Comments on: House Votes To Expand Hate Crimes Law
Bill Would Add Attacks On Gays To Federal Hate Crimes Law; White House Threatens Veto
Add a Comment See all 179 Comments
- So, it is OK for the Fed Gov to establish precedence over state's traditional areas of statuates such as marriage, but not about denigration and violence!
Posted by bks
The states are doing a fine job of defending their own statutes in traditional areas such as marriage. And denigration and violence against who? - Reply to this comment
- Can there be any doubt anymore that Republicans are all closet KKK members and all these evangelical fruitcakes are the Grand Wizards ?
Posted by tejasdemo at 01:03 PM : May 03, 2007
Amen. The only thing they consider a hate crime is when someone says they hate them and their bible thumping ways. For them that's a hate crime, but hatred towards blacks, Mexicans, Native Americans, ***, or anyone else who doesn't fit into their Ozzie and Harriet view of America is perfectly fine. The right wingers are the masters of hate and are the reason membership in hate based organizantions like the KKK is growing by leaps and bounds. - Reply to this comment
- Since when have the conservatives been concerned with personal freedoms as listed in the Constitution? Their "fearless leader", George W, has made a point of shedding the Constitution over the past 6 years, keeping only sections that he feels he might use later for his own personal gain.
The ones who might lose the most on this are the conservative talk show thugs like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Savage who use the radio to spit out their hate of anything and everything that lives and moves and isn't a "blue-blooded" neo-con. Their shows are just like the anti-Jewish trash the Nazis gave over the radio in Nazi Germany! They are just like Bush, ready to deny everyone else rights, but screaming the loudest when THEIR rights are affected! - Reply to this comment
- Can there be any doubt anymore that Republicans are all closet KKK members and all these evangelical fruitcakes are the Grand Wizards ?
Posted by tejasdemo at 01:03 PM : May 03, 2007
+ report abuse
Can there be any further doubt now that the left wing feminist hags are out to make sure that there is no male or female gender distinction? Can there be any doubt now that the left wing fruitcakes are aiming for a society were the male is no longer considered any more viable than his sperm? - Reply to this comment
- So, it is OK for the Fed Gov to establish precedence over state's traditional areas of statuates such as marriage, but not about denigration and violence!
What line of logic is used to define such action, because I can! - Reply to this comment
- There is nothing free about free speech. It has cost us dearly and the price continues to be high.
You have the right to say anything. AND you are RESPONSIBLE for anything/everything you say.
This law further defines that responsibility. So go ahead, say anything you *** well like. Just remeber, you will be held accountable. That is what the First Amendment was about!!! - Reply to this comment
- I believe that the kinds of speach that incites violence has already been defined under existing laws from previous hate crimes legislation. It's a rather high bar to meet. You pretty much have to directly call for doing violence to a particular group. This is not protected free speach any more than yelling fire in a movie theater.
Posted by micma
Then what's the purpose of enacting another hate crime bill? Pointless, unless you are supporting an agenda. Right? Leftwing grandstanding. - Reply to this comment
- I'm sure if this bill introduced protection against hate crimes on oil businessmen or haliburten executives, there would be a signing ceremony in the Rose Garden.
Posted by briannorwood
A crime against another person is a hate crime. It's just another attempt at pc to silence free speech and due process. - Reply to this comment
- Can there be any doubt anymore that Republicans are all closet KKK members and all these evangelical fruitcakes are the Grand Wizards ?
- Reply to this comment
mudrose
I believe that the kinds of speach that incites violence has already been defined under existing laws from previous hate crimes legislation. It's a rather high bar to meet. You pretty much have to directly call for doing violence to a particular group. This is not protected free speach any more than yelling fire in a movie theater.- Reply to this comment
- Crimes agaisnt people are crimes.....plain and simple.
Posted by Infidel_US
Yeah, and while the members ont he judiciary committee expressed that if they were going to give the specials, a heads up, why not the military who are always denigrated, along with the elderly, etc., but nooooooooooooooo, this is just to give the specials an advantage over the rest of society. Like I said -- anyone who does harm to someone else commits a hate crime and if my opinion or belief is against someone or something, I should not have to be prosecuted because of my thoughts or my feelings. It is another attempt to dismantle our constitution. - Reply to this comment
- This veto is incomprehensible to me. Here in Canada, I worked in the office of a member of Parliament who was instrumental in bringing forward such legislation as a private members bill which was then passed by a majority of members in the House of Commons.
Without this protection, people can and will continue to promote acts of violence against homosexuals, such as the demonstrations at military funerals by the likes of Fred Phelps. This veto is just another example of the current administration being out of touch with what the majority of its citizens expect. - Reply to this comment
- Come to think of it, I have NEVER seen a black prosecuted for a "hate crime" agaist a white. This hate crime BS is just PC code for giving minorities an unfair advantage over whites in the court system.
Crimes agaisnt people are crimes.....plain and simple. - Reply to this comment
- Exactly what kind of "free speach" is the White House trying to protect?
Posted by micma
"The ultimate objective of this legislation is to claim that 'hate speech' -- criticism of homosexuality -- incites individuals to violence and must be suppressed and punished. This will violate the First Amendment rights of any person or group that opposes the normalization of homosexuality in our culture," TVC's Lafferty said". Now, Micma, have a ball. - Reply to this comment
- If this bill has "strong democrat backing", it must be bad. Please VETO IT!
- Reply to this comment
Exactly what kind of "free speach" is the White House trying to protect?- Reply to this comment
- This is an attempt to violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the constitution. The bill is designed to give special rights to special groups based on sexual orientation. All crimes against another person are hate crimes.
- Reply to this comment
- The LIB party is the party of DEFEAT and SURRENDER. FUND THE TROOPS NOW!
- Reply to this comment
- I'm sure if this bill introduced protection against hate crimes on oil businessmen or haliburten executives, there would be a signing ceremony in the Rose Garden.
- Reply to this comment
