Lou Dobb and wife shot at [Archive]

View Full Version : Lou Dobb and wife shot at

spursncowboys

10-30-2009, 10:44 AM

WANTAGE, N.J. – Police in New Jersey are trying to determine who fired a bullet that struck CNN commentator Lou Dobbs' home as his wife stood nearby. State police Sgt. Stephen Jones says Dobbs' wife and driver were outside the home Oct. 5 when they heard the gunshot. Jones says the bullet didn't penetrate the siding and fell to the ground outside.
Dobbs mentioned the bullet earlier this week on CNN and his radio show.
Dobbs says he had been receiving threatening phone calls for weeks. On his radio show, he connected the gunshot to his advocacy for a crackdown on illegal immigration and to his opponents' rhetoric.
The home is on a farm in Wantage, about 50 miles northwest of New York City.
It is small-game hunting season, but no hunters were seen in the area.
AP

boutons_deux

10-30-2009, 11:20 AM

right-wingers claim to have big balls as long as they are the only ones pulling the triggers.

spursncowboys

10-30-2009, 11:29 AM

right-wingers have claim to have big balls as long as they are the only ones pulling the triggers.

do you have a quote or link?

Is this acceptable behavior towards someone who has a different ideology?

DarkReign

10-30-2009, 11:59 AM

do you have a quote or link?

Is this acceptable behavior towards someone who has a different ideology?

No on both.

doobs

10-30-2009, 12:04 PM

do you have a quote or link?

Is this acceptable behavior towards someone who has a different ideology?

Why even acknowledge his existence?

He probably touches himself whenever someone addresses him.

Viva Las Espuelas

10-30-2009, 12:11 PM

Why even acknowledge his existence?

He probably touches himself whenever someone addresses him.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_vG4-JXzlYeU/R1C9-0bWeoI/AAAAAAAAAHM/hO1LcWOWRzE/s1600-R/computer%2Bnerd%2B%2B%2BLimpet%2B2%5B1%5D.JPG

Wild Cobra

10-30-2009, 04:00 PM

right-wingers claim to have big balls as long as they are the only ones pulling the triggers.
Really? It seems to me strength of charactor comes with all political alignments. Just better with some than others.

Why is it the Homeland security is worried about the "radical right" when it is the "radical left" almost always commiting the crimes?

Can we say "partisan politics?"

ChumpDumper

10-30-2009, 04:03 PM

clambake

10-30-2009, 04:04 PM

aren't you the one that said you wanted to shoot women and children at the border?

ChumpDumper

10-30-2009, 04:05 PM

aren't you the one that said you wanted to shoot women and children at the border?Shooting women and children shows strength of character.

boutons_deux

10-30-2009, 04:06 PM

so you right-wingers DON'T CLAIM to have big, manly-man, Macho Balls?

hope4dopes

10-30-2009, 04:10 PM

aren't you the one that said you wanted to shoot women and children at the border?
So now, let me get this straight, according to liberals it is now acceptable to pimp 13 year old girls and attempt to shoot conservatves.I'm not seeing a lotta give and take here.

clambake

10-30-2009, 04:10 PM

Shooting women and children shows strength of character.

and bravery.

hope4dopes

10-30-2009, 04:11 PM

Wild Cobra

10-30-2009, 04:12 PM

all right . can anybody vouch for where bali was at the time?

What about Cheney?

clambake

10-30-2009, 04:14 PM

a round that didn't even penetrate the siding.

hmmmm....sounds like someone wants to generate publicity.

hope4dopes

10-30-2009, 04:21 PM

so you right-wingers DON'T CLAIM to have big, manly-man, Macho Balls?And you left wingers are agianst hate crimes?

clambake

10-30-2009, 04:22 PM

hate crime? lou is a victim of a hate crime?

hope4dopes

10-30-2009, 04:24 PM

hate crime? lou is a victim of a hate crime?fuck yeah he's being targeted because of his speech>

ChumpDumper

10-30-2009, 04:30 PM

So it happened three weeks ago, and there is no statement from New Jersey law enforcement about an attempted assassination of a public figure.

OK.

hope4dopes

10-30-2009, 04:37 PM

So it happened three weeks ago, and there is no statement from New Jersey law enforcement about an attempted assassination of a public figure.

