Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sen. Allen: 'Hate Crimes' Support Breaks No Promise
CNS ^ | 10/6/05

Posted on 10/06/2005 6:25:23 AM PDT by areafiftyone

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101 next last
To: Corin Stormhands
I applaud Allen and Talent for reintroducing the line item veto.
61 posted on 10/06/2005 8:03:53 AM PDT by Gipper08 (Mike Pence in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: ElPatriota
Last time I heard he was ready to talk to Mrs. Sheehan... I wonder what he wanted to talk to her about?... hmmm....

You need to keep up with the news. Read here.

62 posted on 10/06/2005 8:05:22 AM PDT by Corin Stormhands (You are stuck on stupid, I’m not going to answer that question ~ General Honore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Corin Stormhands
....As for the Cindy Sheehan comment, he did not say the President should have met with her again. He did say that he would have met with her before she began her media circus, but not after.....

I happily stand corrected! althoug on second thought, isn't that what GWB did? He met with her... before joining the circus?

.. But no matter I am just glad he is not becoming a McCain.

And thank you for the information! there is no way I could keep up with everything that is going on, since I can not trust the MSM my sources are very limited and that is why I come to FR

63 posted on 10/06/2005 8:28:23 AM PDT by ElPatriota (Let's not forget, we are all still friends despite our differences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: ElPatriota

Yes, the President met with her last year (I believe).

And I think Allen's statement may have been before that was widely known.


64 posted on 10/06/2005 8:29:44 AM PDT by Corin Stormhands (You are stuck on stupid, I’m not going to answer that question ~ General Honore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
The effort to create a "Hate Crime" law is directed toward one object: to give government police state authority over every human action of every citizen.

George Orwell's book "1984" nightmare has become a reality when BigGov can say: "We are going to deprive you of your freedom and liberty because we know what you were thinking."

We know this is true because hate is an emotion, it is not quantifiable, nor can hate be measured as to degree of motivation for an act. No one can look into the human mind and tell what the emotion of the moment is or was.

Such a law can have only one purpose and that is to give government the justification to do anything to anyone under the guise that the person committed a "Hate" crime.

Hate is a legitimate human emotion without which man could not survive.

We come nearer to the police state where what is not compulsory is prohibited.
65 posted on 10/06/2005 8:40:51 AM PDT by R.W.Ratikal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
The effort to create a "Hate Crime" law is directed toward one object: to give government police state authority over every human action of every citizen.

George Orwell's book "1984" nightmare has become a reality when BigGov can say: "We are going to deprive you of your freedom and liberty because we know what you were thinking."

We know this is true because hate is an emotion, it is not quantifiable, nor can hate be measured as to degree of motivation for an act. No one can look into the human mind and tell what the emotion of the moment is or was.

Such a law can have only one purpose and that is to give government the justification to do anything to anyone under the guise that the person committed a "Hate" crime.

Hate is a legitimate human emotion without which man could not survive.

We come nearer to the police state where what is not compulsory is prohibited.
66 posted on 10/06/2005 8:41:47 AM PDT by R.W.Ratikal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
The effort to create a "Hate Crime" law is directed toward one object: to give government police state authority over every human action of every citizen.

George Orwell's book "1984" nightmare has become a reality when BigGov can say: "We are going to deprive you of your freedom and liberty because we know what you were thinking."

We know this is true because hate is an emotion, it is not quantifiable, nor can hate be measured as to degree of motivation for an act. No one can look into the human mind and tell what the emotion of the moment is or was.

Such a law can have only one purpose and that is to give government the justification to do anything to anyone under the guise that the person committed a "Hate" crime.

Hate is a legitimate human emotion without which man could not survive.

We come nearer to the police state where what is not compulsory is prohibited.
67 posted on 10/06/2005 8:42:14 AM PDT by R.W.Ratikal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
The effort to create a "Hate Crime" law is directed toward one object: to give government police state authority over every human action of every citizen.

George Orwell's book "1984" nightmare has become a reality when BigGov can say: "We are going to deprive you of your freedom and liberty because we know what you were thinking."

