It merely means an affluent demographic with a well funded lobby can now get special favors from government, no matter how ludicrous the grounds are; just ignore the fact that gays are victimized far less than many other demographics, despite the huge propaganda campaigns claims to the contrary; for instance, only 25% of gay males report being in fights at school, while about 100% of other males report getting in fights at some time at school, and other realities that get ignored when it suits their special interests.

As part of the Democratic Party's takeover by the brie and chardonnay set, the demonization of its former blue collar base requires that pander to such marginal fringe interests, like homosexual males, openly racist political gangs like La Raza, the various black lobbies, and the antisemites on the Left and the Right to get votes; nobody likes working class whites any more, too unfashionable and, well, just 'icky'. They tend to be independent and must be disenfranchised entirely, if possible, with their incessant whining about racist hiring policis like 'Affirmative Action', the 'ERA', 'Globalism', jobs going overseas, demanding immigration laws be enforced, the brie and Chardonnay set just can't do without the chic $600 a month live-in maids from Guatemala and such, not to mention the cheap landscaping, upscale car washes with the cheap detailing crews, sweated labor, etc., etc. ...


Yes, pretty much sums it up. Did you know that if minorities commit these crimes based on a victim's race it's not a 'hate crime' if they remember to steal a wallet or a watch or something? Then it's 'just a robbery' ... this nifty loophole seriously skews the statistics on who is really committing most hate crimes.

__________________
"The real question of life after death isn't whether or not it exists, but even if it does, what problems this really solves." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

"A day without sunshine is, you know, night."- Shannon

You'll never take me alive, G man.

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

Only if they are considered a legitimate part of the population, and what do you know they aren't.

There's a solid basis for provisions that attach additional punishment for crimes committed with the intent to incite hatred. Especially when those crimes lead to violence or harm against innocent victims. Its similar to inciting a riot or even slander. The problem is that our public's sound-bite conception of justice dumbs this down to the idea that the act of hating itself is the crime. It's not. Or that was never the intent. But our communal stupidity informs legislation that turns our misconceptions into reality.

Simply hating something or someone should never be a crime, nor should expressing such hatred. The crime is in inciting others to the point where mob ethics prevail. I'm not exactly where the current laws stand on this.

Yes, there are already laws against those things. No need to treat it differently because of a particular motivation.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

Killing people is already illegal. Your additional punishments are for thoughts. You're not fooling anybody.

We have differing punishments for crimes depending on intent. That's the whole idea behind the various "degrees" of murder. I think it's fine, for example, to distinguish between vandalism thats more of a thoughtless prank and burning a cross in the yard of a targeted minority.

We just need to ensure that a real crime is being committed and avoid letting the concept morph into "thought crime". Just hating someone isn't harming them. Inspiring your neighbors to form a lynch mob is.

Well, the latter would also be trespass. In any case, it should not be punished any differently just because the guy got off on being a racist vs. getting off on being mischievous. What would you say to the punishments regarding a person who kills someone for money vs. someone who kills a minority because he is a minority? Seems to me like they made a decision based on the rewards (money or pleasure) and intentionally carried it out. Why should one be punished differently?It's called free speech. If the mob does anything, take action against them.

The premise of the hate crime is an oxymoron.

The liberals in charge today feel that some people deserve to be protected more then others, most notably their loyal special interest groups that generally vote liberal in every election.

This is more proof that liberals are the real racists and are guilty of bias.

NOT everyone is covered under this bill....

Motherfuck em.

God forbid I have anything negative to say about these fucking liberals about this...

__________________
Sic Semper Tyrannis






http://www.myspace.com/swoop187muzic

Hate crime is nothing but "thought crime"

NO ONE can prove what another person was thinking at the time of a crime. THIS legislation just makes committing a crime against a gay MORE of a crime.

These liberals are just protecting their own loyal voters...

God, I fucking hate liberals.

These motherfuckers know nothing about equality.

__________________
Sic Semper Tyrannis






http://www.myspace.com/swoop187muzic

Furthermore ANYONE who supports such legislation as "Hate Crime" legislation IS bias and IS racist.

__________________
Sic Semper Tyrannis






http://www.myspace.com/swoop187muzic

If your state wants to pass hate crime laws, I don't care. In fact, I could tolerate my state having a well written, thoughtful version. The idea that the Federal government wishes to expand it's power and scope in what can only be viewed as an extraconstitutional way should bother all of us.

__________________
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. ---P. J. O'Rourke

But you can make a reasonable case for intent, and that does make a difference. Everyone seems to be focused on the hatred as the inspiration for a crime - as though that's what makes something a "hate crime", but that's not what I'm defending. It's the intent that matters. I'm saying that if someone commits a crime that's intended to provoke others it's reasonable to consider that in the punishment.

Like i pointed out earlier, senseless vandalism is different than burning a cross in someone's yard. One is relatively meaningless, the other can be construed as a threat and is intended to incite others.

I'm not sure that's what the law does. If it is, if it's merely providing different punishment depending on the victim, I'm opposed to it. But I don't think that's the case. If, instead, it makes a crime committed to provoke hatred "more of a crime", it seems reasonable.

Like that would ever happen.

You are allowed to hate anyone you wish to hate. You are just not allowed to use your hatred of homosexuality or a person's race or the fact that the person is a dumb President as a reason to assault or kill the person. This law protects all of us. It's probably keeping you alive because there must be millions of people who hate you but have decided not to act on it because of the hate crimes law.