Third Party & Independents Archives

A Crime to Hate Homosexuals?

Yesterday the House passed by a vote of 237-180 an expansion to the federal hate crime law that would encompass attacks motivated by the victims’ gender or sexual orientation. The president - for only the third time in his presidency - has threatened to veto it.

With strong backing from the Democratic majority, it looks like President Bush has yet another bill coming to his desk that doesn't fit his agenda. It will only be the third one to be sent back to Congress, but the president is currently at a perfect 2-2, having successfully defeated the recent troop-funding bill that called for a withdrawal timetable, and last year's federally funded stem-cell research bill. It is likely he'll go 3-3 if the Democrats can't get enough Republicans to back the "Hate Crimes Prevention Act" which is now going through the Senate.

Yesterday the conservative National Review Online posted an editorial echoing the fears of opponents that the strengthen law would obstruct free speech (emphasis added):

Many proponents of hate-crimes laws profess to have no desire to move against free speech. But we fear that it may be a short jump from prosecuting “hate crimes” to prosecuting “hate speech.” It is true that the law routinely looks into defendants’ motives, and that some motives tend to draw tougher sentences than others. But our social divisions, especially over homosexuality, make it especially dangerous for the law to inquire into defendants’ prejudices—and “prejudices.” We want to deter and punish crimes against blacks, women, homosexuals, and everyone else. But we do not want to open the door to legal punishment for harboring incorrect thoughts about controversial issues—especially when those incorrect thoughts are part of the historic teaching of our major religions.

Yes it sounds like the National Review just admitted religion is possibly responsible for the so-called homophobia that inspires crimes against homosexuals and that the preservation of traditional religious teachings (albeit "wrong") justifies the potential consequences.

It's not the easiest position to defend but it’s the right one and there are plenty of reasons to oppose federal hate-crime legislation. The "Hate Crimes Prevention Act" sounds like a good idea when you read it, but if our current murder prevention laws don’t prevent people from committing murder, can we really expect this legislation to change the minds of the perpetrators who are going to do it but for racist reasons?

But the "Hate Crimes Prevention Act" shouldn't just be opposed because it’s not going to prevent anything, it should be opposed primary because Congress has no business legislating our thoughts - however bigoted they may be. Punishing someone harder for committing a likewise offense as someone else but for "hateful" purposes is a violation of the First Amendment's free speech clause and maybe even the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause, and would probably not pass constitutional muster with the Supreme Court.

Such legislation would artificially inflate the value of some classes by denying justice to others; say, by making the punishment harsher when the victim (in a rare circumstance) is of a different color or sexual orientation. And because the majority of crimes are intra-racial and between members of the same sexual orientation, the "Hate Crimes Prevention Act" only intends to serve a minority of victims.

To be sure, we do have ways of punishing criminals based on their motives and other factors that led them to committing the crime. After a decision to convict in a criminal trial the jury gets to weigh the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of the crime and sets the punishment accordingly. Sometimes the law restricts how much freedom juries and judges have but they usually have the discretion to tack on additional punishment, especially when the crime is particularly heinous.

The "Hate Crimes Prevention Act" and similar laws are fruitless, unnecessary, and will only increase President Bush’s veto winning streak.

Posted by Scottie at May 4, 2007 5:22 PM
Comments
Comment #219396

‘just admitted religion is possibly responsible for the so-called homophobia that inspires crimes against homosexuals…’

This may be true but, one does not have to be ‘religious’ to be disgusted by the idea of two people of the same sex having ‘sex’.

Hate crimes are committed against every race, religion, sex, group …
Giving one ‘group’ special rules when it comes to prosecution is in itself WRONG.

Posted by: bugcrazy at May 4, 2007 6:35 PM
Comment #219398

bugcrazy,

“This may be true but, one does not have to be ‘religious’ to be disgusted by the idea of two people of the same sex having ‘sex’.”

Just how far a trip is it from being “disgusted” to going out and “kicking some queer ass”?

You have every right to your feelings, it is how motivated you are to act on your feelings that this law seeks to curb.

Gays don’t want “special” rights, they would rather just be treated like everyone else.

Posted by: Rocky at May 4, 2007 6:52 PM
Comment #219404

‘Gays don’t want “special” rights, they would rather just be treated like everyone else.’

Then let them get their ass kicked like everyone else, and prosecute the crime the same as everyone else.

Posted by: bugcrazy at May 4, 2007 7:11 PM
Comment #219407

“Then let them get their ass kicked like everyone else, and prosecute the crime the same as everyone else.”

Perfect.

Posted by: Rocky at May 4, 2007 7:16 PM
Comment #219412

Oh, and BTW,

Gays don’t deserve to get their asses kicked just because they’re gay.

Posted by: Rocky at May 4, 2007 8:04 PM
Comment #219413

The ass kicking is the crime. It really doesn’t matter why and that is none of our business. You can hate whomever you want. Only if you act on that should it become a crime. Every violent crime is a hate crime.

I recall when Mathew Shepard was killed in Wyoming. There was big talk blaming the state for not having a hate crime law. They did have the death penalty, however. It is hard to see how hate crime laws would make that more scary.

Posted by: Jack at May 4, 2007 8:16 PM
Comment #219414

Hate crimes are thought crimes. Hate crimes laws make certain thoughts illegal.
An attack on an innocent person is already illegal. Expressions of hate are valid factors in determining motivation to commit a crime.
Making the thought itself a crime is wrong. If you don’t think simply expressing dislike of something without acting in a violent manner or attempting to persuade someone else to commit a violent act will be used to imprison people you haven’t been paying attention. It’s already commonplace in Europe.

Posted by: traveller at May 4, 2007 8:24 PM
Comment #219423

Hate is an emotion. Congress does not criminalize emotions. Congress criminalized destructive or harmful actions toward others motivated by the emotion of hate.

A world of difference there, Scottie. If hate were a crime most Democratic and Republican voters would be in prison by now. : -)

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 4, 2007 9:35 PM
Comment #219424

‘Oh, and BTW,

Gays don’t deserve to get their asses kicked just because they’re gay.’

…and the cute girl doesn’t deserve it, and the nerdy geek doesn’t, and the fat kid, or the white guy, or the black guy - BUT you can’t always tell someone is gay just by looking at them.
All of us fit in some category.

Posted by: bugcrazy at May 4, 2007 9:36 PM
Comment #219437

Hate crimes by definition are only targeted to certain groups of people - - based on their race. The laws should treat ALL people exactly the same way, regardless of race, etc. That is what is meant by equality under the law and what our Constitution guarantees us all.

You can support homosexual BEHAVIOR as your right. You should also have the right to believe that homosexuality is unnatural, unhealthy and contrary to the welfare of society,without worrying about the thought police breaking down your door.

