100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Stripping away Christians First Amendment Rights! | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
adj...i think that's the debate. personally not that sure right now but i'm not thinking clearly either lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good. I say it's about time. And when you say even "incest" you do realize that doesn't mean pedophillia or child abuse. Even Einstein married his cousin. We even had at least one president married to his cousin if I remember correctly. Not saying I agree with marrying my cousin, but there's a lot of couples who have. And well, if they're happy and not hurting anyone, more power to them. I think they should have the right to not get beat down and bashed because of it. I'm not about to go beat them down with the bible and tell them how wrong they are and right I am.  Blessed Be
Yep. None of mine business. Christians want a right to bash others, all the while being protected themselves. While I do not see any reason to protect anyone in particular from being offended (there is no such right), I do see a point in this bill. Christians are known violent abusers of others. Just think of all the anti-abortion extremists. Christians seem to believe that because they believe in God, now everyone should as well, and not only that, but believe in their particular God of new testament. You do not want to marry your sister? You have a freedom not to. Keep praying (freedom to). Whatever. Just don't impose your views on others, and, stop making wars for Jerusalem already, and, specifically, quit begging for my time to hear the bullsh!t at my door! Your salesmen have way low educational level, and they do not seem to manage to impress me with their stupid stories of innocent conception. Those who intend to oppress others, shall be oppressed themselves. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obama and Big Homo. 
Ya well not sure where that comes from but I have to say that if he gets hate mail it's less about the bible and more about how he speaks about gays in the first place. Notice he has to emphasis homosexual. He must have enough self-loathing ex-gays to fill his talk videos, I listened to one tonight, he introduced the caller as gay but the caller corrected him and said he was an ex-gay and was on his side, and was frustrated as he is by the radical leftie homosexuals who call him a fundementalist.. Umm, but wait, he is, isn't he? Didn't he just say that? I am so confused... Yeah, seeing your article shows some good insight to the man. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nogames...i haven't oppressed anyone...we have actually moved on to the actual bill and i think we came to an agreement that the OP was off base
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
adj...there has to be a prejudice (not coincidance) A hate crime is usually defined by state law as one that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability. http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-crime/ so if the victims husband was hears or seen at anti-purple people meetings then would it count Again, no it would not. I am not going to go over all the pages of legal documents that control all this. If you want to know go read it for yourself. again why should it deserve special funding be careful what you allow as it will grow into something out of control -------------------------------- example remember when they passed the mandatory seat belt wearing law they said they would not give tickets for only not wearing seat belts but what is the saying now CLICK IT OR TICKET --------------------------------- be careful what you allow as it will grow into something out of control Ok I've mentioned this before but I'll do it again. Just because the feds wouldn't pick up the tab without this bill doesn't mean the costs aren't there. Either the states and local governments pick up the tab or the offenders are not prosecuted to the full extent provided by the law. I am not arguing in favor or against the laws the money supports I see plus sides and minus to them. What I'm saying is that this law does not provide anything new in terms of restrictions on our liberties. You want to fight against hate crimes laws go for it I don't really care much. But this is an @ssbackwards and ineffectual way to fight them. Defeating this bill won't change anything other than to say the feds won't help states pay for it... and perhaps a few more felons will be left on the street when a prosecutor tries to convict on a hate crime and fails for lack of money. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
DaveyB
on
Mon 04/27/09 11:03 PM
|
|
just like now...if they attended the purple people eaters haters meetings...then that could go toward a motive for a hate crime. that is done now as it is. the bill doesn't change that from what i understand then why is it needed See my post above for that answer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrelated drivel? Ok hmmm, this is the same guy that wrote the article in the original post, so I though maybe we might want to explore the person writing the article. I could be wrong but it would seem to say something about the way he worded the orignial article in this thread. That he seems to have a major issue with gays to begin with, so... never mind.. Ok I see your point on that. I think most people figured out his bias already but I suppose there are a few deluding themselves into thinking this was an unbiased report. Still drivel, just related drivel 
I am not sure what you think is drivel... I didn't know who this guy was before tonight, so I needed some information on who this guy is and where he is coming from before I could even relate to the OP. I can understand that. As for them being drivel... Both the articles in question are so full of errors that IMO it negates the very few valid points they make. For me that makes them drivel. Ah well that clears that up. Thanks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just as the seat belt law is abused per its origination
so will this one be well and hope you escape the wrath which is going to come from over protectionism |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