OK. Yeah come on now everybody it's not like somebody took a pot shot a Sheila Jackson Lee..or somebody whose political views are..........oh yeah "good". You have to understand a "bad" man was targeted so that's O.K....WE clear here.

ChumpDumper

10-30-2009, 04:39 PM

Yeah come on now everybody it's not like somebody took a pot shot a Sheila Jackson Lee..or somebody whose political views are..........oh yeah "good". You have to understand a "bad" man was targeted so that's O.K....WE clear here.If Lee complained that someone tried to assassinate her spouse, I would also like to hear what the police thought about the assassination theory after three weeks.

Why do you think there is no police report of an attempted assassination after three weeks, micca? Think hard.

hope4dopes

10-30-2009, 04:42 PM

If Lee complained that someone tried to assassinate her spouse, I would also like to hear what the police thought about the assassination theory after three weeks.

Why do you think there is no police report of an attempted assassination after three weeks, micca? Think hard. Yeah nothing to see here folks move along.

ChumpDumper

10-30-2009, 04:43 PM

Yeah nothing to see here folks move along.That's not an answer, micca.

Why do you think there is no police report of an attempted assassination after three weeks?

ChumpDumper

10-30-2009, 04:52 PM

From a rather conservative newspaper:

Lou Dobbs' gunshot 'threats'

Last Updated: 6:18 AM, October 30, 2009

Posted: 12:02 AM, October 30, 2009

Lou Dobbs claims gunshots were fired at his New Jersey home after a series of threatening calls -- but police believe the shots were just from hunters. The CNN host told his radio-show listeners he's under attack for his views on immigration. "My house has been shot and hit . . . and you know what, I'm not in the mood to put up with little fools like Geraldo Rivera," Dobbs said. Rivera has criticized Dobbs on Fox News. But NJ State Police say Dobbs never reported death threats. Sgt. Stephen Jones said, "At this time of year, hunter complaints go up."

http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/empty_threats_5tZae33xPuhBCNLLdlGXjP

admiralsnackbar

10-30-2009, 04:53 PM

Really? It seems to me strength of charactor comes with all political alignments. Just better with some than others.

Why is it the Homeland security is worried about the "radical right" when it is the "radical left" almost always commiting the crimes?

Can we say "partisan politics?"

C'mon, dude... name a few lefty plots since that report was issued. A lefty is in power, so they're mostly happy. The loony fringe of this country's right wing, on the other hand, is all kinds of rabid. There's the nazi who went on a shooting spree at the Holocaust museum, there's the pro-life guy who murdered Dr. Tiller, there are the 5-6 plots (or more?) to kill the POTUS since last year. There was the soldier who disobeyed orders to serve until Orly Taitz could secure proof of the president's birthplace (hope he gets courtmartialed for AWOL and insubordination but goood).... can you name that many left-wing-related incidents?

When Bush was in power, it was the opposite.

spursncowboys

10-30-2009, 05:16 PM

and bravery.

sounds more communist to me. Who's more like that?

Wild Cobra

10-30-2009, 05:16 PM

fuck yeah he's being targeted because of his speech>

Why bother trying to expalain it to a libtard?
Withe the new hate crime legislation passed, if a preacher has a sermon about how homosexuality is wrong in church, then someone in his audience has a fight with a faggot, then the preacher can be charged with a hate crime. However, if a faggot got up and beat the crap out of that preacher, he wouldn't.

Fucking special rights.

spursncowboys

10-30-2009, 05:18 PM

Yeah come on now everybody it's not like somebody took a pot shot a Sheila Jackson Lee..or somebody whose political views are..........oh yeah "good". You have to understand a "bad" man was targeted so that's O.K....WE clear here.

Exactly. We have to put this into perspective. Dobbs has been reported to the White house for fishy activity. What's news is how the right kills the third trimester abortion doctors. That is an honorable job.

admiralsnackbar

10-30-2009, 05:22 PM

ChumpDumper

10-30-2009, 05:23 PM

Exactly. We have to put this into perspective. Dobbs has been reported to the White house for fishy activity. What's news is how the right kills the third trimester abortion doctors. That is an honorable job.An abortion provider was actually murdered in an actual assassination.

What evidence in the Dobbs' case shows that this was something other than a stray bullet from a hunter?