“The thought police would get him just the same. He had committed—would have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper—the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you…………..”1984” by George Orwell

We live in danger of losing our right to believe whatever we deem correct.

Posted by: LDavis at May 4, 2007 10:18 PM
Comment #219445

So, are you against the addition of homosexuals, or the hate crime law in general? This should be interesting.

Posted by: womanmarine at May 4, 2007 10:34 PM
Comment #219448

LDavis,

“We live in danger of losing our right to believe whatever we deem correct.”

But believing that you can take out your “disgust” on another human being, no matter how correct you deem your own behaviour, is totally unacceptable.
It should rightly be viewed as beyond the pale of what any human, regardless of race, creed or sexual preference, should have to endure.

No one should be forced to live in fear simply because of who they are or what they believe.

Posted by: Rocky at May 4, 2007 10:42 PM
Comment #219453

Let me get this straight: Hate Crime legislation is wrong, because it deprives these people of their right to free speech?

Does it matter that the crime itself is the method of that expression? I was under the impression that the First Amendment does not apply to criminal acts, or the prevention of such.

These people are pretty much free to express whatever hateful opinions they have. There’s nothing in their way besides most of society’s low opinion of prejudice. It’s only when these people decide to violently take out their opinions on another human being that these laws come into effect.

Maybe we should reduce rather than increase sentences for violent criminals who claim to be victims of society, merely acting out their opinions, like those racists and bigots.

Maybe we should let premeditated murderers off the hook, because of course, they’re so reasonable and rational about how they take another person’s life.

Hate crimes legislation are not about the manner in which one expresses oneself by legal means. It is about the motivation for crimes that have no legitimacy in a society of law and order. Their hatefulness, their intent to intimidate others should be an aggravating factor in their sentencing. We go hard on organized criminals and gangs for the same reason. We don’t let other thugs off easy on account of their intended messages.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 4, 2007 11:04 PM
Comment #219471

“Congress has no business legislating our thoughts”

Beam me up Scottie! No one is trying to legislate “thought”. Motive is and always has been one of the defining traits of a perp. Motive is always considered in a criminal proceeding. This law does not change that.

If the motive involves “hate” based on race, sexual orientation, etc, that should be considered as a seperate crime, because the specific victim in the case of a “hate crime” is only a “victim of convenience”.

No one need look any further than Hitler and the Nazi’s to know why hate crimes should be treated with more integrity than any other crime. One leg of the current Republican’t party seems to require hatred of certain people. Gays and lesbians are at the head of the list, and that actually accentuates the need for additional protection.

Should a certain locale decide to punish a “hate crime” in a very lax manner then it is imperative that a federal law exists to properly punish the perpetrators of that crime. Why anyone would object to this law is beyond me. Maybe some people believe they can beat the “fagginess” out of a “fag”?????????????

Then again some people evolve beyond bigotry and hate!

Posted by: KansasDem at May 5, 2007 12:51 AM
Comment #219492

I’m not so sure I would be against this law if it did include hate speech. As a Christian I do believe that homosexuality is immoral and an abomination in God’s view. I do not feel that homosexuals should get some special status based upon actions which they take which others deem offensive. People should be able to speak out against things which offend them. That is their right.
However, if this law were passed in relation to protecting persons on the basis of gender, rather than “own actions”, we could completely shut down the lesbian-dominated NOW because their entire message is that of hatred for men, and the women supremacy speech of this group could make the KKK’s white supremacy rhetoric pale in comparison. If men are protected from the NOW by this bill, I might be for it!

JD

Posted by: JD at May 5, 2007 11:17 AM
Comment #219493

I’m still not sure about the “thought crime” thing, but I do have a problem with this.
The reason I have a problem with this is that these laws only apply to crimes against certain groups of people. All “races,” sexualities, etc. should be included, not just a select few. The law needs to apply to everyone.

Posted by: TheTraveler at May 5, 2007 11:33 AM
Comment #219495

This legislation makes us “feel good” about punishing the baddies that commit these crimes… and legislation that makes us “feel good” about these things are often, as is the current case, completely and utterly meaningless. It is ALREADY A CRIME to beat someone… or slander someone… or kill someone. The Constitution in no way allows us to do these things as expressions of free speech.

Listen, I am someone who believes that homosexuals SHOULD have the right to marriage and adoption and everything else all the rest of us “normal” people enjoy… so I am saying this from a position of great sympathy for the discrimination they face. I just cannot accept a law making something illegal that is ALREADY ILLEGAL. Am I way out in left field?

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at May 5, 2007 12:26 PM
Comment #219498

JD,

“If men are protected from the NOW by this bill, I might be for it!”

The day I see that men are being beaten to death by roving gangs of lesbians, I might agree with you.

Posted by: Rocky at May 5, 2007 12:37 PM
Comment #219502

Rocky

“Just how far a trip is it from being “disgusted” to going out and “kicking some queer ass”?”

“You have every right to your feelings, it is how motivated you are to act on your feelings that this law seeks to curb.”

we don’t need a law that punishes thought rocky. there are already laws on the books that cover the action of going out and kicking some ” queer ass ” battery is already a crime, while your motivation could be a factor in determining a sentence, hate in itself is not a crime unless you act on it, thats where the laws already on the books come in. this is nothing more than a feel good law that will accomplish nothing.

Posted by: dbs at May 5, 2007 1:32 PM
Comment #219505

dbs,

“we don’t need a law that punishes thought rocky.”

If someone is preaching hate, and I mean that in the motivational speaker way, and that hate results in the death of another human, who exactly at fault here?

I have no doubt that there are folks out there that actually hate homosexuals with all of their heart and soul. I have no doubt that many of these folks consider themselves Christians.
Just where does it teach this hate in the Bible?

What happened to “love one another as you would love yourself”?

No, I believe that anyone that would go out wilding and beat another human just because of their race, or gender, or creed, or sexual orientation is a special kind of evil, and they deserve a special kind of humiliation that even a cell mate named Bubba can’t dish out.

Posted by: Rocky at May 5, 2007 1:51 PM
Comment #219506
Yes it sounds like the National Review just admitted religion is possibly responsible for the so-called homophobia that inspires crimes against homosexuals and that the preservation of traditional religious teachings (albeit “wrong”) justifies the potential consequences.

Maybe some religions promote homophobia and encourage crimes against homosexuals. But I can assure ya first hand that TRUE Christianity NEVER has. Yes, it teaches that homosexuality is a sin. That’s because God says it is. But Christianity has never taught to hate or hurt the Homosexual. If ya see ANY religion calling itself christian and teaching any of that crap IT AINT CHRISTIAN.

