Skip to comments.
U.S. House backs hate crime measure protecting gays
Reuters ^
| 9-14-2005
| Joanne Kenen
Posted on 09/14/2005 4:28:18 PM PDT by COEXERJ145
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 361-366 next last
To: snarkytart
"This time the hate crime measure was attached to a bipartisan bill known as the Children's Safety Act aimed at tightening reporting requirements for child sex offenders"
LOL...now THAT is ironic!
To: AuH2ORepublican
EVERY hate-crime law is fascist and should be struck from the books.
242
posted on
09/15/2005 9:33:21 AM PDT
by
fieldmarshaldj
(*Fightin' the system like a $2 hooker on crack*)
To: HostileTerritory
"I've always thought that Mike Castle's personal life was an open secret in Delaware. I've seen that mentioned elsewhere."
I'd never heard that before. Interesting.
Boy, that House of Representatives cloakroom must have one huge closet.
243
posted on
09/15/2005 9:33:45 AM PDT
by
AuH2ORepublican
(http://auh2orepublican.blogspot.com/)
To: COEXERJ145
When do we get a hate crime and hate speech bill out of the Congress for liberal hate and liberal hate speech against conservative and the president? Right, I know, when pigs fly.
244
posted on
09/15/2005 9:40:13 AM PDT
by
RetiredArmy
(All democrats are ENEMIES of the Republic!)
To: fieldmarshaldj
"EVERY hate-crime law is fascist and should be struck from the books."
I agree 100%. The First Amendment stands for the proposition that the government can't dictate which viewpoints are correct and which viewpoints are verboten, and hate-crime laws are certainly not viewpoint neutral (if you beat a gay Republican because he's a Republican, you get 10 years in prison, but if you beat the same gay Republican because he's gay, you get 30 years in prison). I've never understood why Scalia shied away from the First-Amendment principles he so eloquently espoused in his majority opinion in RAV v. City of St. Paul when hate-crime-law cases reached the Court.
245
posted on
09/15/2005 9:41:04 AM PDT
by
AuH2ORepublican
(http://auh2orepublican.blogspot.com/)
To: AuH2ORepublican
246
posted on
09/15/2005 9:49:23 AM PDT
by
little jeremiah
(A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
To: rocksblues
"The hate crimes amendment would expand existing federal hate crime program to add sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability to federal hate crime laws. "
Excatly what would NOT be a hate crime under this law?
To: HiTech RedNeck
"I don't think Bush will sign anything like that.'
Betcha he will, bush signs EVERYTHING that comes across his desk from congress.
To: COEXERJ145
249
posted on
09/15/2005 10:03:07 AM PDT
by
Ciexyz
(Let us always remember, the Lord is in control.)
To: angrylibertarian
"Furthermore, this doesn't abridge your freedom of speech-- assualting or murdering someone is not an allowable form of expression and never has been. If the old law didn't outlaw the Klan, the new one won't stop you from speaking your beliefs either. The bill simply expands the old program to also cover disabilities, gender, gender identity and sexual orientation. No, it won't make church illegal either."
Well this is only because we haven't gotten far enough along to start making speech itself criminal, except in airports. 'incitement of hatred' is one i bet you money we will be hearing about as a major problem needed legislation in the next decade.
To: montag813
I did hear that exchange, and I totally agree with what you said.
251
posted on
09/15/2005 10:17:31 AM PDT
by
kesg
To: HiTech RedNeck
Thus far, GWB has vetoed nothing.
252
posted on
09/15/2005 10:48:16 AM PDT
by
Theodore R.
(Cowardice is forever!)
To: mlc9852
Crimes should be defined by clear facts, as ACTIONS that violate the rights of another person, regardless of what that person's race/gender/nationality/ethnicity/sexual practices may be. When we start making crimes against some but not others "hate crimes" by trying to peer inside someone's brain to determine whether they are said to 'hate' a certain category of people, we have simply expanded the leftist conception of "thought crime"..... Think of the converse: let's say person X commits the same violent act against someone who happens to be a "caucasian heterosexual male".... somehow that's a lesser crime because it doesn't include the thought component of 'hate' for gays, etc.??????? Anyway, until the PC-police start including black-on-white "hate crimes" in their litany it will continue to be obvious that they operate with a highly selective and distorted conception of 'hate'.....
253
posted on
09/15/2005 11:09:15 AM PDT
by
Enchante
(Don't put up with Michael Moore-on's slanders anymore!)
To: COEXERJ145
254
posted on
09/15/2005 11:21:44 AM PDT
by
RockinRight
(What part of ILLEGAL immigration do they not understand?)
To: Dane
Weird votes on both sides.
Mike Pence votes for it...and Steve Chabot...but Dennis Kucinich and Stephanie Tubbs-Jones against??
Something smells. There has to be something in this bill. Or the water...
255
posted on
09/15/2005 11:25:34 AM PDT
by
RockinRight
(What part of ILLEGAL immigration do they not understand?)
To: AuH2ORepublican
Thank you very much for this info. We now have a plan of action we can use.
256
posted on
09/15/2005 11:27:04 AM PDT
by
Killborn
(God bless the rescuers, God bless the Commander in Chief, and God bless America.)
To: JCEccles
Perhaps we're being duped by Reuters...
257
posted on
09/15/2005 11:29:04 AM PDT
by
RockinRight
(What part of ILLEGAL immigration do they not understand?)
To: Dane
That looks a little better...
258
posted on
09/15/2005 11:33:00 AM PDT
by
RockinRight
(What part of ILLEGAL immigration do they not understand?)
To: little jeremiah
Well, look around. People will be asking the same question years from now about people in the US.There's still hope.
259
posted on
09/15/2005 11:47:08 AM PDT
by
Freebird Forever
(A thousand Bravehearts are better than one)
To: Tench_Coxe
Nice picture--nice statement.
If the law is passed, you and I can tell anyone that we dislike some "homo-sapiens."
Many years ago, a politician won especially having told the voters that his opponent was a "homo-sapien." They didn't know the meaning of the word.
260
posted on
09/15/2005 11:57:47 AM PDT
by
GOPologist
("On some days you may feel like a dog; on other days you may feel like a hydrant!")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 361-366 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson