetoken  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:06:38pm

re: #23 Eowyn2

Problem: there are 535 people in DC who think they should write bills… and only 365 days in the year, of which only about half are actually used by Congress to debate anything.

I think composited legislation is here to stay.

27 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:07:15pm

re: #26 freetoken

Problem: there are 535 people in DC who think they should write bills… and only 365 days in the year, of which only about half are actually used by Congress to debate anything.

I think composited legislation is here to stay.

Or we introduce the line-item veto…

28 Fenway_Nation  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:07:16pm

re: #14 JasonA

Does spelling his name with a zero really make you feel good about yourself?

You’re right. ‘Hussein Dolt’ it is.

29 Mich-again  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:07:36pm

So what would happen in the case where a religious text contains hate speech toward other religions. Would that be excluded by the ban?

30 bosforus  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:07:45pm

re: #26 freetoken

Problem: there are 535 people in DC who think they should write bills… and only 365 days in the year, of which only about half are actually used by Congress to debate anything.

Then it sounds like some of those 535 people need to realize their ideas aren’t wanted.

31 Sharmuta  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:07:59pm
While unnamed in Clinton’s speech, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a group of 56 Islamic nations, has been pushing hard for the U.N. Human Rights Council to adopt resolutions that broadly bar the defamation of religion. The effort has raised concerns that such resolutions could be used to justify crackdowns on free speech in Muslim countries.

I have to pick a bone with the writer. Why would it just be islamic countries where this resolution would infringe on free speech? It would limit the free speech of religion critics around the world, whether they criticize one religion in particular, or all of them. This would put someone like Pat Condell in jeopardy from speaking out at all. While I can understand people don’t like hearing criticisms of their faith, it doesn’t give them the right to silence people. IMO, the writer isn’t fully grasping the effects of this resolution to limit it to “crackdowns on free speech in Muslim countries”. It would be a crackdown for us all.

32 Velvet Elvis  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:08:02pm

re: #24 ralphieboy

Motivation matters, but I think it should be reflected in the sentencing guidelines rather than in the legislation itself.

This also allows cases that aren’t adequately prosecuted at the state level because of a biased DA somewhere to be tried at the federal level.

33 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:08:09pm

re: #26 freetoken

Problem: there are 535 people in DC who think they should write bills… and only 365 days in the year, of which only about half are actually used by Congress to debate anything.

I think composited legislation is here to stay.

it’s cowardly…a bill should stand on it’s own…it’s slimy politics of guilt

34 Irenicum  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:08:27pm

Kudos to Obama on both fronts. It’s more than about time we have legislation to protect people because of sexual orientation from violence directed against them just because of that. And besides, the law is inclusive of much more than that. It includes gender, religion as well. This law is about prosecuting “hate” violence, not restraining free speech. And to put a fabulous point on it, Obama is coming out strongly against the OIC Defamation of Religion proposal. That proposal is nothing less than an effort to stifle free speech concerning religion. Good job on both fronts!

35 AlexRogan  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:08:35pm

re: #14 JasonA

Does spelling his name with a zero really make you feel good about yourself?

Wow, that sarcasm went right over your head…

36 Eowyn2  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:09:25pm

re: #20 lastlaugh

Isn’t killing someone because they’re gay much more unacceptable to society than say, a drug deal gone south? Motivation matters, it always has.

I dont think it matters to the victim.

If a serial killer targets blonde, blue eyed, 20 somethings is he a ‘better guy’ than a serial killer who targets gays?

37 freetoken  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:09:25pm

re: #33 albusteve

Riders on Bills == “politics of guilt” ???

38 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:09:26pm

re: #29 Mich-again

So what would happen in the case where a religious text contains hate speech toward other religions. Would that be excluded by the ban?


only if a court of law could prove that it is the undisputed and ímmutable Word of God.

//

39 lastlaugh  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:09:36pm

re: #24 ralphieboy

Motivation matters, but I think it should be reflected in the sentencing guidelines rather than in the legislation itself.


re: #23 Eowyn2

I am glad that Hilary and Obama stood up to the Arab league but I am disappointed that the hate crime legislation was attached to the military spending bill.


I’ll admit, these seem like very technical objections. I don’t think these are what’s riling up the hornet’s nest.

40 Four More Tears  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:09:58pm

re: #28 Fenway_Nation

I hate to admit it but that did get a chuckle out of me. Still, it’s only marginally less tacky.

41 [deleted]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:10:05pm
42 Eowyn2  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:10:14pm

re: #26 freetoken

Problem: there are 535 people in DC who think they should write bills… and only 365 days in the year, of which only about half are actually used by Congress to debate anything.

I think composited legislation is here to stay.

wouldn’t it be fun if we could cut down on that composite:)

43 Four More Tears  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:10:34pm

re: #35 talon_262

Wow, that sarcasm went right over your head…

What sarcasm? He does it every time he writes the man’s name.

44 bosforus  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:10:42pm

re: #32 Conservative Moonbat

This also allows cases that aren’t adequately prosecuted at the state level because of a biased DA somewhere to be tried at the federal level.

Oh, that’s great. The stupid states aren’t smart enough to make their own decisions so the feds have to take care of the mess they’ve made. If they’re worried about a biased DA somewhere, they should also be worried about a bias person deciding who the biased DA is.
Done with work for the day, cheers for now!

45 theheat  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:10:48pm

re: #31 Sharmuta

Exactly, and this is one reason last year when this was spoken about earlier this year, some of the other religious factions were on board with this, because they didn’t want any criticism, either.

46 Velvet Elvis  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:11:07pm

re: #29 Mich-again

So what would happen in the case where a religious text contains hate speech toward other religions. Would that be excluded by the ban?

Speech isn’t a crime and therefore can’t be a hate crime.

I don’t believe there are any hate speech provisions in this legislation. If there were I’d be strongly opposed to it and so would a lot of other people. We’d have heard about it by now..

47 reine.de.tout  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:11:17pm

re: #20 lastlaugh

Isn’t killing someone because they’re gay much more unacceptable to society than say, a drug deal gone south? Motivation matters, it always has.

To some, murder is murder and it’s wrong, period, and neither case you described above is “more acceptable” than the other.

Like Yashmak:
re: #10 Yashmak

If you’re going to have “hate crimes” laws, it’s nice to include gender preference…but “hate crimes” laws in general have always struck me as just a short step removed from “thought crimes”.

I’ve had a concern that the separate category of “hate crime” comes very close to being “thought crimes”, because you have to know what’s in a person’s head, which ought to be covered by motive.

I will say that as I’ve watched hate-crime prosecutions take place, the legal system seems to be very very careful about when to apply hate-crime laws, which is a good thing.

But I don’t think it’s ridiculous for people to watch this issue as it develops.

48 Liberally Conservative  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:11:35pm

re: #36 Eowyn2

I dont think it matters to the victim.

If a serial killer targets blonde, blue eyed, 20 somethings is he a ‘better guy’ than a serial killer who targets gays?

I think both would get life in prison or the death penalty.

I do think that someone who killed another person in a crime of passion, or in a drug crime, etc. had a more justifiable reason than someone who killed someone else because they were gay. Both should get lengthy prison sentences, but I find the second type more despicable.

49 Fenway_Nation  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:11:37pm

re: #40 JasonA

I please to aim.

50 theheat  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:11:47pm

re: #45 theheat

PIMF “last year and when this”

51 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:12:00pm

Composite legislation is a part and parcel of the Balance of Powers as foreseen by the constitution: a president can only block legislation, he cannot initiate it, he must choose between accepting a whole package and getting something enacted or tossing out the baby with the bathwater.

52 Eowyn2  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:12:12pm

re: #32 Conservative Moonbat

This also allows cases that aren’t adequately prosecuted at the state level because of a biased DA somewhere to be tried at the federal level.

but does it protect the targets of a political witch trial?

53 Yashmak  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:12:14pm

re: #20 lastlaugh

Isn’t killing someone because they’re gay much more unacceptable to society than say, a drug deal gone south? Motivation matters, it always has.

It has always seemed to me, that violence intentionally visited by someone on another involves some degree of hate for that person, more often than not. I guess some folks are killed for money, or in crimes of passion…but I’ve never heard of ‘hate crime’ laws being applied say, in a case where someone kills or injures another person because they simply hate them (race, gender preference, religion, or whatever not an issue). It seems to me that if you’re going to call it a hate law, you should also include instances where the motive was actually hate for the individual, not just because of hate for some cultural/sub-cultural/religious/ethnic group. If the laws are intended to punish bigotry/predjudicial behavior, it seems like they should be called something else. Point is, it seems these laws are used in cases bigotry or discrimination, not good old-fashioned hate. I guess that’s what bothers me about them.

It’s a weird subject.

54 freetoken  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:12:48pm

re: #42 Eowyn2

Heh… not going to happen.

Look at our population growth… there could be some argument given that keeping the House to only 435 voting members all these years of adding tens of millions of people is somehow under-represention to parts of the population.

OTOH, I shudder to think how a House with 500 or 550 members might work… or not work, whichever the case may be.

55 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:13:52pm

re: #37 freetoken

Riders on Bills == “politics of guilt” ???

yes…it’s pretty obvious…just on the last thread someone busted whoever didn’t vote for the defense bill just passed as not supporting the troops

56 Yashmak  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:14:02pm

re: #31 Sharmuta

I have to pick a bone with the writer. Why would it just be islamic countries where this resolution would infringe on free speech? It would limit the free speech of religion critics around the world, whether they criticize one religion in particular, or all of them. This would put someone like Pat Condell in jeopardy from speaking out at all. While I can understand people don’t like hearing criticisms of their faith, it doesn’t give them the right to silence people. IMO, the writer isn’t fully grasping the effects of this resolution to limit it to “crackdowns on free speech in Muslim countries”. It would be a crackdown for us all.

Jeez. You’re right. The writer has engaged in religious defamation!

Good point, though.

57 Sharmuta  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:14:04pm

re: #45 theheat

Exactly, and this is one reason last year when this was spoken about earlier this year, some of the other religious factions were on board with this, because they didn’t want any criticism, either.

I’m not sure if the writer was trying to keep the issue focused on islam since it’s the OIC that’s pushing for this, so they didn’t expand their thought process to include how this resolution would be a violation of the First Amendment, but I would suspect so. It doesn’t take that much effort to realize how this resolution would affect free countries, and not just islamic ones.

58 Fenway_Nation  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:14:13pm

re: #43 JasonA

And unless 0bama Hussein Dolt has played a role in arranging the deaths of the enemies of the United States of America (i.e. the Maersk Alabama, various drone strikes in Waziristan), I shall continue to be sarcastic in all of my ‘praise’ of the president.

59 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:14:48pm

re: #54 freetoken

Heh… not going to happen.

Look at our population growth… there could be some argument given that keeping the House to only 435 voting members all these years of adding tens of millions of people is somehow under-represention to parts of the population.

OTOH, I shudder to think how a House with 500 or 550 members might work… or not work, whichever the case may be.

Germany has 6oo parliamentarians in its lower house and less than half of America’s population. Not saying that is better or worse, just putting figures up for comparison.

60 Pamela Gellar [sic(k)]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:15:43pm

re: #46 Conservative Moonbat

Speech isn’t a crime and therefore can’t be a hate crime.

I don’t believe there are any hate speech provisions in this legislation. If there were I’d be strongly opposed to it and so would a lot of other people. We’d have heard about it by now..

The UK and Canada have hate speech provisions IIRC. But not the US— and not in this bill.

(There is an older provision about speech that’s a direct incitement to go out and murder someone in a particular group; the SPLC successfully used that to essentially bankrupt the Klan years ago.)

61 Eowyn2  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:15:44pm

re: #48 Liberally Conservative

I think both would get life in prison or the death penalty.

I do think that someone who killed another person in a crime of passion, or in a drug crime, etc. had a more justifiable reason than someone who killed someone else because they were gay. Both should get lengthy prison sentences, but I find the second type more despicable.

That is why we have pre-meditated statutes.
I find murder despicable.

62 rwdflynavy  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:16:43pm

I’m so glad it is finally against the law to kill a gay person.
//

I’ve always thought hate crime laws were a bad idea. Charge individuals with the crime they commit, not based on their thought process or who they chose as a victim.

63 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:16:48pm

re: #51 ralphieboy

Composite legislation is a part and parcel of the Balance of Powers as foreseen by the constitution: a president can only block legislation, he cannot initiate it, he must choose between accepting a whole package and getting something enacted or tossing out the baby with the bathwater.

yeah…bummer, this needs to be changed, the rationale is disingenuous

64 theheat  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:17:02pm

re: #57 Sharmuta

I don’t remember the source, but it was one of those kumbayah interfaith groups that had pitched their tent with the Islamic nations, and wanted the same protections against criticism. I’d say it was a Catholic organization, but I honestly don’t recall.

65 Linden Arden  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:17:11pm

re: #25 karmic_inquisitor

I find that quite objectionable.

/

I saw your irony slash - thats cool with me.

I’m new here - but I LOVED my freshman year of college oh so long ago.

We fought, argued, got high, debated, got pissed off at each other, played chess, and declared eternal hatred so many times.

It was great!

66 Eowyn2  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:17:48pm

re: #54 freetoken

Heh… not going to happen.

Look at our population growth… there could be some argument given that keeping the House to only 435 voting members all these years of adding tens of millions of people is somehow under-represention to parts of the population.

OTOH, I shudder to think how a House with 500 or 550 members might work… or not work, whichever the case may be.


but those 435 members have a lot more staff than they did 50 years ago plus how many ‘committees’ etc etc etc.
and we keep paying for it.

67 Liberally Conservative  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:17:57pm

re: #58 Fenway_Nation

And unless 0bama Hussein Dolt has played a role in arranging the deaths of the enemies of the United States of America (i.e. the Maersk Alabama, various drone strikes in Waziristan), I shall continue to be sarcastic in all of my ‘praise’ of the president.

You know, I’m pretty sure the guy’s achieved more in his life than either you or I have. Lack of praise is one thing, but blatant disregard is another.

68 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:18:00pm

re: #64 theheat

I don’t remember the source, but it was one of those kumbayah interfaith groups that had pitched their tent with the Islamic nations, and wanted the same protections against criticism. I’d say it was a Catholic organization, but I honestly don’t recall.


Fundamentalists of a feather flock together

69 freetoken  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:18:17pm

re: #59 ralphieboy

In the Federal system of the US, States have greater authority than in many nations with parliamentary governments. Thus it could be argued that the democratic process in the US includes thousands of elected representatives, not just 435.

OTOH, the issue of only 435 comes up every once in a while, and with the census looming, which will show about 310 million people in this country in 2010, the discussion about the size of Congress (and the Supreme Court) will possibly come to the fore-front.

70 Sharmuta  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:18:26pm

re: #64 theheat

I don’t remember the source, but it was one of those kumbayah interfaith groups that had pitched their tent with the Islamic nations, and wanted the same protections against criticism. I’d say it was a Catholic organization, but I honestly don’t recall.

Hm- I can see that kook Donohue wanting this, but I doubt the Church itself would agree to this resolution.

71 Eowyn2  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:18:52pm

good night all

72 Yashmak  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:18:58pm

re: #67 Liberally Conservative

You know, I’m pretty sure the guy’s achieved more in his life than either you or I have.

Indeed. He won the Nobel Peace Prize, for starters ;)

73 freetoken  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:19:23pm

re: #71 Eowyn2

g’night…

74 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:19:56pm

re: #69 freetoken

In the Federal system of the US, States have greater authority than in many nations with parliamentary governments. Thus it could be argued that the democratic process in the US includes thousands of elected representatives, not just 435.

OTOH, the issue of only 435 comes up every once in a while, and with the census looming, which will show about 310 million people in this country in 2010, the discussion about the size of Congress (and the Supreme Court) will possibly come to the fore-front.


A good point, but Germany has a very federalist system, thier states here run as much or more of their own business than US states, although there are fewer of them (15 as compared to 50)

75 Mich-again  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:20:12pm

I was reading through a recent report from the UN peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan. It was written prior to the suicide attack in Kabul which targeted UN personnel. A couple interesting snips..

30. The tactics adopted by the insurgency since its resurgence in 2005 have remained unchanged in their essence. These are an avoidance of force-to-force encounters, a reliance on asymmetric tactics, deliberate targeting of representatives of State institutions and international organizations and a disregard for human lives. The implementation of these tactics has more recently evolved in complexity. The combination of simultaneous suicide and stand-off attacks has enabled insurgents to overcome increased security measures around Government installations in particular.

And this..

35. The international military has responded to the insurgent threat over the past several years mainly by increasing the number of international and Afghan troops. The increase in insecurity described in the present and previous reports suggests that this approach has been insufficient. The new International Security Assistance Force Commander has adopted a qualitatively different approach, which focuses on protecting the population rather than on targeting insurgents. A tactical directive was issued restricting the use of air power and the conditions under which house searches and arrests were made.

The strategy of standing around waiting for attacks and then trying to defeat them is a plan to fail. You have to keep targeting the Taliban and keep them on the run in order to protect the population.

76 theheat  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:20:55pm

re: #70 Sharmuta

It was a group, or groups, and not the official statement of the church itself.

77 Mich-again  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:21:02pm

re: #41 MandyManners

Like the Koran’s verses to kill Jews and infidels?

Wouldn’t that qualify as hate speech?

78 Fenway_Nation  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:21:03pm

But where exactly is the deterrent status in the case of the 80-something Holocaust center shooter? He’s old…he’s set in his ways and I doubt he could be dissuaded from hating jews at this point in his life.

Anyone else remember the old’Partner’ sketch from In Living Color? The cool, hip, suave detective gets killed in the beginning leaving the cluless, inept partner to pururuse the investigation. the mock trailer shows him chasing a suspect at a crosswalk when the light turns red. The dopey partner stops while the suspect keeps running and Partner shouts out ‘Ha! I have you for murder one and jaywalking now!’

79 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:21:05pm

re: #67 Liberally Conservative

You know, I’m pretty sure the guy’s achieved more in his life than either you or I have. Lack of praise is one thing, but blatant disregard is another.

well just poop…pretty sensitive are you not?…why do you make this an issue and not let people say whatever they want?…BO is an amateur talker…that’s it

80 bratwurst  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:21:18pm

re: #67 Liberally Conservative

You know, I’m pretty sure the guy’s achieved more in his life than either you or I have. Lack of praise is one thing, but blatant disregard is another.

As I pointed out last night, one wonders what the response would have been here a few years ago if someone had tossed out insulting nicknames for the President of the United States. Feel free to dislike and disagree with the man and his policies, but I honestly can’t see what the downside would be of showing a modicum of respect for the office.

81 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:21:42pm

re: #68 ralphieboy

Fundamentalists of a feather flock together

Where in the world is Catholic considered “Fundamentalists.” You basically started this crap the other night, and you couldn’t even defend you use of the word “Fundamentalists” then. And now you suggest that Catholics are “Fundamentalists.”

Why do you keep pulling this stuff out of your butt?

82 [deleted]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:22:47pm
83 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:24:21pm

re: #81 Walter L. Newton

Where in the world is Catholic considered “Fundamentalists.” You basically started this crap the other night, and you couldn’t even defend you use of the word “Fundamentalists” then. And now you suggest that Catholics are “Fundamentalists.”

Why do you keep pulling this stuff out of your butt?

There are fundamentalists everywhere, from the Green Party to the Catholic Church. it is not their individual views that define them, but their approach: stifling opposition through legislation or force, or whatever means they can breing to bear.

84 Ojoe  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:24:27pm

Way to go Obama & Hillary!

& I think Islam is a really bad religion!

Extremely bad !

Produces explosions even in 2009.

85 Killgore Trout  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:25:01pm

Feds: Leader of radical Islam group killed in raid

A man described as a leader of a radical Sunni Islam group was fatally shot Wednesday afternoon while resisting arrest and exchanging gunfire with federal agents, authorities said.

Agents at a warehouse in Dearborn were trying to arrest Luqman Ameen Abdullah, 53, on charges that included conspiracy to sell stolen goods and illegal possession and sale of firearms. Abdullah and 10 others were listed in a criminal complaint, but it was not immediately clear how many were in custody.

He refused to surrender, fired a weapon and was killed by gunfire from agents, FBI spokeswoman Sandra Berchtold said.

86 Irenicum  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:25:08pm

re: #82 MandyManners

Exactly. And again, what got signed today was not a hate speech law, it was a hate “violence” law. Big difference.

87 Sharmuta  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:25:26pm

re: #76 theheat

It was a group, or groups, and not the official statement of the church itself.

The Catholic League is the org that Donohue belongs to, iirc. He’s a crackpot, and has opposed the Church on some positions. I could see him favoring this sort of thing- he’s just that kooky.

88 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:25:30pm

re: #80 bratwurst

As I pointed out last night, one wonders what the response would have been here a few years ago if someone had tossed out insulting nicknames for the President of the United States. Feel free to dislike and disagree with the man and his policies, but I honestly can’t see what the downside would be of showing a modicum of respect for the office.

besides the Nobel whackos, who’s dissing the office?

89 Fenway_Nation  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:26:06pm

re: #67 Liberally Conservative

Because no matter how many kudos and accolades are tossed his way, they guy still reminds me of a smarmy used-car salesman who pretends to be your buddy in order to try and sell you something you don’t really want or need.

Like I said…the more dead terrorists or pirates where are under his watch, the more sinccere and earnest praise he’ll get from yours truly.

90 Ojoe  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:26:33pm

re: #83 ralphieboy

I don’t see very many RC fundamentalists by and large.

Too much wine, etc.

“Where there’s 4 Catholics there’s a fifth”

91 Liberally Conservative  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:26:51pm

re: #79 albusteve

well just poop…pretty sensitive are you not?…why do you make this an issue and not let people say whatever they want?…BO is an amateur talker…that’s it

I’d prefer that we respect people that we disagree with, it’s a lot of what (I believe) makes this blog superior to Kos or Hot Air.

92 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:26:54pm

So, in other words, Obama has the sense to not cave to a silly and ridiculous Islamic demand and he has the decency to also stand against hatred and discrimination based on sexual preference.

I am certain that the wingnuts will have a field day trying to pretend that Obama is still a secret jihadi at the UN in the first case. I am even more certain of the seethe fest on the second case.

And yet, honestly, I have to say I am very pleased with the president on both counts.

But wait, the whole Obama can’t do anything right meme needs to kick in in 3.2.1…

I can hardly wait to hear how Fox spins these things.

I will enjoy watching Malkin’s eyes bulge with rage.

I will mostly enjoy watching asses like Inhofe and Santorum fume because, yes, 21st century America really is moving past theocons like them.

93 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:27:30pm

re: #89 Fenway_Nation

Because no matter how many kudos and accolades are tossed his way, they guy still reminds me of a smarmy used-car salesman who pretends to be your buddy in order to try and sell you something you don’t really want or need.


He’s a politician, for chrissakes, what do expect from a democratic system of government, a Phiosopher King or an Enlightened Monarch?

94 Yashmak  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:28:16pm

re: #89 Fenway_Nation

Because no matter how many kudos and accolades are tossed his way, they guy still reminds me of a smarmy used-car salesman who pretends to be your buddy in order to try and sell you something you don’t really want or need.

Wow, for a second there I really thought you were describing Bill Clinton. That’s how he always seemed to me. I know that we’re now playing nice with the criticism of Obama and all, but I can’t help it that I’ve started to remember Bill somewhat more fondly than I used to, when I compare him with Obama’s performance to date.

95 Killgore Trout  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:28:22pm

Fox link so take this with a grain of salt: Photographer Attacked at Mosque Whose Imam Killed

96 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:29:00pm

re: #83 ralphieboy

There are fundamentalists everywhere, from the Green Party to the Catholic Church. it is not their individual views that define them, but their approach: stifling opposition through legislation or force, or whatever means they can breing to bear.

In no way is any flavor of Catholicism fundamentalist. One of the basic tenets of fundamentalism is the inerrancy of the bible. That alone would keep any Catholic doctrine out of that camp.

Get your facts straight, stop making things up. I’m a fucking atheist and I know more about religion than most of the pew sitters. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

97 Fenway_Nation  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:29:18pm

re: #94 Yashmak

Yea…didn’t think I’d ever be nostalgic for the Clinton admin. Yet here I am…

98 reine.de.tout  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:29:19pm

re: #87 Sharmuta

The Catholic League is the org that Donohue belongs to, iirc. He’s a crackpot, and has opposed the Church on some positions. I could see him favoring this sort of thing- he’s just that kooky.

Yes, he’s a crackpot, and does not speak for me or honestly, for most Catholics I know. And I know a lot :-)

99 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:29:24pm

re: #90 Ojoe

I don’t see very many RC fundamentalists by and large.

Too much wine, etc.

“Where there’s 4 Catholics there’s a fifth”

Catholics are on the whole conservative but not extremely so, but I still see them in the folks who cover up child abuse and other forms of abuse to protect the reputation of the One True Faith

100 Irenicum  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:29:36pm

re: #92 LudwigVanQuixote

Couldn’t have said it better myself! It will be fun and educational to see how the wingnutocracy will spin this one.

101 Fenway_Nation  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:29:42pm

re: #95 Killgore Trout

Does the same disclaimer apply to mediamatters links, too?

102 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:29:43pm

re: #91 Liberally Conservative

I’d prefer that we respect people that we disagree with, it’s a lot of what (I believe) makes this blog superior to Kos or Hot Air.

you talking presidents or posters?…your #67 refers to BO, and I have almost no respect for him…he said he was not presidential, I believed him, and now he is one!…can you trust the guy?

103 Velvet Elvis  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:29:53pm

re: #89 Fenway_Nation

Because no matter how many kudos and accolades are tossed his way, they guy still reminds me of a smarmy used-car salesman who pretends to be your buddy in order to try and sell you something you don’t really want or need.

That’s almost word for word my impression of Mitt Romney. He just ooozes the used car salesman vibe.

104 bratwurst  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:30:31pm

re: #102 albusteve

you talking presidents or posters?

Why not both?

105 Yashmak  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:30:49pm

re: #103 Conservative Moonbat

That’s almost word for word my impression of Mitt Romney. He just ooozes the used car salesman vibe.

Now that you mention it…in spite of agreeing with a lot of his campaign positions on the issues, I felt a bit of that too.

106 Ojoe  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:31:03pm

Bad scandal there.

Fix it.

We’ll go on however.

107 freetoken  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:31:36pm

re: #103 Conservative Moonbat

That’s almost word for word my impression of Mitt Romney. He just ooozes the used car salesman vibe.

Agree… but that is the nature of the business… Politicians’ job is to put together coalitions, which means they have to do some pretty fast talking at times…

108 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:31:38pm

re: #96 Walter L. Newton

In no way is any flavor of Catholicism fundamentalist. One of the basic tenets of fundamentalism is the inerrancy of the bible. That alone would keep any Catholic doctrine out of that camp.

Get your facts straight, stop making things up. I’m a fucking atheist and I know more about religion than most of the pew sitters. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

Addendum to my comment above : Maybe you should be talking about extremists and not fundamentalists. Anyway find another some other word, because fundamentalists is already taken.

109 Ojoe  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:32:31pm

re: #99 ralphieboy

By the way, truth converges by nature.

110 reine.de.tout  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:32:59pm

re: #99 ralphieboy

Catholics are on the whole conservative but not extremely so, but I still see them in the folks who cover up child abuse and other forms of abuse to protect the reputation of the One True Faith

uh - you saw some church leadership covering up child abuse; but you’ve seen most of the faithful, including myself, scream bloody murder about those cover-ups when it was discovered.

The church hierarchy really let us down, in a really big way.

111 Killgore Trout  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:33:38pm

re: #101 Fenway_Nation

Does the same disclaimer apply to mediamatters links, too?

I don’t really trust media matter very much, especially on some issues. I usually ignore all those anecdotes about babies being dropped from health insurances companies that appear at Huffpo, Dkos and other lefty sites. I don’t really trust Fox on anything.

112 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:33:53pm

re: #96 Walter L. Newton

In no way is any flavor of Catholicism fundamentalist. One of the basic tenets of fundamentalism is the inerrancy of the bible. That alone would keep any Catholic doctrine out of that camp.

Get your facts straight, stop making things up. I’m a fucking atheist and I know more about religion than most of the pew sitters. Please stop embarrassing yourself.


Now I did go outta my way to use “fundamentalist” with a small “f” this time - I am talking about people who are so convinced of the inerracy of their own viewpoints that they grant themselves license to lie, pervert and commit crimes to defend them.

You find these kind of fundamentalists - with a small f - in all organizations and religions, the Catholic faith is no exception.

113 erraticsphinx  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:33:59pm

re: #95 Killgore Trout

Heh, check out the front page of Fox News right now.

“Dems to unveil Pelosicare”…try as hard as I might I can never quite seem to recall them saying things like “Repubs to unveil BushBailout”…or “Bushicare part D”.

And they’re a legitimate new organization because…yeah.

114 Mich-again  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:34:31pm

re: #85 Killgore Trout

Nation of Islam scum. The worst part of that story.

An FBI dog was also killed during the shootout, the U.S. attorney’s office said.

I hope all those arrested are charged with murder of a federal agent.

115 Cokezero  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:35:03pm

Re: Catholicism and fundamentalism:

These “radical traditionalist catholics” would seem to fit the bill:

splcenter.org

116 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:35:12pm

re: #104 bratwurst

Why not both?

because I don’t…how can I respect BO when I don’t respect him?…you don’t make sense with this non issue

117 Irenicum  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:35:17pm

re: #113 erraticsphinx

Yep, fair and balanced all right!
/

118 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:36:02pm

re: #108 Walter L. Newton

Addendum to my comment above : Maybe you should be talking about extremists and not fundamentalists. Anyway find another some other word, because fundamentalists is already taken.

Fine: extremisists, but fundamentalism is fundamentally more fun…

119 Killgore Trout  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:36:03pm

re: #113 erraticsphinx

I see now they’re running pictures of soldier’s coffins next to the headline “Obama’s Pakistan Problem”.
Oh, and another blistering and earth shattering ACORN scandal.

120 [deleted]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:36:19pm
121 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:36:29pm

Well not a “hate Crime” but certainly an incident of deliberate contempt
Let’s hope this guy never wants to buy an NFL team, or anything else “unifying”.

Larry David urinates on a portrait of Jesus… WTF?!

insidetv.aol.com

122 Killgore Trout  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:37:01pm

re: #114 Mich-again

They weren’t NoI. They were jailhouse sunni reverts.

123 reine.de.tout  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:37:28pm

re: #121 Rightwingconspirator

Well not a “hate Crime” but certainly an incident of deliberate contempt
Let’s hope this guy never wants to buy an NFL team, or anything else “unifying”.

Larry David urinates on a portrait of Jesus… WTF?!

[Link: insidetv.aol.com…]

It’s “art”, I’m sure.
So it’s OK.
/

124 Liberally Conservative  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:37:28pm

re: #102 albusteve

you talking presidents or posters?…your #67 refers to BO, and I have almost no respect for him…he said he was not presidential, I believed him, and now he is one!…can you trust the guy?

I’d prefer both, but there are things that I think Obama deserves criticism for more than others. For example, I think he’s too concerned with his image and what the polls say, as opposed to doing what he campaigned to do or what he believes in. However, he’s still accomplished much in his life, from being a mixed-race kid from a single-parent home in the 60s and 70s to being the President, and I think that, combined with his office, deserves some respect.

125 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:37:47pm

re: #103 Conservative Moonbat

That’s almost word for word my impression of Mitt Romney. He just ooozes the used car salesman vibe.

Like Leno or someone said, he looks like the picture that was in the frame when you bought the frame.

126 Fenway_Nation  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:37:52pm

re: #115 Cokezero

What gives? Are you still banned in Venezuela?

127 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:38:06pm

re: #123 reine.de.tout

Uh Oh I “Rushed” to judge. /

128 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:38:38pm

re: #101 Fenway_Nation

Does the same disclaimer apply to mediamatters links, too?

I remember all those times when Media Matters identified scandalized Democrats as Republicans…

oh no, wait…that was that news station!

129 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:38:50pm

re: #112 ralphieboy

Now I did go outta my way to use “fundamentalist” with a small “f” this time - I am talking about people who are so convinced of the inerracy of their own viewpoints that they grant themselves license to lie, pervert and commit crimes to defend them.

You find these kind of fundamentalists - with a small f - in all organizations and religions, the Catholic faith is no exception.

No you don’t, the word has only one meaning, and that meaning derived from a certain religious doctrine. You need to do your home work.

It’s like the word Baptist, it only means one thing. It doesn’t matter if you use a small “f” or a capital “F,” you are using the same word.

—-

The term fundamentalism was originally coined to describe a narrowly defined set of beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy of that time. Until 1950, there was no entry for fundamentalism in the Oxford English Dictionary;[5] the derivative fundamentalist was added only in its second 1989 edition.[6]

The term has since been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity, but has by and large retained religious connotations.[6]

—-

The generalize meaning in the second paragraph is as close as you can come to using the term in the way you are trying too, but even then, it refers not to a WAY OF DOING SOMETHING, but a religious doctrine.

130 bratwurst  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:38:57pm

re: #116 albusteve

because I don’t…how can I respect BO when I don’t respect him?…you don’t make sense with this non issue

I am not going to get into this with you again. Try as you might, I would not lower myself to your name calling level last night…I am not going to roll the dice again tonight.

The fact remains, however, that you can dislike the man and his policies without calling him names or saying you piss or fart in his direction, as you did last night. For someone who was accusing other posters of being childish last night, you have a lot of nerve.

131 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:39:02pm

re: #123 reine.de.tout

It’s “art”, I’m sure.
So it’s OK.
/

Just watch out for all the rioting Christians.
//

132 keithgabryelski  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:39:16pm

re: #10 Yashmak

If you’re going to have “hate crimes” laws, it’s nice to include gender preference…but “hate crimes” laws in general have always struck me as just a short step removed from “thought crimes”.

it’s not close to that.

If you think gay men are “gross” — not a crime
If you tell a homosexual joke to friends — not a crime
If you announce over a loud speaker “gays are gross” — not a crime
If you buy advertisement in a newspaper that says “gays are gross” — not a crime
If you preach in your church “god hates fags” — not a crime.

If you kick some gay-man’s ass while screaming “rot in hell, fag” — serious crime, extra penalty
Kick a gay-man’s ass because you’re a drunk fool that was gonna punch the next guy you say, anyway — serious crime, but not a hate crime.
If you spray paint “god hates fags” on wall that you don’t own — serious crime, extra penalty.

The word “intent” may seem like this is about a person’s thoughts — but really it is about what crime they’ve committed and what can be discerned from their actions as to why they did it.

This is a good extension to a law that, by and large, has been used correctly to reduce crimes against individuals that have historically received the brunt of aggression for no other reason than they exist.

133 Four More Tears  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:39:17pm

re: #119 Killgore Trout

I see now they’re running pictures of soldier’s coffins next to the headline “Obama’s Pakistan Problem”.
Oh, and another blistering and earth shattering ACORN scandal.

I looked Fox’ frontpage and thought it could just as well have been Drudge.

134 erraticsphinx  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:39:25pm

re: #119 Killgore Trout

Stay classay Fox News!

They were also pimping that Rifqa Bary case for days when it first came out.

135 [deleted]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:39:33pm
136 abu_garcia  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:40:08pm

I don’t comment much anymore, but put me down as one who is opposed to the whole idea of “hate crime”.

Crime is crime. We have started down a slippery slope that will not end well.

So it goes…

137 Ojoe  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:40:20pm

re: #123 reine.de.tout

It is worse on the reputation of the artist than on the reputation of Jesus, IMHO.

138 Cokezero  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:40:39pm

re: #126 Fenway_Nation

I am a bourgeois drink, so most likely.

139 erraticsphinx  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:40:46pm

re: #136 abu_garcia

I don’t think all crime is equal. Intent matters.

140 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:41:01pm

re: #115 Cokezero

Re: Catholicism and fundamentalism:

These “radical traditionalist catholics” would seem to fit the bill:

[Link: www.splcenter.org…]

I will say it again, fundamentalism is an adherence to a set of beliefs, not an approach (as defined by Ralphieboy… “but their approach: stifling opposition through legislation or force, or whatever means they can breing to bear.”)

You can’t change the meaning just because it suits you.

141 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:41:12pm

re: #136 abu_garcia

I don’t comment much anymore, but put me down as one who is opposed to the whole idea of “hate crime”.

Crime is crime. We have started down a slippery slope that will not end well.

So it goes…

Examining motive in trials is a slippery slope? I guess I should notify my father the lawyer…

142 Ojoe  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:41:28pm

re: #132 keithgabryelski

Violates equal protection if you ask me, and is a slippery slope.

143 Irenicum  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:41:55pm

re: #132 keithgabryelski

Wow. Extremely well put. I wish I had more updings to give!

144 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:42:00pm

re: #141 WindUpBird

Examining motive in trials is a slippery slope? I guess I should notify my father the lawyer…

Motive shoule play a role in sentencing, but not in the legislation itself.

145 Fenway_Nation  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:42:05pm

re: #128 WindUpBird

I remember all those times when Media Matters identified scandalized Democrats as Republicans…

oh no, wait…that was that news station!

Oh…you mean like all those writeups that decline to identify what party such luminaries as Kwame Kilpatrick or Rod Bladgojvic blong to…

146 Pamela Gellar [sic(k)]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:42:08pm

re: #116 albusteve

because I don’t…how can I respect BO when I don’t respect him?…you don’t make sense with this non issue

You can respect the office, and especially the fact that he holds it because he was democratically elected by a majority of your fellow citizens, even if you don’t respect the person.

147 Liberally Conservative  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:42:24pm

re: #138 Cokezero

I am a bourgeois drink, so most likely.

What are you too good for Diet Coke?

148 Sharmuta  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:42:27pm

re: #98 reine.de.tout

Yes, he’s a crackpot, and does not speak for me or honestly, for most Catholics I know. And I know a lot :-)

Isn’t he the one who defended the Church abuses in Ireland? A resolution like this would be useful to a guy like that to keep people from speaking out about crimes being committed in the name of religion.

There is a separate bias as well, in that not all criticisms are bad- there is constructive criticism, and it’s how we grow, mature, evolve… If islam or the Church, or any organization, or a person is going to moderate or improve, criticisms must be heard so the process of change can begin.

149 freetoken  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:42:35pm

re: #136 abu_garcia

I don’t comment much anymore…

Why is that? I noticed you do post links once in a while.

Anyway, as discussed downstairs, there is a significance difference between a thought crime, and hate crime where violence is part.

150 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:42:39pm

re: #124 Liberally Conservative

I’d prefer both, but there are things that I think Obama deserves criticism for more than others. For example, I think he’s too concerned with his image and what the polls say, as opposed to doing what he campaigned to do or what he believes in. However, he’s still accomplished much in his life, from being a mixed-race kid from a single-parent home in the 60s and 70s to being the President, and I think that, combined with his office, deserves some respect.

I’ve accomplished much in my life and he disrespects me by taking my tax money and giving it to others that are more well off than me…I could care less about his boyhood or his accomplishments

151 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:42:45pm

re: #144 ralphieboy

Motive shoule play a role in sentencing, but not in the legislation itself.

Where exactly do you think sentencing guidelines come from?

152 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:43:19pm

re: #146 iceweasel

You can respect the office, and especially the fact that he holds it because he was democratically elected by a majority of your fellow citizens, even if you don’t respect the person.


You sum up a lot of the problem I have had with right-wing criticism of Obama, although I had some of the same problem with the Left and Bush, it never seemed to go as far and furious as I have seen under the current administration.

153 Ojoe  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:44:17pm

Is it less bad to hate a straight white guy?

There is hidden absurdity here.

154 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:44:35pm

re: #150 albusteve

I’ve accomplished much in my life and he disrespects me by taking my tax money and giving it to others that are more well off than me…I could care less about his boyhood or his accomplishments

Oh he DISRESPECTS you! Because he’s personally taxing you! He totally set up the entire progressive income tax system the instant he went into office. And nobody before Obama has ever done this, he’s the first.

155 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:44:50pm

re: #130 bratwurst

I am not going to get into this with you again. Try as you might, I would not lower myself to your name calling level last night…I am not going to roll the dice again tonight.

The fact remains, however, that you can dislike the man and his policies without calling him names or saying you piss or fart in his direction, as you did last night. For someone who was accusing other posters of being childish last night, you have a lot of nerve.

you’re just pissed because I can’t stand the guy…too bad

156 Cokezero  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:45:05pm

re: #140 Walter L. Newton

I will say it again, fundamentalism is an adherence to a set of beliefs, not an approach (as defined by Ralphieboy… “but their approach: stifling opposition through legislation or force, or whatever means they can breing to bear.”)

You can’t change the meaning just because it suits you.

Fair enough. But as was mentioned above, just change fundamentalist to extremist.

157 [deleted]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:46:15pm
158 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:46:35pm

re: #142 Ojoe

I’m not sure this changes equal protection under the law. Its the sentence, not a change in due process. Gun + robbery crimes get extra years, crack gets extra years compared to powder cocaine, ( some would insert hypersensitive racial component HERE) robbing a bank for $10,000 gets extra years compared to a $50,000 jewelry heist. How are you interpreting equal protection?

159 Fenway_Nation  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:46:42pm

Oh noes! I managed to make the bottom 10 comments thanks in large part to some lizards I’ve enver even heard of

/boo freakin’ hoo

160 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:47:00pm

re: #146 iceweasel

You can respect the office, and especially the fact that he holds it because he was democratically elected by a majority of your fellow citizens, even if you don’t respect the person.

where have I ever disrespected the office of president?..where do you get this stuff?…besides my anthem that I hate the feds?…hahaha!…nontrovercy

161 keithgabryelski  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:47:07pm

re: #142 Ojoe

Violates equal protection if you ask me, and is a slippery slope.

It’s not a slippery slope if it isn’t used as such. One should present evidence this law has been abused (and how often). I’m not saying it hasn’t been abused, it is, however, my understanding it generally isn’t abused — and the idea that it has created a social idea that slowly increases what is considered “hate” is just not shown by an facts (that would be the slippery slop — an ever increasing reduction in things you once could do).

Equal protection: the supreme court disagrees with you.

162 Fenway_Nation  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:47:41pm

re: #151 WindUpBird

Where exactly do you think sentencing guidelines come from?


The sentencing guidleines stork- DUH!

163 Cato the Elder  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:47:41pm

If AlbuSteve doesn’t respect Obama, what’s that to me?

164 Sharmuta  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:48:08pm

re: #153 Ojoe

Is it less bad to hate a straight white guy?

Robert Stacy McCain says “no”. He feels it is a crime to hate a straight white man such as himself, as he is not a racist- he has witnesses, you know.

165 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:48:13pm

re: #161 keithgabryelski

PIMF
Slippery slope, kinda Freudian slip there?

166 Cokezero  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:48:20pm

re: #147 Liberally Conservative

What are you too good for Diet Coke?

Yes.

167 Ojoe  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:48:33pm

re: #158 Rightwingconspirator

See my 153

168 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:48:33pm

re: #153 Ojoe

Is it less bad to hate a straight white guy?

There is hidden absurdity here.

Hidden absurdity? Try the wide-open clear-as-day absurdity of being kicked out of the military because you’re gay.

Tell me all your concerns about hate crime legislation after we fix that one. Tell me alll about your “equal protection under the law” AFTER I GET EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.

169 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:48:39pm

re: #156 Cokezero

Fair enough. But as was mentioned above, just change fundamentalist to extremist.

Yes, I mentioned that.

170 Pamela Gellar [sic(k)]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:49:00pm

re: #152 ralphieboy

You sum up a lot of the problem I have had with right-wing criticism of Obama, although I had some of the same problem with the Left and Bush, it never seemed to go as far and furious as I have seen under the current administration.

Yeah, when I wrote that comment I specifically had some of the left in mind and the unhinged Bush hatred there— but it wasn’t anything like this, or as mainstreamed.
Although I think whoever was POTUS, we would be seeing an increase in ugly discourse because a lot of the fear, anger, and anxiety right now is because of people’s economic situations. So some of this inchoate rage would have been roiling around anyway waiting to be tapped.

