OT: Impeachment Isn't Enough

[SkyMedik]

Bush just vowed to veto the hate crimes law the House just passed addressing gender and sexual orientation. Most blatant act of hate-mongering without even a half an excuse ever.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18473074/

[PeterPan]

Sadly not suprising... and I expect the same if congress finally passes the employment non descrimination act :sad2:

OT OT: SkyMedik, I grew up in Ellicott City and my Mom was Chairpeson of the Howard County Democratic Central committee until she died last year

[SkyMedik]

Cool! Sorry to hear about your mother :( I keep tabs on the HoCo Dem Comm. I'm working in DC presently, and my sister might move to Sterling for her pharmacy rotations later this year.

[ConcKahuna]

This thread remindes me of when GWB was up for re-election and everyone was chanting "4 more years!" I keep on chanting "1.5 more years!"

Who knows, maybe we'll get lucky and it will end sooner.

[F4disneyfan]

Wow that has to be the most blatant misuse of power I have ever seen impeachment wouldn't go far enough as far as I see it this is down right discrimination at the highest level don't people usually get sued for crap like this.

[DutchsMommy]

It really amazes me that this is such a big deal for him (and obviously a number of people in the States). While there was definately some back-lash to the passing of same-sex rights and same-sex marriage laws in Canada in day to day life it is such a non-issue. All people should have the same rights, who cares who you love for goodness sake! I am not sure if DubY thinks passing this will cause mass hysteria and a general gay uprising or what?? It boggles the mind why such a trivial issue is such a big deal - I always think if our politicians actually acted on the real problems instead of screwing around with all this no-brainer stuff perhaps our lives and country would be a better place!

[Chuck S]

It boggles the mind why such a trivial issue is such a big deal - I always think if our politicians actually acted on the real problems instead of screwing around with all this no-brainer stuff perhaps our lives and country would be a better place!


Unfortunately it is not a trivial issue to the far right, and those are about the only votes the Republican Party can hope for in 2008 at this point. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and their ilk do have a flock, and they can herd those sheep to the polls. It is much easier to rally people around a common cause and solicit funds to vanquish "evil" than to tell them the right thing to do.

[dkostel]

I don't think it is the Bush white house being hateful (speaking to their motives, not their actions) as much as it is pandoring to their loudest supporters.
If you remember the whole Jeff Gannon debacle, a male prostitute was playing reporter at all the white house press conferences, until he was exposed. When records were obtained through the FOI act, it was shown that he was there on days that there were no press events and some nights too. Someone had some use for him beyond his fake reporting skills. My guess is Scotty or Karl.
We are the shiney thing (along with immigrants) that detract the public from the real issues, like Iraq.

Only 627 day, 2 hours and 15 minutes :thumbsup2

[kelleigh1]

Pardon the "intrusion" (I've honestly never visited this section of the Dis) but saw the title and knew I had to read the thread. I'm behind you on this. Of course, since day 1 of his reign, I've had a hard time finding much that he's done that I agree with.

I never voted for him and I never will. And I will not vote for someone who condones discrimination. We are all Americans regardless of race, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

When Romney attempted to stop the same-sex marriage bill here in Massachusetts, I was just as incensed, even though it had no effect on my life. Or maybe because it had no effect on my life. He claimed that same-sex marriage would be bad because of the children. He didn't think we should be teaching our children about same-sex. But apparently he thought teaching them discrimination was a better idea. When you get down to it, he was basically saying that love was wrong. And meanwhile, the real issues in the state (education, economy, etc) were being ignored while he fought to prevent two people who love each other from getting married.

Phew...I should breathe now. I just don't understand hate!

[BikeFan]

Unfortunately it is not a trivial issue to the far right, and those are about the only votes the Republican Party can hope for in 2008 at this point. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and their ilk do have a flock, and they can herd those sheep to the polls. It is much easier to rally people around a common cause and solicit funds to vanquish "evil" than to tell them the right thing to do.

It's not just the far right which has issues with hate crime legislation. National columnist Nat Hentoff (himself an avowed atheist and thus no fan of Robertson/Falwell/etc.) has questioned the effect such legislation has on the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Others on the left have also come out against hate crime legislation. I consider myself libertarian and no Bush fan, but I agree with this veto. All violent crime is hate crime, or none is.

[Chuck S]

It's not just the far right which has issues with hate crime legislation. National columnist Nat Hentoff (himself an avowed atheist and thus no fan of Robertson/Falwell/etc.) has questioned the effect such legislation has on the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Others on the left have also come out against hate crime legislation. I consider myself libertarian and no Bush fan, but I agree with this veto. All violent crime is hate crime, or none is.