Besides his and your paranoia, that is.

baseline bum

10-30-2009, 06:34 PM

rjv

10-30-2009, 06:55 PM

C'mon, dude... name a few lefty plots since that report was issued. A lefty is in power, so they're mostly happy. The loony fringe of this country's right wing, on the other hand, is all kinds of rabid. There's the nazi who went on a shooting spree at the Holocaust museum, there's the pro-life guy who murdered Dr. Tiller, there are the 5-6 plots (or more?) to kill the POTUS since last year. There was the soldier who disobeyed orders to serve until Orly Taitz could secure proof of the president's birthplace (hope he gets courtmartialed for AWOL and insubordination but goood).... can you name that many left-wing-related incidents?

When Bush was in power, it was the opposite.

yeah-but those don't count

exstatic

10-31-2009, 12:38 AM

Jeezus, will this clown just quit and go to Fox already? He's already got the hateful rhetoric and persecution complex down pat.

sabar

10-31-2009, 02:42 AM

Who cares? Bullets go flying into homes all the time here in San Antonio. Some innocent young lady was killed recently if I recall. Glad I live on the north side.

Winehole23

10-31-2009, 04:37 AM

Why bother trying to expalain it to a libtard?
Withe the new hate crime legislation passed, if a preacher has a sermon about how homosexuality is wrong in church, then someone in his audience has a fight with a faggot, then the preacher can be charged with a hate crime. However, if a faggot got up and beat the crap out of that preacher, he wouldn't.

Fucking special rights.Vituperative.

Sore at faggots much?

Winehole23

10-31-2009, 04:37 AM

Why so bitter, WC?

EmptyMan

10-31-2009, 10:36 AM

An abortion provider was actually murdered in an actual assassination.

What evidence in the Dobbs' case shows that this was something other than a stray bullet from a hunter?

Besides his and your paranoia, that is.

A murderer was murdered, that's too bad :lol

I don't give a shit if someone wants to kill their own baby, but it is what it is.

EmptyMan

10-31-2009, 10:39 AM

Like Tim McVeigh and the unabomber?

Unabomber was an enviro-nut pissed at the industrial society.

1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster
for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of
those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they have
destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected
human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological
suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have
inflicted severe damage on the natural world.Sounds familiar :lmao

Props to the Unabomber for actually living in a 5x5 cabin in the middle of the woods with no electricity, unlike that bitch ass Gore.

hope4dopes

10-31-2009, 11:14 AM

hope4dopes

10-31-2009, 11:31 AM

panic giraffe

10-31-2009, 01:43 PM

After the White House's statements about Fox I was just wondering...if something happens to the "bad" people at FOX will Obama be charged with perpetuating a hate crime?Any thoughts?

that's retarded, and not retarded as in gay, retarded as in stupid. when did anyone from the white house, let alone the president, say anything threating about fox? NEVER. all that was said that they are not a news organization, but an opinion one. they didn't even say that they wanted them to fail (sound familiar pillhead lovers?), just that they didn't consider them to be a credible news organization.

Who cares? Bullets go flying into homes all the time here in San Antonio. Some innocent young lady was killed recently if I recall. Glad I live on the north side.

actually even if you didn't take in the fact that the south, west, and east sides are all way more dense then the northside (where the only non-sprawl development is medical center) then its been proven that there are more crimes per 1000 people on the northside. but hey, if that picket fence makes you feel safer.........but yeah, this whole thing is a non-issue, just some hunter missing the mark, even the cops think that...but mr. veneers is gonna milk that for what its worth like any entertainer...reminds me of fake "gangsta rappers" who have a homeboy shoot them just to claim street cred.

Exactly. We have to put this into perspective. Dobbs has been reported to the White house for fishy activity. What's news is how the right kills the third trimester abortion doctors. That is an honorable job.

thats sickening that the right, or anyone really, could be ok with murder just because they don't agree w/their views, even more sickening how they hide it behind "god'.

Kermit

10-31-2009, 01:48 PM

Hunters mistook the rug on his head for some deer hide.

ChumpDumper

10-31-2009, 02:20 PM

After the White House's statements about Fox I was just wondering...if something happens to the "bad" people at FOX will Obama be charged with perpetuating a hate crime?Any thoughts?No, he wouldn't.

Only an idiot would try to make that connection.

And you never answered this question, micca:

Why do you think there is no police report of an attempted assassination after three weeks?

baseline bum

10-31-2009, 03:16 PM

Unabomber was an enviro-nut pissed at the industrial society.
Sounds familiar :lmao

Props to the Unabomber for actually living in a 5x5 cabin in the middle of the woods with no electricity, unlike that bitch ass Gore.