I don’t condone crimes of any kind against someone because of their race, religion, sex, national origin, sexual preference, or any other reason. But to make crimes ‘hate crimes’ and put special penalties for them is totally stupid. If someone beats up a homosexual just because he’s one, why is that any worse than beating up someone just because he drive a Ford and the perp drives a Chevy? It’s still assault. Maybe we should have a ‘hate crime’ for that.
In our slums, excuse me, ‘inner-cities’ we have kids killing each other because of the color of clothes they wear. Maybe we should make that a ‘hate crime’.
In the movies and on TV Christians look bad on a regular basis. Maybe we should make that a hate crime.
Just where do we stop making ‘victims’ out of everyone?

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 5, 2007 2:03 PM
Comment #219510

Rocky,

NEW YORK — Four lesbians accused of attacking a man who made advances toward one of them were convicted Wednesday of varying assault charges stemming from the altercation, in which the man was seriously stabbed.
The defendants and some of their relatives and friends sobbed openly and loudly after the verdict was read. One defendant collapsed as she was led from the Manhattan courtroom crying, “No! No! Nooo! I didn’t do it!”
None was convicted of first-degree gang assault, the most serious charge against them. All were convicted of second-degree gang assault and face up to 15 years in prison on that charge.
(Associated Press, April 2007)

Two lesbian mothers in Ohio were sentenced to 30 years in prison on Tuesday for the horrific abuse of their five sons.
Mary Rowles, 31, the biological mother of the boys, and her partner, Alice Jenkins, 28, pleaded guilty to charges that they beat, starved, locked the children in closets for months at a time, and forced them to eat human and animal feces.
(Gay.com UK)

Wanna back my new movement NOW?

JD

Posted by: JD at May 5, 2007 2:27 PM
Comment #219512
The reason I have a problem with this is that these laws only apply to crimes against certain groups of people. All “races,” sexualities, etc. should be included, not just a select few. The law needs to apply to everyone. Posted by: TheTraveler at May 5, 2007 11:33 AM

Well today is your lucky day! This bill covers all races, sexual orientations, colors, creeds, genders and the presence of disability.

Section 3, Part a, Part 1, Part C:

IN GENERAL- At the request of State, local, or Tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that—is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Tribal hate crime laws.
Posted by: Warren P at May 5, 2007 2:57 PM
Comment #219515

rocky


“If someone is preaching hate, and I mean that in the motivational speaker way, and that hate results in the death of another human, who exactly at fault here?”

the person who actually go’s out and commits the muder.

“I have no doubt that there are folks out there that actually hate homosexuals with all of their heart and soul. I have no doubt that many of these folks consider themselves Christians.
Just where does it teach this hate in the Bible?”


there are many people out there that hate other people with all thier heart and soul also, for many reasons. there are already laws that punish thier actions, if they act on that hate and it results in injury or death to another person. the men who dragged james byrd to death in texas before the 2000 election were sentenced to death. would charging them with a hate crime have changed anything ? and what does your mentioning of christians have to do with anything ? there are people out there that claim to be tolerant of free speech by all, until someone says somthing they don’t agree with. hypocrits come in all colors, genders and religions. whats your point ?


“No, I believe that anyone that would go out wilding and beat another human just because of their race, or gender, or creed, or sexual orientation is a special kind of evil, and they deserve a special kind of humiliation that even a cell mate named Bubba can’t dish out.”

you could say the same thing of anyone who would beat another human being for no good reason. what kind of humiliation would that be ? how would you humiliate someone that has no morals to begin with ? would you make them walk around in public thier under pants ? this law is based on pure emotion and nothing else, it will solve, or prevent nothing.

Posted by: dbs at May 5, 2007 3:12 PM
Comment #219516

Rocky

Gays don’t want “special” rights, they would rather just be treated like everyone else.

Chicken Hockey! If they didn’t want ‘special rights’ they wouldn’t be pushing for all the ‘hate crime’ laws.

Jack

Every violent crime is a hate crime.

100% RIGHT!

bugcrazy

Gays don’t deserve to get their asses kicked just because they’re gay.’

…and the cute girl doesn’t deserve it, and the nerdy geek doesn’t, and the fat kid, or the white guy, or the black guy

Or the cripple person, the retarded person, the blind person, the deaf person, etc.
Let’s just add those to the ‘hate crimes’ list too.

Comment #219510
Those sound like ‘hate crimes’ to me. But then there aint no ‘special law’ against committing a crime against a straight male.
Wonder why?

The most discriminated person on the face of the earth is the straight White male. He can’t say anything to the cute co-employee because it’s sexual harassment. Can’t say anything to his Black neighbor because it racial discrimination. Can’t say anything to a homosexual because it’s sexual harassment. Can’t say anything to the rude Muslim driver because it’s religious discrimination.
He also gets passed over for promotion for a lesser qualified member of a ‘protected group’ in the name of quotas.
And all this time he has to listen to put up with everyone in all these ‘protected’ groups talking bad about, and treating him like dirt.
Ain’t no wonder some of them beat the crap outta some of them.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 5, 2007 3:32 PM
Comment #219518
Ain’t no wonder some of them beat the crap outta some of them.

Lovely.

Posted by: womanmarine at May 5, 2007 3:54 PM
Comment #219521

dbs,

“would you make them walk around in public thier under pants ?”

Nope, too childish.

I’d make the punishment fit the crime.

If the crime was against a gay man, I’d have the perp do work at a gay men’s center.
The problem as I see it is ignorance.
Hate seems to be one of the few emotions that is taught. People know what, or who they hate, they really don’t know why.
In my experience, getting to know the people you have might have hatred against could mean the difference.

Posted by: Rocky at May 5, 2007 4:31 PM
Comment #219526

rocky

“I’d make the punishment fit the crime.”

don’t have a problem with that.


“If the crime was against a gay man, I’d have the perp do work at a gay men’s center.”


so this is what you’de consider humiliation. this is a little less realistic if we’re talking about a violent crime. first the perp could just refuse, after all they’re going to prison anyway. second you have to send supervision with the inmate to make sure he didn’t escape, or worse, kick the crap out of someone else. would you be willing to shorten a prison sentence in order to coax this type of community service, if not you have no leverage. this option would be great in a case where prison wouldn’t be mandatory, or could be done as community service. this still ignores the fact that this legislation is still just symbolic and a complete waist of time. as i said before it’s based on pure emotion. it will not deter nor stop anyone from doing what they choose to do, and will be no more effective than the laws already on the books. if the current laws will effect just punishment for the crime, why do need another law ?

Posted by: dbs at May 5, 2007 6:00 PM
Comment #219545
Wanna back my new movement NOW?