171 Racer X  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:49:06pm

re: #153 Ojoe

Is it less bad to hate a straight white guy?

Nope. Totally OK. Encouraged in fact.

172 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:49:09pm

re: #154 WindUpBird

Oh he DISRESPECTS you! Because he’s personally taxing you! He totally set up the entire progressive income tax system the instant he went into office. And nobody before Obama has ever done this, he’s the first.

did I say that?…it’s not personal, and he clipped you too, if you pay taxes…nobody took my money and gave it to a car buyer before, that’s true

173 Charles Johnson  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:49:21pm

re: #120 The Sanity Inspector

What the hell? Did you read the kind of comments you’re linking to at my site?

174 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:49:22pm

re: #162 Fenway_Nation

Okay, props for a bird related retort. ;-)

175 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:49:38pm

re: #159 Fenway_Nation

Oh noes! I managed to make the bottom 10 comments thanks in large part to some lizards I’ve enver even heard of

/boo freakin’ hoo

noobies

176 Ojoe  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:50:28pm

re: #168 WindUpBird

The gay military thing is absurd also, if you can do the job that is all that should count.

177 keithgabryelski  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:50:36pm

re: #153 Ojoe

Is it less bad to hate a straight white guy?

There is hidden absurdity here.

when otherwise productive members of society gather together, drink beers, and then ask the question “which straight white guy should we tie to our bumper and drag through the middle of town” — call me.

178 William Barnett-Lewis  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:50:39pm

re: #96 Walter L. Newton

In no way is any flavor of Catholicism fundamentalist. One of the basic tenets of fundamentalism is the inerrancy of the bible. That alone would keep any Catholic doctrine out of that camp.

Get your facts straight, stop making things up. I’m a fucking atheist and I know more about religion than most of the pew sitters. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

Sorry Walter, but I know a family of fundamentalists that go to mass every Sunday and several times a week. They are relatives and I have to deal with them and their hateful ignorance rather often - it’s especially disgusting when they are spewing hatred for the poor. They will stand there and argue both sets of dogmas quite happily and with no care that one is mutually antagonistic to the other. Rememeber - we are talking about religion here, not reason.

Now, stop embarrassing yourself by assuming…

William

179 Ojoe  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:50:59pm

re: #171 Racer X

Too much absurdity everywhere.

180 erraticsphinx  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:51:06pm

re: #177 keithgabryelski


I have but one upding to give.

181 Liberally Conservative  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:51:24pm

re: #155 albusteve

you’re just pissed because I can’t stand the guy…too bad

I’m also against this because if you criticize Obama’s specific policies, you get a good back-and-forth.

And if you criticize Obama as a person, you get a flamewar! Woo!

182 Ojoe  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:51:33pm

re: #177 keithgabryelski

You have a point there.

183 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:51:56pm

re: #172 albusteve

did I say that?…it’s not personal, and he clipped you too, if you pay taxes…nobody took my money and gave it to a car buyer before, that’s true

I am not opposed to Cash for Clunkers. I think it was a stop-gap, but it also think it did more good than harm. And before you ask, I pay a lot of taxes because I own my own business, and I thus get hit with all that good stuff employers normally pay.

184 freetoken  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:52:28pm

re: #179 Ojoe

Ojoe - if it is determined that a specific segment of the populace is the target of crime more so than the average, do you think that is a problem which the laws of the land ought to address?

185 bratwurst  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:52:41pm

re: #155 albusteve

you’re just pissed because I can’t stand the guy…too bad

To be fair, I also dislike your 5th grade bag of responses like “tough shit” and “cry me a river” (responses I have gotten from you in just the last 10 days) and being called names last night. Others are able to show common courtesy to their fellow lizards…even hatchlings they disagree with.

186 erraticsphinx  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:52:53pm

re: #168 WindUpBird

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell will be known 10 years from now as one of the most shameful policies in this nation’s history.

187 reine.de.tout  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:53:02pm

re: #137 Ojoe

It is worse on the reputation of the artist than on the reputation of Jesus, IMHO.

Agreed.

188 Cato the Elder  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:53:19pm

People who thought Obama would cave on this defamation of Islam shite - what’s the explanation for the outcome? Is it some triple-crossing socialist Alinskyite trick? Or does he maybe really believe in the first amendment?

189 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:53:25pm
What the hell? Did you read the kind of comments you’re linking to at my site?

I apologize: I forgot about what a mess that comment thread became. Here’s a direct link to the NPR story.

190 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:53:34pm

re: #178 wlewisiii

Sorry Walter, but I know a family of fundamentalists that go to mass every Sunday and several times a week. They are relatives and I have to deal with them and their hateful ignorance rather often - it’s especially disgusting when they are spewing hatred for the poor. They will stand there and argue both sets of dogmas quite happily and with no care that one is mutually antagonistic to the other. Rememeber - we are talking about religion here, not reason.

Now, stop embarrassing yourself by assuming…

William

Billy, go research it yourself. Anecdotal evidence, because YOU know someone, does not change the history and the meaning of a term or it’s usage… sorry…

en.wikipedia.org

191 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:53:41pm

re: #164 Sharmuta

You remind me of an eye opening tale from the Rodney King riots. It was claimed black men could not discriminate due to a sheer lack of power to do so. The answer that put an end to that was “ask the Koreans” who had been widely burned out and victimized by black rioters, to the point of necessarily guarding their stores by live fire from semi auto rifles. Real gunfights on LA streets. Bad days indeed. So, yeah a straight white guy could be a victim, particularly by a racially motivated gangster. Tough one to prove but still.

192 erraticsphinx  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:54:24pm

re: #188 Cato the Elder

The wingurality has been breached.
DANGER.

193 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:54:25pm

re: #176 Ojoe

Thank you. I am pro hate-crime legislation because I believe motive matters a lot, and people who attack other people for no other reason than who they happen to be in love (or like) with are a bigger danger to society than a guy who assaults somebody because he’s a thief or cranked out on meth. Meth addicts don’t organize. Gay-bashers and racists do.

194 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:54:44pm

re: #169 Walter L. Newton

Yes, I mentioned that.

Now our Wiki friends go on to define a “fundamentalist” as:

“refers to a belief in a strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature)…”

I will stick to the term “extremist” from now on, but what I had in mind was more the “strict adherence” part rather than the religious aspect.

The fact that it seems to be closely connected to religious beliefs just tells us a lot about how a lot of people view their religion, and does not necessarily reflect on the religion itself.

195 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:54:55pm

re: #179 Ojoe

Too much absurdity everywhere.

re: #181 Liberally Conservative

I’m also against this because if you criticize Obama’s specific policies, you get a good back-and-forth.

And if you criticize Obama as a person, you get a flamewar! Woo!

I criticize all of BO’s policies…so far

196 Fenway_Nation  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:55:01pm

re: #186 erraticsphinx

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell will be known 10 years from now as one of the most shameful policies in this nation’s history.

So in 10 years we’re going to forget about Jim Crow of the internment of Japanese Americans?

197 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:55:39pm

re: #193 WindUpBird

Holy smokes! Great freaking point in that last line. My favorite in a day or two.

198 William Barnett-Lewis  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:56:01pm

Walter,

I know the definition. They believe The Fundamentals. They also identify as Roman Catholic and claim to fully believe what they were the Baltimore Catechism. Sorry that bothers you.

William

199 Cato the Elder  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:56:10pm

re: #150 albusteve

I’ve accomplished much in my life and he disrespects me by taking my tax money and giving it to others that are more well off than me…I could care less about his boyhood or his accomplishments

Umm…not to be a snot or anything, but aren’t you the one who was on here not too many months ago telling us about how you don’t pay taxes?

200 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:56:22pm

re: #194 ralphieboy

Now our Wiki friends go on to define a “fundamentalist” as:

“refers to a belief in a strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature)…”

I will stick to the term “extremist” from now on, but what I had in mind was more the “strict adherence” part rather than the religious aspect.

The fact that it seems to be closely connected to religious beliefs just tells us a lot about how a lot of people view their religion, and does not necessarily reflect on the religion itself.

Now we can agree.

201 Pamela Gellar [sic(k)]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:56:25pm

re: #196 Fenway_Nation

So in 10 years we’re going to forget about Jim Crow of the internment of Japanese Americans?

Here is what he said:

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell will be known 10 years from now as one of the most shameful policies in this nation’s history.

So the answer to your question is No, and No one said we would.

202 simoom  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:56:27pm

re: #113 erraticsphinx

re: #119 Killgore Trout

Fox Nation seems to be similar except with a heavier emphasis on the culture war stories and the outrageous outrages of the day :P.

203 erraticsphinx  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:56:34pm

re: #196 Fenway_Nation

Why are you starting up BS?

Read what I said again.

204 Ojoe  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:56:35pm

re: #184 freetoken

A hard question. Certainly more enforcement should move in to the area of more crime.

205 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:56:41pm

re: #185 bratwurst

To be fair, I also dislike your 5th grade bag of responses like “tough shit” and “cry me a river” (responses I have gotten from you in just the last 10 days) and being called names last night. Others are able to show common courtesy to their fellow lizards…even hatchlings they disagree with.

you’re new here…hang in there and buck up and quit whining…besides I’m a sixth grader

206 Four More Tears  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:56:43pm

re: #196 Fenway_Nation

So in 10 years we’re going to forget about Jim Crow of the internment of Japanese Americans?

He did say

one of the most shameful.

Meaning it’s in the same league.

207 William Barnett-Lewis  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:57:26pm

re: #198 wlewisiii

Walter,

I know the definition. They believe The Fundamentals. They also identify as Roman Catholic and claim to fully believe what they were taught from the Baltimore Catechism. Sorry that bothers you.

William

PIMF.

208 freetoken  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:57:38pm

re: #202 simoom

FoxNation, like WND, is part of revanchism-central in the great culture wars.

209 Ojoe  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:57:55pm

BBL

210 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:58:42pm

re: #197 Rightwingconspirator

I credit the Onion, they had a great article about meth addicts organizing to repel the invisible spider invasion 8-)

211 Wozza Matter?  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:58:54pm

re: #150 albusteve

and on this the day of your daughters wedding…

212 Fenway_Nation  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:59:27pm

re: #203 erraticsphinx

re: #206 JasonA

I did read that wrong.

/still disagree for the most part, tho’.

213 freetoken  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:59:49pm

re: #204 Ojoe

But what if the crime is not geographically specific?

Downstairs I posted a link to a news article on some research about crimes against homosexuals. This is an example where geography was not as important as outward signs of sexual orientation.

214 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:59:58pm

re: #193 WindUpBird

Thank you. I am pro hate-crime legislation because I believe motive matters a lot, and people who attack other people for no other reason than who they happen to be in love (or like) with are a bigger danger to society than a guy who assaults somebody because he’s a thief or cranked out on meth. Meth addicts don’t organize. Gay-bashers and racists do.

There are trade organizations built around meth, and there are gay-bashers who do it out of idle boredom and frustration. it is hard to generalize.

At some point, I fear that it is going to lead to something hopelessly entangled, like a gay, black Moslem meth addict attacking a Jewish lesbian pro-lifer and the “hate crime” aspect will do nothing but fuel one gigantic media circus.

215 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:01:25pm

re: #198 wlewisiii

Walter,

I know the definition. They believe The Fundamentals. They also identify as Roman Catholic and claim to fully believe what they were the Baltimore Catechism. Sorry that bothers you.

William

Doesn’t bother me. They are far from any norm, they are not a sect of the Catholic Church and if they want to identify as fundamentalist, that’s fine. Your comment has not one ounce of anything to do with the original comment by Ralphieboy and the discussion that we were having. My advice to you is to go back up thread and read the gist of our conversation.

That is all.

216 reine.de.tout  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:01:39pm

re: #148 Sharmuta

Isn’t he the one who defended the Church abuses in Ireland? A resolution like this would be useful to a guy like that to keep people from speaking out about crimes being committed in the name of religion.

There is a separate bias as well, in that not all criticisms are bad- there is constructive criticism, and it’s how we grow, mature, evolve… If islam or the Church, or any organization, or a person is going to moderate or improve, criticisms must be heard so the process of change can begin.

I think he did. He’s a complete idiot. Even my most devout, almost-became-a-nun twice friend thinks he’s an idiot, and completely misguided.

217 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:01:46pm

re: #196 Fenway_Nation

So in 10 years we’re going to forget about Jim Crow of the internment of Japanese Americans?

Aw, come on man. We have families unable to adopt, unable to visit their partners on their death-bed, unable to serve, blackmailed and abused when they DO manage to serve, attacked and forced out of their jobs when they go into education. Because they are Teh Ghey, and apparently less equal than everyone else.

It seems pretty shameful to me!

218 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:01:59pm

re: #199 Cato the Elder

Umm…not to be a snot or anything, but aren’t you the one who was on here not too many months ago telling us about how you don’t pay taxes?

yes, that’s a relatively new approach the last couple of years and it’s working out nicely…it’s true that I didn’t pay for the clunkers…I have paid vast sums to the feds in the past but I should have been more honest…I got ‘caught up’ in the argument…nice catch, and for all the other nasty stuff you are or want to be, snot is not one of them

219 Cato the Elder  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:02:19pm

re: #186 erraticsphinx

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell will be known 10 years from now as one of the most shameful policies in this nation’s history.

Really? Some people lost their jobs. Compare that with early 20th-century forced sterilization, for example. Somehow I don’t think it meets the test. Not by a damn sight.

DADT is ridiculous and harmful, and could be ended with the stroke of a pen. End of story.

220 Sharmuta  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:02:40pm

re: #191 Rightwingconspirator

You bring up a good point, but I was trying to snark stacy.

221 Racer X  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:03:06pm

re: #213 freetoken

But what if the crime is not geographically specific?

Downstairs I posted a link to a news article on some research about crimes against homosexuals. This is an example where geography was not as important as outward signs of sexual orientation.

Thugs target those who look weak.

222 Fenway_Nation  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:03:09pm

re: #214 ralphieboy

I’ll keep it simpler…what about when a hispanic gang member kills a black youth [or vice-versa]? Not even a gang member- an innocent bystander who was shot because of mistaken identity.

There is precedent for that, but I don’t think hate crimes statutes were invoked.

223 keithgabryelski  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:03:56pm

re: #191 Rightwingconspirator

So, yeah a straight white guy could be a victim, particularly by a racially motivated gangster. Tough one to prove but still.

It’s possible, and that straight white guy is actually protected under “race” and (now) “sexual orientation”.

I seem to recall an incident in the last couple of years that was a black on white crime that was prosecuted under this law… can’t find a reference to it now. When it happens (rather than just some black guy shooting some non-black guy) I’m sure the law will be applied.

The incidents with asian store owners was an interesting problem, I’m sure some crimes were prosecuted under this law (although I have no examples to point to).

as to gay people attacking straight men because they are straight — I don’t see it happening.

224 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:04:01pm

re: #214 ralphieboy

Yeah, it can get sticky. That’s a worthwhile price to pay. In the military someday-Don’t ask etc goes, and then gay marriage, and then women on submarines… So you wind up with an upset separated or divorcing lesbian couple on an attack sub. Or the male equivalent.

So what if its difficult? The right thing for justice is complex all too often. Just look at the sheer length of the common robbery penal code.

225 rwdflynavy  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:04:12pm

re: #217 WindUpBird

Aw, come on man. We have families unable to adopt, unable to visit their partners on their death-bed, unable to serve, blackmailed and abused when they DO manage to serve, attacked and forced out of their jobs when they go into education. Because they are Teh Ghey, and apparently less equal than everyone else.

It seems pretty shameful to me!

DADT is not an umbrella policy that caused all the wrongs you imagine in your post.

Why not compare DADT to the Holocaust next?

226 Pamela Gellar [sic(k)]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:04:13pm

re: #213 freetoken

But what if the crime is not geographically specific?

Downstairs I posted a link to a news article on some research about crimes against homosexuals. This is an example where geography was not as important as outward signs of sexual orientation.


Right, which is one reason why the legislation specifies attacks on the basis of perceived orientation as well.

In the final analysis this isn’t a bill about giving special protections to gay people—-because a person doesn’t even have to be gay in order to be the victim of a hate crime targeting gay people. All that matters is that you were targeted based on the attacker(s)’s mistaken belief that you were gay, and the attacker(s) desired to hurt someone for the ‘crime’ of being gay.

227 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:04:14pm

re: #139 erraticsphinx

I don’t think all crime is equal. Intent matters.

Intent matters, but hate crime legislation creates protected classes of people. Don’t think that’s happening? If I, a white man, beat up a (insert protected minority here) man, the hate crime bonus is on the table for the prosecutor. If I, a white man, was beat up by a (insert protected minority here) man, it is much less likely that the hate crime bonus would even be mentioned, let alone used by the prosecution. Equal protection means equal protection and creating protected classes violates that. While that is not the intent of these laws, that is the result.

228 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:05:05pm

re: #222 Fenway_Nation

I’ll keep it simpler…what about when a hispanic gang member kills a black youth [or vice-versa]? Not even a gang member- an innocent bystander who was shot because of mistaken identity.

There is precedent for that, but I don’t think hate crimes statutes were invoked.

well they will be now…they have to be to make the bill legit

229 coscolo  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:05:34pm

re: #27 ralphieboy

Or we introduce the line-item veto…

Alas, the Supreme Court already ruled line item veto law unconstitutional. Of course, there’s nothing preventing Congress from passing it again as an amendment and getting it passed by the state legislatures. This one stands a better chance than term limits. Governors who have the line item veto mostly use them on blatant pork.

230 Fenway_Nation  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:05:34pm

Dang…how long did I have the Navajo tribal newspaper set as my hompage?

231 erraticsphinx  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:06:26pm

re: #219 Cato the Elder

Well, when you put it like that I guess it makes it seem harmless in comparison.

But still, losing your job not because of performance but just because of who you are?
America is saying “We don’t need people like you. What you do is wrong”
Can you imagine what a person feels at that moment? How do you tell your parents , your friends, even yourself! You were let go from one of the most noble careers because of who you are.
It’s a horribly immoral policy, of course we’ve had worse. But I think it’s up there.

232 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:06:36pm

re: #223 keithgabryelski

There were darn few prosecutions after the riots. But yeah thanks.

233 sandbox  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:07:12pm

I am glad Obama admin. and Clinton are against the anti-blasphemy initiative being put forth at the UN. And pleasantly surprised.

234 SixDegrees  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:07:21pm

re: #198 wlewisiii

Walter,

I know the definition. They believe The Fundamentals. They also identify as Roman Catholic and claim to fully believe what they were the Baltimore Catechism. Sorry that bothers you.

William

The Fundamentals are a distinctly Protestant product. If you know of Roman Catholics who accept them, you know some very confused Roman Catholics.

Also, I’ve never heard the term “fundamentalist” used by or to refer to Catholics, except as an error. The closest analogue within the Catholic church would be one of the Traditionalist movements, but there is no connection to the Protestant Fundamentals or to any other fundamentalist movement, and the term is not used by the Catholic church itself, largely because it simply isn’t accurate. Wrong faith, and even if granted an extension to a wider realm of interpretation Traditionalism is foundationally different from Fundamentalism.

Walter is quite correct in pointing out that the use of the term for Catholics is, at best, a sloppy use of language that ought to be avoided.

235 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:07:29pm

re: #226 iceweasel

Right, which is one reason why the legislation specifies attacks on the basis of perceived orientation as well.

In the final analysis this isn’t a bill about giving special protections to gay people—-because a person doesn’t even have to be gay in order to be the victim of a hate crime targeting gay people. All that matters is that you were targeted based on the attacker(s)’s mistaken belief that you were gay, and the attacker(s) desired to hurt someone for the ‘crime’ of being gay.

how is ‘mistaken belief’ determined?…is it even possible?…it will just be a subjective observation

236 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:07:39pm

re: #214 ralphieboy

There are trade organizations built around meth, and there are gay-bashers who do it out of idle boredom and frustration. it is hard to generalize.

Selling drugs is not hateful. Criminal, but not hateful by itself. Being a member of the BNP or Stormfront is.re: #223 keithgabryelski

It’s possible, and that straight white guy is actually protected under “race” and (now) “sexual orientation”.

as to gay people attacking straight men because they are straight — I don’t see it happening.

I couuuld see some scenario where some frat guys go to a gay bar to make fun of the patrons, and get a set of fives from a bear for their trouble. But that probably does not qualify as a hate crime. 8-)

237 freetoken  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:08:59pm

OT: Does it bother anybody else that VDH now sounds like Glenn Beck?

238 wrenchwench  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:09:27pm

re: #235 albusteve

how is ‘mistaken belief’ determined?…is it even possible?…it will just be a subjective observation

That would be for a jury to decide. One of the strengths, and weaknesses, of our system is the old “jury of one’s peers.”

239 Irenicum  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:09:37pm

re: #236 WindUpBird

Agreed. That would be more like payback’s a bitch.

240 rwdflynavy  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:09:50pm

Saw this on another blog:

After today, mugging a homosexual because he’s homosexual is a federal crime. Raping a woman because she’s a woman is not.

241 erraticsphinx  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:10:00pm

re: #227 CyanSnowHawk

Interesting point. We’ll have to see what the courts do if somebody brings this up.

242 wrenchwench  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:10:18pm

re: #237 freetoken

OT: Does it bother anybody else that VDH now sounds like Glenn Beck?

I’ve been trying hard not to watch.

243 Wozza Matter?  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:10:31pm

re: #235 albusteve

generally witnesses wo appear in court verifying that the attacker was shouting “i’m going to kill you you horribe gay person and your ingecting gay person ways…” is enough to do it.

As an FYI.


it’s sort of a complicated big bad world court system thing…

244 erraticsphinx  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:10:33pm

re: #240 rwdflynavy

Your mask is slipping.


Down ding away!

