It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Justwatchingyou
originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Justwatchingyou
he doesn't need your help. back off.
Once again I can go back through this thread and cite postings where you have added to the comment of another member to add strength or "validity" to their post. This is an open forum much like a restaurant is.
There is no expectation of privacy here.
Thank you
originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: undo
So, your issue is with a conversation that has no legal baring?
Im seriously confused. Bwhat does it have to do with the topic, and what does it have to do with obama being half white?
A follow up: have you even bothered to read the law or is this all based on a propaganda piece on youtube?
so you still havent read it.
originally posted by: undo
originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: undo
So, your issue is with a conversation that has no legal baring?
Im seriously confused. Bwhat does it have to do with the topic, and what does it have to do with obama being half white?
A follow up: have you even bothered to read the law or is this all based on a propaganda piece on youtube?
if holder said it, how can it be a propaganda piece? you keep moving the bar farther down the field. was not the bill for the purpose of protecting favored races and sexual orientations and only them?
originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: undo
Yes they are. The law will not, however, let them use religion as an excuse to attack others.
whether people of faith are equally protected under the law.
Good thing the book they follow isnt the law of the land.
originally posted by: undo
originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: undo
Yes they are. The law will not, however, let them use religion as an excuse to attack others.
whether people of faith are equally protected under the law.
the book they follow has those words in it. sorta like origin of the species assumes we were all monkeys once upon a time.
Whats hard to understand about it? the laws came about because certain groups were discriminated against. That doesnt change the FACT that the laws cover ALL groups.
okay, but it still doesn't explain holder's interpretation of it in the video, and that is that the bill is to protect "groups" who have been historically attacked, and that would include gays and minorities.
Can you give me one specific example of the 'love not being spread around'? I cant argue a strawman.
protecting people is a good thing but the love isn't being spread around, instead it reads like a dear john letter in the middle of a war .
Im lost on most of this.
. i don't agree with attacking gays or calling black people unseemly words, and i don't agree with calling you names either. closet i came asking if one of you was trolling because the thought occured to me that the thread was filled with insults, ranging from idiot to moron and everything inbetween and the only emotional response would be to attack.
I dont like the label, I would prefer they be called a discriminatory crime, just like crimes of a sexual nature are sex crimes, violent in nature are violent crimes, etc.
originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: captaintyinknots
"Which, for the record, simply extends hate crime"
I hate that concept, a crime is a crime, nothing more, nothing less, adding hate to the front of such simply diminishes all and any crimes of the same manner or fashion. A crime is a crime. END OFF!!!
Rant over, apologies.
originally posted by: captaintyinknots
Good thing the book they follow isnt the law of the land.
originally posted by: undo
originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: undo
Yes they are. The law will not, however, let them use religion as an excuse to attack others.
whether people of faith are equally protected under the law.
the book they follow has those words in it. sorta like origin of the species assumes we were all monkeys once upon a time.
Whether or not its in their book does not give them the right to attack others.
Again, this is a strawman. Without a specific example, its all abstract.
they aren't attacking, they are talking about the contents of the book
And they are free to believe that. Using it as an excuse to act, however, is not permitted.
the book says homosexuality is a problem.
That is not what he said, but, again, I implore you, read the law. Just go read it. Quit worrying about what holder said and look at the actual law (ya know, the thing that actually HAS legal baring here).
the issue here is whether or not their right to discuss the contents of the book, is protected and holder basically said, no it's not.
oh lemme see -- travyon martin case? i think what happened there was a travesty. i feel bad for travyon and for george. the reaction from our president was confusing and depressing. the reaction from the press, the black panthers, reverend jackson and so on, was depressing. it was all quite disheartening.
Cant argue a strawman.
meanwhile, even worse crimes were being perpetrated against white people (like the young couple from ...georgia was it?)
Please, tell me that you arent arguing that black victims get more press than white ones....please....
some of who were democrats (so can't use the excuse that it's because they were racist white republicans, and not a peep was heard, and frankly, rarely do we hear of these events on the scale of travyon martin's case
From those that are already racist, perhaps. The rest of us see all things like this as one thing: a tragedy.
that just breeds more racism
How is it a matter of life and death? I dont get the connection you are trying to make at all.
it actually draws racism out of people who weren't racist before that because now it's a matter of life or death.
Can you give me one specific example of the 'love not being spread around'? I cant argue a strawman
Zimmerman was not found guilty. So no, it is not viewed as a hate crime. I still fail to see how this is an example of the love not being spread around, or how it has ANYTHING to do with this topic.
so i quoted the travyon martin example because that is viewed as a hate crime.
I dont know the case you are talking about, since you wont give any specifics, but were they killed based on their skin color, religion, sexual orientation, etc? If not, its not a hate crime.
yet the murder, rape and torture of the couple from georgia, is just viewed as a crime, not a hate crime
Can you back this up? Im assuming they were white. Were they killed because they were white?
because of their skin color.
We are talking about american law. Not south african.
this same thing has been happening in south africa now for quite awhile.