I don’t know about Rocky, but I know I wouldn’t, since neither of your examples is relevant to what he said.

Really, equating child abuse to “men are being beaten to death by roving gangs of lesbians”? Are you that desperate for a point?

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 6, 2007 12:23 AM
Comment #219546
is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim

Why is it that sexual orientation is the ONE class that never seems to deserve protection? Religion! Religion is included in the list of protected classes in the hate crimes legislation! Why do I not hear anybody screaming about violating “free speech” rights to bash religion? Why has everything that is being said or written on this piece of legislation been centered on sexual orientation? Nobody seems to have any problem with any other class protected by this law. Homophobic hypocrites!

Posted by: Dr. Gnostic at May 6, 2007 12:31 AM
Comment #219547

Until I start seeing titles like “A Crime to Hate Religion?,” then I will know that this has nothing to do with hate crimes legislation and everything to do with homophobia.

Posted by: Dr. Gnostic at May 6, 2007 12:36 AM
Comment #219549

LawnBoy,

I gave two perfectly good examples of Lesbian (homosexuals if you wish) beating and abusing those who were different from them. Notice that the five children were all boys.
My point is valid. Straights are not the only ones who hate! I simply gave Rocky two examples. It’s funny! Libs seem to need only one example of a Christian, Republican, (anyone with a contrary point of veiw to theirs) doing something that they feel is immoral, or unethical, or filled with hate to label all Christians, Republicans, etc., as such. I’ve given you two examples of hate within the hearts of these lesbians. Can’t we conclude then that all lesbians hate and do the things mentioned above? I think that men definitely need special protections from radical hate-filled lesbians. Don’t you? Such hate legislation protections would insure that all Americans would come to grips with and understand the dangers imposed by these lesbians, and rightfully single these perpetrating groups out so that the rest of society would no longer respect or support them. Even if such legislation did nothing to add to the actual punishment of the individual perpetrator, or to deter such perpetrators actions from occurring again, it would still be great ammo to demonize certain groups of people that may think differently than we do on the basis of one member of their group, right?

JD

Posted by: JD at May 6, 2007 12:48 AM
Comment #219550
I gave two perfectly good examples of Lesbian (homosexuals if you wish) beating and abusing those who were different from them. Notice that the five children were all boys…I think that men definitely need special protections from radical hate-filled lesbians. Don’t you? Such hate legislation protections would insure that all Americans would come to grips with and understand the dangers imposed by these lesbians, and rightfully single these perpetrating groups out so that the rest of society would no longer respect or support them.

JD,

Which part of “GENDER” in the hate crimes legislation don’t you understand?

Posted by: Dr. Gnostic at May 6, 2007 12:51 AM
Comment #219552
The reason I have a problem with this is that these laws only apply to crimes against certain groups of people. All “races,” sexualities, etc. should be included, not just a select few. The law needs to apply to everyone.

TheTraveler,

This legislation covers just about EVERY class of people. Even religion is included for God’s sake!! If you exclude sexual orientation (which is the only class under attack that is included in this legislation), then you are doing exactly what you CLAIM you don’t want. Why don’t you all start being truthful with us and truthful with yourselves and tell us what this is REALLY about. Or are you afraid to exercise your freedom of speech? The very thing this is supposedly about.

Posted by: Dr. Gnostic at May 6, 2007 1:04 AM
Comment #219556

Dr. Gnostic,

I think it is obvious in my last post exactly what this is about, though I understand the point was intentionally very deep.

We all know the purpose that the left has for proposing hate crimes. It is to demonize certain groups, and certain groups only. Had anyone heard of the attack on the man in New York by these lesbians in which he was stabbed and nearly died before I disclosed it here? Certainly, Rocky had not.
However, if a homosexual in Texas had been attacked in such a way, the Press would have been trying to find out if Bush may have had some connection with the perpetrator, if he perhaps was a Christian, etc., etc., etc., and ran hate crime headlines on the guy for weeks! The purpose of hate crimes is not for deterrence or punishment, but rather for politics as they are used. Left wing nuts are never characterized as members of a “particular group” when they go over the edge. Their stories are swept under the rug. When Christian haters, (no doubt many from the left), for example, burned down black churches in the 1990’s, the story told by the Press was look how many Black churches have been burned down since the Republicans took office. The intention was to focus on hate crimes and Republicans in the same breathe. The Press didn’t even bother to carry out the stories to identify the perpetrators. Let’s just characterize hate crimes with Republicans. Let’s characterize hate crimes with white men. Let’s characterize hate crimes with Christians. That is the political strategy used with hate crime legislation. Dr. Gnostic says it applies to everyone. Not so, Dr.! The unibomber was a left wing environmentalist nut, but he was never characterized that way by the Press bacause it did not fit a particular politically correct agenda. This is why some people are much more careful about legislation that does nothing other than to help demonize groups based on the actions of a single individual. Hate crimes are simply a political tool that is not needed, and certainly not administered fairly!

JD

Posted by: JD at May 6, 2007 1:36 AM
Comment #219559

This most germane and relevant comment on this topic was left in another column.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 6, 2007 1:42 AM
Comment #219568

Dr. Gnostic,

I’m still not sure where I stand on this issue. My comment addressed a specific point which, by the way, someone above already corrected me on.

If you exclude sexual orientation (which is the only class under attack that is included in this legislation), then you are doing exactly what you CLAIM you don’t want.

I have no idea what you mean by this. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Why don’t you all start being truthful with us and truthful with yourselves and tell us what this is REALLY about.

You seem to think you know more about me than I do. Why don’t you enlighten me as to what I’m thinking?

Or are you afraid to exercise your freedom of speech? The very thing this is supposedly about.

I exercise my freedom of speech all the time. Watchblog is a great place for that!

Posted by: TheTraveler at May 6, 2007 7:16 AM
Comment #219581
I gave two perfectly good examples of Lesbian (homosexuals if you wish) beating and abusing those who were different from them. Notice that the five children were all boys. My point is valid.

No, your point isn’t valid. Hate crime legislation addresses the situation when the only reason that a person is a victim of attack is their race, religion, etc. That’s not the situation in the two cases you presented.

In the first, “Four lesbians accused of attacking a man who made advances toward one…” While they apparently went too far, the attack was not an attack perpetrated on any random man they found - the attack was a specific response to an action by that specific man.

In part of the article you didn’t quote, it says:

Johnson testified that they told Buckle, 29, they were not interested and he became loud and rude, called them names and threw a cigarette at them while saying sex with him would make them straight. She said he started pushing and shoving them.

It was a specific response to a specific man for a specific attack. Hate crimes have nothing to do with it. There are no “roving gangs” here.

In the second, it’s a case of child abuse by particularly bad parents. You’re assuming that the treated the kids badly because the kids were boys, but you have no evidence for that.