Not all violent crime has hate as its primary motivation. If you attack someone you don't know simply because they are different, or you don't agree with their philosophy, that is a HATE crime. Murder is also motivated by greed, lust, any number of reasons, and in those instances the person who is hurt or killed has had some sort of prior relationship to the criminal. Hate crimes, like the death of Matthew Shepherd, have no motive other than hate...no robbery, or greed, or lust...just hate. Just kill or maime someone for the "fun of it because they are different."

[sdbirdsong]

Why is hate greater than greed, lust, boredom or any other cause of a violent crime? Why should it merit more consideration when the end result is still the same?:confused3

[BikeFan]

Not all violent crime has hate as its primary motivation. If you attack someone you don't know simply because they are different, or you don't agree with their philosophy, that is a HATE crime. Murder is also motivated by greed, lust, any number of reasons, and in those instances the person who is hurt or killed has had some sort of prior relationship to the criminal. Hate crimes, like the death of Matthew Shepherd, have no motive other than hate...no robbery, or greed, or lust...just hate. Just kill or maime someone for the "fun of it because they are different."

You just brought up two big issues with 'hate' crimes. First, proof. How do we know what the motivation was? When the Atlanta child murders were going on between 1979-81, that was widely thought to be 'hate' crime, because the victims were all black. However, the person convicted of the crimes, Wayne Williams, was himself black! But maybe he was self-loathing, so who knows? Hate crime? Hard to say. Certainly, it was a grevious crime, so why can't it be prosecuted strictly on that basis?
Second, I'm troubled by this 'ranking' of motivations. Take the recent attacks on the homeless by various groups of bored/disturbed youths. If Group 1 said it was sex/race/sexual orientation-neutral, and was merely seeking to beat the heck out of the first homeless person found 'just for kicks', is Group 1 inherently 'better' or 'less wrong' than Group 2, which was deliberately seeking a gay/black/female/jewish/whatever person to assault? Personally, I find both groups reprehensible, and both should face equal punishments. Most versions of hate crime legislation differentiates among classes of victims in ways I find unconstitutional.

[sdbirdsong]

You just brought up two big issues with 'hate' crimes. First, proof. How do we know what the motivation was? When the Atlanta child murders were going on between 1979-81, that was widely thought to be 'hate' crime, because the victims were all black. However, the person convicted of the crimes, Wayne Williams, was himself black! But maybe he was self-loathing, so who knows? Hate crime? Hard to say. Certainly, it was a grevious crime, so why can't it be prosecuted strictly on that basis?
Second, I'm troubled by this 'ranking' of motivations. Take the recent attacks on the homeless by various groups of bored/disturbed youths. If Group 1 said it was sex/race/sexual orientation-neutral, and was merely seeking to beat the heck out of the first homeless person found 'just for kicks', is Group 1 inherently 'better' or 'less wrong' than Group 2, which was deliberately seeking a gay/black/female/jewish/whatever person to assault? Personally, I find both groups reprehensible, and both should face equal punishments. Most versions of hate crime legislation differentiates among classes of victims in ways I find unconstitutional.

:thumbsup2 Well Said. It is all equally reprehensible. Personally, I think boredom and curiosity "I just wanted to see how it would feel to whatever " is the most reprehensible because I see it as being utterly pointless.

And the article that the OP is posting did not specify President's Bush's opposition so from the evidence here how do we know that it is being motivated by "hate mongering". Further, let me jump on my history techer soapbox and say that impeachment is only for "high crimes and misdeanors" to quote the Constitution. Not supporting a paticular bill, even one that you may hold as dear to your heart, is neither. Further, there is a little thing called Equal Protection to consider.

:tinker:

[Chuck S]

Why is hate greater than greed, lust, boredom or any other cause of a violent crime? Why should it merit more consideration when the end result is still the same?:confused3

With greed, you are normally motivated by $$$, for instance someone murders their spouse to inherit or to get life insurance...again, a previous relationship existed, and probably not a happy one, that either party could have left.

Lust, again, a previous relationship exists, usually a love triangle, or at least a perceived love triangle.

Hate crimes are more grievous, even with the same result, it is a random act of violence against someone with no previous history at with the criminal, targeting an unknown victim for no reason at all, except a perceived difference in values. Their goal isn't simply murder for their personal gain, but to terrorize and put fear into an entire class of citizens.

