democrats vote to protect pedophiles but not military veterans in hate crimes bill, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 13 times


reply posted on 5-5-2009 @ 10:14 PM by Animal
reply to post by Lostinthedarkness



seriously?

could you please link me to information on these amendments?

if they do exist i would really like to hear the justification for voting one way or another on them by our elected officials.

thanks lost

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay reread the article and now i see how vets and pedophiles got dragged into this, it was an act of 'framing' done by those who oppose the bill for obvious reasons. so in reality is has nothing to do with them other than the rights attempt to sensationalize the bill itself.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by Animal]



reply posted on 5-5-2009 @ 10:15 PM by Lostinthedarkness
reply to post by justsomeboreddude



Yes it is but if convicted on those charges . They could still face an additional 10 years for violence against any of the mentioned groups if they could prove it was hate orientated .


reply posted on 5-5-2009 @ 10:15 PM by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by Animal



Well how do they know a person punched them in the face because of the way they live. Couldnt they just have easily punched them because they were angry about something they did or said. People have been fighting since the beginning of time.

AND

How is it any different if I get punched in the face because I wore an offensive t-shirt than if someone gets punched for their lifestyle choices. Maybe that t-shirt was my lifestyle choice.


reply posted on 5-5-2009 @ 10:18 PM by Lostinthedarkness
reply to post by Animal



I am going to have to dig on it I was at a customers house this afternoon and he had a channel like cspan on that played a tape of the role call for amendments to the bill like i reference before .


reply posted on 5-5-2009 @ 10:19 PM by jd140
reply to post by Animal





They condemned House members who refused to provide the same protections for seniors, pregnant women and members of the military. Also rejected was an amendment that would have specified that pedophiles cannot claim any protection under the bill.

This is the part that is making this bill a very bad idea.

It protects a bunch of people, but it doesn't protect everyone.

This is a very bad thing if passed.



reply posted on 5-5-2009 @ 10:21 PM by Animal
Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to
post by Animal



Well how do they know a person punched them in the face because of the way they live. Couldnt they just have easily punched them because they were angry about something they did or said. People have been fighting since the beginning of time.

AND

How is it any different if I get punched in the face because I wore an offensive t-shirt than if someone gets punched for their lifestyle choices. Maybe that t-shirt was my lifestyle choice.


because very very often when someone attacks someone else for a bias they let them know. i mean come on mate, don't you get out much?

so you can create as many vague hypothetical situations as you like, it will not diminish the reality of everyday life.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by Animal]


reply posted on 5-5-2009 @ 10:23 PM by echodogene
reply to post by Animal it's simple, this bill doesn't protect the veterans from hate crimes. it's not a crime to hate our military? it's ok to spit on them or beat them up for serving our country? but if you hurt a sex offender you do extra time
this is rediculous, ask someone else




reply posted on 5-5-2009 @ 10:24 PM by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by Animal



Well my point was more how are you going to prove underlying motives in a court of law. Like if someone goes up and punches someone who is gay but never says why they did it, is it a hate crime? Or did he just happen to punch someone who is gay?


reply posted on 5-5-2009 @ 10:32 PM by heyo
reply to post by Animal




My east indian buddies told me that white people are pussies, and they get accused of racism because they allow it. That's basicallya direct quote. We were all pretty young (16-17ish), but i've never forgotten that conversation. It made me realize how similiar we all are, in a way, because I'd long suspected they just used the racism word to annoy/ insult. And that's what they were doing. they never really thought anyone was racist. Just thought i'd share.


reply posted on 5-5-2009 @ 10:32 PM by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by jd140



they cant add white people.. if they did that who would they be able to punish. you know us white devils need to get some extra time isnt this some form of reverse discrimintaion.

So if someone punches me and just because i am white but not a minority than they dont get extra time.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]



reply posted on 5-5-2009 @ 10:35 PM by jd140
reply to post by justsomeboreddude



I'm actually thinking that it kind of is.

Everyone is covered unless you are straight and white. How else am I suppose to look at it?


reply posted on 5-5-2009 @ 10:37 PM by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by jd140



I just dont get it. If you are the type of person going around hurting people just because of race or orientation or whatever you have some problems and you are going to be spending a fair amount of time in jail during your life. Seriously how many people go around and hurt people jsut because of that. It has to be a super minority of the American public.

AND

Is it now going to be a crime to say jokes about peoples race or orientation. Because that is BS if that is a hate crime. Pretty soon we wont even be able to talk. I am white and I love when Chris Rock cracks on white people., black people, mexicans, gays, etc. That is funny as hell.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]


reply posted on 5-5-2009 @ 10:48 PM by jd140
reply to post by justsomeboreddude



It doesn't happen alot.

But the Hate Crime bill we currently have gets used alot.

This one made me laugh when I read it.

www.foxnews.com...

A gay black man beaten and chased into traffic by a few white men was put on trial for assault, murder and added on hate crime to the list.

Turns out during the trial one of the men was gay. How can that be a hate crime?

Check this quote out.

Prosecutors argue that Fortunato's sexual orientation is irrelevant.

"Under New York law, they said, defendants can be convicted of a hate crime even if they bear no actual hatred for their victim."

You can be convicted of a hate crime in NY even if you don't bear any hatred for that person.

How the hell is it a hate crime if you don't hate that person?
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



On why America is in denial and Ron Paul will not be elected
  Posted 18 days ago with 21 member flags
Study says racists and conservatives are dumb
  Posted 8 days ago with 16 member flags
Is ‘anti-Canadianism’ the new ‘anti-Americanism?’
  Posted 17 days ago with 8 member flags
Clarification on the definition of "natural born citizen"
  Posted 15 days ago with 7 member flags