I noticed you didn't post the part of his manifesto where he sounds like Glenn Beck railing against leftism.

Wild Cobra

10-31-2009, 04:57 PM

Like Tim McVeigh and the unabomber?
Is that the best ypu have? Two examples, the first of with is agnostic and libertarian, the second who is liberal fascist.

Wild Cobra

10-31-2009, 04:59 PM

Vituperative.

Sore at faggots much?

Not at all. Just pointing out the real possibilities of the legislation, and purposely using my venom because I hate the small minded people who believe in special rights.

Wild Cobra

10-31-2009, 05:01 PM

Unabomber was an enviro-nut pissed at the industrial society.
Sounds familiar :lmao

Props to the Unabomber for actually living in a 5x5 cabin in the middle of the woods with no electricity, unlike that bitch ass Gore.
Yep, i called him a liberal fascist because he believes in industry only if it's properly controlled, and because of his green thoughts.

Wild Cobra

10-31-2009, 05:03 PM

Lotts a luck trying to prove or enforce that.
I would hope they can't. Teaching Leviticus in the bible is something that in theory is now unlawful. However, hate to see that tested on court with some of the liberal judges appointed.

Wild Cobra

10-31-2009, 05:05 PM

I noticed you didn't post the part of his manifesto where he sounds like Glenn Beck railing against leftism.
Point is, he isn't the radiacl right. That's why his name was brought up. Want a thread about him, start a new one.

EmptyMan

10-31-2009, 06:22 PM

I noticed you didn't post the part of his manifesto where he sounds like Glenn Beck railing against leftism.

He was an ent loving hippy!

Winehole23

10-31-2009, 06:55 PM

Not at all. Just pointing out the real possibilities of the legislation, and purposely using my venom because I hate the small minded people who believe in special rights.What legislation, please? I have no idea what you're talking about.

Wild Cobra

10-31-2009, 07:24 PM

What legislation, please? I have no idea what you're talking about.

Public Law 111-84 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR02647:|TOM:/bss/d111query.html|)

It is the signed law after HR 2647 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h2647enr.txt.pdf) passed, and signed into law 3 days ago. Where have you been?

I should add that it should not be in this legislation. It starts on page 646 of the second link and is titled "DIVISION E--MATTHEW SHEPARD AND JAMES BYRD, JR. HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT"

baseline bum

10-31-2009, 08:42 PM

Is that the best ypu have? Two examples, the first of with is agnostic and libertarian, the second who is liberal fascist.

LOL. McVeigh is about as radical right as you can get, thinking it was his duty to take down the tyrannical federal government. McVeigh and the tea-baggers are peas in a pod.

spursncowboys

10-31-2009, 08:58 PM

that's retarded, and not retarded as in gay, retarded as in stupid. when did anyone from the white house, let alone the president, say anything threating about fox? NEVER. all that was said that they are not a news organization, but an opinion one. they didn't even say that they wanted them to fail (sound familiar pillhead lovers?), just that they didn't consider them to be a credible news organization.

actually even if you didn't take in the fact that the south, west, and east sides are all way more dense then the northside (where the only non-sprawl development is medical center) then its been proven that there are more crimes per 1000 people on the northside. but hey, if that picket fence makes you feel safer.........but yeah, this whole thing is a non-issue, just some hunter missing the mark, even the cops think that...but mr. veneers is gonna milk that for what its worth like any entertainer...reminds me of fake "gangsta rappers" who have a homeboy shoot them just to claim street cred.

thats sickening that the right, or anyone really, could be ok with murder just because they don't agree w/their views, even more sickening how they hide it behind "god'.
I am against vigilantism. I don't lose sleep though when an abortion dr, the one I am talking about, who performed third trimester abortions is murdered. Speaking of murder, I mean abortion...Same thing. Who knows maybe there was a hunter around his abortion clinic.
Dobbs-The reporter from the AP is the one who threw that hunter thing in there. There is no source that said that. Unless you have the police saying they think it was a hunter, I don't think you should push that opion as a fact either.
ABout the NS, if you combine the areas of the NISD and NEISD , those two alone, i would think is 2/3 of the population of SA.