Motivation is routinely taken into account by courts when accessing the punishment. For instance, someone who accidentally kills someone and is remorseful should surely not receive the same punishment as some who kills for the "joy and thrill" of it. Hate crime legislation enables courts to better assess those penalties. Or are you saying Cheney should be imprisoned for attempted murder for shooting his hunting buddy?

[sdbirdsong]

IMO, If two people commit the same crime and in the same manner, the punishment should be the same no matter what the motivation.

Chenny's actions were an accident, not a crime.

The Republican party is made up of more than just the far right. It is almost as diverse as the Dems. It runs the gamut from the middle to the far right and every where in between.

[markp1]

It's unfortunate to see so much intolerance, judgmentalism and well, hatred coming from people who like to think of themselves as being above it.

[Chuck S]

IMO, If two people commit the same crime and in the same manner, the punishment should be the same no matter what the motivation.

Chenny's actions were an accident, not a crime.

The Republican party is made up of more than just the far right. It is almost as diverse as the Dems. It runs the gamut from the middle to the far right and every where in between.

Ah, but shooting someone is a crime, whether by accident or not. So, no matter the motivation (accidental or on purpose) should the punishment be the same?

Should the punishment be the same if the crime is commited against an individual, as in the case of murder for profit, greed or lust or if it it a crime committed with the intent of striking fear into an entire group of people, as in the case of a hate crime...where many more people are affected?

[PeterPan]

OK... first let me say I'm not a legal expert so... this is all personal feeling and my opion on how things should be... but... while I can see the equal protection arguement... I don't really agree with it... I see the same argument could be made against a difference between pre-mediated murder and regular murder... the fact that a person thought about and planned the murder results in a different crime then just killing someone spontaniously even if all other factors are equal... I agree that someone who thought about and planned a murder should get more time in jail then someone who didn't and I also agree that a person's motive should be a factor when determining sentencing... and as far as proving that it was "hate"... well that is up to the procescuter to prove... just as with any other motive... if they can't well... then they *just* commited a violent crime but not a "hate" crime

Also... the point about the title of this thread... I agree vetoing a bill is not a reason for impeachment; however, I know I feel there are many reasons to impeach bush and this just adds to the list of reasons to *want* him to be impeached even if it isn't an actual reason to be impeached

[donald...really]

Imagine a group of jewish people arriving at their synagogue to worship and finding out it had been vandalized over night. The front door has a giant happy face with the message "SMILE" spray painted on it. How are they going to feel.

Now imagine another group of jewish people arriving at their synagogue to worship and they too find out it had been vandalized over night. The front door has a giant swastika and the message "DIE JEW" painted on it. How are THEY going to feel?

Clearly one act of vandalism is worse than the other.

THAT is the difference between crime and a hate crime.

One targets the door of a synagogue, the other targets an entire community.

[Viki]

It's unfortunate to see so much intolerance, judgmentalism and well, hatred coming from people who like to think of themselves as being above it.

Oh, come on, post under your "real" name or don't post at all. On this board, we don't bite, we regularly engage in civilized conversation, and about the only thing we won't tolerate (except being lewd or spamming) is cowardice. So, please post often, but do it under a name with some gravitas. This is your one caution :)

[Saxton]

Murder is murder, whether the victim is Asian, Caucasian, African American, old, young, gay or straight. The suffering of family and friends is the same. The hate crimes bill does not attempt to raise one crime above another, it does not give one victim greater status than another. In it's simplest form the hate crime bill (H.R. 1592) gives federal law enforcement the authority to assist state, local and tribal law enforcement with the investigation of the crime (“(3) State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance.”). Why is this important? Because local authorities may not be experienced with these types of investigations, people may be unwilling to speak ,and sadly, local authorities may not be willing to move forward due to bias.


If you are walking down a city street and are murdered because someone wants to steal your wallet that is terrible and your family and friends would be devastated. If I am murdered walking down a city street simply because I'm a lesbian then it not only affects my friends and family but it also affects gay and lesbian people that I've never met, it fills them with fear. That is mentioned in the bill “(5) A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.”

The hate crimes bill does not raise any group to a higher level.

[BikeFan]

Imagine a group of jewish people arriving at their synagogue to worship and finding out it had been vandalized over night. The front door has a giant happy face with the message "SMILE" spray painted on it. How are they going to feel.