Really, you find two irrelevant articles of lesbians behaving badly, and you turn it into hate crimes? There actually are (thankfully infrequently) people that are attacked and killed for being of a different race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Trying to equate these irrelevant cases with those true problems trivializes real issues our society faces.

Perhaps that was your goal.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 6, 2007 9:42 AM
Comment #219593

LawnBoy


any act of violence carried out against any individual, whatever the motive is already covered under some law already on the books. JD and traveler are both correct. this is nothing but feel good political nonsense. murder is already illegal, assault and battery are already illegal, making terrorist threats is already illegal. i gave the example earlier about the dragging death of james byrd. critics lambasted bush for not signing hate crimes legislation. the men were charged with laws already on the books. they got the death penalty for gods sake. what else would have been accomplished by a law against hate crimes ? tell me what this law will accomplish other than winning political brownie pts. from some special interest group ?

Posted by: dbs at May 6, 2007 11:58 AM
Comment #219594

dbs,

JD has claimed that abusive parenting by two Lesbian mothers is equivalent to “men are being beaten to death by roving gangs of lesbians”, and you say he’s correct?

Wow.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 6, 2007 12:22 PM
Comment #219595

JD,

I don’t condone the actions of the “ladies” in question.
The story of the children is particularly sad because it seems that the women in question were clearly whacked.

Neither story however is the result of a random act of violence, and in each story the fact the women were lesbians seems less germane than the fact in one the woman in question was threatened physically and in the other case the women were looney toons.

“When Christian haters, (no doubt many from the left), for example, burned down black churches in the 1990’s, the story told by the Press was look how many Black churches have been burned down since the Republicans took office. The intention was to focus on hate crimes and Republicans in the same breathe.”

Let’s see if I can be at least as sarcastic as I hope the message from your last post is.

In 1995 the FBI identified 270 hate groups, surely all of the members of these groups were all fine, upstanding Democrats.

It seems, from your diatribe above, you are less interested in the actual facts than in the erroneous reporting of the crimes.

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/Marshall/usccr/documents/cr12b873summ.pdf

Apparently you feel that the left, as a whole, are all “Christian haters” as if Christianity is the sole providence of the right.

If I was a member of the left I might just take offence at your comments.
As I am not however, I take them as the same type of over amped hyperbole spewed by the three people that I am acquainted with that actually believe those on the right are all jack-booted Nazis.

See, two can play this game.

Posted by: Rocky at May 6, 2007 12:23 PM
Comment #219600

LawnBoy

“JD has claimed that abusive parenting by two Lesbian mothers is equivalent to “men are being beaten to death by roving gangs of lesbians”, and you say he’s correct?”


i think his point was that while crimes commited against gays and lesbians will make the front page. crimes commited by the same group don’t. you want to say it’s a simple case of child abuse, and the sexual orientation of the perps is irrelevant, i agree. on the other hand you seem to think the the sexual orientation of a victim of a violent crime is relevent. you don’t see the flaw in this logic ?

Posted by: dbs at May 6, 2007 12:51 PM
Comment #219602

LawnBoy


why is it you don’t adress any of the other points i’ve made, and merely single out that one ? what will this law accomplish, that other laws don’t already ? james byrd dragging death, don’t want to touch that one or what ?

Posted by: dbs at May 6, 2007 1:00 PM
Comment #219603
why is it you don’t adress any of the other points i’ve made, and merely single out that one ?

Because that’s the only point you made that addresses what I was talking about.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 6, 2007 1:03 PM
Comment #219604

Rocky


the issue is that if i were to go out and beat up a gay man, or if i was to go out and beat up a strait man, that sexual orientation shouldn’t matter. what should matter is the actual act of battery, regaurdless of who it was commited against. we already punish this act. this shouldn’t be a left or right issue, it should be a common sense issue. perps come in all shapes, sizes, races, sexual orientations, and political persuasions.

Posted by: dbs at May 6, 2007 1:11 PM
Comment #219605

It’s already been posted a few times, but keeps being ignored.

Motive is already considered in our court/justice system. This takes motive in these kinds of crimes to a new level of punishment, just as different degrees of murder, robbery, etc. do..

MOTIVE, MOTIVE, MOTIVE

Some seem to be ignoring this.

Posted by: womanmarine at May 6, 2007 1:19 PM
Comment #219607

dbs,

“james byrd dragging death, don’t want to touch that one or what ?”

What, that as soon as Bush wasn’t Governor any more that the hate crimes legislation passed in Texas?

Posted by: Rocky at May 6, 2007 1:22 PM
Comment #219611

dbs,

“the issue is that if i were to go out and beat up a gay man, or if i was to go out and beat up a strait man, that sexual orientation shouldn’t matter.”

I would guess you’ve missed the point that gay men are getting beaten just because they’re gay.
That it isn’t just a random act.

Straight men aren’t beaten, and left naked, tied to a fence, left to die from exposure.

White men aren’t tied with a chain to the back of a pick up truck, and dragged for three miles until they are decapitated by a culvert.

These are particularly heinous acts, and those that perpitrate them don’t deserve to live. Two of the assailents in the Byrd case recieved the death penalty, and at least one of those men wasn’t the least repentent.

Posted by: Rocky at May 6, 2007 1:36 PM
Comment #219613

Rocky

how would that have changed the outcome ? what difference would that legislation have made ? it was my mistake not to make that example generic, but it still would change nothing, regaurdless of who did or didn’t sign the legislation. it was purely political. passing laws purely for the sake of passing laws, to make political points, makes no sense.

Posted by: dbs at May 6, 2007 1:38 PM
Comment #219614

Rocky

i agree these factors should be considered during sentencing, which they already are. motive is always a factor, and should be.

“I would guess you’ve missed the point that gay men are getting beaten just because they’re gay.
That it isn’t just a random act.”

rocky, i could walk through parts of south central los angeles, and most likely be beaten to death, because i’m white. this motive would be considered during sentencing. i see no need for hate crimes legislation.

Posted by: dbs at May 6, 2007 1:45 PM
Comment #219615

womanmarine

maybe i’m stupid, but i’m not sure whether you support, or oppose this law. just curios…. SEMPER FI !

Posted by: dbs at May 6, 2007 1:52 PM
Comment #219616

“White men aren’t tied with a chain to the back of a pickup truck until they are decapitated by a culvert.”
Rocky

I thought that was nearly exactly what happened in Somalia. But, let’s not offend the Islamic world by saying it, right?