panic giraffe

11-01-2009, 03:03 PM

I am against vigilantism. I don't lose sleep though when an abortion dr, the one I am talking about, who performed third trimester abortions is murdered. Speaking of murder, I mean abortion...Same thing. Who knows maybe there was a hunter around his abortion clinic.
Dobbs-The reporter from the AP is the one who threw that hunter thing in there. There is no source that said that. Unless you have the police saying they think it was a hunter, I don't think you should push that opion as a fact either.
ABout the NS, if you combine the areas of the NISD and NEISD , those two alone, i would think is 2/3 of the population of SA.

the thing with abortion (which i don't want to derail this thread by going too much into) is that it's your opinion that it's murder. if someone isn't born yet, how are they considered alive? the fact that you don't even know the story behind dr. tillers' murder is even more dangerous than your belief on abortion. dude was killed in HIS CHURCH. not near his place of employment, it would be one thing for one of you right-wing goons to kill him in the act of performing his job, sort of like saying "this is why we're killing you", but to stalk him, find him on his day off while he's trying to worship the same god you believe him, then MURDER him is just insane.

but wingbat is as wingbat does.

actually the sheriffs department said that they believed it was a hunter, read the article and stop just reading drudgeheadlines for your "news".

yea if you combine nisd and neisd, you can probably get close to 2/3 of the city's population, definitely over 1/3 just shy of 2/3, even if you include the other incorporated towns that those districts serve. but that statement is still a fail on your part, seeing as how i was talking about DENSITY and crimes per 1000, not just shear population numbers.

ChumpDumper

11-01-2009, 03:43 PM

Who knows maybe there was a hunter around his abortion clinic.Anyone who isn't a idiot knows he was shot in the head at point blank range in front of several witnesses in the lobby of a church.

Dobbs-The reporter from the AP is the one who threw that hunter thing in there. There is no source that said that. Unless you have the police saying they think it was a hunter, I don't think you should push that opion as a fact either.Anyone who isn't an idiot already knows there has already been a news account posted saying the police "threw that hunter thing in there."

Look, here's another:
Sergeant 1st class Stephen Jones, a NJ police spokesperson I interviewed by telephone yesterday, chuckled out loud after he heard about Dobbs’ account of the gunfire incident. Jones commented that he "wouldn't classify it [the gunfire incident] as very unusual." He also confirmed that there are hunters in the area, and stated that, "at this time of year hunter [shooting] complaints go up."http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/143627/was_cnn_host_lou_dobbs_really_shot_at

spursncowboys

11-01-2009, 03:47 PM

the thing with abortion (which i don't want to derail this thread by going too much into) is that it's your opinion that it's murder. if someone isn't born yet, how are they considered alive? the fact that you don't even know the story behind dr. tillers' murder is even more dangerous than your belief on abortion. dude was killed in HIS CHURCH. not near his place of employment, it would be one thing for one of you right-wing goons to kill him in the act of performing his job, sort of like saying "this is why we're killing you", but to stalk him, find him on his day off while he's trying to worship the same god you believe him, then MURDER him is just insane.
I too would not want to move this into a abortion discussion. However I believe a life begins at conception, you seem to feel it is when they are out of the womb. How are they alive if not born? A simple determination would be a heartbeat. A heartbeat would show life. How can you conclude that it does not determine something to be alive or dead. When Dr's would give abortions and the child would be alive. They would have the child put to the side and let the child die because it wasn't considered alive. How can someone die if they were never alive? Obama supports partial birth abortion btw. However legally, if they can be born and live without life support is the distorted view of when someone is considered living. This is how this "Dr." falls into being called a murderer, since he gave late term abortions. I don't assume to think it was a "right-wing" person. I never condoned the goons attack on this "Dr." Only the media coverage it got.

actually the sheriffs department said that they believed it was a hunter, read the article and stop just reading drudgeheadlines for your "news". Link. The report from the original post has the reporter incinuating it could have been hunters. Also were hunters also calling his house threating him?

ChumpDumper

11-01-2009, 03:48 PM

Direct quote from the same guy:
Jones declined to speculate on whether the shooter was targeting the home or whether it was a hunter’s misfire, but said “it is not uncommon this time of year, toward hunting season, to have bullets shot at houses in rural areas.”

http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20091029/UPDATES01/91029034/Police-investigate-after-shots-fired-at-Lou-Dobbs--Wantage-home-

MannyIsGod

11-01-2009, 03:52 PM

Public Law 111-84 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR02647:%7CTOM:/bss/d111query.html%7C)

It is the signed law after HR 2647 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h2647enr.txt.pdf) passed, and signed into law 3 days ago. Where have you been?