adj...there has to be a prejudice (not coincidance) A hate crime is usually defined by state law as one that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability. http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-crime/ so if the victims husband was hears or seen at anti-purple people meetings then would it count Again, no it would not. I am not going to go over all the pages of legal documents that control all this. If you want to know go read it for yourself. again why should it deserve special funding be careful what you allow as it will grow into something out of control -------------------------------- example remember when they passed the mandatory seat belt wearing law they said they would not give tickets for only not wearing seat belts but what is the saying now CLICK IT OR TICKET --------------------------------- be careful what you allow as it will grow into something out of control Ok I've mentioned this before but I'll do it again. Just because the feds wouldn't pick up the tab without this bill doesn't mean the costs aren't there. Either the states and local governments pick up the tab or the offenders are not prosecuted to the full extent provided by the law. I am not arguing in favor or against the laws the money supports I see plus sides and minus to them. What I'm saying is that this law does not provide anything new in terms of restrictions on our liberties. You want to fight against hate crimes laws go for it I don't really care much. But this is an @ssbackwards and ineffectual way to fight them. Defeating this bill won't change anything other than to say the feds won't help states pay for it... and perhaps a few more felons will be left on the street when a prosecutor tries to convict on a hate crime and fails for lack of money. then give the money to the justice dept of the state without the strings on how to use it earmarking it will lead to my previous post about law [a] and then laws [b, c, and] needing special funding and soon if there is no special funding there will be no protection from those that commit unfunded crimes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just as the seat belt law is abused per its origination so will this one be well and hope you escape the wrath which is going to come from over protectionism Ok last time, this bill is about the money, nothing else. The few things you've attempted to use to say other wise simply LIMIT the bills power to do the things you fear. It in NO WAY creates new crimes or restrictions on liberty. I'm sorry if you can't understand that simple concept but I really can't put it any simpler. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just as the seat belt law is abused per its origination so will this one be well and hope you escape the wrath which is going to come from over protectionism Ok last time, this bill is about the money, nothing else. The few things you've attempted to use to say other wise simply LIMIT the bills power to do the things you fear. It in NO WAY creates new crimes or restrictions on liberty. I'm sorry if you can't understand that simple concept but I really can't put it any simpler. you miss the simple point read the last post i made b4 this one |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just as the seat belt law is abused per its origination so will this one be well and hope you escape the wrath which is going to come from over protectionism Ok last time, this bill is about the money, nothing else. The few things you've attempted to use to say other wise simply LIMIT the bills power to do the things you fear. It in NO WAY creates new crimes or restrictions on liberty. I'm sorry if you can't understand that simple concept but I really can't put it any simpler. you miss the simple point read the last post i made b4 this one No I didn't I told you, you are fighting the wrong battle. Fighting federal funding doesn't do anything toward helping what you fear. I understand your fear and in some ways agree. If you want to do something about it, learn what you are talking about and fight that which is at it's cause. If I were you the last thing I would want to do is waste my efforts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just as the seat belt law is abused per its origination so will this one be well and hope you escape the wrath which is going to come from over protectionism Ok last time, this bill is about the money, nothing else. The few things you've attempted to use to say other wise simply LIMIT the bills power to do the things you fear. It in NO WAY creates new crimes or restrictions on liberty. I'm sorry if you can't understand that simple concept but I really can't put it any simpler. you miss the simple point read the last post i made b4 this one No I didn't I told you, you are fighting the wrong battle. Fighting federal funding doesn't do anything toward helping what you fear. I understand your fear and in some ways agree. If you want to do something about it, learn what you are talking about and fight that which is at it's cause. If I were you the last thing I would want to do is waste my efforts. not fighting the federal funding it should not be earmarked for a specific crime doing so will cause that crime to be exploited thus falsely applied and other crimes will not be enforced until there are additional funding supplied for them you need to look beyond the simple aspect of the bill and see the consequences that could arise from the type of precedent it will create --------- if you have a kid and you tell the kid you will give them xx amount for say washing the car then when you tell them to take out the trash it becomes how much you gonna give me to do it |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
DaveyB
on
Tue 04/28/09 12:17 AM
|
|
