Posted on 09/15/2005 6:48:47 AM PDT by Antoninus
Hat-tip to seamole for providing the table and text of the amendment in the previous thread.
Ping your lists, por favor!
Fitzpatrick (PA) - What a piece of sh@t RINO who replaced another piece of sh@t RINO of Jim Greenwood
All of Oklahoma's Reps including our lone Dem from NE OK all voted NO!
I found the following news to be just sickening but am heartened that the Chancellor made the right decision....
UWGB pulls painting of Bush with a gun to his head (with audio) Was it art, or a threat against the president? U-W Green Bay has pulled a painting that was set to go on display Thursday. It was a picture of President Bush with a revolver pointed at his head. The Secret Service investigated the artwork and did not consider it a threat. Chancellor Bruce Shepard doesn't see it that way. He says any reasonable person would say the artwork advocates assasination. Shepard says people have the right to express themselves on a college campus. But, when it's in a university gallery and they are paying the bills, they have the right to decide what will be associated with their name.
Sick puppies in this world.
Boehlert certainly doesn't surprise me. He's pro-death as well.
" - why they shouldn't be protected?"
No, the question is, "Why should they be more protected than everyone else?"
Crimes are crimes. A crime is not worse because it is against a pillow-biter.
And this is WHAT IS IMPORTANT to the U.S. Congress...clearly final testimony to the fact that the U.S. Congress, and most of Washington, for that matter, is totally out of control. Clearly, perverted politics, before the needs and IMPORTANT interests of the American people.
At least the chancellor had a brain in his head. The secret service could use some common sense, so it seems. It may not actually be a threat, but it could encourage some idealistic student to try to shoot the president. Cheez.
Forgive me for not being up on this issue. Is this an anti-gay issue or the fact that there is any hate crime legislation at all? Please splain. thanks.
No, the question is, "Why should they be more protected than everyone else?"
-------
Exactly. We have now converted AFFIRMATIVE ACTION to the queers. Preferential treatment under the law.
Anti-gay? If you mean you shouldn't get special rights depending on who you're boinking, then sure. Resisting the pro-gay assault, let's say.
or the fact that there is any hate crime legislation at all?
That's not the specific thrust of this activist freep, but one could make that argument as well.
They ARE protected already, like everyone else.
Now go zot yourself in a light socket 'til you get that straighted out in your head.
I don't recall Christ hating anyone, but maybe my catholic upbringing left out those stories.
Your "Catholic upbringing" should have taught you not to be a poofter-glorifying fool who invokes his savior to support the culture of Sodom, but then catechism ain't what it used to be. Jesus never came out for special rights for objectively disordered sinners.
No more money from me.
None to the NRCC anyway. Or the NRSC. Or the RNC.
Find good individual conservatives in tight races and give to them directly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.