Cuz some areas of the country, murder is NOT murder. Nor is murder prosecuted as such. Fagbashing is actually appoved, and local authoriteis and citizens (potential jurors) would NOT give a fagbasher (killer) an appropriate trial or sentence.

With the new bill, the federal govt could be appealed to get a fair prosecution of the case.

Which the likes of you managed to convert to a nation of LAWYERS instead. Although you probably believe that they are both one and the same.

That was the spirit by which the Constitution was written. If you
don’t like that, we can go back to the “state of nature” that Locke and Hobbes described – that the guy with the biggest rock makes all the rule. Of course, life then would be “poor, nasty, brutish and short”…

I have nothing against concise, sensible laws.

But if a law requires an Annoynted High Priest to “interpret” its meaning, it ceases to be a law governing common individuals and instead becomes a religious scripture, no different from any other gobledey-gook which can be found in any holy book, and which subsequently can be “interpreted” by the Priesthood any which way imaginable.

That is my beef.

A nation of LAWS is a nation where every individual who is subject to that law is not only capable of comprehending all the law but also memorizing most of it and easily looking up the rest.

Presence of lawyers is a sure fire indication of failure of the law and subsequent criminalization (and thus tyrannical control) of every of its subjects, not to mention an estabilishment of an all-powerful, parasitic priesthood class.

Comment by Trekkie — May 4, 2007 @ 5:44 pm

Watch it with that GFY thing Comrade Trekkie! I was chastised by Comrade David yesterday for just such an offence. He may choose to help you spend some time as a guest in one of our camps for reeducation!
I see you are also pissed Comrade Trekkie and you know what they say, “Better to be pissed off than pissed on!”

Notice how you did that?

1) You didn’t respond to my query three times.

2) You switched to the black/white thing since it is really a gay thing.

Comrade my hat is off to your typical daily obfuscation of the TRUTH.

Notice how a few posts ago you chastised my knowledge? Now you are encumbered by the truth that this BILL is written to give status to gays (and other minorities) to use as a weapon against anyone who they FEEL threatened by. There are no assurances that can be made that this legislation will not be abused since its existence is clearly against the US Constitution.

The idea that a law is based around an EMOTION shows exactly how far from the center you and your fellow supporters of this sort of trash are. Case and point here would be that I am beginning to HATE you and your disregard for the Constitution. The HATE BILL creates and feeds the real hate that is in the real world. This bill does exactly the opposite of what it pretends to do.

I can hardly believe what I am about to say, “Thank you Mr. President for vetoing this Anti-Constitutional bill and please end the war now!”

And you’re an idiot. There, are you happy. Now I’m pissed – you can question my politics, but when you question my COMPETENCE I will not stand for it.

There for, you can go f*ck yourself. This is a nation of LAWS, not of MEN. That was the spirit by which the Constitution was written. If you don’t like that, we can go back to the “state of nature” that Locke and Hobbes described – that the guy with the biggest rock makes all the rule. Of course, life then would be “poor, nasty, brutish and short”…

I work for a state agency. We represent worker’s compensation cases where the employee gets hurt on the job and the employer refuses to pay.

Irrelevant. All lawyers exist only due to the fact that law purposefuly obfuscated to the point of incomprehensibility by … lawyers. I am quite sure that some other flea is explaining in this very moment to some other skeptic about how he/she is “defending” the poor downtrotten corporations from those nasty “worker compensation types”. You are just a different sub-species of parasites, but in the end helping each other to feed on the rest of us.

Since we work for the state, our salaries are fixed.

Then you are just a marginally competent bloodsucker. But I am sure you will find more nutritious wounds to feed on when you move to the private sector. Quite possibly to join that other defender of poor corporations you are now “defending” against.

If a black man attacks a white man because he is white, the hate crime statute would apply just as it would apply if a white man attacked a black man because he is black. Or have you never heard of “reverse discrimination”?

Hello FactsOnly,

This is a bill with the point of elevating a gay minority by the force of law and allowing this minority additional protections that the majority is not allowed. The only way congress was able to make this slightly believeable is by including other minorities like blacks and Native Americans.

Don’t you hate that?

Nice, you don’t even know what kind of law firm I work for or what I do, yet you’re sure that I “feed on the blood of the rest of society”. Generalize much?