just as the seat belt law is abused per its origination so will this one be well and hope you escape the wrath which is going to come from over protectionism Ok last time, this bill is about the money, nothing else. The few things you've attempted to use to say other wise simply LIMIT the bills power to do the things you fear. It in NO WAY creates new crimes or restrictions on liberty. I'm sorry if you can't understand that simple concept but I really can't put it any simpler. you miss the simple point read the last post i made b4 this one No I didn't I told you, you are fighting the wrong battle. Fighting federal funding doesn't do anything toward helping what you fear. I understand your fear and in some ways agree. If you want to do something about it, learn what you are talking about and fight that which is at it's cause. If I were you the last thing I would want to do is waste my efforts. not fighting the federal funding it should not be earmarked for a specific crime doing so will cause that crime to be exploited thus falsely applied and other crimes will not be enforced until there are additional funding supplied for them you need to look beyond the simple aspect of the bill and see the consequences that could arise from the type of precedent it will create --------- if you have a kid and you tell the kid you will give them xx amount for say washing the car then when you tell them to take out the trash it becomes how much you gonna give me to do it Might agree if this were something new. It's not. It's not a president setting bill. For the record this is the first you said that even remotely said you understood this was about the money. You've spoke of nothing but creating new laws. You can't prove that because it doesn't do that, so now you wish to start a new argument you won't get much from me on this one. Oh and as you well know, your previous post has nothing to do with money as you're trying to suggest now. Like all your other posts it's about creating new restrictions on liberty which this bill doesn't do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
great grandpa burned a couple witches, and I never here the end of it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
adj...there has to be a prejudice (not coincidance) A hate crime is usually defined by state law as one that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability. http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-crime/ so if the victims husband was hears or seen at anti-purple people meetings then would it count Again, no it would not. I am not going to go over all the pages of legal documents that control all this. If you want to know go read it for yourself. again why should it deserve special funding be careful what you allow as it will grow into something out of control -------------------------------- example remember when they passed the mandatory seat belt wearing law they said they would not give tickets for only not wearing seat belts but what is the saying now CLICK IT OR TICKET --------------------------------- be careful what you allow as it will grow into something out of control Ok I've mentioned this before but I'll do it again. Just because the feds wouldn't pick up the tab without this bill doesn't mean the costs aren't there. Either the states and local governments pick up the tab or the offenders are not prosecuted to the full extent provided by the law. I am not arguing in favor or against the laws the money supports I see plus sides and minus to them. What I'm saying is that this law does not provide anything new in terms of restrictions on our liberties. You want to fight against hate crimes laws go for it I don't really care much. But this is an @ssbackwards and ineffectual way to fight them. Defeating this bill won't change anything other than to say the feds won't help states pay for it... and perhaps a few more felons will be left on the street when a prosecutor tries to convict on a hate crime and fails for lack of money. then give the money to the justice dept of the state without the strings on how to use it earmarking it will lead to my previous post about law [a] and then laws [b, c, and] needing special funding and soon if there is no special funding there will be no protection from those that commit unfunded crimes you missed this one huh |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Tue 04/28/09 12:59 AM
|
|
"""""Might agree if this were something new. It's not. It's not a president setting bill"""""
-------- so seeing as it is not the first time they passed a crime fighting funding bill and they cant fight said crime because the funding is not there imagine that next they will want paid for doing the dishes on the corner after all they are already getting paid for taking out the trash 
---------- thank you |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why is it needed what crime is it protecting people from assault that is already illegal murder again already illegal slander yet again already illegal why pass additional laws that piggyback other laws already on the books just give out the max penalty for the crime that is broken Gezz people read the bill, it provides MONEY nothing else. It does not change the law. You want to argue about the EXISTING laws it is to be used to help enforce fine, argue about that and I'll probably be out of it because I don't really have a strong opinion about those laws either way. But for f*** sake find out what you're arguing about. read the bill what why should one law get special funding over another just enforce the law as it stands law enforcement is funded already they should just do the job they are paid to do they need special funding for law [a] soon they will need special funding for law[b, c, d] pretty soon there will be no way to enforce a law at all unless there is special funding for it no special funding for any laws maybe a penalty for not enforcing laws with funds they already have is in order after all THEY CAN AFFORD TO LEAVE THEIR POLICE CARS RUN ALL THE TIME and you also missed this one??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nogames...i haven't oppressed anyone...we have actually moved on to the actual bill and i think we came to an agreement that the OP was off base Your right to practice your religion isn't affected at all. This is the case where you haven't oppressed anyone, and no one oppresses you. There are those, however, that (not only bug the sh!t outta me by my door) but, also advocate against the right of women to abortion, where it none of their business. They don't have to abort, but, they aren't happy with that. They prefer to dictate to others, so, they deserve to be dictated to, as well. |
|
|
|
|