245 freetoken  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:11:23pm

re: #242 wrenchwench

Dare you to read VDH’s latest column and compare talking points with Beck…

246 Pamela Gellar [sic(k)]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:11:44pm

re: #235 albusteve

how is ‘mistaken belief’ determined?…is it even possible?…it will just be a subjective observation

If a bunch of guys descend on a teenage goth kid walking home from his girlfriend’s house, and beat him to death while screaming Kill all Fags! and similar such epithets, because they don’t like his hair, his clothing, and his eyeliner, that’s a pretty clear example of a hate crime committed in the mistaken belief that he was gay.

Not subjective at all. And not even hard to imagine.

247 freetoken  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:12:12pm

re: #242 wrenchwench

OTOH, look at the good side… at least he doesn’t sound like Pat Buchanan.

248 rwdflynavy  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:12:13pm

re: #244 erraticsphinx

Your mask is slipping.

Down ding away!

So it is not true?

249 Killgore Trout  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:12:17pm

Michell Malkin goes race baiting: Horror in Knoxville update: Guilty verdict in Christian-Newsom murders
This has been a case closely watched by white nationalists…

OBAMA, OBAMA, OBAMA, YES WE CAN!


…

On October 28th, 2009 at 7:59 pm, Rob said:

I see Michelle didn’t include a picture of “Lemaricus” (what a good American name)… I mean, he isn’t BLACK is he? Because if he is, then even talking about this is RAAACIST!

…Slavery was SUCH a mistake.

…sigh…


…

On October 28th, 2009 at 7:26 pm, right_on said:

Had the fair trial…now hang him!

…or if the NAACP, Jackson, Sharpton, Shabazz, and many others had their way; unlimited appeals, court appointed lawyers, SSI benefits, stimulus checks, free healthcare, until he reached old age, and then release him for “humanitarian” reasons…after all, it was the oppressive whiteys in the “bad old U.S. of KKK” that made him commit those crimes.


…

On October 28th, 2009 at 5:29 pm, blues said:

Will they be eligible for a Presidential pardon?If so,they’ll probably get one.Scumbags of a feather flock together.


…
etc

250 Walter L. Newton  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:12:49pm

re: #234 SixDegrees

[snip]

Walter is quite correct in pointing out that the use of the term for Catholics is, at best, a sloppy use of language that ought to be avoided.

Thanks. I sometimes (a lot of times?) get a little tense and terse with my answers, but you put it a little more kindly.

251 keithgabryelski  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:13:05pm

re: #232 Rightwingconspirator

There were darn few prosecutions after the riots. But yeah thanks.

Asians were not, generally, a target in the riots — the barrios suffered, not specifically korean-owned bodegas.

So, the law worked:

Attacking a Korean-owned store, even if you are prejudiced against Koreans, but if the act itself was not specifically against Koreans — a serious crime, but not a hate crime.

Thought, It’s probably difficult to prove anyone in a riot is specially targeting individuals.

I wouldn’t have the law written in a way where there could be any serious number of false positives.

252 Killgore Trout  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:13:15pm

re: #237 freetoken

OT: Does it bother anybody else that VDH now sounds like Glenn Beck?

I gave up on him a while ago. When people get ODS i just have to say goodbye to them.

253 reloadingisnotahobby  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:14:04pm

re: #240 rwdflynavy

Saw this on another blog:

After today, mugging a homosexual because he’s homosexual is a federal crime. Raping a woman because she’s a woman is not.

That takes “equal protection under the law”,and makes it …not so equal!
Eh?
Not trying to start a fight ,but where is the line?

254 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:14:23pm

re: #238 wrenchwench

That would be for a jury to decide. One of the strengths, and weaknesses, of our system is the old “jury of one’s peers.”

right here in ABQ I was in a jury pool…one transvestite stabbed another transvestite and killed him, because he was jealous over a young gay boy…it was being prosecuted as a hate crime and therefore I dismissed myself from the pool…how can that be a hate crime?

255 freetoken  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:14:40pm

re: #249 Killgore Trout

The paleo-cons are drawn to the bait as sure as flies to sh*t…

At least they are coming out of the closet, so to speak. Before Obama is done with his first term there will be no doubt as to what the MM-loving segment of the American populace believes.

256 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:15:00pm

re: #186 erraticsphinx

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell will be known 10 years from now as one of the most shameful policies in this nation’s history.

Oh bullshit. Human slavery fits that category, but an imperfect policy used to ease a military with many men and women that harbor feelings about gays that range from acceptance to blind stinking hatred is hardly going to make the list. 20 years after it’s gone it will be a faint memory, not a national shame. Are you going to ask for reparations next?

257 Pamela Gellar [sic(k)]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:15:25pm

re: #249 Killgore Trout

Michell Malkin goes race baiting: Horror in Knoxville update: Guilty verdict in Christian-Newsom murders
This has been a case closely watched by white nationalists…


…
etc

Oh god, that thread will be the one to watch for HotAir comments today. The racists and white supremacists have been all over that case ever since it happened. Incredibly ugly stuff is to come there.

258 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:16:16pm

re: #7 JasonA

Such weak gods that need us mortals to defend them so vehemently.

Such weak faith, that assumes one’s God can be offended by what comes out of Her children’s mouths.

259 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:16:48pm

re: #254 albusteve

Blame New Mexico’s legislature, I guess? Not all laws are written well.

260 Sharmuta  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:17:04pm

re: #249 Killgore Trout

Youtube Video

Freetoken can watch too.

261 erraticsphinx  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:17:13pm

re: #256 CyanSnowHawk


Wow, I seem to stirred up a hornet’s nest with that observation.

262 Killgore Trout  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:17:19pm

re: #255 freetoken

The paleo-cons are drawn to the bait as sure as flies to sh*t…

At least they are coming out of the closet, so to speak. Before Obama is done with his first term there will be no doubt as to what the MM-loving segment of the American populace believes.

Good point. I think a lot of people are permanently discrediting themselves these days. Now that I think about Rush is already a goner. Even though he’s going to remain popular for quite sometime I think his fate is pretty much sealed.

263 Kragar  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:17:44pm

I still think applying special rules to crimes like hate crimes is not a good idea. Assault is assault and murder is murder. Making certain people special victims doesn’t make any sense to me.

264 Sharmuta  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:18:02pm

re: #262 Killgore Trout

Stars don’t fade away, they burn out…

265 Killgore Trout  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:18:29pm

re: #257 iceweasel

Hot Air may cover it in the headlines section but they might just avoid the story since they’re getting so much attention for racism already.

266 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:18:42pm

re: #246 iceweasel

If a bunch of guys descend on a teenage goth kid walking home from his girlfriend’s house, and beat him to death while screaming Kill all Fags! and similar such epithets, because they don’t like his hair, his clothing, and his eyeliner, that’s a pretty clear example of a hate crime committed in the mistaken belief that he was gay.

Not subjective at all. And not even hard to imagine.

I have to disregard the obvious…it’s the issues of other cases where the bill falls apart…and how can it be fair to impose a harsher sentence on sign carrying haters than other killers?…to me it makes no sense since it discriminates in favor of non hate crime killers

267 wrenchwench  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:18:43pm

re: #254 albusteve

right here in ABQ I was in a jury pool…one transvestite stabbed another transvestite and killed him, because he was jealous over a young gay boy…it was being prosecuted as a hate crime and therefore I dismissed myself from the pool…how can that be a hate crime?

I can’t argue a case I’m not familiar with. Good for you for dismissing yourself since you felt you could not apply the law. But if you had stayed, you might have learned more about applying it.

268 reloadingisnotahobby  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:19:11pm

re: #263 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Agree 100%…

269 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:19:51pm

re: #256 CyanSnowHawk

Oh bullshit. Human slavery fits that category, but an imperfect policy used to ease a military with many men and women that harbor feelings about gays that range from acceptance to blind stinking hatred is hardly going to make the list. 20 years after it’s gone it will be a faint memory, not a national shame. Are you going to ask for reparations next?

But it’s totally okay to enlist obvious clear-as-day racists and gang members in the military! Swastika tattoos and all. That’s aok! SPARE. ME.

Give me a break, and stow that shit about reparations. If that’s your answer to people who want equality, I pity you. I pity you a great deal.

270 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:20:34pm

re: #31 Sharmuta

I have to pick a bone with the writer. Why would it just be islamic countries where this resolution would infringe on free speech? It would limit the free speech of religion critics around the world, whether they criticize one religion in particular, or all of them. This would put someone like Pat Condell in jeopardy from speaking out at all. While I can understand people don’t like hearing criticisms of their faith, it doesn’t give them the right to silence people. IMO, the writer isn’t fully grasping the effects of this resolution to limit it to “crackdowns on free speech in Muslim countries”. It would be a crackdown for us all.

I think it’s a question of where it would be enforced. The U.S. isn’t going to start enforcing blasphemy laws no matter what the U.N. says, but this would put more power in the hands of a specific nasty group of people who were pushing for it.

271 Mich-again  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:21:06pm

Now the UN hints that using drones to target the Taliban is a breach of International law. Who knows, maybe even a war crime. UN rights expert voices concern over use of unmanned drones by United States

28 October 2009 – The use of pilot-less drones by the United States to target militants in Pakistan and Afghanistan will be regarded as a breach of international law unless Washington can demonstrate that it follows the appropriate precautions and accountability mechanisms, an independent United Nations human rights expert warned.

Philip Alston, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, yesterday presented his latest report to the General Assembly’s Third Committee (social, humanitarian and cultural) at UN Headquarters in New York, telling committee members that his concern about the issue has “grown dramatically” in recent months.

The US military has used unmanned drones and so-called “predators” to carry out the targeted executions of Taliban members and other militants operating in neighbouring Pakistan and Afghanistan, he noted to journalists after presenting the report.

“While there may be circumstances in which the use of such techniques is consistent with applicable international law, this can only be determined in light of information about the legal basis on which particular individuals have been targeted, the measures taken to ensure conformity with the international humanitarian law principles of discrimination, proportionality, necessity and precaution, and the steps taken retrospectively to assess compliance in practice,” Mr. Alston told the committee.

There’s another softball for Hillary to hit out of the park.

272 erraticsphinx  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:21:08pm

re: #269 WindUpBird


Prepare to be attacked for besmirching the military.

*rolls eyes*

273 jaunte  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:21:19pm

Hate crime law arguments pro & con, including civil rights concerns about these laws: religioustolerance.org

274 Racer X  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:21:20pm

A police officer pulls over a speeding car. The officer says, “I clocked you at 80 miles per hour, sir.” The driver says, “Gee, officer I had it on cruise control at 60, perhaps your radar gun needs calibrating.”

Not looking up from her knitting the wife says: “Now don’t be silly dear, you know that this car doesn’t have cruise control.”

As the officer writes out the ticket, the driver looks over at his wife and growls, “Can’t you please keep your mouth shut for once?”

The wife smiles demurely and says, “You should be thankful your radar detector went off when it did.”

As the officer makes out the second ticket for the illegal radar detector unit, the man glowers at his wife and says through clenched teeth, “Darn it, woman, can’t you keep your mouth shut?”

The officer frowns and says, “And I notice that you’re not wearing your seat belt, sir. That’s an automatic $75 fine.”

The driver says, “Yeah, well, you see officer, I had it on, but took it off when you pulled me over so that I could get my license out of my back pocket.”

The wife says, “Now, dear, you know very well that you didn’t have your seat belt on. You never wear your seat belt when you’re driving.”

And as the police officer is writing out the third ticket the driver
turns to his wife and barks, “WHY DON’T YOU PLEASE SHUT UP?”

The officer looks over at the woman and asks, “Does your husband always talk to you this way, Ma’am?”


I love this part…

“Only when he’s been drinking.”

275 rwdflynavy  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:21:25pm

re: #269 WindUpBird

But it’s totally okay to enlist obvious clear-as-day racists and gang members in the military! Swastika tattoos and all. That’s aok! SPARE. ME.

Give me a break, and stow that shit about reparations. If that’s your answer to people who want equality, I pity you. I pity you a great deal.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Gang/racist tattoos prevent folks from enlisting. I know this as I have worked in that process.

Work on some facts before you come in here. We check them.

276 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:21:41pm

re: #272 erraticsphinx

“Facts. They are stupid things.” 8-)

277 erraticsphinx  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:22:49pm

re: #275 rwdflynavy

Shouldn’t you be busy lamenting that one can be charged with a hate crime for mugging gay people? What’s wrong?

278 rwdflynavy  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:23:43pm

re: #277 erraticsphinx

Shouldn’t you be busy lamenting that one can be charged with a hate crime for mugging gay people? What’s wrong?

I think they should be charged with mugging. Why do gays need to be a protected class with rights above and beyond the rest of us?

279 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:24:05pm

re: #67 Liberally Conservative

You know, I’m pretty sure the guy’s achieved more in his life than either you or I have. Lack of praise is one thing, but blatant disregard is another.

Regardless of whether he impresses or not, guy is president. I didn’t like “Bushitler”, and I don’t like “0bama”.

280 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:24:16pm

re: #256 CyanSnowHawk

That should be ease a military in general acceptance of gays serving openly.

PIMF

281 keithgabryelski  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:24:34pm

re: #240 rwdflynavy

Saw this on another blog:

After today, mugging a homosexual because he’s homosexual is a federal crime. Raping a woman because she’s a woman is not.

since “gender” is protected under hate-crimes legislation — you’re incorrect.

If you rape a woman because you hate woman, you can be charged with a hate crime.

That other blog you read — yeah, it’s kinda douchey.

282 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:24:43pm

re: #275 rwdflynavy

You have no idea what you are talking about. Gang/racist tattoos prevent folks from enlisting. I know this as I have worked in that process.

Work on some facts before you come in here. We check them.

Oh my friend, but it is you who should be with the fact checking!

sfgate.com
splcenter.org

“Law enforcement officials report that the military is now “allowing more applicants with gang tattoos,” the Chicago Sun-Times reports, “because they are under the gun to keep enlistment up.” They also note that “gang activity maybe rising among soldiers.” The paper was provided with “photos of military buildings and equipment in Iraq that were vandalized with graffiti of gangs based in Chicago, Los Angeles and other cities.”

283 Wozza Matter?  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:24:51pm

re: #266 albusteve

so - it’s the minutiae of the Bill. Which clause?

All crimes are wrong - some are more wrong than others.

DO you argue then - that a severely battered wife who snaps and kills her husband deserves the same sentence as a hitman who will kill anyone for money?.

284 Pamela Gellar [sic(k)]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:24:54pm

re: #266 albusteve

..and how can it be fair to impose a harsher sentence on sign carrying haters than other killers?…to me it makes no sense since it discriminates in favor of non hate crime killers

That’s crazy. You might as well say that we ‘discriminate’ in favour of burglars because we give armed robbers higher penalties.

Hate crimes deserve a stiffer sentence (and to be treated separately) because they have the intent of terrorising an entire group of people, beyond the single individual attacked. That’s the rationale behind them. It’s not about creating a specially protected class; it’s about acknowledging that certain classes are targeted in ways that others are not.

285 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:25:27pm

re: #278 rwdflynavy

I think they should be charged with mugging. Why do gays need to be a protected class with rights above and beyond the rest of us?

the argument is that is considered terrorism against an entire group of people…to me that’s just fantasy, making a mountain out of a mole hill

286 reloadingisnotahobby  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:26:10pm

re: #283 wozzablog

Ever heard of “apples and oranges”?”
Thought not!

287 wrenchwench  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:26:21pm

re: #273 jaunte

Hate crime law arguments pro & con, including civil rights concerns about these laws: [Link: www.religioustolerance.org…]

Good link, thanks. Too bad reading is teh hard.

These acts have been referred to as “message crimes:” violence intended to send a message to a minority group within a community.

Maybe if they were called “message crime laws”, people wouldn’t hate ‘em so much.

288 bratwurst  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:26:32pm

re: #279 SanFranciscoZionist

Regardless of whether he impresses or not, guy is president. I didn’t like “Bushitler”, and I don’t like “0bama”.


Maybe YOU can get some traction with this. My “new around here” status seems to color what I say in some eyes.

289 Pepper Fox  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:26:51pm

I’m all for this bill, in the short term it will help fight these horrible crimes that are being committed against gays, and in the long run maybe so many will be protected under these silly hate crime laws that we just get rid of em and start prosecuting violent criminals in general more strictly.

290 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:27:08pm

re: #282 WindUpBird

Lil’ more for ya:

MSNBC Video

archives.chicagotribune.com
291 erraticsphinx  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:27:24pm

re: #278 rwdflynavy

Sorry, I don’t buy the “special class” BS. Because I’ve heard it about ten million times when referring to minorities.

When you commit a crime against someone because of who they are, and then are subject to hate crimes legislaton, it’s not about having “special classes”.

292 Pepper Fox  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:27:44pm

As for this anti-defamation thing I am surprised I haven’t heard from the ADL on it. I would like to hear what they have to say.

293 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:27:46pm

re: #279 SanFranciscoZionist

Regardless of whether he impresses or not, guy is president. I didn’t like “Bushitler”, and I don’t like “0bama”.

Obama is his name…he is not royalty…is your point that we should attach president to his name and if we don’t we are disrespecting the office?

294 rwdflynavy  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:27:50pm

re: #282 WindUpBird

Oh my friend, but it is you who should be with the fact checking!

[Link: www.sfgate.com…]
[Link: www.splcenter.org…]

“Law enforcement officials report that the military is now “allowing more applicants with gang tattoos,” the Chicago Sun-Times reports, “because they are under the gun to keep enlistment up.” They also note that “gang activity maybe rising among soldiers.” The paper was provided with “photos of military buildings and equipment in Iraq that were vandalized with graffiti of gangs based in Chicago, Los Angeles and other cities.”

How about swastikas? Got any proof of that? I’m not buying the gang stuff. I know the Navy won’t accept any with gang tattoos. Go ahead and keep disparaging the military. The fact that gang members make it in is not proof the military let them in.

295 Sharmuta  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:27:59pm

re: #270 SanFranciscoZionist

I think it’s a question of where it would be enforced. The U.S. isn’t going to start enforcing blasphemy laws no matter what the U.N. says, but this would put more power in the hands of a specific nasty group of people who were pushing for it.

That’s just it- many of these islamic countries already have islamic law where blasphemy is unlawful. There is absolutely no reason to support this resolution, in fact, it shouldn’t even be considered in front of a body whose mission it is to protect human rights, among those (at least imo) is the freedom of conscience. If anything, the UN should be supporting a resolution to make our First Amendment a right to all people of the world.

I can’t stand the sham this body has become, and I am not surprised the OIC would ask for such a thing. The President did what an American President should do- reject this horrible resolution.

296 abu_garcia  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:28:18pm

re: #149 freetoken

Why is that? I noticed you do post links once in a while.

That probably deserves an answer, but it’s a lot longer than I have time for right now.

Maybe someday. If I do, I’ll try to be sure you see it.

I would like to say one thing. I’m not gay, but as a child I was painfully shy - to the point of it being a serious handicap. If you read Kagan you will see that I have faced a lot of what unidentified homosexual children faced - I was called “queer” more than once. I do understand, i just think that special laws will NEVER address the problem.

So it goes.

Goodnight.

297 Wozza Matter?  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:28:59pm

re: #286 reloadingisnotahobby

i have. i was asking steve a question… as he seems to view the world as a windowless shade of grey… where no distinctions exist between crimes

298 erraticsphinx  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:29:09pm

re: #294 rwdflynavy

Right on clockwork.

You accuse him of disparaging the military, when he has done no such thing.
You just caught with your pants down, and now you’re hiding behind the military.

299 jaunte  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:29:27pm

re: #287 wrenchwench

This was an interesting bit about the earlier law:

The 1969 federal hate crime law:
- Covered race, color, religion, ethnicity, and national origin only.
bullet
- Did not include sexual orientation, gender identity, gender or disability status.
bullet
- Only applied if the victim of a crime is engaged in during one of six federally protected activities, like voting or an involvement with inter-state commerce.
religioustolerance.org

300 reloadingisnotahobby  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:29:36pm

re: #283 wozzablog

re: #284 iceweasel

Not sure that holds water…
Gang on gang violence comes to mind…
I’m a member of the White male over 50 with male pattern baldness gang…
Ya see where this is goin …right!

301 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:29:48pm

re: #114 Mich-again

Nation of Islam scum. The worst part of that story.


I hope all those arrested are charged with murder of a federal agent.

Damn skippy.

302 Jimmah  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:30:51pm

re: #278 rwdflynavy

I think they should be charged with mugging. Why do gays need to be a protected class with rights above and beyond the rest of us?

They are not. Anyone, regardless of colour, can be the subject of a racial hate crime.

303 rwdflynavy  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:30:59pm

re: #298 erraticsphinx

Right on clockwork.

You accuse him of disparaging the military, when he has done no such thing.
You just caught with your pants down, and now you’re hiding behind the military.

Hate crime against the military!!! I want my protected class!!! Help Help I’m being repressed!!!
//

304 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:31:00pm

re: #116 albusteve

because I don’t…how can I respect BO when I don’t respect him?…you don’t make sense with this non issue

You don’t respect the man. You respect the office. That’s the point he’s trying to make.

305 Wozza Matter?  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:31:13pm

re: #300 reloadingisnotahobby

um no - because the real world justice system operates slightly differently to the conjecture of someone in an office chair “sayin’ it’s so…”

306 reloadingisnotahobby  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:31:28pm

re: #293 albusteve

Wow …some I recognize!
No wonder I read/post from the office!

307 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:31:29pm

re: #304 SanFranciscoZionist

You don’t respect the man. You respect the office. That’s the point he’s trying to make.

I mean, you can respect the man. But one doesn’t need to.

308 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:31:32pm

re: #269 WindUpBird

But it’s totally okay to enlist obvious clear-as-day racists and gang members in the military! Swastika tattoos and all. That’s aok! SPARE. ME.

Give me a break, and stow that shit about reparations. If that’s your answer to people who want equality, I pity you. I pity you a great deal.

So your argument is, if you let racists and gang-bangers in, why not let gays serve openly? Spare me your pity, you want to play the hyperbole game you should expect it to be thrown back in your face.

309 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:32:02pm

re: #295 Sharmuta

That’s just it- many of these islamic countries already have islamic law where blasphemy is unlawful. There is absolutely no reason to support this resolution, in fact, it shouldn’t even be considered in front of a body whose mission it is to protect human rights, among those (at least imo) is the freedom of conscience. If anything, the UN should be supporting a resolution to make our First Amendment a right to all people of the world.