We know this is true because hate is an emotion, it is not quantifiable, nor can hate be measured as to degree of motivation for an act. No one can look into the human mind and tell what the emotion of the moment is or was.

Such a law can have only one purpose and that is to give government the justification to do anything to anyone under the guise that the person committed a "Hate" crime.

Hate is a legitimate human emotion without which man could not survive.

We come nearer to the police state where what is not compulsory is prohibited.
68 posted on 10/06/2005 8:42:42 AM PDT by R.W.Ratikal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EdReform; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; stage left; Yakboy; I_Love_My_Husband; ...

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

Any elected official who votes to include "sexual orientation" as a protected class under a so-called hate crimes bill is no conservative. Or any special group. Then entire concept of "hate crimes" is non-conservative and repellent. It means some groups of humans are more worthy than others.

In any trial, it's obvious that if the crime is particularly cruel, or the victim helpless, that will be taken into consideration at the time of sentencing, or should be. The is absolutely no reason to mandate special groups as worthy of sacred status as victims, it is an odious concept. And to include homosexuals is the heighth of insult to everyone.

Freepmail me AND DirtyHarryY2K if you want on/off this pinglist.


69 posted on 10/06/2005 8:43:29 AM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
Where are all the "Allen/Rice 2008" pimps now?

Senators have never won a presidency since JFK, and even he didn't really win thanks to election fraud.

70 posted on 10/06/2005 8:44:26 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: R.W.Ratikal

Your statements are absolutely correct.


71 posted on 10/06/2005 8:45:02 AM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

This legislation is intendened to LEGISLATE BY FORCE OF LAW the assumption that homosexuals are "born."

This will be pointed to be used to break down other institutions.

If anything hate crime laws mean you are prohibited from saying "right and wrong".


72 posted on 10/06/2005 8:45:37 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

Virginia Republican Sen. George Allen, considered by political insiders to be a contender for the party's 2008 presidential nomination




Not after this.


73 posted on 10/06/2005 8:46:29 AM PDT by trubluolyguy (I am conservative. That is NOT the same thing as Republican. Don't place party over principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AliVeritas

Ping

Quick. Look here.


74 posted on 10/06/2005 8:48:07 AM PDT by del4hope (Tom Delay - HAMMER like you have never Hammered before - God's speed to you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis
I dislike excessively long red lights and poorly timed yellow lights. If I accidentally ran one, would that be considered a hate moving violation?
75 posted on 10/06/2005 8:49:36 AM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend

Mr. Wannabe jumped out against the President on Meiers, and now he's breaking his campaign promises too.




I have issues with Allen on the hate crimes idiocy but on the nomination of Meiers come on, you can't disagree with the President anymore? GWB is always right?

I don't think so.


76 posted on 10/06/2005 8:49:42 AM PDT by trubluolyguy (I am conservative. That is NOT the same thing as Republican. Don't place party over principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

Allen is displaying really bad judgement here. Incrementalism sets in and the next thing you know, pastors, imams, rabbis - you name it - can't speak out against homosexuality.

Elevating sexual orientation to the level of race or gender, for any reason, is a recipe for disaster.


77 posted on 10/06/2005 8:50:22 AM PDT by Kryptonite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

Dear Mr. Allen,

Thanks for letting us know.

Save your money and skip your trip to Iowa.


Sincerely,
Granny


78 posted on 10/06/2005 8:53:43 AM PDT by Iowa Granny (I am not the sharpest pin in the cushion but I can draw blood.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ManHunter

You're probably right on at least two of the three. I'd like to see an election where I didn't have to hold my nose to vote.




For once


79 posted on 10/06/2005 8:55:06 AM PDT by trubluolyguy (I am conservative. That is NOT the same thing as Republican. Don't place party over principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Gipper08
What you neglect to mention is the fact he ran off for the Q&A session and his praise of the house leadership. I believe in the leadership of this Congress, men and women of integrity and principle who work every day to bring the ideals of our founders into the well of the People’s House. Right....
80 posted on 10/06/2005 8:55:57 AM PDT by SDGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson