Total Emergency Alert Hate Bill Going Forward In Senate

Don't worry bud, there is nothing in this law about flying a rebel flag either, you're in the clear

Now if you strangled a guy with it because of his color or something, and the prosecutors could prove that's why you did it, then you might have something to worry about.

Other than that, you don't have to worry



By the way, the way the law is written, it could just as easily apply to black on white racially motivated crimes as to the reverse.

There is no escape clause that says "well the victim of this hate crime was a white male so it's not covered"

Several people have posted the law, go look for yourself.

reply to post by xmotex


I have to comment at this point. Attorney general Eric Holder said the new legislation would not protect whites, only 'traditional' victims.

Artic le

Thread

Alternate article


TA



[edit on 14-7-2009 by TheAssociate]

[edit on 14-7-2009 by TheAssociate]

Boy I hope not it just got me a thinkin when they changed our state flag

The NAACP and their attack dogs now routinely equate Honorable men like General Robert E. Lee with German dictator Adolf Hitler. Atlanta Mayor Maynard Jackson is credited with first coining the phrase "Confederate swastika" and hate-filled racists like Julian Bond and Al Sharpton have been parroting the phrase ever since to refer to Confederate Battle flags. The most recent presidential campaign brought forth more vitriol against Southern symbols from the likes of Howard Dean, John Edwards and Al Sharpton.

That is the reason for bringing it up
spofga.org...

oh noz!


RUNZZZZ.

Originally posted by Lazyninja

Originally posted by Animal
I love how you guys needed to switch from S.909 to HR 1966 to try to prove how evil S.909 is.

Such a sad display of ignorance.

I'd really love to know how you know what bill the OP is even talking about.

Neither bill has information about the next step of processing, so where did you find the info that it's the native American bill, and can you source it please?

Ok for starters, paragraph 5 of the OP link:

Tell Senators: "Attorney General Holder says the federal hate bill, S. 909, will not protect members of America's military. Yet Democrats are attaching it as an amendment to the arms bill this Wednesday. This is dishonest. The hate bill has nothing to do with the military." You can add: "Have you watched the video at Truthtellers.org in which Holder says soldiers are not protected under the hate bill?"

a correction to the above quote is that S909 is an amendment and not a bill...

and to your question about a native american bill, i have no idea what you are talking about, S909 is the 'Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act'...

Furthermore I know that it is S909 that the OP link is referring to because it is S909 that Leahy is attaching to S1390 and the NDAA of 2010. As noted int he first paragraph of the link in the OP:

In a bold and dramatic gesture, Sen. Patrick Leahy took the floor of the Senate on Monday, July 13, to argue for passage of his hate crimes amendment to S. 1390, "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010."

EDIT TO ADD: Also follow the LINK in the OP, which leads t a site that clearly identifies the bill the original story was referring to as S909:

Tell Them: "Attorney General Holder says the federal hate bill, S. 909, will not protect members of America's military. Yet Democrats may attach a hate bill amendment to the arms bill this week. This is dishonest. The hate bill has nothing to do with the military."

It is all rather simple



[edit on 14-7-2009 by Animal]

Originally posted by TornMind
reply to post by jfj123

 

Your arguement doesn't hold water. No motive proven? No hate proven?

I was speaking in general. But specifically regarding that particular case which was vile and I'd personally love to end their existence...Did they do what they did because the couple was white?

As to the 'white' politicians? They are all for the most part bought, and paid for. They do as they are told, and promised gold at the end of the day.

Yeah but by whom? Black gay men or other white people?

Originally posted by wyleecoyote
reply to post by jfj123

 

If a black guy was the one who got his penis cut off by some white boys, I guarantee you this would have been a hate crime. Oh and if the guy who got his penis whacked was gay, the press would be having a huge party!

The only time the penis means absolutely nothing is when it belongs to some pigmently challenged white man.

I usually respect your opinion but today we REALLY disagree

Fair enough. Nobody agrees 100% of the time. If we did, the world would be pretty boring

I respect your comments and the fact that you can disagree without a personal attack like so many others. As a matter of fact, I'm starring your post because you're such a respectful, honest and insightful person

Originally posted by johnnyflip
reply to post by Question

 

So you are proposing that we capture and kill our Senators and Congressmen? Seriously? And actually WE VOTED FOR THEM!! Remember?



[edit on 14-7-2009 by johnnyflip]

1.) NO! YOU voted for them, not me!

2.) I am proposing the ARREST and killing if need be of TRAITORS!! And guess what? Politicians CAN be traitors too! Stop putting our congressmen and senators in some stupid pillar of power that doesn't exist! They are MEN just like you and me, only they're worse because they've become corrupted by power!

3.) READ THE SECOND AMMENDMENT AND THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE YOU MORON! Why in the hell do you think our founding fathers put them in there?

4.) You're a liberal pansy!

Originally posted by hillbilly4rent
Hey folks easy on the rednecks we all aint that bad ok some are but if this is what the bill is designed for well I guess kiss my rebel flag flying but goodbye but not with out a fight well I guess flying a rebel flag will be part of this so see yall in the FEMA camps

Personally I have great respect for the redneck for many reasons:
Here are just a few:
1. They love their country and prove it by flying at least 2 large flags in the beds of their pickups
2. They come up with great sayings like "live free or die"
3. They just love their guns. Can you imagine an invading force trying to take over the US and being confronted by 10 million rednecks with guns and pickups flying the Red, White and Blue ? TOTAL DEVASTATION to any would be intruders !!!