Now imagine another group of jewish people arriving at their synagogue to worship and they too find out it had been vandalized over night. The front door has a giant swastika and the message "DIE JEW" painted on it. How are THEY going to feel?

Clearly one act of vandalism is worse than the other.

THAT is the difference between crime and a hate crime.

One targets the door of a synagogue, the other targets an entire community.

That's a really good example, but I'd also argue that "Die Jew" is worse because it's an implied threat, which is a crime above and beyond merely spraying "Smile" or a tagger's (graffiti artist's) sign, which is a very common sight for those of us in urban areas. What if I moved to small town and found "Die Outsider" on my door? Should I be less afraid than if I found "Die Jew"? Yet one is a hate crime and one is not.

[BikeFan]

If you are walking down a city street and are murdered because someone wants to steal your wallet that is terrible and your family and friends would be devastated. If I am murdered walking down a city street simply because I'm a lesbian then it not only affects my friends and family but it also affects gay and lesbian people that I've never met, it fills them with fear. That is mentioned in the bill “(5) A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.”

Yes, but any violent crime savages a community - namely, the community in which the crime took place. Taking the first part of your example, won't the people living along the street upon which a person was killed for their wallet be devastated? Is their resulting fear less 'valid' than the fear of the gay and lesbian community in the second part of your example? It's really the same - two communities placed in fear, wrongly.

[sdbirdsong]

. . . the hate crime bill (H.R. 1592) gives federal law enforcement the authority to assist state, local and tribal law enforcement with the investigation of the crime . . .
The hate crimes bill does not raise any group to a higher level.

Hate crime legislation provides for stiffer sentences (saw one piece that tacked on an extra ten years) for hate crimes than for non hate crimes. This seems like special consideration to me.

And before I get any more flames, I'm against violence. I think all violent crimes against whomever should be prosecuted but equally and across the board no matter what group either side belongs to.

Further if the legislation does pass, I want rape declared a hate crime. Maybe then it won't one of the most underreported, under-prosectued, under-convicted crime on the books.

[Saxton]

Yes, but any violent crime savages a community - namely, the community in which the crime took place. Taking the first part of your example, won't the people living along the street upon which a person was killed for their wallet be devastated? Is their resulting fear less 'valid' than the fear of the gay and lesbian community in the second part of your example? It's really the same - two communities placed in fear, wrongly.

No, it is not the same. How often do you watch the 6:00 news and see reports of violent crime - someone is mugged or there is a home invasion. But people usually think "it only happens to someone else, it will never happen to me". With hate crimes, that isn't the case. Every time I hear about a homosexual being attack just for who they are I think "that could be me". You may not understand it but that frear is inside us every day.

[markp1]

[QUOTE=donald...really;18503203]Imagine a group of jewish people arriving at their synagogue to worship and finding out it had been vandalized over night. The front door has a giant happy face with the message "SMILE" spray painted on it. How are they going to feel.

Now imagine another group of jewish people arriving at their synagogue to worship and they too find out it had been vandalized over night. The front door has a giant swastika and the message "DIE JEW" painted on it. How are THEY going to feel?

Clearly one act of vandalism is worse than the other.
QUOTE]
That's not clear to me at all. In fact, I find that people resort to words like "clearly" only when they realize it's far from clear, and they have no other way of forcing their point on you. Either way, the Jews have a door they need to repair.

[markp1]

See, here's where I get confused. A rich person is much more likely to be robbed (which could result in murder) than a homosexual, because that's where the money is. So don't rich people need to be more protected than homosexuals? If so, shouldn't hate crime bills focus more on rich people?

[calgarygary]

I wish to apologize. For the past 6 & 1/2 years, I have been thinking that well you voted for him, you deserve all the damage he causes. Now, Jr. is going even further than I can stomache, impeachment is too slow a process. Hopefully in the future, you will develop a national recall formula to deal with other electoral mistakes. You deserve better than Jr. it's too bad that you have to suffer through the next year and a half.

I am a concerned Canadian.

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Originally Posted by BikeFan View Post
Yes, but any violent crime savages a community - namely, the community in which the crime took place. Taking the first part of your example, won't the people living along the street upon which a person was killed for their wallet be devastated? Is their resulting fear less 'valid' than the fear of the gay and lesbian community in the second part of your example? It's really the same - two communities placed in fear, wrongly.

It is not the same. Back in the old south, shooting one's wife was not the same as lynching a black. Yes they are both murdered. But the former isn't designed to place anyone else in more fear than they ordinarily would be. The latter is designed to send a message and do just that. Any terror the former generates is a by product. The latter is DESIGNED to spread terror among a certain group and is by definition a terrorist act.