I should add that it should not be in this legislation. It starts on page 646 of the second link and is titled "DIVISION E--MATTHEW SHEPARD AND JAMES BYRD, JR. HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT"

None of the legislation in there says what you are saying it does.

However, feel free to point it out.

spursncowboys

11-01-2009, 03:57 PM

actually the sheriffs department said that they believed it was a hunter, read the article and stop just reading drudgeheadlines for your "news".

Jones declined to speculate on whether the shooter was targeting the home or whether it was a hunter’s misfire, but said “it is not uncommon this time of year, toward hunting season, to have bullets shot at houses in rural areas.”

The article I posted said nothing about who the sherriff thought did it. But this clearly shows that they said that it could be hunters, since it's close to hunting season, not that it was.

ChumpDumper

11-01-2009, 04:03 PM

The article I posted said nothing about who the sherriff thought did it. But this clearly shows that they said that it could be hunters, since it's close to hunting season, not that it was.You said the AP reporter threw that in there.

Turns out he was just reporting the possibility that a law enforcement official had already brought up.

So you were wrong.

jman3000

11-01-2009, 04:07 PM

Seems plausible, given all the circumstances, that this would simply be a stray hunters bullet. Does making it a liberal radical make people feel better inside?

God damn there's some stupid people here grasping for things that aren't there.

panic giraffe

11-01-2009, 04:56 PM

I don't assume to think it was a "right-wing" person. I never condoned the goons attack on this "Dr." Only the media coverage it got.

oh because a supposed "left-wing goon" would be theoretically opposed to what Dr. Tiller did?

hell are there even any confirmed accounts of left wing violence in recent history?

Wild Cobra

11-01-2009, 05:13 PM

None of the legislation in there says what you are saying it does.

However, feel free to point it out.
Have a lawyer read it and ask if those senerio's can happen.

Wild Cobra

11-01-2009, 05:14 PM

The article I posted said nothing about who the sherriff thought did it. But this clearly shows that they said that it could be hunters, since it's close to hunting season, not that it was.
I would say it could be either way myself. There is nothing to side one way or the other unless one is biased.

Winehole23

11-01-2009, 05:19 PM

Public Law 111-84 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR02647:%7CTOM:/bss/d111query.html%7C)

It is the signed law after HR 2647 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h2647enr.txt.pdf) passed, and signed into law 3 days ago. Where have you been?The NBA season began, and Halloween is a busy time for me socially; maybe you can forgive me for not being on the exact same page as you. :whine

Winehole23

11-01-2009, 05:22 PM

Have a lawyer read it and ask if those senerio's can happen.Why don't you back up your own bs, instead of asking other posters to do your own homework for you...

...again.

Wild Cobra

11-01-2009, 05:26 PM

The NBA season began, and Halloween is a busy time for me socially; maybe you can forgive me for not being on the exact same page as you. :whine
No problem. Enjoy the time. I think you would agree I don't post something unless I can back it up, or m I wrong.

Why don't you back up your own bs, instead of asking other posters to do your own homework for you...

...again.
But it's not BS.

I'll tell you what, I'll take a short time to see if I can find that info on line. Keep in mind however the way it's written and the lagaleze a lawyer can use.

As for doing others homework, maybe it's a good thing to have people think about. If they choose to argue a particular bill, shouldn't they be able to understand what they read?

Oh... Sorry... I forgot...

Liberals need to be told what to think.

George Gervin's Afro

11-01-2009, 05:29 PM

No problem. Enjoy the time. I think you would agree I don't post something unless I can back it up, or m I wrong.

But it's not BS.

I'll tell you what, I'll take a short time to see if I can find that info on line. Keep in mind however the way it's written and the lagaleze a lawyer can use.

As for doing others homework, maybe it's a good thing to have people think about. If they choose to argue a particular bill, shouldn't they be able to understand what they read?

Oh... Sorry... I forgot...

Liberals need to be told what to think.

by who? who tells me how to think? I would assume you could back that up with something other than your opinion..

ChumpDumper

11-01-2009, 05:39 PM

No problem. Enjoy the time. I think you would agree I don't post something unless I can back it up, or m I wrong.