JD

Posted by: JD at May 6, 2007 2:05 PM
Comment #219617

JD,

Again with the irrelevance?? The conversation here is about U.S. law. It’s not out of political correctness that Rocky didn’t think of Black Hawk Down, it’s out of an attempt at intellectual honesty.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 6, 2007 2:12 PM
Comment #219618

dbs,

“rocky, i could walk through parts of south central los angeles, and most likely be beaten to death, because i’m white.”

I am also white.
In the early ’70s I lived in Hollywood, and hitch-hiked Western Ave regularly through Watts down to Long Beach to visit a girl friend.
I never felt threatened once.
Once during a visit to New York I was told that, because I was white, I was safer in Harlem than a black man because the police would investigate more vigorously because I was white.

I have always treated people, regardless of their race, creed, or whatever, as I wanted to be treated. Perhaps that attitude has saved me.

Society has changed and not in all ways for the better.
Perhaps we aren’t as enlightened as we once were.
Perhaps we need all hate crimes death penalty eligible.

What ever we’re doing now isn’t stopping the violence.

Posted by: Rocky at May 6, 2007 2:14 PM
Comment #219619

JD,

“I thought that was nearly exactly what happened in Somalia. But, let’s not offend the Islamic world by saying it, right?”

That is perhaps the dumbest thing I have ever read on these pages.

I would echo LawnBoy’s sentiments.
What exactly does a heinous act committed in Somalia have to do with hate crimes legislation in America?

This just gets weirder and weirder.

Posted by: Rocky at May 6, 2007 2:20 PM
Comment #219620

Rocky

passing more laws will not stop mindless violence, only trying to educate the ignorant will. that is those who hate and don’t no why. there are people in the world who are evil, period, and nothing will change them. in case you haven’t noticed things have changed a lot since the 70s, and not all for the better. i grew up in the 70s, i remember very well. if you you want to find some mindless bigotry that doesn’t come from white males, check out the new black panther party web site. that will wake you up in a hurry.

Posted by: dbs at May 6, 2007 2:27 PM
Comment #219623

dbs,

I grew uo in the ’50s and ’60s. Though I haven’t felt the need to go to the Black Panthers web site I can only assume that their message hasn’t change much since the ’60s.

As I see it, hate crimes are mostly a crime of opportunity. A chance to create mayhem when nobody is looking.
The paper I linked above states that most hate crimes are committed by young white males under the age of 26.
This hate is taught from an early age, and usually isn’t the result of a percieved slight.

How do you unlearn ignorance that is ingrained?

Posted by: Rocky at May 6, 2007 2:57 PM
Comment #219625

dbs:

Glad to, when you answer mine:

So, are you against the addition of homosexuals, or the hate crime law in general?

Posted by: womanmarine at May 6, 2007 3:07 PM
Comment #219626

I have to wonder, including homosexuals all of a sudden makes the hate crimes law wrong? Where were you all protesting the existing hate crime law?

Posted by: womanmarine at May 6, 2007 3:09 PM
Comment #219636

womanmarine

actually i’m against hate crimes laws in general. i don’t have the time to go out and protest. i just write my congressman or someone who i think cuold make a difference. i think the motivation for the crime should be left to the judge or jury during sentencing.

Posted by: dbs at May 6, 2007 4:29 PM
Comment #219682

“The paper I linked above states that the most hate crimes are committed by young white males under the age of 26.”
Rocky

That is exactly what I was talking about. Someone has to label a crime a hate crime. Crimes committed such as those during the L.A. riots I’m sure were never included in those “hate crimes”, in fact, many were never even prosecuted for fear of more violence. In my own town, a white man was brutally beaten and nearly killed by a group of young Black men. The violence was so brutal that it divided the city considerably. However, no prosecutor, (the city and county are controlled totally by the Democrats), would prosecute hate crimes against this gang primarily due to politics and fear. It is from experience and observation that I say that these laws are unjust, because they are not administered equally!

JD

Posted by: JD at May 6, 2007 11:20 PM
Comment #219684

JD,

“Someone has to label a crime a hate crime. Crimes committed such as those during the L.A. riots I’m sure were never included in those “hate crimes”, in fact, many were never even prosecuted for fear of more violence.”

What part of “most” don’t you understand?

Were there “hate crimes” laws in 1992?

One of the Reginald Denney attackers was sentenced and spent 4 years in jail and was released on good behaviour in 1997.

You seem to think that I believe that only white guys should be prosecuted under this legislation. Nothing could be further from the truth.

A hate crime is a hate crime. It doesn’t matter who the perp is or what color that person is, or what that religion that person is.

Posted by: Rocky at May 7, 2007 12:38 AM
Comment #219690

I really don’t see what the big deal is. This country has had hate crimes legislation on the books since 1968. The original bill defined hate crimes as motivated by “race, color religion or national origin.” The new legislation would include physically violent crimes in which the perpetrator was motivated by hatred of the victim’s “… religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.”

1st of all, as usual, right wing religious leaders are showing their hypocrisy, as usual. Religion has been a protected class since 1968, and it has never been a problem until they try to make sexual orientation a protected class. Then all of a sudden our first amendment rights are being violated! Why weren’t they being violated in the almost 40 since this law was put into effect and included religion as a protected class?

2nd of all, everyone falls into a protected class. Everyone has a sexual orientation- either heterosexual, homosexual, asexual, or bisexual. Everyone has a gender and/or gender identity- either male, female, or intersexed. Everyone has a National Origin, etc. Nobody is excluded except maybe Atheists since technically they do not have a religion. In fact, Atheists should be the only ones upset about this legislation.

Again, this legislation has been on the books for almost 40 years. Why has nobody complained about freedom of thought or speech until now? Because this isn’t about freedom of thought or speech, it’s about homophobia.

Posted by: Wisdom in Faith at May 7, 2007 3:25 AM
Comment #219701
In fact, Atheists should be the only ones upset about this legislation.

No, because the Supreme Court has ruled that the explicit belief in no higher deity is a protected set of beliefs. I don’t think Atheists will have any more problem with this than anyone else.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 7, 2007 8:52 AM
Comment #219711

JD-
Was the beating racially motivated? If so, most Democrats and Liberals would agree that needs to be treated equally as a hate crime.

We treat killing police officers more harshly than we do killing an ordinary person, because the murder of a cop, especially on duty, can constitute an attack on law and order.

We treat those who kill in the process of a kidnapping more harshly because of the helpless victim and the fact that the murder was in the service of another crime.

We treat those who plan their murders, or who act out their killings in ways that demonstrate little remorse or concern for the gravity of their crimes more harshly than we do those who kill in the passion of the moment.

Murderers are not treated equally to one another, because circumstances are not equal.

Similar provisions apply to most crimes. How and why you commit a murder is important to how justices is administered. Thus, hate crimes legislation does not show up unprecedented in our legal system.