Comment by Trekkie — May 4, 2007 @ 3:49 pm

So then Comrade Trekkie are you a lawyer or a legal assistant?

Nice, you don’t even know what kind of law firm I work for or what I do, yet you’re sure that I “feed on the blood of the rest of society”. Generalize much?

I work for a state agency. We represent worker’s compensation cases where the employee gets hurt on the job and the employer refuses to pay. Since we work for the state, our salaries are fixed.

I would say nice try, but it wasn’t particularly nice. It was a try.

As for the rest, I would like to point out that under our Constitution, the Judiciary has the power to interpret the law. If you don’t like it, write your Congressman. Otherwise, leave the hyperbole in your hat.

…. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ opinion … While Schenck has been narrowed by the Brandenburg “imminent lawless action” test, the restriction still applies. …. eighty years of Supreme Court decisions says IT IS NOT! …

Translation: You ignorant peons! How dare you question the High Priest’s pronouncements in the Holy Legal Scriptures, Trice Convoluted and Tenfold Obfuscated?! Those divine declarations of the Annointed Ones are backed up by the Grand Inqusitor Council itself for 80 years now! Don’t you know that we, lawyers, rule and own you!? Heel peons, or we will put you in your place!!!

And as someone who works in the legal field, I find your cheap shot insulting.

You should. The very existence of your kind is a grim reminder that we, as a society, are still incapable of producing a system which does not immediately invite hordes of parasites to feed upon it.

It is of course no surprise to me that you would be “insulted” by (and frightened of) being called by your true name. Nor it is a surprise that you would desperately defend your species, even violently should your oponents get too close to the truth, to make sure that you can continue to feed on the blood of the rest of the society.

I’m wondering, are you on drugs Comrade? Shouting fire is not a violation of the 1st Amendment and never was. Only CONGRESS can violate the 1st Amendment since the 1st Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

I went on to say in that post, “Yelling FIRE when there is no FIRE may or may not be a violation of local laws. It may or may not be considered a misdemeanor. It may or may not be considered a State offence. It may or may not be considered a Federal offence. It would depend on the issues at the time of the alleged infraction. For instance a woman who is being raped is encouraged to YELL FIRE since statistics have shown that YELLING RAPE is less effective at getting HELP. So, in fact as per that example you can YELL FIRE when there is none. You may see smoke and YELL FIRE to later find out that it was something cooking and so that is another example of when YELLING FIRE is understandable.”

Regardless of anything you may utter here “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This means that you or I can’t violate the 1st Amendment unless we are “Congress”.

So, again let me ask Comrade, would I be wrong to assume that you are a lawyer?

PAX

Saywho, your ignorance of the law is stunning. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court in Schenck v. United States:

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic….The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

While Schenck has been narrowed by the Brandenburg “imminent lawless action” test, the restriction still applies. If you shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater in order to cause a panic, you are NOT protected by the First Amendment. If you shout “Fire!” in an alleyway in order to get help, then you probably would be protected by the First Amendment. So don’t tell me the First Amendment is ABSOLUTE when eighty years of Supreme Court decisions says IT IS NOT!

If I assume that you Comrade Trekkie are a lawyer would I be wrong? Don’t worry if I’m on your ignore list since I’m on Jake’s list too!

Comment by david — May 3, 2007 @ 11:30 pm

You sound like a wise a** Comrade David and that is the main reason why I didn’t bother getting into it with you last evening. Let me then cut to the chase regarding this BILL.

During a discussion about said legislation, Comrade Trekkie and I were making and using examples (you could clearly see this if you bothered to read the thread). I brought up a point that the “BILL” states:

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.

(1) the term `crime of violence’ has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;

So, at this point I copied and pasted the relevant code sited above like so:

The term “crime of violence” means—
(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or prop­erty of another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.

Comrade Trekkie proceeded to tell me (over and over) that part (a) (see above) is limited to the attacker using a weapon only. However there is no language in the bill and more importantly in part (a) of section 16, title 18, United States Code that clearly states that only an ARMED FELON could be guilty of a HATE CRIME.