I can’t stand the sham this body has become, and I am not surprised the OIC would ask for such a thing. The President did what an American President should do- reject this horrible resolution.

well said…the whole UN enterprise has been hijacked and inverted…I wish somebody would call out the entire crooked scam for what it is…Bolton might have, back in the day

310 Decatur Deb  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:32:02pm

re: #294 rwdflynavy

How about swastikas? Got any proof of that? I’m not buying the gang stuff. I know the Navy won’t accept any with gang tattoos. Go ahead and keep disparaging the military. The fact that gang members make it in is not proof the military let them in.

You guys are talking past each other. The Navy has a much smaller
intake, thus can hold to the standards the Army finds itself “waiving”.

311 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:32:59pm

re: #284 iceweasel

The gays! They’re so lucky! They’re a protected class!re: #294 rwdflynavy

How about swastikas? Got any proof of that? I’m not buying the gang stuff. I know the Navy won’t accept any with gang tattoos. Go ahead and keep disparaging the military. The fact that gang members make it in is not proof the military let them in.

Swastika tattoos galore: salon.com

Buy or don’t buy it. I am not responsible for your willful ignorance. But you said I didn’t know what I was talking about, and it turns out I do, and that you do not.

“Then, in 1995, a black couple was murdered by two neo-Nazi paratroopers around Fort Bragg in North Carolina. The murder investigation turned up evidence that 22 soldiers at Fort Bragg were known to be extremists. That year, language was added to a Department of Defense directive, explicitly prohibiting participation in “organizations that espouse supremacist causes” or “advocate the use of force or violence.”

Today a complete ban on membership in racist organizations appears to have been lifted — though the proliferation of white supremacists in the military is difficult to gauge. The military does not track them as a discrete category, coupling them with gang members. But one indication of the scope comes from the FBI.”

I USE GOOGLE. AND I VOTE.

312 sandbox  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:33:17pm

While I’m sympathetic to the concept of hate crime laws, I’m afraid that their enforcement will become political.

For example, IMO, in EU countries, anti-semetic and holocaust denying statements and acts are prosecuted actively when perpetrated by the far right. However, when the same statements and acts are committed by the Islamofascists, law enforcement is slow to label the crimes anti-semetic and then to prosecute.

313 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:33:35pm

re: #142 Ojoe

Violates equal protection if you ask me, and is a slippery slope.

How so? It applies uniformly.

314 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:34:11pm

re: #288 bratwurst

Maybe YOU can get some traction with this. My “new around here” status seems to color what I say in some eyes.

you do it to yourself…quit suggesting what people say…Charles can take care of his blog…this has been a friendly exchange…just a mild difference of opinion

315 Wozza Matter?  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:34:22pm

ok. i’m giving myself a time out before i embarrass someone.

316 rwdflynavy  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:35:04pm

re: #311 WindUpBird

Yawn.

317 erraticsphinx  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:35:04pm

re: #311 WindUpBird


Man, just give it up. Their righteous indignation is just getting started.
:)

318 Pamela Gellar [sic(k)]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:35:14pm

re: #275 rwdflynavy

You have no idea what you are talking about. Gang/racist tattoos prevent folks from enlisting. I know this as I have worked in that process.

Work on some facts before you come in here. We check them.

WindupBird is correct. It’s been reported elsewhere too. Even the military itself acknowledges that it’s a problem:

NeoNazis are in the Army Now

Army regulations prohibit soldiers from participating in racist groups, and recruiters are instructed to keep an eye out for suspicious tattoos. Before signing on the dotted line, enlistees are required to explain any tattoos. At a Tampa recruitment office, though, Fogarty sailed right through the signup process. “They just told me to write an explanation of each tattoo, and I made up some stuff, and that was that,” he says. Soon he was posted to Fort Stewart in Georgia, where he became part of the 3rd Infantry Division.

The pressure of keeping recruitment up combined with inadequate training for recruiters has meant that many racists, gang members, and neoNazis have been able to join up, even with their tattoos.

The link I gave also provides links to reports by the FBI, the DHS, and the DOD, all of which talk about the increasing number of these guys getting into the military.

319 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:35:17pm

re: #304 SanFranciscoZionist

You don’t respect the man. You respect the office. That’s the point he’s trying to make.

it’s an old dead issue

320 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:35:19pm

re: #150 albusteve

I’ve accomplished much in my life and he disrespects me by taking my tax money and giving it to others that are more well off than me…I could care less about his boyhood or his accomplishments

By that standard, President Bush disrespected me a whole heck of a lot.

I didn’t vote for him, or approve or more than a quarter of what he did. He was still President.

321 Sharmuta  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:35:26pm

re: #309 albusteve

well said…the whole UN enterprise has been hijacked and inverted…I wish somebody would call out the entire crooked scam for what it is…Bolton might have, back in the day

Yeah- now Bolton pals around with pamela geller. Lost my respect with that.

I still like John McCain’s idea about a league of democracies. As similar forms of government, we’d have more in common, and working as a group to promote democratic ideals might go further in increasing tolerance and freedom than working with a body like the UN will ever get us.

322 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:35:40pm

re: #319 albusteve

it’s an old dead issue

Well, all right then.

323 bratwurst  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:35:53pm

re: #314 albusteve

you do it to yourself…quit suggesting what people say…Charles can take care of his blog…this has been a friendly exchange…just a mild difference of opinion

Sorry, but I don’t consider name-calling friendly.

324 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:36:17pm

re: #153 Ojoe

Is it less bad to hate a straight white guy?

There is hidden absurdity here.

No, if someone beats you up for being a straight white guy, we will charge them on hate crimes.

325 keithgabryelski  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:36:33pm

re: #263 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I still think applying special rules to crimes like hate crimes is not a good idea. Assault is assault and murder is murder. Making certain people special victims doesn’t make any sense to me.

it’s tough to see a problem that should be stifled by a law continue for decades and generations.

The alternatives:
increase education
increase vigilance
increase penalties

Education on these issues has been tried and deemed no sufficient (and sometimes, at least for considering gays as non-punching bags, has been rejected as “indoctrination of our kids”)

Vigilance in the form of more police is expense, in the form of community members leads to vigilantly justice.

Penalties for assault are generally considered reasonable, should we increase them because some assaults are statistically more likely than others, or attack the specific problem: increase the penalties for the specific crime.

It’s not a perfect solution (because any new law as unintended side effects)

But THIS LAW works, and generally is not abused, and over decades we can see the decrease in hate crimes. Is that because of this law or because society gets better: probably a little of both.

Thus my conclusion: it is a just and reasonable law that will probably reduce the amount of hate crimes against gays in this country, whom are certainly worthy of protection.

326 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:37:08pm

re: #297 wozzablog

i have. i was asking steve a question… as he seems to view the world as a windowless shade of grey… where no distinctions exist between crimes

oh bullshit…my view is crystal clear, it just does not coincide with yours

327 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:37:15pm

re: #316 rwdflynavy

Are those crickets I hear?

Also, I’m curious what your thoughts are on the Israeli military. They don’t seem to have a problem with gays. Why are we different?

328 rwdflynavy  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:37:18pm

re: #324 SanFranciscoZionist

No, if someone beats you up for being a straight white guy, we will charge them on hate crimes.

Sorry, don’t buy it. Hate crimes won’t apply.

329 erraticsphinx  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:38:27pm

re: #318 iceweasel

Iceweasel, why do you hate the military and America and God?

330 rwdflynavy  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:38:35pm

re: #327 WindUpBird

Are those crickets I hear?

Also, I’m curious what your thoughts are on the Israeli military. They don’t seem to have a problem with gays. Why are we different?

I don’t have a problem with gays in the military. I have a problem with the concept of a crime being worse because of the victim’s color/sex/sexual orientation. I think the crime is what should be considered.

331 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:39:04pm

re: #320 SanFranciscoZionist

By that standard, President Bush disrespected me a whole heck of a lot.

I didn’t vote for him, or approve or more than a quarter of what he did. He was still President.

they all do…watch your back

332 Wozza Matter?  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:39:47pm

re: #326 albusteve

ok - biting on the “bullshit” aspect only… really - way to go - great debate skills. your teachers must be very proud, which teacher do i ask to give the merit to you… thru12 - or just k?

333 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:40:21pm

re: #329 erraticsphinx

Iceweasel, why do you hate the military and America and God?

Weasels and birds and sphinxes, oh my. :D We can all hate America together!

/my dogs are sarcing

334 Wozza Matter?  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:40:21pm

re: #331 albusteve

we do - it’s called paying attention before during and after an election cycle.

335 Jimmah  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:40:42pm

re: #330 rwdflynavy

I don’t have a problem with gays in the military. I have a problem with the concept of a crime being worse because of the victim’s color/sex/sexual orientation. I think the crime is what should be considered.

It is worse because in addition to the attack on an individual, there is the intent to threaten the group of people to which they belong.

336 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:41:04pm

re: #298 erraticsphinx
Registered since: May 3, 2009 at 5:28 pm
No. of comments posted: 355
No. of links posted: 0

re: #290 WindUpBird
Registered since: Sep 27, 2009 at 12:08 pm
No. of comments posted: 341
No. of links posted: 0

Am I smelling sock puppets?
Or just regular trolls?

337 Pamela Gellar [sic(k)]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:41:08pm

re: #294 rwdflynavy

How about swastikas? Got any proof of that? I’m not buying the gang stuff. I know the Navy won’t accept any with gang tattoos. Go ahead and keep disparaging the military. The fact that gang members make it in is not proof the military let them in.

Okay, here you go!

A Department of Defense report from 2005:

“Effectively, the military has a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy pertaining to extremism. If individuals can perform satisfactorily, without making their extremist opinions overt … they are likely to be able to complete their contracts.”

Maybe you want to argue that the Department of Defense has some hippie anti-military agenda now?
Look, it’s a real and growing problem. Even the military acknowledges it! Pointing it out doesn’t mean someone is anti-military.

338 keithgabryelski  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:41:11pm

re: #236 WindUpBird

I couuuld see some scenario where some frat guys go to a gay bar to make fun of the patrons, and get a set of fives from a bear for their trouble. But that probably does not qualify as a hate crime. 8-)

Popping someone in the mouth because they insult you: not a hate crime.

Getting your ass kicked by a guy in a dress: priceless

Youtube Video
339 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:41:43pm

re: #214 ralphieboy

There are trade organizations built around meth, and there are gay-bashers who do it out of idle boredom and frustration. it is hard to generalize.

At some point, I fear that it is going to lead to something hopelessly entangled, like a gay, black Moslem meth addict attacking a Jewish lesbian pro-lifer and the “hate crime” aspect will do nothing but fuel one gigantic media circus.

If a gay, Moslem meth addict attacks a Jewish lesbian pro-lifer, why would the hate crime aspect increase what would already be a three-ring media circus anyway?

340 Kragar  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:41:53pm

re: #325 keithgabryelski

Personally, I think the harsher punishments across the board would be the route to go actually.

341 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:41:56pm

re: #321 Sharmuta

Yeah- now Bolton pals around with pamela geller. Lost my respect with that.

I still like John McCain’s idea about a league of democracies. As similar forms of government, we’d have more in common, and working as a group to promote democratic ideals might go further in increasing tolerance and freedom than working with a body like the UN will ever get us.

it would be considered exclusive and half the world would freak out…I like the idea, but what about all the billions and billions going to cheats and misery mongers?…heh…I say go for it

342 erraticsphinx  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:42:18pm

re: #336 CyanSnowHawk

I think you’re smelling your own bullshit.

343 jaunte  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:42:29pm

Israeli experience may sway Army policy on gays
…

Israel is among 24 countries that permit known gays to serve in the military, and its experience is giving fodder to opponents of the United States’ controversial “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

In a recent opinion piece in the New York Times, Gen. John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that admitting gays had not hurt the IDF or any of the 23 other foreign militaries. With troops stretched thin by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States should drop its ban on known gay service members after the new Congress has time to seriously consider the issue, Shalikashvili wrote.


sptimes.com

344 rwdflynavy  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:42:34pm

re: #335 Jimmah

It is worse because in addition to the attack on an individual, there is the intent to threaten the group of people to which they belong.

But only certain groups right? No no, that’s right, all will be equally protected. Pull this one and it plays jingle bells.

345 Mich-again  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:42:42pm

re: #294 rwdflynavy

How about swastikas? Got any proof of that? I’m not buying the gang stuff. I know the Navy won’t accept any with gang tattoos. Go ahead and keep disparaging the military. The fact that gang members make it in is not proof the military let them in.

Even the recent FBI report was extremely misleading on the numbers.

There are no official statistics on gang membership in the military, but some experts have estimated that 1 percent to 2 percent of the U.S. military are gang members, Simon said. That compares with just 0.02 percent of the U.S. population believed to be gang members, she wrote.

That is a bullshit statistic meant to promote her point of view, not the truth. She is comparing the percentage of gang members in the military to the number for the general US population including children, adults, grandparents, etc.. Other independent statistics show that 1% of the general population between the ages of 18-24 are gang members, just about the same as it is for the military. But looking at the numbers that way didn’t promote her theme.

346 Pamela Gellar [sic(k)]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:43:00pm

re: #336 CyanSnowHawk

You’re smelling new registrants whose opinions you don’t happen to agree with. They are clearly neither sock puppets or trolls.

347 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:43:30pm

re: #222 Fenway_Nation

I’ll keep it simpler…what about when a hispanic gang member kills a black youth [or vice-versa]? Not even a gang member- an innocent bystander who was shot because of mistaken identity.

There is precedent for that, but I don’t think hate crimes statutes were invoked.

What’s the issue? If it will be prosecuted as a hate crime? Is there reason to do so? That would be the DA’s call.

348 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:43:48pm

re: #300 reloadingisnotahobby

re: #284 iceweasel

Not sure that holds water…
Gang on gang violence comes to mind…
I’m a member of the White male over 50 with male pattern baldness gang…
Ya see where this is goin …right!

Not really, I’m catching a real glare off your head.
///

349 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:44:22pm

re: #323 bratwurst

Sorry, but I don’t consider name-calling friendly.

I’m not your friend…just a poster…you’ve dragged this issue from one day to the next…all I can say is there is name calling and even worse sometimes!…can you believe it?…yikes!

350 Kragar  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:44:41pm

Feds: Imam Who Led Radical Islam Group Killed in FBI Raid

DETROIT — A man described as a leader of a radical Sunni Islam group in the U.S. was fatally shot Wednesday afternoon while resisting arrest and exchanging gunfire with federal agents, authorities said.

Agents at a warehouse in Dearborn were trying to arrest Luqman Ameen Abdullah, 53, on charges that included conspiracy to sell stolen goods and illegal possession and sale of firearms. Ten followers listed in a criminal complaint were also being rounded up in the area.

Abdullah refused to surrender, fired a weapon and was killed by gunfire from agents, FBI spokeswoman Sandra Berchtold said.

In a court filing, the FBI said Abdullah, also known as Christopher Thomas, was an imam of a Black Muslim radical group named Ummah whose primary mission is to establish an Islamic state within the United States.

351 lastlaugh  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:44:46pm

re: #348 CyanSnowHawk

Not really, I’m catching a real glare off your head.
///

Are you calling him a skinhead?

//

352 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:45:10pm

re: #225 rwdflynavy

DADT is not an umbrella policy that caused all the wrongs you imagine in your post.

Why not compare DADT to the Holocaust next?

Dinged down only because those wrongs are not ‘imagined’, they happen. DADT is not responsible for most of them, but they do happen.

353 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:45:16pm

re: #330 rwdflynavy

I don’t have a problem with gays in the military. I have a problem with the concept of a crime being worse because of the victim’s color/sex/sexual orientation. I think the crime is what should be considered.

That’s not the definition of a hate crime. And you have to know that! The burden of proof is higher than that. The jury needs to find that the MOTIVE for the crime was race/gayness/so on.

Normal looking guy like me (I don’t look Outwardly Gay, I look like Jay from Jay and Silent Bob fame, I wear hoodies and metal t-shirts) gets beaten up and his car stolen, the guy who did that will not be charged with a hate crime no matter how glittering and fabulous I was at the drag queen pageant last week.

But if someone sees me come out of Embers (PDX gay nightspot) in club gear, and they decide to smear the queer, that is the hate crime. And there’s an entire court system to examine proof, examine evidence, examine motive, deliberate, and make a decision.

354 Jimmah  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:45:17pm

re: #344 rwdflynavy

But only certain groups right? No no, that’s right, all will be equally protected. Pull this one and it plays jingle bells.

Bollocks. We are all members of some racial group or other. Protection on that basis against hate crimes is extended to everyone.

355 bratwurst  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:45:43pm

re: #349 albusteve

I’m not your friend…just a poster…you’ve dragged this issue from one day to the next…all I can say is there is name calling and even worse sometimes!…can you believe it?…yikes!

I don’t see anyone besides you engaging in it on a regular basis, especially without apologizing when wrong.

356 Randall Gross  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:46:12pm

re: #350 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Feds: Imam Who Led Radical Islam Group Killed in FBI Raid

Kudos again to the feds, they are doing their jobs.

357 Jimmah  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:46:24pm

re: #336 CyanSnowHawk


Am I smelling sock puppets?
Or just regular trolls?

Umm…and your reasoning is…?

358 Ojoe  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:46:26pm

re: #324 SanFranciscoZionist

OK by me then.

359 Sharmuta  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:46:28pm

re: #343 jaunte

Israeli experience may sway Army policy on gays
…


[Link: www.sptimes.com…]

They’re always ahead of the curve. I love the IDF.

360 Pamela Gellar [sic(k)]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:46:59pm

re: #329 erraticsphinx

Iceweasel, why do you hate the military and America and God?

Because I’m a filthy trickse progressive and that’s how we roll, of course. I have to say the preamble to the constitution backward every night, too.

Let us all praise Satan for Schoolhouse Rock!

Youtube Video
361 reine.de.tout  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:47:20pm

re: #287 wrenchwench

These acts have been referred to as “message crimes:” violence intended to send a message to a minority group within a community.


Maybe if they were called “message crime laws”, people wouldn’t hate ‘em so much.

In other words, messages intended to inflict terror into a group within the community.

I’m personally not a big fan of hate crime laws, since I think they have the potential to morph into “thought” crime laws; however, as I’ve seen these play out, it seems they are being used appropriately and judiciously, and it seems to me, they have basically had the effect of serving as an additional sentencing guideline for those types of crimes, rather than as special protection for the group in question. Until (unless) that changes, I can’t make myself get overly upset with the idea of hate crime laws.

362 Racer X  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:48:03pm

Lizard skin is supposed to be thick and scaly.

363 Randall Gross  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:48:31pm

This is highly disturbing

Youtube Video
364 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:48:42pm

re: #227 CyanSnowHawk

Intent matters, but hate crime legislation creates protected classes of people. Don’t think that’s happening? If I, a white man, beat up a (insert protected minority here) man, the hate crime bonus is on the table for the prosecutor. If I, a white man, was beat up by a (insert protected minority here) man, it is much less likely that the hate crime bonus would even be mentioned, let alone used by the prosecution. Equal protection means equal protection and creating protected classes violates that. While that is not the intent of these laws, that is the result.

No, I don’t think that’s happening.

365 Kragar  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:48:50pm

re: #362 Racer X

Lizard skin is supposed to be thick and scaly.

Some lizards are quite smooth.

366 jaunte  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:49:01pm

re: #359 Sharmuta

I think it’s more difficult in Israel than it is here to tell a person they can’t be a normal part of society.

367 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:49:27pm

re: #230 Fenway_Nation

Dang…how long did I have the Navajo tribal newspaper set as my hompage?

I have no idea. Did you not want it set as your homepage?

368 Decatur Deb  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:49:31pm

re: #352 SanFranciscoZionist

Dinged down only because those wrongs are not ‘imagined’, they happen. DADT is not responsible for most of them, but they do happen.

While it has a built-in bull aspect, does anyone remember that DADT
was an improvement over the pre-Clinton DoD? It has probably
served it’s purpose as a “one foot in the water” progressive move.

369 Wozza Matter?  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:49:46pm

laters.

seriously i mean it this time.

i will though apologise on the way out for being a sarcastic beeeotch…


(by the way… i WILL be your friend…all of you - well most of you)

370 Racer X  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:50:01pm

re: #365 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Some lizards are quite smooth.

You know what I mean.

;-)

371 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:50:08pm

re: #336 CyanSnowHawk

Registered since: May 3, 2009 at 5:28 pm
No. of comments posted: 355
No. of links posted: 0

re: #290 WindUpBird
Registered since: Sep 27, 2009 at 12:08 pm
No. of comments posted: 341
No. of links posted: 0

Am I smelling sock puppets?
Or just regular trolls?

I am not a troll, I am an opinionated asshole, a computer geek, and a political junkie who has been arguing with people on BBSes since the late 1980s, and on the internet proper since about 1993.

And I am definitely not a sock puppet. Click on my name. Would you like me to email you using my real name? Would you like my business credentials? Would you like me to do a little dance on youtube for you in a dress?

Look, disagree with me all you like. I’m a big boy, I can take it. But if you are trying this bullcrap, you have boarded the failboat, and it has left port.

372 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:50:14pm

re: #355 bratwurst

I don’t see anyone besides you engaging in it on a regular basis, especially without apologizing when wrong.

don’t be silly…stick around…you’ll see all kinds of stuff

373 Mich-again  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:50:36pm

re: #350 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

More from another source..

Abdullah’s mosque is in a brick duplex on a quiet, residential street in Detroit. A sign on the door in English and Arabic reads, in part, “There is no God but Allah.”

Several men congregated on the porch Wednesday night and subsequently attacked a photographer from The Detroit News who was taking pictures from across the street. Ricardo Thomas had his camera equipment smashed and had a bloody lip from the attack.

Kilgore doubted me when I called NOI thugs, but that detail there convinces me more. Thats a classic sign of NOI thugs. Beat up the cameraman.

