Comments on: Breaking: Senate passes hate crimes bill.

By: Zooey

Zooey — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:26:43 +0000

Some times Ive used the word btch that does not mean I hate women (Or female dogs.)
Comment by Vendetta â€” September 27, 2007 @ 1:43 pm

Have you ever directed the word “b*tch” at a woman?

By: MapleStreet

MapleStreet — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:51:51 +0000

Dumb Question – The antis said the president will not let the congress make this legislation. He also has repeatedly emphasized that “activists judges” cannot make law from the bench.

So exactly who does have the power to make a law ?

By: lefttown

lefttown — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:24:01 +0000

I agree with Bartlebee. After yesterday’s vote on the Kyl-Lieberman piece of vermin, I called the County Auditor. I’m going Independent. Doesn’t mean I won’t vote for Democrats. I just want the Dems to know they can’t count on me anymore to march in lockstep to their tired, phoney routine. If more and more people start dropping from the Democratic roster, maybe they’ll think twice about what they’re doing. I stumbled upon this article about changing party affiliation. I think it’s worth a read:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_dave_lin_070927_why_quitting_the_dem.htm

By: bhal123

bhal123 — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:40:18 +0000

I’ve read all the comments so far for and against ‘hate crime’ laws. I don’t see anything new stated here to change my mind on this. No matter how it is presented these laws are being set up to punish people for their thoughts and motivations, which is at worst a violation of constitutional rights and at best a step onto the slippery slope of the same ilk. I do agree with motivational evidence being used to establish premeditation but otherwise it is irrelevant to the commission of a crime. To specifically address one argument made for the legislation: Will, First my sympathy to you for what you went through. But I don’t understand how this legislation will make those that victimized you any less likely to commit the crime again or any more likely to be prosecuted if they do. If the powers that be wouldn’t have charged them with the crimes they already committed, why would they charge them with these new crimes.

By: Democrat Soldier

Democrat Soldier — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:27:41 +0000

#45 – “Some times Ive used the word btch that does not mean I hate women (Or female dogs.)” Comment by Vendetta â€” September 27, 2007 @ 1:43 pm

Did you ever use that term as you were in the process of beating a woman? (Or female dog?) It has more to do with the words you use as you are violently attacking someone else, than it does with the words themselves.

The interesting part is that if I were to beat up a straight guy, and in the process use the term “breeder”, I could be charged under this provision!

Trust me, I don’t hate straight people! Some of my best friends are straight! (Totally tongue-in-cheek!)

By: Keith1Phx

Keith1Phx — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:26:45 +0000

Dim wit is a proper handle for you
Comment by Vendetta â€” September 27, 2007 @ 2:20 pm

Now, you are just being a bully as well as missing the point……..

By: Keith1Phx

Keith1Phx — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:09:50 +0000

1) Hate crimes legislation already existed before this bill. This bill simply expands who is protected.

2) Your arguement that this would be attack civil liberties if it served a liberal purpose is erroneous and baseless. There is no (American) civil liberty which allows one person to attack another.

Comment by dim wit â€” September 27, 2007 @ 2:03 pm

Thank you

By: dim wit

dim wit — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:03:31 +0000

Sorry folks but this is not progressive. If this legislation did not serve a lib political purpose but a conservative one you would label it rightly as an attack on civil liberties. That you support it is as backwards as the dems who voted to give Bush more power in Iran.

Comment by Vendetta â€” September 27, 2007 @ 1:51 pm

1) Hate crimes legislation already existed before this bill. This bill simply expands who is protected.

2) Your arguement that this would be attack civil liberties if it served a liberal purpose is erroneous and baseless. There is no (American) civil liberty which allows one person to attack another.

By: Keith1Phx

Keith1Phx — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:01:38 +0000

Whatever happened to Liberty and JUSTICE for ALL???????

By: RUCerious

RUCerious — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:46:12 +0000

Roger *2
All’s fair in love, war and politics. Or don’t you recall the Max Cleland smear campaign?

By: RUCerious

RUCerious — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:44:57 +0000

The Senate should attach some meaningful amendments to every war spending bill. Then Bush can veto his precioius war funding and the Pentagon can go broke trying to shift funding from other areas.
Like General Staff Pensions….

By: Luca

Luca — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:44:37 +0000

toasterhead has it right.

“Because hate crimes are directed not at the individual, but at a group. They are considered crimes of intimidation.”

Does anybody really believe that the lynchings of blacks weren’t hate crimes? That the killing of a black man by whites is no different than a white man killing another white man?

Lynchings were used as warnings to black people to stay in “their place”. Attacks on gays and lesbians are meant to give the same message.

By: Roger_Roger

Roger_Roger — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:38:22 +0000

This should be illegal. They are supposed to be focused of voting for the money our troops need and they add this crap? While I agree with the Hate crimes legislation, it in no way belongs in the defense spending bill.

By: toasterhead

toasterhead — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:16:09 +0000

What if the culprit did not know you were gay but had a history of anti-gay rhetoric?

It would be to easy to make the association which did not exist.

Comment by Vendetta â€” September 27, 2007 @ 12:37 pm

And it’d be really easy for even a moderately competent defense lawyer to have this evidence thrown out as irrelevant to the case.

By: Keith1Phx

Keith1Phx — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:13:53 +0000

So, if someone uses the “n-word” epithet against an individual and then proceeds to beat them up, then that is not a hate crime either???

By: Jackie

Jackie — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:09:34 +0000

Makes since that some must keep their secrets a secret. Senator Craig knows the code for picking up men and you have to know Sen. Lindsey Graham is light in the loafers as well as others. Interesting that Pelosi’s aide just got attacked because he’s gay while our leaders look the other way. Civil Rights are gone and Human Rights are leaving too. All these so call Christian Religious GOP guys say one thing and do another. Duke Cunningham has both male/female prostitutes at his poker games and most of these same guys attended. Now I wonder who chose the male partner? I know Vitter was a happy camper but the others. Senator Craig might have had his last vote before the Court refuses to dismiss his guilty plea. He can go back to Idaho and relax and feel free to contact what ever man he wants to without the media following him. Marrying a woman with children then adopting them to cover up you closet secret is from the old days. A lot of people did that because they were a shame and wouldn’t be accepted, in those days rich people even chose the wife or husband of their child as a business agreement to bring more money in the family. Now many years later most deny this action as it’s called Family Secrets.

By: Bertrand Russell

Bertrand Russell — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:09:20 +0000

I agree with others. Hate crimes are already illegal.

This is the just the democrats trying to divert your attention from the absolute crap job they’ve been doing.

By: ShamRockNRoll

ShamRockNRoll — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:00:17 +0000

Of course Senator Craig voted against this bill… Deeply closeted (well, not so much anymore) gay men that hate themselves generally tend to be serving in the U.S. Congress in the Republican Party. LOL

By: Will

Will — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:58:41 +0000

Of course people should be able to think anything they want. I wouldn’t want anyone policing my thoughts any more than anyone else. But when you inflict pain (how ever you define that) on another person, based on those thoughts, then that is wrong.

By: Keith1Phx

Keith1Phx — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:53:21 +0000

Will, thanks for your story.
Once again, you may “think” anything you wish, however, when you act on that thought in a criminal way, then it becomes something totally different.
As for the possibility of making the connection being made for past rhetoric; I believe the connection should not be made unless that rhetoric is displayed and then acted upon.