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.

 

democrats vote to protect pedophiles but not military veterans in hate crimes bill

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
i see beyond the democrat/republican illusion.

these are just distractions. the pedo-scare is pushed on people to exploit their fears and make them more willing to accept more government control.




posted on May, 6 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperSecretSquirrel
I read the whole bill. I didn't see anything in there about "pedophilia" or any other "philia". It is very broad on what is called "sexual orientation" and "sexual identity". Granted this could be interpreted to mean anything.

As far as the war veterans are concerned, There is just a little blip in the bill that states that


‘‘(3) OFFENSES OCCURRING IN THE SPECIAL MARITIME OR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES.—Whoever, within the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States, commits an offense described in paragraph (1) or (2) shall be subject to the same penalties as pre scribed in those paragraphs.


means that this law is applicable in U.S. territories and to thos in maritime situations. (soldiers)



That doesn't mean soldiers. That means if you and me went on a boat trip in US seas and I found out you was gay and I killed you. That would be Maritime jurisdiction.

Nothing at all to do with soldiers.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angus123

Originally posted 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
 




Okay... speaking as a veteran I have NEVER had anyone hate me because I served.
Quite the opposite in fact.
Indeed, I'd love to see someone try to assault me, or one of my comrades in arms because they hate that we served. They'd surely regret it. I've never even heard of such a thing.

Breathe into a paper bag for awhile. I think you're having an anxiety attack from listening to the big scary right wing noise machine too long.


I have had people yell obscenities at me when I was in uniform off post. Just because you say it has never happen to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Lostinthedarkness
 

Thank you for your common sense, Lostinthedarkness. I do not trust politicians, but come on people, they would not vote for something worded in that context. I believe the intellectually challenged politicians do not understand the implications of the bill, if they even read the whole bill.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
I don't think pedophiles or military should be protected in any special manner.

These hate crime laws are in place to protect groups of people that have historically been targeted for reasons beyond their control. One cannot control what race they are and if targeted, should have additional protection under the law. I believe that this should also include "white" people.

Freedom of religion is protected in our Constitution and, as a result, certain protections are granted to them under our laws. I would agree that crimes against someone based on their religion is a hate crime in the ethical sense, but should not be considered one in a legal sense, as religion is more of a choice.

If you protect pedophiles, then you'd have to protect ALL felons. This is simply not pragmatic. People choose to act on their impulses and become pedophiles. People choose to commit crimes. I don't believe it's right to target pedophiles or felons based on their history, but I do not believe they should be afforded additional protection.

If you protect military folk, then you'd have to protect ALL professions. It is very rare to see anyone attack a person because of their military affiliation, but I'm sure it does occur. I obviously think that it is wrong to do so, but to protect military folks would mean you'd have to protect bankers under the same laws if someone gets pissed off about their 401(k).

I'm not so sure how this thread degenerated into an argument about race and sexuality and hopefully it gets back on track.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
You know this is the first I have herad of this article and I am appualed! I am sick to my stomach! "What in sam _ell" is wrong with this country!!!!! I am in Law Enforcement and I cant stand any criminal or inmate, but to choose and protect a Cho Mo over our very own military personnel!!!!! I am just sitting back shaking my .!

Our country seem's to be changing in a blink! Other countries have to be sitting back laughing there behinds off at the US and our Congress!

,
,
,



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by kawz1
 


So if someone attacks a christian because he is a christian. That legally wouldn't fall into the realm of hate crime to you?

But if a person attacks a person because of his color you would consider it a hate crime?



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Yeah. The idea of a hate crime is kinda stupid.

Like as opposed to what, a love crime?

[edit on 6-5-2009 by Donnie Darko]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
It's Fox News, they distort anything they can get their hands on.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Also wasnt there an investigation a while ago about chidren being ferried in to have sex with presidents, and senators/whatever. and eventually the investigation was scrapped?

there's no smoke without fire.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
This all seems like spin to me.

Believe it or not but there have been a number of studies as to what wording pushes people's buttons the most. PBS did a great documentary about it a few years ago, Karl Rove was big into hot-button word studies. They got groups of men & women into a room, wired them up to monitors, and tested which words got the biggest responses - accelerated heartrate or what have you. Then they compiled a list and made sure to use those words as much as possible.

This is why Republicans started calling the "estate tax" the "death tax." It's why they say "pro-abortion" rather than "pro-choice." It's part of why they came out and said that our tax money is being wasted on field mice - rather than explaining that the money is actually for wetland conservation.