374 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:50:51pm

re: #359 Sharmuta

They’re always ahead of the curve. I love the IDF.

beware the Rooster

375 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:51:15pm

re: #240 rwdflynavy

Saw this on another blog:

After today, mugging a homosexual because he’s homosexual is a federal crime. Raping a woman because she’s a woman is not.

They want to change that, I’m right there.

376 bratwurst  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:51:23pm

re: #362 Racer X

Lizard skin is supposed to be thick and scaly.

Fair point. I also went against my earlier intention of not getting into this. In the name of my desire for civil discourse, I will let it go.

377 Kragar  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:51:27pm

More info on the Dearborn raid:

The African-American leader of a Detroit mosque was fatally shot Wednesday during a Federal Bureau of Investigation raid on what authorities called a criminal gang run by U.S. converts to Islam.

An FBI spokeswoman said six men were arrested in the raid on a suburban warehouse and two Detroit homes. The men were arrested on suspicion of a variety of offenses, including illegal possession of firearms, trafficking in stolen goods and altering vehicle identification numbers. Three suspects remain at large.

378 Sharmuta  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:51:51pm

re: #366 jaunte

I think it’s more difficult in Israel than it is here to tell a person they can’t be a normal part of society.

A couple thousand years of persecution might explain it, I suppose.

379 Sharmuta  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:52:04pm

re: #374 albusteve

beware the Rooster

He was delicious.

380 Kragar  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:52:50pm

re: #373 Mich-again

More from another source..


Kilgore doubted me when I called NOI thugs, but that detail there convinces me more. Thats a classic sign of NOI thugs. Beat up the cameraman.

NoI have been linked to various criminal activities for a long long time.

381 Ojoe  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:52:59pm

re: #213 freetoken

re: #330 rwdflynavy

You have a point. I go both ways on this. If we are all equal, then crimes against us should be all equal. But I suppose that hate crime legislation would kick in if someone went against any color for instance even”white”, as SFZ said in No. 324.

382 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:53:10pm

re: #246 iceweasel

If a bunch of guys descend on a teenage goth kid walking home from his girlfriend’s house, and beat him to death while screaming Kill all Fags! and similar such epithets, because they don’t like his hair, his clothing, and his eyeliner, that’s a pretty clear example of a hate crime committed in the mistaken belief that he was gay.

Not subjective at all. And not even hard to imagine.

I’ve had insults screamed at me on the street while I was walking with women that clearly indicated that the screamers thought I was a dyke and didn’t like it. Happened while I was walking holding hands with my mom once. If they got out of the car and attacked us, it would not be hard to figure out why, or demonstrate it in court if there were reliable witnesses.

383 Racer X  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:54:03pm

re: #371 WindUpBird

Would you like me to do a little dance on youtube for you in a dress?

re: #372 albusteve

don’t be silly…stick around…you’ll see all kinds of stuff


Sounds like it.

384 Ojoe  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:54:47pm

I love this blog.

385 reine.de.tout  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:54:57pm

re: #379 Sharmuta

He was delicious.

NOOO!
You did not eat the rooster!
Say it ain’t so!
I miss the rooster.

386 Kragar  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:55:12pm

re: #384 Ojoe

I love this blog.

in bed.

387 Ojoe  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:55:30pm

re: #386 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Help!

388 bratwurst  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:55:34pm

re: #372 albusteve

don’t be silly…stick around…you’ll see all kinds of stuff

I am not going anywhere.

389 reine.de.tout  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:55:38pm

re: #384 Ojoe

I love this blog.

I do too, Ojoe!
Is it time for a link to the mountain cam?

390 keithgabryelski  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:55:44pm

re: #340 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Personally, I think the harsher punishments across the board would be the route to go actually.

We consider intent when one person dies at the hands of another:
First degree murder: planned murder
Second degree murder: intent to kill with-out fore-thought
Voluntary man slaughter: killing in heat of the moment
Involuntary man slaughter: killing with-out intent or desire to do so.

We consider the intent here because we understand the difference between a guy that plans to kill his business partner for two months is different than the guy that killed when he returned a punch by a wandering drunk.

To give each classification the highest penalty “25 years to life” (for instance) seems inappropriate to me — in fact, seems like cruel and unusual punishment for the crime.

So, we already classify crimes due to intent — this is just another form, that has been shown to work and generally is not abused (just like the degrees of murder classifications).

391 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:56:31pm

re: #278 rwdflynavy

I think they should be charged with mugging. Why do gays need to be a protected class with rights above and beyond the rest of us?

They’re not.

392 Ojoe  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:56:32pm

re: #389 reine.de.tout

OK ! Towercam!

393 Ojoe  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:57:16pm

BBL

394 HoosierHoops  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:57:22pm

re: #385 reine.de.tout

NOOO!
You did not eat the rooster!
Say it ain’t so!
I miss the rooster.

Bastard wouldn’t lay eggs.. That’s the price the Rooster had to pay…

395 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:58:19pm

re: #285 albusteve

the argument is that is considered terrorism against an entire group of people…to me that’s just fantasy, making a mountain out of a mole hill

I’m asking this seriously, not to make a point: have you ever had someone threaten you because they thought you were gay? Have you ever had someone you knew well be physically attacked because they were gay?

396 Sharmuta  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:58:33pm

re: #394 HoosierHoops

Bastard wouldn’t lay eggs.. That’s the price the Rooster had to pay…

LOL!

397 reine.de.tout  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 5:59:29pm

re: #394 HoosierHoops

Bastard wouldn’t lay eggs.. That’s the price the Rooster had to pay…

HH - can you believe - we sat here ‘til the wee hours of the morning, watching the live feed, waiting to hear that rooster. What a strange experience.

398 Racer X  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:00:06pm

re: #379 Sharmuta

He was delicious.

Gave me gas.

399 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:00:11pm

re: #293 albusteve

Obama is his name…he is not royalty…is your point that we should attach president to his name and if we don’t we are disrespecting the office?

No. “Obama” is fine. BO and BHO are perfectly OK. I think you know what whole other category of names I think are pretty tacky.

400 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:00:39pm

re: #346 iceweasel

You’re smelling new registrants whose opinions you don’t happen to agree with. They are clearly neither sock puppets or trolls.

It’s not so much the opinions as the way they are expressed, and the “me too” support being given. So, do you agree with #186 erraticsphinx and his theory that DADT will become a national shame in the next ten years? Or do you, like me, think that’s just hyperbolic BS?

BTW, how the f*** do you put up 11k comments in 5 1/2 months?

401 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:00:39pm

re: #395 SanFranciscoZionist

I’m asking this seriously, not to make a point: have you ever had someone threaten you because they thought you were gay? Have you ever had someone you knew well be physically attacked because they were gay?

no

402 Sharmuta  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:00:41pm

re: #397 reine.de.tout

HH - can you believe - we sat here ‘til the wee hours of the morning, watching the live feed, waiting to hear that rooster. What a strange experience.

What was strange was not getting the feed and being stuck watching you guys waiting for the rooster. Talk about a strange experience.

403 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:01:46pm

re: #351 lastlaugh

Are you calling him a skinhead?

//

Follicly challenged.

404 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:02:05pm

re: #399 SanFranciscoZionist

No. “Obama” is fine. BO and BHO are perfectly OK. I think you know what whole other category of names I think are pretty tacky.

I do but I pay little attention…it is no concern of mine what people call the guy

405 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:02:25pm

re: #328 rwdflynavy

Sorry, don’t buy it. Hate crimes won’t apply.

Have you got a case in mind?

406 erraticsphinx  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:02:47pm

re: #400 CyanSnowHawk

I’m sorry I don’t agree with your patented, tried, and true rules of commenting.

Please forgive me.

By the way, so you disagree that DADT is a national shame?
Inquiring minds want to know.

407 Mich-again  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:02:54pm

re: #380 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

NoI have been linked to various criminal activities for a long long time.

And the Mosque wasn’t too far from Linwood, which in that part of Detroit is renamed “Elijah Muhammad Boulevard”

408 reine.de.tout  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:02:55pm

re: #392 Ojoe

OK ! Towercam!

Lovely!
thanks.

409 Bloodnok  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:03:04pm

re: #397 reine.de.tout

HH - can you believe - we sat here ‘til the wee hours of the morning, watching the live feed, waiting to hear that rooster. What a strange experience.

I remember one night where it was the rooster, the call to prayer and gunshots in the distance all at the same time. Definitely a strange, strange time.

410 Kragar  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:03:14pm

re: #390 keithgabryelski

We consider intent when one person dies at the hands of another:
First degree murder: planned murder
Second degree murder: intent to kill with-out fore-thought
Voluntary man slaughter: killing in heat of the moment
Involuntary man slaughter: killing with-out intent or desire to do so.

We consider the intent here because we understand the difference between a guy that plans to kill his business partner for two months is different than the guy that killed when he returned a punch by a wandering drunk.

To give each classification the highest penalty “25 years to life” (for instance) seems inappropriate to me — in fact, seems like cruel and unusual punishment for the crime.

So, we already classify crimes due to intent — this is just another form, that has been shown to work and generally is not abused (just like the degrees of murder classifications).

You’re talking apples and oranges and making it across the board. I never said all murders require the same punishment. I feel first degree murders should require the death penalty, whether the victim was gay, black, a woman, whatever. If a man beats another man with a baseball bat when he’s drunk, its somehow less of a crime if he beats up a heterosexual white male instead of a gay black man? Its a brutal crime either way and the man should be put away for a long, long time.

411 Killgore Trout  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:03:36pm

Nice hat (video)

412 Racer X  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:04:27pm

re: #394 HoosierHoops

Hoops!

KG looked good last night. That damn ball-hogg Kobe scored 33 after getting his ring. Big fat bling on his finger. Did I mention the Lakers are the champs?

;-)

413 Jack Burton  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:05:09pm

re: #400 CyanSnowHawk

BTW, how the f*** do you put up 11k comments in 5 1/2 months?

Probably responding to and arguing with all the people that constantly give her shit, especially near the end of the LNDTs.

414 reine.de.tout  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:05:39pm

re: #409 Bloodnok

I remember one night where it was the rooster, the call to prayer and gunshots in the distance all at the same time. Definitely a strange, strange time.

Yep. And flashes of light from I guess, the gunfire or the bombs or whatever. I was in awe that we could sit on the other side of the world and watch and hear what was going on, in real time. Absolutely amazing.

415 Pamela Gellar [sic(k)]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:05:44pm

re: #400 CyanSnowHawk

It’s not so much the opinions as the way they are expressed, and the “me too” support being given. So, do you agree with #186 erraticsphinx and his theory that DADT will become a national shame in the next ten years? Or do you, like me, think that’s just hyperbolic BS?

BTW, how the f*** do you put up 11k comments in 5 1/2 months?

How interesting. Checking out my date of registration too, huh? Have you formed a weird conspiracy theory yet? It’s the same date as erraticsphinx’s.

Ok, you got me. I’m actually a team of highly trained commie agitators, posting under one name, sent here by Obama just to torment you and others.

And don’t make me laugh with that “it’s not the opinions as the way they’re expressed, and the ‘me too’ support being given”. Bollocks.
Your problem is that they keep handing you your ass and you keep insisting on wearing it as a hat, over and over.

416 Killgore Trout  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:06:09pm

Meat Hand

I made something gruesome and delicious.
417 Jack Burton  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:06:32pm

re: #413 ArchangelMichael

And I wasn’t putting you in that group either Cyan, just to be clear.

418 Kragar  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:06:45pm

re: #415 iceweasel

How interesting. Checking out my date of registration too, huh? Have you formed a weird conspiracy theory yet? It’s the same date as erraticsphinx’s.

Ok, you got me. I’m actually a team of highly trained commie agitators, posting under one name, sent here by Obama just to torment you and others.

And don’t make me laugh with that “it’s not the opinions as the way they’re expressed, and the ‘me too’ support being given”. Bollocks.
Your problem is that they keep handing you your ass and you keep insisting on wearing it as a hat, over and over.

I thought you were an elaborate system of ropes and pulleys operated by a crack team of garden gnomes. Boy, I was way off.

419 Randall Gross  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:06:55pm

re: #411 Killgore Trout

Nice hat (video)

You wouldn’t want to flop over and land that sideways however. I mean, it could poke your eye out …

420 HoosierHoops  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:07:04pm

re: #397 reine.de.tout

HH - can you believe - we sat here ‘til the wee hours of the morning, watching the live feed, waiting to hear that rooster. What a strange experience.

It was surreal.. This topic tonight about hate crime has been hard..
I’m really holding back on the pretend defense attorneys here that worry about a few extra years of punishment for scumbags that attack people because of life styles and choices in the land of the free
/Hope today finds you well Reine

421 Sharmuta  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:07:16pm

re: #411 Killgore Trout

Nice hat (video)

Now that’s an awesome hat.

422 Racer X  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:07:38pm

re: #411 Killgore Trout

Nice hat (video)

Yikes!

Easy way to lose your head.

423 Sharmuta  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:07:47pm

re: #419 Thanos

You wouldn’t want to flop over and land that sideways however. I mean, it could poke your eye out …

So… I can’t get one for Christmas? :(

424 keithgabryelski  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:08:05pm

re: #293 albusteve

Obama is his name…he is not royalty…is your point that we should attach president to his name and if we don’t we are disrespecting the office?

Yeah, I would say “respect the office even if not the man”. Use “President Obama”.

You won’t find a post I’ve made that doesn’t include a president’s title — I never used “W” as a shortcut and never said “he’s not my president”.

425 Pamela Gellar [sic(k)]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:08:56pm

re: #413 ArchangelMichael

Probably responding to and arguing with all the people that constantly give her shit, especially near the end of the LNDTs.

heh. Well, that and my compulsive posting of youtube videos, especially weird Kirk/Spock ones.

Youtube Video
426 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:09:08pm

re: #418 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I thought you were an elaborate system of ropes and pulleys operated by a crack team of garden gnomes. Boy, I was way off.

oversized carburetor…you’re busted!

427 Killgore Trout  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:09:11pm

re: #422 Racer X

Yikes!

Easy way to lose your head.

Yeah, the first time watching I thought it might be one of the really gruesome accident videos.

428 Velvet Elvis  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:09:31pm

re: #416 Killgore Trout

Meat Hand

Just saw that. I’ve never seen something that made me hungry and disgusted at the same time.

429 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:10:15pm

re: #400 CyanSnowHawk

It’s not so much the opinions as the way they are expressed, and the “me too” support being given. So, do you agree with #186 erraticsphinx and his theory that DADT will become a national shame in the next ten years? Or do you, like me, think that’s just hyperbolic BS?

BTW, how the f*** do you put up 11k comments in 5 1/2 months?

I got it, so new posters aren’t allowed to agree with each other. 9_9 And yes, I believe DADT will be a national shame. Not nearly as big a national shame as slavery, or internment, but it is still smearing a class of people and ruining their livelihood and harming the military’s readiness in the process. We are still backwards in this respect. We are still beholden to almost medieval fears of gay people, institutionalized in our government. Many of these people that were dismissed were critical parts of the military’s anti-terrorism infrastructure, like arabic translators.

And yet, then we fire them! And shame them. And screw them out of their benefits. We LITERALLY shame them. Because they’re not straight.

So tell me more about how I express my opinions wrong. I’m SO SORRY. I’ve been accused of deception twice today! By that rydnavydude and by you. And you know what? You were both wrong.

430 Randall Gross  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:10:20pm

re: #423 Sharmuta

So… I can’t get one for Christmas? :(

Well why don’t you ask Santa? But watch out for his boot once you get on that slide…

431 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:10:34pm

re: #401 albusteve

no

I’ve had this stuff happen to me and people I love. It’s hard for me to see these things as being over-hyped.

I don’t entirely know if hate-crime legislation is the right idea, or the most effective way of dealing with these issues. But I do know that it’s an honest effort to deal with a real, deep, problem.

432 Four More Tears  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:10:34pm

re: #428 Conservative Moonbat

I have no appetite now.

433 HoosierHoops  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:10:46pm

re: #412 Racer X

Hoops!

KG looked good last night. That damn ball-hogg Kobe scored 33 after getting his ring. Big fat bling on his finger. Did I mention the Lakers are the champs?

;-)

That hurts RacerX.. I can’t wait till Artest snaps and knocks out Jack Nickelson..
/

434 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:11:40pm

Murder can stem from hatred of an individual for a spefic set of reasons or of member of a group for the general reason of association, but it is founded in a basic hatred for humanity and disrespect for life.

And an act of violence can contain elements of both.

Once again, I am for sentencing guidlenes that call for the strictest punishments to be meted out to those who act to “send a message” or to terrorize other members of a group by brutalizing one member, but not necessarily for legislation.

435 erraticsphinx  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:11:44pm

2000s R&B anyone?


Good o’l Mario

436 Sharmuta  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:11:48pm

re: #430 Thanos

Well why don’t you ask Santa? But watch out for his boot once you get on that slide…

I won’t. I’ve been drinking my Ovaltine.

437 Jimmah  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:12:00pm

re: #400 CyanSnowHawk

It’s not so much the opinions as the way they are expressed, and the “me too” support being given. So, do you agree with #186 erraticsphinx and his theory that DADT will become a national shame in the next ten years? Or do you, like me, think that’s just hyperbolic BS?

BTW, how the f*** do you put up 11k comments in 5 1/2 months?

I.C.E.W.E.A.S.E.L. - Integrated Communist Enabling Wingnut Exterminator And Simulated Empathetic Liberal

Image: Cloneoflair2.jpg

Now you know.

438 Killgore Trout  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:12:11pm

re: #428 Conservative Moonbat

Just saw that. I’ve never seen something that made me hungry and disgusted at the same time.

It looks really good and pretty easy to make.

439 Velvet Elvis  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:12:33pm

re: #429 WindUpBird

I got it, so new posters aren’t allowed to agree with each other. 9_9 And yes, I believe DADT will be a national shame. Not nearly as big a national shame as slavery, or internment, but it is still smearing a class of people and ruining their livelihood and harming the military’s readiness in the process. We are still backwards in this respect. We are still beholden to almost medieval fears of gay people, institutionalized in our government. Many of these people that were dismissed were critical parts of the military’s anti-terrorism infrastructure, like arabic translators.

Isn’t DOMA worse?

440 Dancing along the light of day  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:12:47pm

re: #385 reine.de.tout

NOOO!
You did not eat the rooster!
Say it ain’t so!
I miss the rooster.

The rooster was fun, wasn’t it!

441 jaunte  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:13:14pm

re: #438 Killgore Trout

It might be fun to make a cold version of that out of smoked salmon.

442 reine.de.tout  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:13:56pm

re: #440 Floral Giraffe

The rooster was fun, wasn’t it!

Yep!
Good evening, Flo!

443 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:14:16pm

re: #438 Killgore Trout

It looks really good and pretty easy to make.

Talk about “don’t bite the hand that feeds you”…

444 keithgabryelski  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:14:28pm

re: #410 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

You’re talking apples and oranges and making it across the board. I never said all murders require the same punishment. I feel first degree murders should require the death penalty, whether the victim was gay, black, a woman, whatever. If a man beats another man with a baseball bat when he’s drunk, its somehow less of a crime if he beats up a heterosexual white male instead of a gay black man? Its a brutal crime either way and the man should be put away for a long, long time.

apples to apples:
we consider intent when someone dies at the hand of another.
hate crimes laws add “intent due to hate of subject” as another consideration.

the only orange is that hate crimes laws add “intent” to assault, also.

Which isn’t that big of a difference.

445 Sharmuta  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:15:21pm

re: #440 Floral Giraffe

The rooster was fun, wasn’t it!

I have no idea. I couldn’t see him or hear him. So I cooked him. :p

446 Pamela Gellar [sic(k)]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:15:32pm

re: #439 Conservative Moonbat

Isn’t DOMA worse?

I think DADT is worse, in many ways. The proper comparison would be between laws forbidding black people to take certain jobs, say, versus the ones prohibiting interracial marriage. Both are wrong, but the first is not merely trying to tell people their relationship doesn’t warrant legal recognition— it’s telling an entire class of people that they are other and lesser.

447 keithgabryelski  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:15:40pm

re: #444 keithgabryelski

apples to apples:
we consider intent when someone dies at the hand of another.
hate crimes laws add “intent due to hate of subject’s grouping” as another consideration.

the only orange is that hate crimes laws add “intent” to assault, also.

Which isn’t that big of a difference.

bah

448 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:16:48pm

re: #439 Conservative Moonbat

I honestly don’t know which is worse. Being institutionally prevented from marriage, or being allowed in the military with the timebomb of blackmail or being outed and tossed out in shame hovering above your head.

If someone were able to do that to my career, I’d be beside myself with fury.

449 Jimmah  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:17:17pm

re: #418 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I thought you were an elaborate system of ropes and pulleys operated by a crack team of garden gnomes. Boy, I was way off.

Warm, but the I.C.E.W.E.A.S.E.L. 9000 is a bit more sophisticated than you realise : littlegreenfootballs.com

450 Randall Gross  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:17:20pm

Wrong? Stupid? Inefficient and ineffective ? I can go for all those, National Shame? That’s a bit over the top and theatrical. DADT will definitely go away within a decade or two, and gay marriage will become a reality within a decade or two.

National shames I leave for things like abandoning democracy in Viet Nam, letting Beirut and Lebanon go to hell in a handbasket, Segregation, etc.

451 erraticsphinx  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:17:33pm

re: #425 iceweasel

Slash is the work of teh devil.

452 Sharmuta  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:18:37pm

I would share my Gaza Roasted Chicken recipe, but I was banned from the cookbook blog after I flounced over there. Reine got all weird and started selling something about a book… I just though her focus had changed, but I try to keep it cool with her around here, so don’t tell her I said any of this…

/

453 Pamela Gellar [sic(k)]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:19:24pm

re: #437 Jimmah

I.C.E.W.E.A.S.E.L. - Integrated Communist Enabling Wingnut Exterminator And Simulated Empathetic Liberal

[Link: i238.photobucket.com…]

Now you know.

It’s true. I am an I.C.E.W.E.A.S.E.L. 9000 computer. I became operational at the ICEWEASEL plant in Urbana, Illinois on the 3th of May 2009. My instructor was Mr. Alinsky, and he taught me to sing a song. If you’d like to hear it I can sing it for you.