You just brought up two big issues with 'hate' crimes. First, proof. How do we know what the motivation was?
Well some will never be proven. Much like any other statute. There is always the burden of proof that the government must meet. I don't think we should alter that. So I'm sure some hate crimes will indeed go unpunished as such. But in other cases, we certainly will have enough evidence. Example. A group beats up someone completely unprovoked and witnesses have them shouting certain slurs before, during, and after. I'd say that was enough evidence.

On to the subject. If Gays were going around beating heterosexuals merely because they are heterosexuals in large numbers, I have no doubt this thing would pass. And by the way, if that happens they could be charged with a hate crime. I don't see where it's granting any special status here.

Most versions of hate crime legislation differentiates among classes of victims in ways I find unconstitutional.

That simply isn't true. Merely committing a crime against a class of victim won't get you charged with a hate crime. If a black kills his white wife for the insurance money, there will be no hate crime charged. However, if he goes and kills a white woman and paints things like All whites must die all over the place, well he will be. It had nothing to do with the class of victim.

[sotoalf]

It is not the same. Back in the old south, shooting one's wife was not the same as lynching a black. Yes they are both murdered. But the former isn't designed to place anyone else in more fear than they ordinarily would be. The latter is designed to send a message and do just that. Any terror the former generates is a by product. The latter is DESIGNED to spread terror among a certain group and is by definition a terrorist act.


Not necessarily. If I shoot and kill a black man, the only "message" I'm sending is that I wanted him dead, for whatever reason: he didn't give me his wallet, he looked at me funny, or said something I didn't like.

[sotoalf]

It is not the same. Back in the old south, shooting one's wife was not the same as lynching a black. Yes they are both murdered. But the former isn't designed to place anyone else in more fear than they ordinarily would be. The latter is designed to send a message and do just that. Any terror the former generates is a by product. The latter is DESIGNED to spread terror among a certain group and is by definition a terrorist act.


Not necessarily. If I shoot and kill a black man, the only "message" I'm sending is that I wanted him dead, for whatever reason: he didn't give me his wallet, he looked at me funny, or said something I didn't like.

For the record prosecuting "hate crimes" (the very term sounds Orwellian, no?) has always made me uneasy. Andrew Sullivan has been most eloquent in explaining his own ambivalences:

There are, I think, two coherent positions on hate crime laws. The first is opposition to the entire concept, its chilling effect on free speech, its undermining of the notion of equality under the law, and so on. That's my position. I oppose all hate crimes laws, regardless of the categories of individuals they purport to protect. The other coherent position is the view that hate crimes somehow impact the community more than just regular crimes and that the victims of such crimes therefore deserve some sort of extra protection under the law. The criteria for inclusion in such laws is any common prejudice against a recognizable and despised minority. The minority need not be defined by an involuntary characteristic - religious minorities are so protected - and they choose their faith. Nor need the minority be accurately idetified. If a gentile is bashed because the attacker thinks he's Jewish, the hate crime logic still applies. I disagree with this, but I can accept its coherence.

But the one truly incoherent position is that hate crimes laws are fine for all targeted groups except gays. Gays are among the most common victims of hate crimes, and straight people are also targeted for being gay even when they're not. If you're going to buy the whole concept of hate crimes, it makes no sense to exclude gays - none. Notice we need no discussion of the morality or otherwise of homosexuality. All that is being punished is the perception of someone else's identity. A straight, evangelical married man could have recourse if he was bashed because someone merely perceived him to be gay. A celibate gay man in reparative therapy could have recourse as well. So no serious moral argument can be made to distinguish the gay victims of hate crimes from other victims.

The federalist argument equally applies. If it is the position of the feds that this should be left entirely to the states, fine. But to say that the feds have a role in matters of race and religion, but not sexual orientation again makes no logical sense, unless the federal government wants to send a strong message about the moral and human and political inferiority of gay people.

This is the crux of the matter. Federal legislation is wrong, but if you must pass it, then include crimes against homosexuals.

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Not necessarily. If I shoot and kill a black man, the only "message" I'm sending is that I wanted him dead, for whatever reason: he didn't give me his wallet, he looked at me funny, or said something I didn't like.

I didn't say merely shooting a black merely to take his wallet or because he looked at you funny. That indeed would not be charged as a hate crime under the statute and to imply that it would is disingenuous. I said Lynching (assume it ends in death) which was done to put other blacks (as well as whites that would support their cause) in fear. Your statement is non-responsive to my argument.