2 thumbs up for all the patriotic rednecks

Originally posted by Question

Originally posted by johnnyflip
reply to post by Question

 

So you are proposing that we capture and kill our Senators and Congressmen? Seriously? And actually WE VOTED FOR THEM!! Remember?



[edit on 14-7-2009 by johnnyflip]

1.) NO! YOU voted for them, not me!

2.) I am proposing the ARREST and killing if need be of TRAITORS!! And guess what? Politicians CAN be traitors too! Stop putting our congressmen and senators in some stupid pillar of power that doesn't exist! They are MEN just like you and me, only they're worse because they've become corrupted by power!

3.) READ THE SECOND AMMENDMENT AND THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE YOU MORON! Why in the hell do you think our founding fathers put them in there?

4.) You're a liberal pansy!

Why don't we calm down a bit and just call your idea PLAN B.... Let's see how some other things work out first, OK ?

Well I'm glad some people on this thread have clarified what this "hate bill" is really about.

From the OP I just saw hysterical babbling and it sounded like the bill was requiring people to hate. Honestly, this is not a news article but a diatribe.

The bill has apparently roused the ire of some white heterosexual males, who as we all know are a threatened species (yeah right). Any time there's a call on ATS to rise up against the U.S. government it gets boucoup responses, even when people apparently don't know the details.

My personal opinion is that we already have legislation that adequately deals with hate crimes.

I do think, however, that there's a time and place for rabble rousing, but I'm not sure it's in the breaking news forum.

reply to post by Animal


Ok. So your position is just nitpicking then? The OP has clearly said that this thread is not about a single bill or amendment, but the act of legislating hate crimes itself, when current law already protects minority groups well enough.

can anyone find proof of this anywhere, besides a christian reverend?

Originally posted by wyleecoyote
reply to post by jfj123

 

If a black guy was the one who got his penis cut off by some white boys, I guarantee you this would have been a hate crime. Oh and if the guy who got his penis whacked was gay, the press would be having a huge party!

The only time the penis means absolutely nothing is when it belongs to some pigmently challenged white man.

I usually respect your opinion but today we REALLY disagree

Maybe I should clarify my position a bit.
I am ACUTELY aware that reverse racism exists and have experienced it as a white, hetero, male. I work in the construction industry and illegals get more rights and consideration then I do and I own several companies so I know of what I speak.

So yes, I do understand that what you have said above CAN happen and is MORE LIKELY to happen but I don't think it will absolutely happen.

Originally posted by Katerna
can anyone find proof of this anywhere, besides a christian reverend?

No. You can read whatever you like into the bill just like EVERY OTHER BILL. The bill is not designed to censor anyone but to protect vulnerable people against hate crimes.

The reason christians are against the bill is that the bill now includes homosexuals as a protected class and we all know how the church feels about homosexuals, don't we. The church isn't interested in protecting our rights but limiting rights to those who they believe are damned such as homosexuals.

Originally posted by Lazyninja
reply to post by Animal

 

Ok. So your position is just nitpicking then?

Hardly, i am simply demonstrating the 'hype' surrounding the topic that deserves little attention.

The OP has clearly said that this thread is not about a single bill or amendment, but the act of legislating hate crimes itself, when current law already protects minority groups well enough.

Hmm, did not notice that. Regardless I disagree that minorities, or any group who is subject to 'hate crime' is well enough defended. As a result I am all for improving the safeguards on the minorities who suffer due to who they are or what they believe.

The staple argument against this legislation is that it will infringe on our freedoms, when it is SO incredibly plain that, at least in this case, they will not. That is what I am calling out for the farce it is.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by Animal]

Originally posted by TheAssociate
reply to post by xmotex

 

I have to comment at this point. Attorney general Eric Holder said the new legislation would not protect whites, only 'traditional' victims.

Artic le

Thread

Alternate article

Thank you for your post. I appreciate the links though I doubt anyone will read them. This bill is crap, a white middle class penis is just as important as a gay or black penis and until they are afforded the same courtesy under the law, I will be against passing any more hate crimes legislation.


TA



[edit on 14-7-2009 by TheAssociate]

[edit on 14-7-2009 by TheAssociate]

[edit on 14-7-2009 by wyleecoyote]

reply to post by wyleecoyote


No problem.

Call me old fashioned, but I believe that it's the crime that should be punished, not the motivation behind it.


TA

reply to post by jfj123


Too funny to pass up

"Why don't we calm down a bit and just call your idea PLAN B.... Let's see how some other things work out first, OK ?"

Passing MORE hate crimes legislation that will admittedly NOT protect whites, only traditional victims, is reverse discrimination!!!

And yes, white politicians pass all kinds of garbage laws because the laws aren't meant for them, they are above the law. Notice how many of them either forget to pay their taxes fairly or not at all?

Another thought on the subject:

Motive doesn't have to be proven to criminally prosecute someone, so why should it have any bearing whatsoever on sentencing?


TA