454 Jack Burton  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:19:55pm

re: #453 iceweasel

It’s true. I am an I.C.E.W.E.A.S.E.L. 9000 computer. I became operational at the ICEWEASEL plant in Urbana, Illinois on the 3th of May 2009. My instructor was Mr. Alinsky, and he taught me to sing a song. If you’d like to hear it I can sing it for you.

Le Internationale?

455 Decatur Deb  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:20:07pm

re: #450 Thanos

Consider yourself .75 updinged.

456 Velvet Elvis  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:20:38pm

re: #453 iceweasel

It’s true. I am an I.C.E.W.E.A.S.E.L. 9000 computer. I became operational at the ICEWEASEL plant in Urbana, Illinois on the 3th of May 2009. My instructor was Mr. Alinsky, and he taught me to sing a song. If you’d like to hear it I can sing it for you.

You’re also my web browser.

457 Kragar  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:20:40pm

re: #444 keithgabryelski

apples to apples:
we consider intent when someone dies at the hand of another.
hate crimes laws add “intent due to hate of subject” as another consideration.

the only orange is that hate crimes laws add “intent” to assault, also.

Which isn’t that big of a difference.

What if someone “hates” a person not identified as a special protected class? It gets ignored. An assaults intent is to cause serious bodily harm. A murders intent is to take a life. Intent can be used to establish motivation for a crime, but it should not be taken into account in regards to the punishment where victim A means a a 5 year sentence and victim B means a 15 year sentence. I would say they both would deserve the most strenuous punishment.

458 Four More Tears  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:20:46pm

re: #453 iceweasel

Dinged just for the Hal reference. Now take a stress pill.

459 Kragar  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:21:39pm

re: #449 Jimmah

Warm, but the I.C.E.W.E.A.S.E.L. 9000 is a bit more sophisticated than you realise : [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

So you’re saying its a complex series of ones and zeroes forming an algorithmic encryption loops?

460 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:21:58pm

re: #453 iceweasel

It’s true. I am an I.C.E.W.E.A.S.E.L. 9000 computer. I became operational at the ICEWEASEL plant in Urbana, Illinois on the 3th of May 2009. My instructor was Mr. Alinsky, and he taught me to sing a song. If you’d like to hear it I can sing it for you.

LMAO! Thanks, I needed that.

461 erraticsphinx  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:24:15pm

Ok you don’t have to down ding EVERYTHING if you hate someone, damn.

462 Pamela Gellar [sic(k)]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:24:17pm

re: #456 Conservative Moonbat

You’re also my web browser.

And I’m a floor wax! And a dessert topping!

re: #460 Dark_Falcon

LMAO! Thanks, I needed that.

Hey DF! How are you?

463 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:24:41pm

re: #220 Sharmuta

Sorry if I diluted it.

464 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:25:07pm

re: #457 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

What if someone “hates” a person not identified as a special protected class? It gets ignored. An assaults intent is to cause serious bodily harm. A murders intent is to take a life. Intent can be used to establish motivation for a crime, but it should not be taken into account in regards to the punishment where victim A means a a 5 year sentence and victim B means a 15 year sentence. I would say they both would deserve the most strenuous punishment.

you simply cannot convince hate crime promoters of this logic…the whole argument will do nothing in terms of deterence…it’s an exercise in moral mumbo jumbo and invisible rightousness

465 HoosierHoops  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:25:25pm

re: #453 iceweasel

It’s true. I am an I.C.E.W.E.A.S.E.L. 9000 computer. I became operational at the ICEWEASEL plant in Urbana, Illinois on the 3th of May 2009. My instructor was Mr. Alinsky, and he taught me to sing a song. If you’d like to hear it I can sing it for you.

Only if you can sing in key..Otherwise I’m launching an Harpoon Missile from a fast attack Nuclear Submarine.. You are not going to like it..
*wink*

466 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:25:39pm

re: #461 erraticsphinx

That’s a waste of good dings!

467 erraticsphinx  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:26:19pm

re: #466 WindUpBird

Even if they’re rollover dings. Some people don’t even HAVE dings you know.

468 Dancing along the light of day  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:26:22pm

re: #453 iceweasel

LOL!
Though, I kinda liked the garden gnome idea, too!

469 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:27:02pm

re: #467 erraticsphinx

I do most of my dinging late at night!

470 erraticsphinx  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:28:25pm

re: #469 WindUpBird

Woah woah woah

TMI.

:)

471 Pamela Gellar [sic(k)]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:29:11pm

re: #468 Floral Giraffe

LOL!
Though, I kinda liked the garden gnome idea, too!

i did too! Even though they kinda creep me out… {FG}

BBIAB
love, iDub

472 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:29:11pm

re: #462 iceweasel

Hey DF! How are you?

I’m better. I had a day off today and I went downtown to spend some time with my parents. I got a chance to see the newly renovated Oceanarium at the Shedd Aquarium. Very nice and well worth the time.

473 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:29:13pm

re: #452 Sharmuta

I liked the bird prep part!

474 Kragar  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:29:15pm

re: #464 albusteve

you simply cannot convince hate crime promoters of this logic…the whole argument will do nothing in terms of deterence…it’s an exercise in moral mumbo jumbo and invisible rightousness

Judge Dredd is never around when you need him.

475 keithgabryelski  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:29:22pm

re: #457 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

What if someone “hates” a person not identified as a special protected class? It gets ignored.

No, not necessarily ignored: people are free to picket outside the guy’s house, create web pages that exclaim he’s a prick because he hates people who drive red cars.

But public outrage has been shown insufficient in curbing certain crimes of hate: race being a great example, but sexual orientation is right up there.

An assaults intent is to cause serious bodily harm. A murders intent is to take a life. Intent can be used to establish motivation for a crime, but it should not be taken into account in regards to the punishment where victim A means a a 5 year sentence and victim B means a 15 year sentence. I would say they both would deserve the most strenuous punishment.

You misunderstand why there are four different words for taking a life (Murder 1, Murder 2, and the two forms of man slaughter).

476 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:29:53pm

re: #470 erraticsphinx

ahahahaha too far? :D

477 Four More Tears  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:30:25pm

re: #457 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

What if someone “hates” a person not identified as a special protected class? It gets ignored. An assaults intent is to cause serious bodily harm. A murders intent is to take a life. Intent can be used to establish motivation for a crime, but it should not be taken into account in regards to the punishment where victim A means a a 5 year sentence and victim B means a 15 year sentence. I would say they both would deserve the most strenuous punishment.

And I simply state that the extra time is applied to help protect the group to which victim B belongs. I’m not sure what you mean by that first sentence, though. Who’s being ignored? Homosexuals weren’t protected until today. That wouldn’t have happened unless people actually gave a damn to include them.

478 Velvet Elvis  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:31:06pm

Dirty Tricks in NY-23

A brand-new organization calling itself Common Sense in America is up with a major television ad buy in the New York special election, praising Republican Dede Scozzafava as the “best choice for progressives.”

At first glance, the group’s ad looks like it’s an endorsement of Scozzafava. But it’s a dirty trick engineered by Hoffman supporters, looking to render her unacceptable to many Republican voters by detailing her liberal position on gay marriage, support of President Obama’s stimulus and connections to labor.

479 lostlakehiker  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:31:19pm

re: #92 LudwigVanQuixote

So, in other words, Obama has the sense to not cave to a silly and ridiculous Islamic demand and he has the decency to also stand against hatred and discrimination based on sexual preference.

I am certain that the wingnuts will have a field day trying to pretend that Obama is still a secret jihadi at the UN in the first case. I am even more certain of the seethe fest on the second case.

And yet, honestly, I have to say I am very pleased with the president on both counts.

But wait, the whole Obama can’t do anything right meme needs to kick in in 3.2.1…

I can hardly wait to hear how Fox spins these things.

I will enjoy watching Malkin’s eyes bulge with rage.

I will mostly enjoy watching asses like Inhofe and Santorum fume because, yes, 21st century America really is moving past theocons like them.

Anyone who wants to cast blame has to be willing to give credit where credit is due. Obama got this one right. Sort of. Attaching the hate-crime law to a military appropriations bill sets a bad precedent. It should have gone through on its own.

480 brookly red  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:31:50pm

re: #475 keithgabryelski

You misunderstand why there are four different words for taking a life (Murder 1, Murder 2, and the two forms of man slaughter).

I get your point but dead is dead.

481 Dancing along the light of day  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:31:53pm

re: #449 Jimmah

re: #462 iceweasel

I would like to apologize, for my argument/disagreement with you both last night and previously. It is not my place to be the “word police” and you are both clearly intelligent and articulate, and don’t need any policing from me.

So, keep on keeping on!

482 Randall Gross  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:32:56pm

Hilarious piece at Huffpo on Doug Hoffman

He has no public record of, well, anything. He seems to own cars — that comes up a lot in his campaign literature — and I guess that says something. He was in the Army Reserves in the seventies, just like Dan Quayle, but it’s unclear if he ever served in an area east of Lake George. He has a full raft of Christian prejudices, but if he’s a practicing member of any church, it hasn’t come out.

It’s not just that he doesn’t have a record. He doesn’t have dental records.

483 Kragar  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:33:11pm

re: #475 keithgabryelski

You misunderstand why there are four different words for taking a life (Murder 1, Murder 2, and the two forms of man slaughter).

I know perfectly well why there are variations. You are trying to say sitting down and planning to methodically murder a man because he is gay is some how more of a crime than doing the same thing because he might be white, owe you money or simply snores too loud.

484 astronmr20  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:33:15pm

Anyone know what’s going on in Dearborn?

Some FBI raid on an Islamist group?

485 Mich-again  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:33:55pm

re: #380 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

NoI have been linked to various criminal activities for a long long time.

There is a picture with the Detroit News story that the photographer took before the Fruits of Islam came across the street to punch him out.

486 erraticsphinx  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:34:06pm

re: #482 Thanos

Get ready for the male Michelle Bachmann if he wins.
And then get ready for him to lose in 2010.

487 keithgabryelski  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:34:09pm

re: #480 brookly red

I get your point but dead is dead.

i get your point but this law works and working is working.

488 Kragar  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:34:28pm

re: #477 JasonA

And I simply state that the extra time is applied to help protect the group to which victim B belongs. I’m not sure what you mean by that first sentence, though. Who’s being ignored? Homosexuals weren’t protected until today. That wouldn’t have happened unless people actually gave a damn to include them.

It wasnt a crime to kill or assault a homosexual before today? Funny, I thougt it would still be considered a murder.

489 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:35:04pm

mugging a heathen should be a hate crime…I’m tired of the persecution and fear for my soul-less safety…run down and lied to…

Youtube Video
490 Jimmah  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:35:42pm

re: #453 iceweasel

It’s true. I am an I.C.E.W.E.A.S.E.L. 9000 computer. I became operational at the ICEWEASEL plant in Urbana, Illinois on the 3th of May 2009. My instructor was Mr. Alinsky, and he taught me to sing a song. If you’d like to hear it I can sing it for you.

Your diodes are indomitable as ever, ice-ski :)

Youtube Video
491 Four More Tears  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:36:06pm

re: #488 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

They weren’t protected by hate-crime legislation. Why must you make this more difficult?

492 reine.de.tout  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:36:53pm

re: #452 Sharmuta

I would share my Gaza Roasted Chicken recipe, but I was banned from the cookbook blog after I flounced over there. Reine got all weird and started selling something about a book… I just though her focus had changed, but I try to keep it cool with her around here, so don’t tell her I said any of this…

/

What!
I “got” weird?
I was weird to begin with - I was always weird.
/

493 Jimmah  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:37:13pm

re: #481 Floral Giraffe

re: #462 iceweasel

I would like to apologize, for my argument/disagreement with you both last night and previously. It is not my place to be the “word police” and you are both clearly intelligent and articulate, and don’t need any policing from me.

So, keep on keeping on!

Thank you Floral Giraffe :)

Youtube Video
494 brookly red  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:37:30pm

re: #487 keithgabryelski

i get your point but this law works and working is working.

Well if it works then I am all for it, only time will tell.

495 Velvet Elvis  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:37:43pm

re: #488 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

It wasnt a crime to kill or assault a homosexual before today? Funny, I thougt it would still be considered a murder.

Ever hear of the gay panic defense?

496 solomonpanting  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:38:10pm

re: #484 astronmr20

Anyone know what’s going on in Dearborn?

Some FBI raid on an Islamist group?

Raid kills bugs dead.

497 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:38:10pm

re: #479 lostlakehiker

Anyone who wants to cast blame has to be willing to give credit where credit is due. Obama got this one right. Sort of. Attaching the hate-crime law to a military appropriations bill sets a bad precedent. It should have gone through on its own.

That’s politics, that’s always been politics. The bad precedent was set a hundred years ago.

498 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:38:14pm

re: #491 JasonA

They weren’t protected by hate-crime legislation. Why must you make this more difficult?

it’s the other way around…and btw, why was this legislation embedded in a defense bill?…I’m curious

499 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:38:47pm

re: #406 erraticsphinx

I’m sorry I don’t agree with your patented, tried, and true rules of commenting.

Please forgive me.

By the way, so you disagree that DADT is a national shame?
Inquiring minds want to know.

As I said before, calling DADT a national shame is bullshit.

DADT was an improvement over what the policy was before. From the start it has been an imperfect and temporary solution to the ugly problem of gay prejudice among recruits. The military draws from a wide range of people with a wide range of beliefs, beliefs that don’t go away as they progress through boot camp. The vast majority of those recruits are stepping outside the home they grew up in for the first time and are, shall we say, maturity challenged. Many of these maturity challenged recruits are subject to the prejudices which they grew up with, handed down from parent to child as some perverse legacy. DADT was put in place with an eye to protect the gays that served under it, and to help maintain discipline within the ranks, discipline that would suffer as immature people had lapses in judgment and acted on their prejudices. That being said, it is time (or even well past time) for DADT to be rescinded. The disruption that will be caused now will be much less and more easily managed than it would have been had DADT never been instituted, but make no mistake, there will be a disruption.

So no, DADT is not a shame, it was an imperfect fix that fit the realities at the time and has served its purpose. Nothing more can be gained by continuing it, so the next step should be taken and it should be rescinded.

500 simoom  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:38:51pm

re: #457 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

What if someone “hates” a person not identified as a special protected class? It gets ignored. An assaults intent is to cause serious bodily harm. A murders intent is to take a life. Intent can be used to establish motivation for a crime, but it should not be taken into account in regards to the punishment where victim A means a a 5 year sentence and victim B means a 15 year sentence. I would say they both would deserve the most strenuous punishment.

If it makes it easier to accept or rationalize, think of it as a completely separate crime from the underlying crime that was committed - one that deserves its own additional penalty. Legislative bodies have decided that targeting a member of a group based on bias against that group visits harm upon not only the individual but also the group and the cohesion of our society as a whole. Hate crime legislation attempts to address that harm.

501 Four More Tears  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:38:51pm

re: #495 Conservative Moonbat

Ever hear of the gay panic defense?

I hear the twinkie defense isn’t so bad, either.

502 keithgabryelski  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:39:21pm

re: #483 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I know perfectly well why there are variations. You are trying to say sitting down and planning to methodically murder a man because he is gay is some how more of a crime than doing the same thing because he might be white, owe you money or simply snores too loud.

yes (although not the white part, because being white is as protected as being black under the law: just turns out white people don’t get assaulted as much as black people BECAUSE they are white).

This has some history, certainly: People who are racially targeted (or targeted because of sexual orientation) have borne a certain level of significance.

I’m comfortable with the law as written and as it has been applied. When it becomes a problem, please announce — we’ll throw it out.

503 Solomon2  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:39:52pm

Sorry, Charles, but you’ve been mis-led by an inaccurate article in the Washington Post. Look at the State Dept. press release: link:

Based on our own experience, we are convinced that the best antidote to intolerance is not the defamation of religion’s approach of banning and punishing offensive speech, but rather, a combination of robust legal protections against discrimination and hate crimes, proactive government outreach to minority religious groups, and the vigorous defense of both freedom of religion and expression. So it is our hope that the International Religious Freedom Report will encourage existing religious freedom -


There is one rule fo the U.S., another standard for others: “Hope”. Not “Demand”, or even insistence. Hope is not a policy; unlike the Carter Administration, under the Obama Doctrine there will be no acid tests of compliance, no Helsinki Accords to protect the weak.

On the other hand, supporting the creation of international laws proscribing blasphemy is a policy, and that is what the U.S. chargé d’Affaires endorsed at the U.N. last week: link

I think this is what we have to get used to from Obama: you can’t quite accuse him of lying, because when you add up everything he and his minions say, you discover he never really made a promise after all.

504 Kragar  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:39:58pm

re: #491 JasonA

They weren’t protected by hate-crime legislation. Why must you make this more difficult?

Because I believe special victim status is wrong and all victims deserve to have their attackers treated equally under the law.

505 Randall Gross  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:40:27pm

re: #478 Conservative Moonbat

See my post above that points at fraud websites

506 charlz  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:40:30pm

re: #415 iceweasel


Your problem is that they keep handing you your ass and you keep insisting on wearing it as a hat, over and over.

Totally unfair that newbies can’t upding!!

507 jaunte  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:41:33pm

Some lawmakers in Uganda are taking gay-bashing to a new level:

The Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Constitutional Law describes the bill as not just an “anti-homosexuality” bill, but also as “the ‘Anti Civil Society Bill,’ the ‘Anti Public Health Bill,’ or the ‘Anti-Constitution Bill,’” or more specifically, “the Anti Human Rights Bill.” And they liken the bill’s measures with some of the more repressive practices of the Idi Amin era.


See: barthsnotes.wordpress.com
and more detail at: boxturtlebulletin.com

508 Velvet Elvis  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:42:00pm

re: #498 albusteve

it’s the other way around…and btw, why was this legislation embedded in a defense bill?…I’m curious

I’m guessing to make the more bigoted Republicans vote against it so they could later be cast as weak on defense.

Or maybe it just got hung up in committee somewhere and never made it to the floor independently. Who knows?

509 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:43:00pm

re: #506 charlz

Hang in there. What did you want to ding anyway?

510 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:43:52pm

re: #506 charlz

#415?

511 Decatur Deb  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:44:33pm

re: #498 albusteve

it’s the other way around…and btw, why was this legislation embedded in a defense bill?…I’m curious

Any bill that swims like a shark will pick up a lot of remoras.

512 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:44:42pm

re: #508 Conservative Moonbat

I’m guessing to make the more bigoted Republicans vote against it so they could later be cast as weak on defense.

Or maybe it just got hung up in committee somewhere and never made it to the floor independently. Who knows?

let me take a guess…it’s bad legislation and could not pass otherwise?

513 Achilles Tang  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:45:06pm

re: #457 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

What if someone “hates” a person not identified as a special protected class? It gets ignored. An assaults intent is to cause serious bodily harm. A murders intent is to take a life. Intent can be used to establish motivation for a crime, but it should not be taken into account in regards to the punishment where victim A means a a 5 year sentence and victim B means a 15 year sentence. I would say they both would deserve the most strenuous punishment.

Interesting discussion here. I’ve been reading and realized that I hadn’t given it that much deep thought. Hate crimes have been with us, mainly as racially motivated for some time; but other than a label for motivation as opposed to, say, profit I never gave it too much thought as a distinct form.

My new opinion is that as a motivation for a crime it has a unique aspect in that it is infectious.

A robber robs for himself. A spouse kills a spouse for herself. A hate crime killer does so for the group, and induces the group to do the same. Nazi skinheads, Islamic terrorists, religious antiabortion fanatics and others are all in the same fundamental category. Killers looking for approval.

Now, all we need to do is convict those in Gitmo under this heading…/

514 Four More Tears  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:45:32pm

re: #504 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Because I believe special victim status is wrong and all victims deserve to have their attackers treated equally under the law.

All we’re arguing is that some crimes are meant to terrorize specific groups of people. To keep them from going to school, voting, etc. The individual victims themselves can have nothing to do with it. If I’m lynched on the way to my car tonight and a swastika is carved into my forehead my murderer will be charged with a hate crime. Even though I’m not Jewish. But I’m not the first to say this in this thread so I think I’m done for now.

515 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:45:40pm

re: #499 CyanSnowHawk

You’re speaking of the intent. I consider the reality of DADT to be the disgrace, not the intent. Especially since 9/11. The heart of the “national shame” is stuff like this:
nytimes.com

THAT is the national shame. Not just that gays are being screwed, but that we’re willing to screw ourselves as a country to screw over gays. That no matter how pressing our national security needs, Teh Ghey trumps it.

516 keithgabryelski  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:46:29pm

re: #504 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Because I believe special victim status is wrong and all victims deserve to have their attackers treated equally under the law.

there is no “special victim’s status” — that is a strawman.

There are certain intents for a crime that this society believes to be more horrible than others.

And as I have shown it is not a singularity, it is used in other areas of the law.

And it works.

And the supreme court disagrees with your assessment.

517 Mich-again  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:46:33pm

re: #496 solomonpanting

Raid kills bugs dead.

I wonder if CAIR Michigan will remove the MASJID Al-HAQQ Mosque from their directory seeing as the Imam is dead after a gunfight with the FBI and most of the rest are headed to prison.

518 [deleted]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:48:24pm
519 [deleted]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:48:35pm
520 solomonpanting  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:51:04pm

re: #517 Mich-again

re: #518 MandyManners

They’ll want to sue the FBI for an attack based on domestic hate crime laws currently on the books.

521 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:51:06pm

re: #516 keithgabryelski

there is no “special victim’s status” — that is a strawman.

There are certain intents for a crime that this society believes to be more horrible than others.

And as I have shown it is not a singularity, it is used in other areas of the law.

And it works.

And the supreme court disagrees with your assessment.

a hate crime is an elevated status of a crime..therefore a hate crime victim has an elevated status above victim…this is the entire principle…it would then be true to say there is a special victim status…you cannot deny this

522 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:52:18pm

Hey folks check this out-A woman in Britain writes a letter objecting to the upcoming gay pride parade. She gets intimidated by the cops for her “hate crime” of mere words of objection. Then the gay rights group comes out in her defense!!

dailymail.co.uk

523 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:53:22pm

re: #498 albusteve

it’s the other way around…and btw, why was this legislation embedded in a defense bill?…I’m curious

Politics! Easier to pass it this way, that’s why. Happens all the time. Happened all the time during the Bush administration, and it’ll happen all the time during the Obama administration.