This is basically the right’s opposition to Political Correctness run amok. If somebody is committing illegal acts for inflammatory or intimidating purposes, their motivations should call a harsher penalty upon their heads.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 7, 2007 11:48 AM
Comment #219728

Stephen, I understand your point. However, I have been arguing that these Hate Crime legislations have been used predominantly as a political tool to demonize particular groups, who by the way receive more hate crime than those that the left protects. Hate crimes are not reported accurately, or administered fairly due to politics in prosecution. You talk about the unfairness in the firings of Federal Attorneys and that politics should not play a role in the justice system, but it does over and over again. Let me end by giving some facts regarding Hate Crimes:

“An analysis of data for victims of single-bias hate crime incidents showed that:
55.7 percent of the victims were targeted because of race.
16.0 percent were victimized because of religious belief.
14.0 percent were victimized because of ethnicity
13.8 percent were targeted because of sexual orientation.
0.6 percent were targeted because of a disability.

Among the single-bias hate crime incidents in 2005, there were 4,895 victims of racially motivated hate crime
67.9 percent were victims of an anti-black bias.
19.9 percent were victims of an anti-white bias.
5.3 percent were victims of a bias against a group of individuals in which more than one race was represented (anti-multiple races, group).
4.9 percent were victims of an anti-Asian/Pacific Islander bias.
2.0 percent were victims of an anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native bias.

Of the 1,405 victims of an anti-religion hate crime:
69.5 percent were victims of an anti-Jewish bias.
10.7 percent were victims of an anti-Islamic bias.
8.4 percent were victims of an anti-Christian bias
7.5 percent were victims of a bias against other unspecified religions (anti-other religion).
3.3 percent were victims of a bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).
0.4 percent were victims of an anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.

In 2005, of the 1,213 victims targeted due to a sexual-orientation bias:
61.3 percent were victims of an anti-male homosexual bias.
19.2 percent were victims of an anti-homosexual bias.
15.3 percent were victims of an anti-female homosexual bias.
2.3 percent were victims of an anti-bisexual bias.
1.9 percent were victims of an anti-heterosexual bias.

There were 5,190 hate crime victims of crimes against persons in 2005. Regarding these victims and offenses:
0.1 percent were murdered or forcibly raped
48.9 percent experienced intimidation.
30.2 percent were victims of simple assault.
20.5 percent were victims of aggravated assault.
0.3 percent were victims of other types of offenses, which are collected only in the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS).”
(U.S. Crime Statistics)


Out of the 5,190 hate crimes directed at persons in 2005, nearly 80% would have been considered misdemeanors or less (intimidation or simple assault), 20% were considered aggravated assault, and less than 1/10 of 1% resulted in a serious offense like rape or murder. However, judging by the way the Press and Democrats report Hate Crimes, one would conclude that homosexuals are being beaten and killed in an almost epidemic proportion. The fact is, that very few people in the U.S. are victims of Hate Crimes at all. Where is the evidence that the left keeps bringing that America is so full of hate? They should try being a homosexual, a Jew, or a Christian in an Islamic run nation and see what hate is really like! These are the Overall Statistics for American Hate Crimes below.


“The number of Hate Crimes as a percent of:
All Crimes 0.8%
Violent Crimes 3.0%
Major Violent Crimes 2.6%
Property Crimes 0.2% “
(U.S. Crime Statistics)

There are two main sources for Hate Crime statistics collection. One is the FBI’s National Incident Based Reporting System which is a voluntary system in which law-enforcement agencies can send statistical information to the FBI. The other is the National Crime Victimization Survey. (See below)

“National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is the Nation’s primary source of information on criminal victimization. Each year, data are obtained from a nationally representative sample of 77,200 households comprising nearly 134,000 persons on the frequency, characteristics and consequences of criminal victimization in the United States. The survey enables the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to estimate the likelihood of victimization by rape, sexual assault, robbery, assault, theft, household burglary, and motor vehicle theft for the population as a whole as well as for segments of the population such as women, the elderly, members of various racial groups, city dwellers, or other groups. The NCVS provides the largest national forum for victims to describe the impact of crime and characteristics of violent offenders.”
(U.S. Justice Dept. FBI)

In reality, the FBI only investigated about 300 cases of Hate Crimes in 2005. However, it helped in the investigations carried out by local and State authorities with technical support and assistance in many cases. This is because the FBI has limited jurisdiction regarding hate crimes. They tend only to investigate and prosecute hate crimes when local and state authorities refuse to do so. (See Below)

“FBI Jurisdiction
A hate crime is not a distinct federal offense. However, the federal government can and does investigate and prosecute crimes of bias as civil rights violations, which do fall under its jurisdiction. These efforts serve as a backstop for state and local authorities, which handle the vast majority of hate crime cases.

How Hate Crimes are Investigated and Prosecuted
The FBI initiates a hate crime investigation when an allegation is received from a reliable source. Most complaints are received from the victim, a witness, or a third party. Many cases are also initiated by media reports, community group complaints, referrals from Department of Justice or U.S. Attorneys, and congressional inquiries.

Under guidelines developed in conjunction with the Department of Justice, once a complaint is received, the FBI will determine if the matter warrants a preliminary or full investigation.

Once a case is opened, a logical investigation is conducted within a reasonable period of time”
(U.S. Justice Dept.)


JD

Posted by: JD at May 7, 2007 3:25 PM
Comment #219731

It is my opinion that the Democrats are so interested in hate crimes and their investigations primarily due to the fact that thay are initiated in many cases by “media reports, community group complaints, and Congressional inquiries. So much for keeping politics out of the Justice Dept.”!!!!!!!
Black Church burnings in the 90’s is a perfect example.

JD

Posted by: JD at May 7, 2007 4:03 PM
Comment #219740

Ain’t no wonder some of them beat the crap outta some of them.
Lovely.

Posted by: womanmarine at May 5, 2007 03:54 PM

Yeah aint it? Just think y’all libs get to take the blame for it by passing all the ‘victim’ laws that’s driving these poor guys over the edge.
I don’t condone their actions, but I can understand why someone might go over the edge and kick the crap outta some members of the ‘victim’ groups y’all have created.
When ya have to listen to them calling ya all kinds of names (names that you’d get in trouble calling them), have to put up with being passed over time and again for a promotion you deserve while a lesser qualified person of a ‘victim’ group gets it, have to watch what ya say or some asshole will turn you in and ya might get fired, It can sure get on your last nerve and wear your patience very thin.
Maybe y’all oughta make the straight White male a ‘victim’ group. That way they can get special consideration, and be able to talk and act anyway they want in front of all the other ‘victim’ groups.

I have to wonder, including homosexuals all of a sudden makes the hate crimes law wrong? Where were you all protesting the existing hate crime law?