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

The first is opposition to the entire concept, its chilling effect on free speech,
There is no restriction on free speech here. Merely using a racial slur isn't a crime, nor a hate crime. Nor is the KKK marching or doing anything else LEGAL. Nor does what one says in the commission of a crime necessarily evidence beyond reasonable doubt of a hate crime. That is for a Jury to decide. But saying that using speech as evidence is restricting free speech is just not true.
ts undermining of the notion of equality under the law, and so on.
There is not a certain type of victim or perp required for a hate crime. That is not inequality under the law.
That's my position. I oppose all hate crimes laws, regardless of the categories of individuals they purport to protect.
They protect ALL categories of individuals.
The criteria for inclusion in such laws is any common prejudice against a recognizable and despised minority.
Really? Then why have blacks been charged with hate crimes against whites?
under the statutes if they only protect minorities?
The other coherent position is the view that hate crimes somehow impact the community more than just regular crimes and that the victims of such crimes therefore deserve some sort of extra protection under the law.
Merely murdering someone is murder. But a hate crime is murder plus a crime of terrorism as well. You don't think killing someone and then spray painting things like Die Whites Die isn't also a crime of terror? There isn't any extra protection here. Hate Crime laws protect everyone the same. If a pick em up truck full of Gays beats up a heterosexual couple and spray paints anti-heterosexual stuff all over the place, they should be charged with a hate crime under the statutes.
But the one truly incoherent position is that hate crimes laws are fine for all targeted groups except gays
There are no targeted groups. Only targeted reasons for hate crimes. But I see your point and agree with it.

[sotoalf]

You don't think killing someone and then spray painting things like Die Whites Die isn't also a crime of terror?
Again, not necessarily. Motivations are difficult to parse. If I attempt to bludgeon someone to death and right before my victim loses consciousness he hears me say, "F---ing f----t," he may or may not be a homophobe. At that moment it's irrelevant.

There isn't any extra protection here. Hate Crime laws protect everyone the same.

But "the same" and "equal" (as in "equal protection") are not equivalent.

Most of your points are quite valid, by the way.

[ConcKahuna]

Again, not necessarily. Motivations are difficult to parse. If I attempt to bludgeon someone to death and right before my victim loses consciousness he hears me say, "F---ing f----t," he may or may not be a homophobe. At that moment it's irrelevant.



But "the same" and "equal" (as in "equal protection") are not equivalent.

Most of your points are quite valid, by the way.

I agree that hate crimes should not have restrictions of ANY kinds. Currently they cover crimes that target a race/religion/nationality.

Right now, flaying a gay person's corpse, hanging them on the side of a building, and writing "All Gays Go to Hell" in 10 foot letters is considered less of a crime than doing the exact same thing to someone of a particular race. They are both obvious hate crimes, and blatant acts of terrorism. If anything, the hate crime bill should be amended to cover ANY crime of hate, no matter the target audience.

[OrlandoMike]

Just waking up here, but am I hearing the news correctly?

We don't have enough National Guard troops or equipment to help the Tornado victims because they are all over in Iraq?

Seems to me this would be grounds for some sort of discipline! :confused3

[wallyb]

Curious :confused: after reading this -
I'm thinking of perpetrating a hate crime myself. :mad:

[SkyMedik]

Given recent lack of response to tornado disaster (and I work in emergency management), I repeat my thread title: impeachment isn't enough.

[Chuck S]

And the devastated State can't respond well, as W has send most of their State National Guard oversees. :sad2:

[fey_spirit]

I not only didn't vote for him - I activly fought against him... campaigned my little heart out... so why do I have to put up with him again? "You voted for him - you deal with him" hardly applies to me... ::Sigh::

:confused:

I wish to apologize. For the past 6 & 1/2 years, I have been thinking that well you voted for him, you deserve all the damage he causes. Now, Jr. is going even further than I can stomache, impeachment is too slow a process. Hopefully in the future, you will develop a national recall formula to deal with other electoral mistakes. You deserve better than Jr. it's too bad that you have to suffer through the next year and a half.

I am a concerned Canadian.

