scribblet Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 Bush isn't perfect, but on this one I agree, this is just the latest leftist attempt to squelsh free speech .defeated. Bush Expected to Veto 'Hate Crimes' Bill http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Pa...L20070503d.html President Bush looks likely to veto a "hate crimes" bill under debate in the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday if it is approved by Congress. Conservatives quickly responded by thanking the president for upholding "our nation's constitutional tradition of equal protection under the law." "The administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crime based on personal characteristics, such as race, color, religion or national origin," according to a statement released by the Executive Office of the President. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolyNewbie Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 I hope it gets defeated. One thing about the democrats you can be sure of: They are more evil than the republicans. Democrats will want to take the guns away, chip everybody, invoke global warming laws and invoke hate laws if elected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 Democrats will want to take the guns away, chip everybody, invoke global warming laws and invoke hate laws if elected. Gee...then it would be just like...ummm...Canada! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guthrie Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 Congress protects itself with hate crime laws. The potential sentence for assaulting a congressman is greater than a sentence for committing battery on a regular citizen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gc1765 Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 "The administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crime based on personal characteristics, such as race, color, religion or national origin," according to a statement released by the Executive Office of the President. Perhaps we should treat "terrorism" the same way we treat violent crime as well? No special laws for that either? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 "The administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crime based on personal characteristics, such as race, color, religion or national origin," according to a statement released by the Executive Office of the President. Perhaps we should treat "terrorism" the same way we treat violent crime as well? No special laws for that either? Well of course we put stronger penalties on more violent crimes, but why for race, color or creed. That's ridiculous, and so is the comparison to terrorism. Terrorism is a generally a very violent crime with multiple civilian deaths. But as for "hate" crimes, what's the difference. The crime is the crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guthrie Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 Terrorism is using violence and extortion to intimidate or coerce. So by it's very nature, a hate crime is the quite the same as terrorism. The KKK leaves a man hanging from a tree or the KKK bombs a church, the purpose of the crime is not to steal someone's wallet but to create fear in the minds of a group of people. That's what the KKK wants, it's what the 9/11 terrorists wanted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gc1765 Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 Well of course we put stronger penalties on more violent crimes, but why for race, color or creed. That's ridiculous, and so is the comparison to terrorism. Terrorism is a generally a very violent crime with multiple civilian deaths. But as for "hate" crimes, what's the difference. The crime is the crime. You missed my point. If a guy uses a car bomb for "terrorism" and the blast kills someone, should he be tried for murder or terrorism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffycat Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 Bush isn't perfect, but on this one I agree, this is just the latest leftist attempt to squelsh free speech .defeated. Thank G-d for small miracles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guthrie Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 Since when is terrorism free speech? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffycat Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 Guthrie, I'm not sure if your above reply refers to my post. I will explain. What I am happy about is that the 'hate crime' bill will not be passed. I do not condemn 'leftists' as the so trumpeted cause of these kinds of stifling laws. The thing about free speech is that the most important time that we stand and defend it IS when we DON'T agree with it. Not easy - but necessary in a truly free society. Locking folk up for what they 'say' is no way to run a humanistic and liberty rich society. Terrorists are another story and then again it also depends on your interpretation of what exactly constitutes terrorism - since when it is commited by 'us' it is rarely called such. Having special status in the law for 'hate' crimes is too arbitrary and can be used for massive propoganda purposes, not to mention the dismantling of public dissent - it is a slippery slope. So, I am glad it was defeated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guthrie Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 Guthrie, I'm not sure if your above reply refers to my post.I will explain. What I am happy about is that the 'hate crime' bill will not be passed. I do not condemn 'leftists' as the so trumpeted cause of these kinds of stifling laws. The thing about free speech is that the most important time that we stand and defend it IS when we DON'T agree with it. Not easy - but necessary in a truly free society. Locking folk up for what they 'say' is no way to run a humanistic and liberty rich society. Terrorists are another story and then again it also depends on your interpretation of what exactly constitutes terrorism - since when it is commited by 'us' it is rarely called such. Having special status in the law for 'hate' crimes is too arbitrary and can be used for massive propoganda purposes, not to mention the dismantling of public dissent - it is a slippery slope. So, I am glad it was defeated. "Having special status in the law for 'hate' crimes is too arbitrary" - escept such status exists already - the question is not whether the law should exist but who should it protect --- already groups have special protection or special penalties assessed for their attackers -- if you want to remove such status, well the guys you thank for defeating the most recent legislation are not about to give up their own special protected status - they are the worst of hypocrites and no, the dismantling of public dissent is not averted by defeating this legislation --- and quite contrary, the guys who defeated this hate crimes bill are quite accepting of muffling public dissent so, bottom line - defeating hate crime can not in any way shape or form be considered a victory for free speech -- it is too bad that people confuse these things Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Phone).thumb.jpg.165c8315c6251d31b87efa29fe65361b.jpg)
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.