Posted by: womanmarine at May 6, 2007 03:09 PM

I’m against ALL ‘hate crime’ laws. The only thing they do is make the groups they a supposed to protect victims. And making folks ‘victims’ has NEVER helped anyone.
We already have laws against asaulting folks. We have laws against murder. And we have laws harassment. We don’t need ‘special laws’ just to protect someone because they belong to some group.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 7, 2007 5:34 PM
Comment #219755

Ron Brown,

“And making folks victims NEVER helped anyone.”

Oh, that depends on whether or not you have Democratic political aspirations, sir!

“Maybe y’all oughta make the straight White male a ‘victim’ group.”

Actually, when you combine all groups of hate crimes together and then categorize the victims by race and sex, white males are the most likely group to be a victim of a hate crime according to the Dept. of Justice statistics. So, you have a definite defense for your comment.

JD

Posted by: JD at May 7, 2007 8:43 PM
Comment #219770
Just think y’all libs get to take the blame for it by passing all the ‘victim’ laws that’s driving these poor guys over the edge. I don’t condone their actions, but I can understand why someone might go over the edge and kick the crap outta some members of the ‘victim’ groups y’all have created.

Yeah, the only reason that the homophobes attacked and killed Matthew Shepard is that Democrats had pointed out that idiots like them were liable to attack and kill gays. And that the only reason the KKK lynched and killed all those black people is that they were mad that the softies dared to have sympathy for the darkies.

Yep, Ron. You’re right on track there.

The same track as when you said that black people should see the Confederate flag as a symbol of freedom.

Right.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 7, 2007 10:24 PM
Comment #219799

I think all this talk of “thought crime” is utterly ridiculous. What is the purpose of a punishable offence? It exists not to give us the satisfaction of seeing someone punished, but instead to deter individuals from committing the crime in the first place. We do not enforce traffic laws in order to punish people, but to make people obey them for the greater good of all. Law is a deterent, people, not a punishment. Once you understand this, this whole “thought crime” arguments blows down like a house of cards. Hate crime laws exist to give the people who may commit them pause. They are still allowed to be as bigoted and close-minded as the choose, as long as they do not allow their predjudices to get the better of them.

Let me put it another way: by the logic of these “though crime” arguments, sexual assault should not be punished more harshly than any other kind of assault, because laws pertaining to rape are “special laws” that only protect a certain group, namely women. Anyone want to even try to justify that one?

As a side note, can anyone explain to me how what goes on between two consenting adults, in private, is any of our ^*%$*^# business?

Posted by: leatherankh at May 8, 2007 8:37 AM
Comment #219814

LawnBoy
Yep, Ron. You’re right on track there.

I know I’m on the right track. I never was on the left one.

The same track as when you said that black people should see the Confederate flag as a symbol of freedom.

Right! Never said the likes. But then when ya can’t rebut what’s said put words in the other parties mouth. But then y’all are good at that. Aint ya?

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 8, 2007 12:39 PM
Comment #219817

Ron,

This is what you said:

That’s because they (meaning people that display the Confederate flag) believe in freedom of speech, expression, and the freedom of ALL people regardless of race, creed, color, religion, or lack thereof, education, or social status.

You said that the Confederate flag stands for freedom of all people, even blacks.

You said it, and it made no less sense when you said it than when I paraphrased it here. I put no words in your mouth, just like I didn’t put the words in your mouth when you said here that it’s understandable that bullies want to beat up people they are told they shouldn’t be beating up.

But then y’all are good at that. Aint ya?

Not really. I’m just good at pointing out the foot that you put in your mouth yourself. You make it easy.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 8, 2007 1:09 PM
Comment #219823

LawnBoy
The Confederate flag is a symbol for freedom for everyone. But even you are proving I never said that Blacks should view it that way.
It’s the few stupids (KKK, Nazis, etc) that miss use the Confederate flag that has caused some to see it as otherwise. That and the Liberals natural hatred of anything and anyone South of the Mason Dixon Line.
But then this thread aint about that. So I don’t even know why ya brought it up.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 8, 2007 2:29 PM
Comment #219824

Yes, Ron. The symbol of enslavement is a symbol of freedom. Bullies should be excused from their actions because someone enraged them by telling them they shouldn’t bully.

Up is down. Black is white.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 8, 2007 2:32 PM
Comment #219926

LawnBoy

Yeah, Yeah, Whatever.
Wouldn’t expect a liberal yankee to understand it anyway sense the brainwashing for both is so intense.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 9, 2007 4:59 PM
Comment #219936

Gee, Ron. I point out how ridiculous your arguments are, and you respond with name-calling and ad hominem attacks. Thanks.

Maybe it’s not “anything and anyone South of the Mason Dixon Line” that I dislike, but instead your reliance on attacks like this when challenged?

You claimed before that I “can’t rebut what’s said,” but that’s wrong. I don’t think there’s any more effective rebuttal than just repeating your words back to you. Perhaps I’m right, since your reaction was to insult me instead of trying to defend the idea that bullying is justified if someone had told the bully that the behavior was wrong, or that symbols of a culture that enslaved people is are really symbols of freedom for the descendants of the slaves.

But go ahead and hide behind Yankee-hatin’ instead of examining the mess of ideas and insults that you defend. It’s easier, right?

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 9, 2007 6:18 PM
Comment #219943
Never said the likes.

Ron,

On reflection, I realized that you’re right, you didn’t say exactly what I claimed you said. In my imperfect paraphrase, you said that black people should (but don’t necessarily need to) see the Confederate flag as a symbol of freedom. In fact, what you actually said is that they have no choice in the matter - the symbol of their families’ enslavement is a symbol of “freedom” for them.

I apologize to you that I paraphrased you from faulty memory and accidentally made your idea ever-so-slightly less offensive than it actually was.

I’ll try not to make that mistake again.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 9, 2007 8:26 PM
Comment #220080

LawnBoy
Not EVEN worth responding to.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 11, 2007 12:32 PM
Comment #220091

Ron,

If you don’t think your words are worth responding to when they’re repeated back to you, what do you think we think when we see them the first time?

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 11, 2007 2:48 PM
Comment #221424

Most of you people forget what the purpose of going to jail is in the first place. Even though it usually doens’t ever work, the point of going to jail is to help people adjust a person’s behavior so that they can be a productive law abiding citizen.

The other reason is to keep a person there that cannot or will not adjust their behavior, so to protect both themselves and soceity from them.

Another point to make is almost every law out there has an adjustable “punishment/recovery” time. That is why some people go to jail different lenghts of time for the same type of law broken.

Posted by: kujo at May 27, 2007 9:31 PM
Post a comment