There are many more examples. Very clever, very sneaky, very dirty rat if you ask me. I for one refuse to be manipulated by news outlets that are purposefully sensationalizing just to get a rise out of me.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lostinthedarkness

The bill does not spell out protection for a pedophile . But under a definition Pedophilia is a sexual orientation in a broad context.

Unlawful Acts against a pedophile would be subject to an additional penalty from this bill besides the original charge .


Pedophilia does not fall under "sexual orientation" any more than rape or murder does. It is a criminal act. Any crimes comitted by or against pedophiles are subject to already existing laws and this bill in no way alters that.

Geez...really folks? This is what it has come to? Fox News is unadulterated propaganda. They don't even pretend to care about the truth anymore. They are like the "national enquirer" of politics.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
I think that this whole discussion is ludicrous. Crimes against gays, lesbians and transgender people ARE NOT treated the same way as other crimes. Many times the law enforcement involved won't even take the attack seriously, or refuse to even file a report. Not all of them but enough to make it a problem. This is why we need federal hate crime legislation.

Having lived in Memphis for three years and other places in the south I saw this time and time again. If you have an argument against this its not because you think it protects pedophiles (which it doesn’t) it’s because you are trying to justify your own bigotry. If all of law enforcement and the legal system did its job without prejudice I wouldn’t have an argument with you. I just wish you would talk to some people who have been victims of hate crimes before you spout some of this nonsense.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140

Originally posted by Angus123

Originally posted 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
 




Okay... speaking as a veteran I have NEVER had anyone hate me because I served.
Quite the opposite in fact.
Indeed, I'd love to see someone try to assault me, or one of my comrades in arms because they hate that we served. They'd surely regret it. I've never even heard of such a thing.

Breathe into a paper bag for awhile. I think you're having an anxiety attack from listening to the big scary right wing noise machine too long.


I have had people yell obscenities at me when I was in uniform off post. Just because you say it has never happen to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen.


Seriously? What post? And I hope you chased the sucker down and broke his nose at least.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by NVBeavis
 


Dude... it's nothing of the kind. They got ya all riled up over something that doesn't even exist. It's a dirty tactic to get people to believe something is actually something else, knowing full well the average person doesn't have time to sort the truth out.
You'll find no such language in that bill.

And thank you for doing what you do to keep the rest of us safe.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Here you go...

Fox News falsely claims Dems voted to "protect," "defend" pedophiles
mediamatters.org...

If I wanted to be snarky I could say...If it was true that the Democrats wanted to pass a bill protecting pedophiles you'd think the GOP of all people would be on board with it



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 


As I stated in my earlier post, I think that if someone attacks a person because of their religious affiliation that it is a hate crime in the moral sense, but not in a legal sense. I'd like to add that violence/crime against someone for their religion is pretty horrible in my book.

That being said, from a legal standpoint, I do NOT think it is a hate crime. If you protect religious affiliation under the umbrella of hate crime, then you'd have to protect every other belief out there.

"I believe the Oakland Raiders are the greatest franchise in NFL history"
"You're full of sssssss..." SMACK.

This is not a hate crime, but revolves around beliefs. I think it is important to be as specific and fair when writing our laws. Freedom of Religion is protected by our constitution and violations of that are criminal and subject to punishment already. If additional punishments are necessary, I believe they should not under the same umbrella as hate-crimes against various races.

Disclaimer: Yes, I know that comparing belief in certain god(s) is not the same as a belief in the Silver and Black, but I am using it as a loose analogy so please do not take it as disrespect.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jd140 my father was spit on, called baby killer by mobs of protesters as he got off a plane from vietnam. those veterans were hated by there own country, for protecting it.
our military now is considered "bullies", these soldiers are risking their lives every day for a government that likes to play chess with human lives, and to not include them in this hate crime bill?, is wrong. do our politicians think a soldier is tough and can take care of him/herself unlike that pile of human waste that we call a pedophile? most can take care of themselves but why should they have to from people who go after them just because they are a "jar."?
 



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Angus123 you need come out of your little corner, my friend and open your eyes, maybe even buy a newspaper
 



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Star from me! What I can't understand is why some people are so anxious to be labeled as 'victims'. And, that they can't see that it is blatant pandering. At the same time, they are easily convinced of who their enemies, or 'victimizers' are.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join