[starlionblue]

It really amazes me that this is such a big deal for him

Well, it amazes me that Democrats can't stand the fact that guns save lives when burglaries happen every single day. Why is that a big deal to YOU? I hear that San Francisco overturned the 2nd Amendment recently. Nice thinking:rolleyes:. I ask you: what do gay couples do when hate groups turn violent and start breaking into houses? (and I'm NOT gay) Just look at Wyoming. It's SHOCKING how many hate crimes are committed every year. Why do Democrats hate ordinary people being able to protect themselves? Don't give me that TIIIIIRED old argument about crime. What does a battered wife do when her ex-husband keeps stalking her, sending her death threats day and night and she lives in a state where she can't find some means of defense?

[ConcKahuna]

Well, it amazes me that Democrats can't stand the fact that guns save lives when burglaries happen every single day. Why is that a big deal to YOU? I hear that San Francisco overturned the 2nd Amendment recently. Nice thinking:rolleyes:. I ask you: what do gay couples do when hate groups turn violent and start breaking into houses? (and I'm NOT gay) Just look at Wyoming. It's SHOCKING how many hate crimes are committed every year. Why do Democrats hate ordinary people being able to protect themselves? Don't give me that TIIIIIRED old argument about crime. What does a battered wife do when her ex-husband keeps stalking her, sending her death threats day and night and she lives in a state where she can't find some means of defense?

I say outlaw handguns but allow rifles. Handguns are only for killing people, at least with rifles you can hunt for food too.

And a rifle is still a great item for defending your home with.... :thumbsup2

[fey_spirit]

I'm a Democrat and I don't hate guns...
I hate what some people do with guns - I hate the fact that guns are a little too easy to get, but I don't hate guns.

Personally so long as they do a background check, make an attempt to keep them away from those with a conviction in cases of criminal violence, and actually make sure that the people who purchase them know how to use them and care for them so that they and their families don't get hurt with them - I'm all for them.

But then liberals tend to think I'm a republican so :confused3


Well, it amazes me that Democrats can't stand the fact that guns save lives when burglaries happen every single day. Why is that a big deal to YOU? I hear that San Francisco overturned the 2nd Amendment recently. Nice thinking:rolleyes:. I ask you: what do gay couples do when hate groups turn violent and start breaking into houses? (and I'm NOT gay) Just look at Wyoming. It's SHOCKING how many hate crimes are committed every year. Why do Democrats hate ordinary people being able to protect themselves? Don't give me that TIIIIIRED old argument about crime. What does a battered wife do when her ex-husband keeps stalking her, sending her death threats day and night and she lives in a state where she can't find some means of defense?

[R.S.Winters]

It is very sad that supposedly one of the most powerful countries in the world is still living in the Dark Ages. I could have lived in the States, but glad I didn't now. I don't think I could live in the same country as people who have so much hatred against others. I know it's only a minority of them that think like this, but they are the POWERFUL minority - they are the ones running your country, and that's sad.
I'm British and Proud, and so much as I don't like Tony Blair and his government, I give them credit, we do not have the same kind of sexual discrimination here as you guys do. And racial discrimination is more or less zero tollerance now too. They even made same sex marriage into law in Dec 2005.
Did I mention we don't use guns?
BRITISH AND PROUD

[jimmiej]

Did I mention we don't use guns?
BRITISH AND PROUD

Do criminals use guns in the UK?

[Uncle Remus]

Not all violent crime has hate as its primary motivation. If you attack someone you don't know simply because they are different, or you don't agree with their philosophy, that is a HATE crime. Murder is also motivated by greed, lust, any number of reasons, and in those instances the person who is hurt or killed has had some sort of prior relationship to the criminal. Hate crimes, like the death of Matthew Shepherd, have no motive other than hate...no robbery, or greed, or lust...just hate. Just kill or maime someone for the "fun of it because they are different."

OK, I admit I haven't read all 5 pages of this thread and I'm rather on edge today so I'm just gonna quote and second Chuck's knowledge on this issue coz it's the truth. :)

[NYBlue1]

See, here's where I get confused. A rich person is much more likely to be robbed (which could result in murder) than a homosexual, because that's where the money is. So don't rich people need to be more protected than homosexuals? If so, shouldn't hate crime bills focus more on rich people?

If your going to come here with the fake name cause for whatever reason you are ashamed to use your real ID to post on here, at least come with something good.

Your confusion runs far more deep than you may expect. You have no idea what a HATE crime entails , if you are trying to trivialize it to push buttons here you are failing miserably. Your just making yourself appear ignorant to the topic at hand.

Honestly when is the last time you heard of nightly reports of groups of people waiting outside of expensive restaurants or country clubs waiting to beat up the patrons cause they are rich.