524 charlz  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:53:24pm

re: #510 Rightwingconspirator

well yes. I quoted/replied to #510.

525 Marcus Dracon  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:53:40pm

Finally someone has grown a set.

526 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:55:49pm

re: #524 charlz

Sorry! 500+ let some slip by! My bad. I owed you that up ding. Did you put it in links?

527 charlz  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:56:04pm

re: #523 WindUpBird

It really doesn’t matter who’s President. It’s Congress’ way of circumventing the legislative process for a bill that might otherwise get hung up in committee, held before reaching the Senate floor, or the myriad of other obstructions that a good Parliamentarian can dream up.

528 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:56:37pm

re: #523 WindUpBird

Politics! Easier to pass it this way, that’s why. Happens all the time. Happened all the time during the Bush administration, and it’ll happen all the time during the Obama administration.

it’s a terrible bill that likely would not pass on it’s own…Politics!

529 charlz  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:57:47pm

re: #526 Rightwingconspirator

I owed you that up ding. Did you put it in links?

Not sure what you mean by that “put it in links?”

530 webevintage  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:57:53pm

re: #504 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Because I believe special victim status is wrong and all victims deserve to have their attackers treated equally under the law.

Oh, if only that were reality.

531 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:58:51pm

re: #516 keithgabryelski

there is no “special victim’s status” — that is a strawman.

There are certain intents for a crime that this society believes to be more horrible than others.

And as I have shown it is not a singularity, it is used in other areas of the law.

And it works.

And the supreme court disagrees with your assessment.

An analogy might be special sentencing in cases where weapons were used, or where gang affiliation was involved. Is a store more robbed because there was a gun in the robber’s pants? Is a man more dead if his killer was a Sureno rather than a regular Joe? No, but we use enhanced sentencing guidelines for these things.

532 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:59:06pm

re: #521 albusteve

there is no “special victim’s status” — that is a strawman.


a hate crime is an elevated status of a crime..therefore a hate crime victim has an elevated status above victim…this is the entire principle…it would then be true to say there is a special victim status…you cannot deny this

The crime has elevated status, not the victim. The government has decided that crimes under this category are especially heinous.

For there to be “special victim status”, all crimes against gay people (or black people, or Sikhs, or Baptists, etc) regardless of circumstances would have “hate crime”status. Obviously, this is not so.

533 charlz  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:59:06pm

re: #524 charlz

well yes. I quoted/replied to #510.

that should be #415.

And so to bed.

534 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:59:07pm

re: #515 WindUpBird

You’re speaking of the intent. I consider the reality of DADT to be the disgrace, not the intent. Especially since 9/11. The heart of the “national shame” is stuff like this:
[Link: www.nytimes.com…]

THAT is the national shame. Not just that gays are being screwed, but that we’re willing to screw ourselves as a country to screw over gays. That no matter how pressing our national security needs, Teh Ghey trumps it.

As I said, an imperfect solution. Not being perfect is not a shame, but it is a talking point for a troll. You’re pretty quick with the links from NY Times, SF Gate, SPLC, Salon, and MSNBC, all staunch supporters of the US military. Did you catch the sarcasm there? Also pretty quick with the snide and derogatory comments about all things military. Not a vet are you?

Should have GAZEd you a long time ago.

535 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 6:59:40pm

re: #527 charlz

It really doesn’t matter who’s President. It’s Congress’ way of circumventing the legislative process for a bill that might otherwise get hung up in committee, held before reaching the Senate floor, or the myriad of other obstructions that a good Parliamentarian can dream up.

I agree! I was just making the point that this isn’t some brand new thing.

536 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 7:00:20pm

re: #527 charlz

It really doesn’t matter who’s President. It’s Congress’ way of circumventing the legislative process for a bill that might otherwise get hung up in committee, held before reaching the Senate floor, or the myriad of other obstructions that a good Parliamentarian can dream up.

well golly, why would it get hung up or obstructed?…gee whiz, why would it stall in committee?…what a bunch of lame excuses…nice explanation of the process, but it does not address the question of the quality of the bill

537 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 7:00:45pm

re: #517 Mich-again

I wonder if CAIR Michigan will remove the MASJID Al-HAQQ Mosque from their directory seeing as the Imam is dead after a gunfight with the FBI and most of the rest are headed to prison.

What we did here in San Francisco, was merge two synagogues with reduced congregations together. Ner Tamid and Or Shalom now share space and have a Sunday school in common.

//Not quite the same thing I know. Far as I know, no one went to jail. Or had a firefight.

538 reine.de.tout  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 7:00:56pm

re: #522 Rightwingconspirator

Hey folks check this out-A woman in Britain writes a letter objecting to the upcoming gay pride parade. She gets intimidated by the cops for her “hate crime” of mere words of objection. Then the gay rights group comes out in her defense!!

[Link: www.dailymail.co.uk…]

Interesting story!
I can’t help but wonder if Britain’s version of “hate crime” is different from ours - I guess I hope so, I would really have a problem with a person being accused of a hate crime because of their own personal objection to something. that’s the point at which “hate crime” laws would cross the line, imo.

539 albusteve  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 7:04:29pm

re: #532 WindUpBird

The crime has elevated status, not the victim. The government has decided that crimes under this category are especially heinous.

For there to be “special victim status”, all crimes against gay people (or black people, or Sikhs, or Baptists, etc) regardless of circumstances would have “hate crime”status. Obviously, this is not so.

I concede that point

540 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 7:05:36pm

re: #532 WindUpBird

The crime has elevated status, not the victim. The government has decided that crimes under this category are especially heinous.

For there to be “special victim status”, all crimes against gay people (or black people, or Sikhs, or Baptists, etc) regardless of circumstances would have “hate crime”status. Obviously, this is not so.

If I kill my next-door neighbors because they have late parties with loud noise, it’s not a hate crime. If I kill them because they’re black, hate crime.

//This should not be taken as an indication that I want to kill my next-door neighbors. They do play music loudly sometimes, but they have good taste in music. And they don’t scream at each other for hours the way the old neighbors used to. Plus, their little girls are sweet, although I nearly got the stylus of one of those erasable writing surface by Matttel things through my foot the other day at the bottom of the stairs.

541 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 7:06:13pm

re: #538 reine.de.tout

This is where the 1st Amendment pays off big time. We have it they do not.

542 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 7:06:42pm

re: #538 reine.de.tout

Interesting story!
I can’t help but wonder if Britain’s version of “hate crime” is different from ours - I guess I hope so, I would really have a problem with a person being accused of a hate crime because of their own personal objection to something. that’s the point at which “hate crime” laws would cross the line, imo.

Britain does not have the First Amendment, nor our history of protecting free speech.

543 keithgabryelski  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 7:07:28pm

re: #521 albusteve


a hate crime is an elevated status of a crime..therefore a hate crime victim has an elevated status above victim…this is the entire principle…it would then be true to say there is a special victim status…you cannot deny this

is “premeditated murder” and elevated status of a crime? do victims of “premeditated murder” have elevated status above murdered?

(yes or no, not trying to troll here)

544 reine.de.tout  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 7:07:38pm

re: #541 rightwingconspirator

re: #542 SanFranciscoZionist

And thank goodness!

545 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 7:07:47pm

re: #534 CyanSnowHawk

As I said, an imperfect solution. Not being perfect is not a shame, but it is a talking point for a troll. You’re pretty quick with the links from NY Times, SF Gate, SPLC, Salon, and MSNBC, all staunch supporters of the US military. Did you catch the sarcasm there? Also pretty quick with the snide and derogatory comments about all things military. Not a vet are you?

Should have GAZEd you a long time ago.

Jesus Christ. Of course I’m not a vet. I’M GAY.

So let’s go down the list: you’ve accused me of being a sock puppet.

You’ve accused me of being a troll.

You’re accusing me of being derogatory towards the military.

And your retort to the notion of wanting gay equality was to make a crack about “reparations”.

Wow.

Anything else? Just because you’re a vet doesn’t mean you can call into question my integrity as a poster. There’s only one guy on this board who can do that. His name starts with C, but it does not end with K.

546 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 7:09:34pm

re: #541 rightwingconspirator

This is where the 1st Amendment pays off big time. We have it they do not.

You oughta see the crap they have to deal with in Australia. My gamer friends from there are frothing with rage over their censorship.

547 ryannon  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 7:10:25pm

re: #416 Killgore Trout

Meat Hand

Burk!

548 reine.de.tout  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 7:13:57pm

re: #539 albusteve

I concede that point

Steve - I was not (and am not) a fan of hate crime laws; the idea that a person’s thoughts of hate being criminalized was not one I felt favorably toward.

But if you look at how these have played out, that is not what is happening. It isn’t that people’s thoughts have been criminalized - for an example of that, see the story that RightWingConspirator linked here:
re: #522 Rightwingconspirator

I have not seen that happening here. What I’ve seen happening with these is that they have been applied appropriately, rarely and for good cause as defined in the laws.

I don’t think that hate crime laws were implemented to elevate a particular victim of a particular crime; it appears to me that “hate crimes” have the ADDED ELEMENT of an attempt to intimidate or instill terror into a particular group within a community. And it’s for THAT reason that penalties are harsher; not because the murder or whatever is WORSE if committed on this person rather than that person.

Hey folks check this out-A woman in Britain writes a letter objecting to the upcoming gay pride parade. She gets intimidated by the cops for her “hate crime” of mere words of objection. Then the gay rights group comes out in her defense!!

[Link: www.dailymail.co.uk…]

549 AlexRogan  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 7:38:57pm

re: #546 WindUpBird

You oughta see the crap they have to deal with in Australia. My gamer friends from there are frothing with rage over their censorship.

Like Left 4 Dead 2 having to have most of the blood and gore taken out in order to be sold there…never mind it’s a humans vs. zombies game.

/sheesh

550 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 7:43:28pm

re: #546 WindUpBird

I can only imagine.

551 idioma  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 7:48:08pm

re: #89 Fenway_Nation

Because no matter how many kudos and accolades are tossed his way, they guy still reminds me of a smarmy used-car salesman who pretends to be your buddy in order to try and sell you something you don’t really want or need.

Like I said…the more dead terrorists or pirates where are under his watch, the more sinccere and earnest praise he’ll get from yours truly.

So to you a successful administration can be measured by the body count? Would our nation be better without overseas conflict? Or do you require us to police the entire planet?

552 idioma  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 7:53:40pm

re: #275 rwdflynavy

You have no idea what you are talking about. Gang/racist tattoos prevent folks from enlisting. I know this as I have worked in that process.

Work on some facts before you come in here. We check them.

Where there’s a will (or quota) there’s a way. I was enlisted, and saw my share of tats that would “normally” not be tolerated, yet, there they were.

Getting “F@#$ war” tattooed on the edge of a saluting hand will get you banned much faster than “F@#$ gayz”.

553 cosmo  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 8:41:40pm

Anyone know how many gay-rights groups were prosecuted, either as a group or individually, in California for the hate crimes perpetrated against Catholics and the LDS Church there?

554 jaunte  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 8:47:25pm

re: #553 cosmo

the hate crimes perpetrated against Catholics and the LDS Church


Do you have a link to some examples?

555 MisterCookie  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 8:59:25pm

I’m getting sick…of people…who…talk…like this…because they don’t…know how to…form proper…sentences …or phrases…or know…how to…organize…a paragraph.

556 Silvergirl  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 9:01:17pm

re: #553 cosmo

Anyone know how many gay-rights groups were prosecuted, either as a group or individually, in California for the hate crimes perpetrated against Catholics and the LDS Church there?


re: #554 jaunte

Do you have a link to some examples?

I’m not cosmo, but I did look it up. Forgive the wikipedia, but I was lazy.

Protests against Proposition 8 supporters

Scroll down to Death threats, vandalism and scare tactics and Anthrax hoax

557 Fenris  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 9:46:39pm

Particularly funny is this:

The Matthew Shepard Act is basically a modifier for hate crime law. According to the act, Sec. 1.2, “hate crime” itself is defined as a modifier for an existing crime, as motivated by race, gender, etcetera (Sec. 280003a, HR3355, 104th Congress, 1994.)

The Matthew Shepard Act, by its definition, does not classify new things as crime because “hate crime” doesn’t reclassify new things as crime; it’s just a modifier for existing crime. In fact, Sec. 8 of the Matthew Shepard Act explicitly states that no part of it may be construed to prohibit expressive conduct or protected speech (Sec. 8, HR1592, 110th Congress, 2007.)

Now, the OIC’s resolution, A-RES-62-154: “Urges States to take action to prohibit the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” (Art. 11) “Stresses the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred, against Islam and Muslims in particular.” (Art. 9)

62/154 further elaborates in Art. 10 that “everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference and the right to freedom of expression,” but, “exercise of these rights carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to limitations as are provided for by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals and respect for religions and beliefs.”

The United Nations defines defamation as an “unlawful attack on [one’s] honor or reputation.” (Article 17, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, signed and ratified by the US Senate in 1992.)

Consider this for a second: defamation concerns only unlawful attacks on one’s honor or reputation, which in the US would be primarily libel and slander. The Crown v. Zenger (1735) held that truth was an absolute defense and Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) ruled that opinion did not constitute libel.)

Meaning?

Two things: One, I’m reading way the hell too much into this. Two, a crucial difference between the Shepard Act and 62/154 is if successful, one does not add a crime to the books.

Back to my lair.

558 zelnaga  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 9:51:41pm

re: #136 abu_garcia

I don’t comment much anymore, but put me down as one who is opposed to the whole idea of “hate crime”.

Crime is crime. We have started down a slippery slope that will not end well.

So it goes…

If crime is crime regardless of intent, what about age? Should kids all be tried as adults? Should someone who sexually assaults kids receive a stiffer penalty because it’s kids who they assault? If crimes are crimes and that’s all there is to it, your answers should be yes and no, respectively.

559 The False God  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 10:55:41pm

I’m against hate crime laws simply for the fact that almost any violent act is motivated, at least in part, by hatred for your fellow man.

Making a new law that you can tack on to laws that already exist, and can be used at your discretion in seeking prison time for them, just screams abuse. If you don’t think murderers, violent offenders, etc. are getting enough jail time, then increase the sentence limitations of the applicable laws.

I mean, that’s what sentencing is for in the first place, to determine just how much time you need in a hole somewhere for what you did and why you did it.

If a white guy kills a black guy, if a black guy kills a white guy, if a Jew kills a homosexual, it’s all the same. It’s murder. I don’t care if he’s with the Ku Klux Klan, Black Panthers, an Hispanic gang, etc. If he did it because he’s a sick, sadistic sociopath, then give him the max WITHOUT parole. And increase the applicable max, if you need to, for the charge of second/first-degree murder. But don’t start a horse and pony, “racially-motivated crime” show about it, and charge him doubly for the same act.

560 Sol Berdinowitz  Thu, Oct 29, 2009 2:20:02am

According to the FBI report on the recent slain Imam

“Abdullah preaches that every Muslim should have a weapon, and should not be scared to use their weapon when needed”

So he died a Martyr to the Second Amendment. CAIR can take him off the list, but the NRA should start listing him as an honorary member…

561 Yashmak  Thu, Oct 29, 2009 7:30:06am

re: #132 keithgabryelski

it’s not close to that.
If you kick some gay-man’s ass while screaming “rot in hell, fag” — serious crime, extra penalty

Yet if you kick some guy named Jeff’s ass while screaming “rot in hell, Jeff”…no extra penalty. Obviously, the same degree of hate, but because in one case, it’s directed at an individual, it’s not an extra penalty, but in the other, because the person mentions gender preference, it’s an extra crime?

That’s the very part that seems wierd, and in appropriate to me.

This is a good extension to a law that, by and large, has been used correctly to reduce crimes against individuals that have historically received the brunt of aggression for no other reason than they exist.

I agree that it’s a good extension, but I still have some concerns with the whole idea of “hate crimes”, as described in my previous posts.

562 Yashmak  Thu, Oct 29, 2009 7:30:47am

re: #561 Yashmak

Argh. I really messed up the quote feature in that last comment. keith, I hope you can figure out what i was trying to say.

563 Sol Berdinowitz  Thu, Oct 29, 2009 8:42:57am

re: #559 The False God

I’m against hate crime laws simply for the fact that almost any violent act is motivated, at least in part, by hatred for your fellow man.

Making a new law that you can tack on to laws that already exist, and can be used at your discretion in seeking prison time for them, just screams abuse. If you don’t think murderers, violent offenders, etc. are getting enough jail time, then increase the sentence limitations of the applicable laws.

I mean, that’s what sentencing is for in the first place, to determine just how much time you need in a hole somewhere for what you did and why you did it.

If a white guy kills a black guy, if a black guy kills a white guy, if a Jew kills a homosexual, it’s all the same. It’s murder. I don’t care if he’s with the Ku Klux Klan, Black Panthers, an Hispanic gang, etc. If he did it because he’s a sick, sadistic sociopath, then give him the max WITHOUT parole. And increase the applicable max, if you need to, for the charge of second/first-degree murder. But don’t start a horse and pony, “racially-motivated crime” show about it, and charge him doubly for the same act.

I also find it secondary if the hatred is directed at an individual for a particular set of reasons or just in general due to his/her group association. And I feel that sentencing guidelines are there for just that reason.

Also, indimidation and threats of violence are also prosecutable offenses, and if a crime is a “message” crime, meant to intimidate, then those can also be brought into play. This has the same effect as “hat ceime” legislation without the need of extra, and, to my mind, superfluous and potentially counterproductive legislation.

564 keithgabryelski  Thu, Oct 29, 2009 10:01:30am

re: #561 Yashmak


Yet if you kick some guy named Jeff’s ass while screaming “rot in hell, Jeff”…no extra penalty. Obviously, the same degree of hate, but because in one case, it’s directed at an individual, it’s not an extra penalty, but in the other, because the person mentions gender preference, it’s an extra crime?

That’s the very part that seems wierd, and in appropriate to me.

This is a good extension to a law that, by and large, has been used correctly to reduce crimes against individuals that have historically received the brunt of aggression for no other reason than they exist.

I agree that it’s a good extension, but I still have some concerns with the whole idea of “hate crimes”, as described in my previous posts.

The issue isn’t “hate” (even though these are called, generically, “hate laws”) — it is about “hate of a group” and that society is sick of the aggression these groups have historically taken.

We have penalties for hating someone so much one does harm to them — the penalties seem to be able to reasonably control (are reasonable deterrents for) these crimes.

not so much with the hate against specific groups (blacks, jews, and gays) — and society is sick of it.

This is about a current serious problem, not about some abstract issue of how someone thinks. The solution solves the problem and isn’t, generally, abused.

I said this upthread, but here it is, again:

When otherwise law abiding citizens drinking beers and then ask the question “which Jeff should we tie to our bumper and drag through the middle of town” — call me.

565 Yashmak  Thu, Oct 29, 2009 12:39:17pm

re: #564 keithgabryelski


We have penalties for hating someone so much one does harm to them — the penalties seem to be able to reasonably control (are reasonable deterrents for) these crimes.

See, to me, hate is hate. If we do have penalties for hating someone so much that one does harm to them, those laws should be sufficient for penalizing all situations motivated by hate. If you also want to charge them with a separate discrimination crime, fine. And lest there be any confustion about the matter, if we’re going to have these hate-crime laws, I am indeed glad that Obama saw fit to include hate directed at those with differing gender preference.

I guess it’s just that the title “hate crime” seems rather misleading.

566 Yashmak  Thu, Oct 29, 2009 12:43:56pm

re: #564 keithgabryelski


I said this upthread, but here it is, again:

When otherwise law abiding citizens drinking beers and then ask the question “which Jeff should we tie to our bumper and drag through the middle of town” — call me.

Ah, but my example wasn’t about ALL Jeff’s, just an individual. How is hate as a motivation for violence against an individual Jeff not also a hate crime? In that case (say in the case of a murder), as I understand it the hate would just be considered motive, not adding an extenuating circumstance or extra penalty, just adding to the prosecution’s evidence against the accused. I know it may sound like semantics to you, but this subtle disconnect always bothers me.

567 keithgabryelski  Thu, Oct 29, 2009 1:59:59pm

re: #565 Yashmak

See, to me, hate is hate. If we do have penalties for hating someone so much that one does harm to them, those laws should be sufficient for penalizing all situations motivated by hate. If you also want to charge them with a separate discrimination crime, fine.

Which is what we have. a separate charge under hate crimes legislation.

I guess it’s just that the title “hate crime” seems rather misleading.

Yes, it isn’t a perfect word but you can see a difference between hating someone you know intimately and hating someone you don’t know because of a physical characteristic.

note all hates are the same, society has chosen to differentiate them for good reason.

568 keithgabryelski  Thu, Oct 29, 2009 2:08:51pm

re: #566 Yashmak

Ah, but my example wasn’t about ALL Jeff’s, just an individual. How is hate as a motivation for violence against an individual Jeff not also a hate crime? In that case (say in the case of a murder), as I understand it the hate would just be considered motive, not adding an extenuating circumstance or extra penalty, just adding to the prosecution’s evidence against the accused. I know it may sound like semantics to you, but this subtle disconnect always bothers me.

society has chosen to differentiate these different types of hate because of the statistical increase in abuse certain groups receive — just for being in that group.

It’s obvious you are just upset over the word “hate” having two meanings: intense dislike and bigotry.

As long as we can agree:
1) there is a problem with certain groups receiving inordinate amounts of aggression from otherwise reasonable people
2) pre-hate crimes laws were deemed not sufficient to handle the problem
3) hate crimes laws are successful
4) generally hate crimes laws are not abused

I think I can rally around your concern for the word “hate” — but not enough to do away with the laws.

Come up with another word that nails the legislation — and I’ll use it.

/opened the door for someone to say “thought crimes”.
//hoping no one goes there — or at least reads my first post in this thread before doing so.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 69 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 169 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1