I pointed out to Comrade Trekkie as I’m pointing out to you Comrade David, through example if necessary that part (a)’s use of “threatened use of physical force” means that an individual only needs to threaten to use force. More than that should you read the intended law you will see that this happens to be the definition of a terroristic threat. More than that should you bother to read the intended law you will learn that the definition of a HATE CRIME is a CRIME OF VIOLENCE…

When we look at part (a) of section 16, title 18, United States Code it is clear that just the threat of physical force constitutes a HATE CRIME or a TERRORISTIC THREAT. So, I used this fictional example of something that an individual might say during an argument…

“If I get my hands on you I’m going to bash your Fin brains in you liar!”

This statement would be considered a “terroristic threat” as you agreed to in your reply posting with this following comment…

Threats of bodily harm are already a crime. So what’s your beef? If you threated(SIC) to kick my ass and did so with the intensity and venom shown here, I’d certain file a complaint against you and see your sorry ass sent to jail.

Comment by david — May 3, 2007 @ 10:00 pm

So I guess you cleared up the fact that threats can be verbal, written or physical and still be considered a CRIME OF VIOLENCE.

Comrade David you then went beyond that and decided to attack me by stating that…

I say it’s time to send you through the court system to show you what a loss of freedom really feels like.

That is a pretty good idea except that I never threatened you and the 1st Amendment allows me to list examples for the purpose of discussion regarding this topic. However if the BILL were passed then in fact words (even used in statements) could possibly be criminalized. We must always consider how a given legislation would support and uphold the US Constitution.

Since the 1st Amendment is still intact I can for a fact say what I please. You mentioned that…

Indeed, your threats are attempts to silence my Free Speech. It’s like yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre. If you think you have the right to threaten, intimidate, and otherwise verbally abuse humanity because of some misbegotten libertarian fantasy,

This is utter nonsense on your part Comrade David. Yelling, “fire” when there is no fire, does not violate the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The Bill does in fact CLEARLY VIOLATE the 1st Amendment since it is CONGRESS that “SHALL MAKE NO LAW THAT:
CREATES A NATIONAL RELIGION
STOPS ME FROM EXERCISING MY RELIGION IF I HAVE ONE
CENSORS MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH
CENSORS THE PRESS
STOPS PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY
STOPS ME FROM QUESTIONING THE GOVERNMENT

Yelling FIRE when there is no FIRE may or may not be a violation of local laws. It may or may not be considered a misdemeanor. It may or may not be considered a State offence. It may or may not be considered a Federal offence. It would depend on the issues at the time of the alleged infraction. For instance a woman who is being raped is encouraged to YELL FIRE since statistics have shown that YELLING RAPE is less effective at getting HELP. So, in fact as per that example you can YELL FIRE when there is none. You may see smoke and YELL FIRE to later find out that it was something cooking and so that is another example of when YELLING FIRE is understandable. I can go on and on listing examples that counter all of your points.

Now Comrade David, thanks to the 1st Amendment I can again mention to you that you can GFY since you and your ANTI CONSTUTIONAL BILL are both offensive.

PAX

You can think and say whatever the hell you want. It is when you use that hate as a justification TO COMMIT A CRIME that you run afould of this.

It’s not “thought crime”, so stop with the stupid 1984 comparisons. You look like fools when you continue to spout something that is RIDICULOUS and NOT APPLICABLE!

Lawyers violently resist any idea of simplification of law because that would mean the end of their, very, very profitable employment, which also, as a bonus, allows them to wield life-and-death power over all other people.

Shakespeare was the one who said “First, let’s kill all the lawyers.” He was wrong four centuries ago, and YOU are wrong today. And as someone who works in the legal field, I find your cheap shot insulting.

The only thing that counts is this difference. For whatever reason, if an agression was planned that is enough. It is not necessary to go into speculating about the perpetrators philosophy.

An atheist attacks a xian for some reason. The fascist religious right, who knows how many are judges, will argue that it was a “hate crime”.

A xian creationist kid taunts an evolutionist kid in school. The evolutionist kid gets pissed off and smacks the creationist kid. There you have it, a “hate crime”. The wingnuts will ultimately love this law.

Comment by david — May 3, 2007 @ 10:38 pm

So it’s OK to beat up white guys. I say use the same stern punishment for all assault. I’m not saying go light on people that commit crime because of bigotry, I’m saying it shouldn’t matter who you assault. You assault someone you get punished.