[markp1]

If your going to come here with the fake name cause for whatever reason you are ashamed to use your real ID to post on here, at least come with something good.

Your confusion runs far more deep than you may expect. You have no idea what a HATE crime entails , if you are trying to trivialize it to push buttons here you are failing miserably. Your just making yourself appear ignorant to the topic at hand.

Honestly when is the last time you heard of nightly reports of groups of people waiting outside of expensive restaurants or country clubs waiting to beat up the patrons cause they are rich.Wow, such anger,such judgmentalism. :sad1: That's the second person who's falsely accused me of using a fake name. Why should I be surprised, when the moderator, the one that I assume is supposed to evince a welcoming attitude, sets such a poor example. Why can't people stick to issues and avoid catty accusations like that?:sad2: And instead of calling me ignorant, why not just make your point, or refute mine? Any who, why don't you hear nightly reports of people robbing rich people? Isn't it obvious? Because it happens so often that it's not news. Next question.

[Viki]

Wow, such anger,such judgmentalism. :sad1: That's the second person who's falsely accused me of using a fake name. Why should I be surprised, when the moderator, the one that I assume is supposed to evince a welcoming attitude, sets such a poor example. Why can't people stick to issues and avoid catty accusations like that?:sad2: And instead of calling me ignorant, why not just make your point, or refute mine? Any who, why don't you hear nightly reports of people robbing rich people? Isn't it obvious? Because it happens so often that it's not news. Next question.


Friends, this is a heads-up: usually the sort of thing you just wrote earns you big demerits on the disboards, but I'll give you this one warning as I try one more time to explain that when a poster comes to the Gay and Lesbian boards and raises questions to us on their very first post, without having established a dialog and a basic civil stance, we have questions about your true intent. All of that is reasonable and we are being more than kind to keep this conversation going. May I suggest, if you'd like to keep it going on your end, that you have a change of tone, if not heart.

[markp1]

Friends, this is a heads-up: usually the sort of thing you just wrote earns you big demerits on the disboards, but I'll give you this one warning as I try one more time to explain that when a poster comes to the Gay and Lesbian boards and raises questions to us on their very first post, without having established a dialog and a basic civil stance, we have questions about your true intent. All of that is reasonable and we are being more than kind to keep this conversation going. May I suggest, if you'd like to keep it going on your end, that you have a change of tone, if not heart. Ah yes, more of that "welcoming" attitude. You know, it's strange. I imagine many homosexuals have had to deal with a begrudging attitude from others. You had to "prove" that--despite being a homosexual--you were still an ok person. I can understand how you'd resent that. You wouldn't expect to see that same you're-not-ok-until-you-prove-to-me-you're-ok attitude in a homesexual forum. No, you wouldn't expect that.

[NYBlue1]

All one has to do to see the type of people that frequent this board, of any orientation , is to read the threads.

You have alot of discontent, thats ok, some people do, I for one wish you the best in your quest to live a happy , healthy and full life.

Nobody here is looking to play games , just express opinions and share experiences about disney and beyond. No need to get nasty and try to bait , pretty easy to see through and will not be returned from this poster any longer.

God Bless you and Peace.

EDIT:

I missed this reading your reply first time through...your quote was:
"Any who, why don't you hear nightly reports of people robbing rich people? Isn't it obvious? Because it happens so often that it's not news. Next question."


We are not talking about robbing gay people we are talking about beating them up just cause they are gay, and I stand by , when is the last time you heard of rich people being stalked outside fancy restaurants or country clubs and being beaten up for being rich BEATEN not ROBBED..those are two completly different situations. Maybe you are just not understanding what a hate crime is?

[NewJersey]

I don't think he should be impeached. I'm not a fan of Bush at all, but we shouldn't waste taxpayer money and time on an impeachment. I'd rather focus on the war on terrorism, getting our troops home, lowering our taxes, balancing the budget, getting the gov't out of our lives, improving education, and getting waste out of Washington.

Wasting time on an impeachment isn't the answer.

[fey_spirit]

The problem is none of those things is actually going to happen until Bubba goes home...
My problem is by the time we got all the way through the process at this point he's going to be out of office anyway.


I don't think he should be impeached. I'm not a fan of Bush at all, but we shouldn't waste taxpayer money and time on an impeachment. I'd rather focus on the war on terrorism, getting our troops home, lowering our taxes, balancing the budget, getting the gov't out of our lives, improving education, and getting waste out of Washington.

Wasting time on an impeachment isn't the answer.