But it's not BS.

I'll tell you what, I'll take a short time to see if I can find that info on line. Keep in mind however the way it's written and the lagaleze a lawyer can use.

As for doing others homework, maybe it's a good thing to have people think about. If they choose to argue a particular bill, shouldn't they be able to understand what they read?

Oh... Sorry... I forgot...

Liberals need to be told what to think.Do you realize that you just admitted you just admitted you can't back up what you posted, and that you can't understand or argue this particular bill without looking up what someone else is going to tell you to think?

MannyIsGod

11-01-2009, 05:43 PM

:lmao

The irony in that post is so delicious.

"hello, I think this but I don't know why but I think you don't think for yourself"

So classic.

Wild Cobra

11-01-2009, 05:58 PM

WH, here is one link that explains a little, but if far from what I know exists on the topic:

Hate crimes’ bill passed by House could threaten religious freedoms, critics warn
(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2359437/posts)

I don't remember the right keyword phrase to search for, and there are too many links on a search otherwise.

Winehole23

11-01-2009, 06:08 PM

Thanks for the link.

There's very little information about the bill to be found at your Free Republic link, and certainly nothing to back up what you said upstream.

I don't remember the right keyword phrase to search for, and there are too many links on a search otherwise.Pleading inconvenience again? You demand that posters put up or shut up when you disagree, but when asked for your own sources you get a pass for laziness, or for not really caring.

Classic.

Wild Cobra

11-01-2009, 06:35 PM

Thanks for the link.

There's very little information about the bill to be found at your Free Republic link, and certainly nothing to back up what you said upstream.

Pleading inconvenience again? You demand that posters put up or shut up when you disagree, but when asked for your own sources you get a pass for laziness, or for not really caring.

Classic.
No, you are right whinehole. I haven't found a legal opinion. Still, here are a couple links, and a few excerts from them:

Hate Crimes vs. Free Speech? (http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2009/may/08/kathleen-parker-hate-crimes-vs-free-speech/?partner=RSS)

Some conservative groups worry that hate crime laws might eventually lead to restrictions on churches' or other religious organizations' freedom to quote scripture that might be deemed hateful toward gays. Might a passionate preacher's invocation of, say, Leviticus 20:13, which condemns homosexual behavior, be interpreted as conspiracy to commit a hate crime?

In fact, the legislation applies when a physical assault or attempted murder takes place. And, so far, the First Amendment still protects the rights of even the Rev. Fred Phelps to take his "God Hates Fags" show on the road.

But in a country where eating Twinkies can be a defense for murder — and a Miss USA contestant can be publicly denounced as a "dumb bitch" for saying that marriage should be between a man and a woman — stranger things are sure to happen.

Fed protections based on sexual orientations to pass U.S. Senate (http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2009/07/federal-protections-based-on-perceived-or-actual-sexual-orientations-to-pass-us-senate.html)

If a gay man slaps me, it’s a misdemeanor, maybe a fine. Under this law as proposed, if I slap him back, it’s a felony hate crime. How is that equal? In fact according to some who are familiar with the text of the bill you don’t even have to touch someone for them to feel a hate crime has been committed. It can be as flimsy as mere perception. Orwellian thought crimes anyone?
Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), states, "The point of the 'hate crimes' amendment is to create a special class of victims that would get preferential treatment. 'Hate crimes' laws contradict the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and create unequal justice by elevating some groups of victims at the expense of others. Victims who engage in homosexual, transgender, or other sexual behavior get special treatment over victims who are military officers, police officers or veterans.

I wasn't able to listen to this, but it might have some good info:

12iUvMi_0W4

I'll have to remember to bring my headphones down.

Wild Cobra

11-01-2009, 06:54 PM

Here's some more Whinehole; From the legislation:

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or
perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual
orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses
a serious national problem.

(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or
perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender,
sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the
victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or tribal hate
crime laws.
Peceived, Motivated...

Slippery slope, and automatically assumed in many cases.

(3) CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION.—Nothing in this division,
or an amendment made by this division, shall be construed
or applied in a manner that infringes any rights under the
first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Nor
shall anything in this division, or an amendment made by
this division, be construed or applied in a manner that substantially
burdens a person’s exercise of religion (regardless of
whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief),
speech, expression, or association, unless the Government demonstrates
that application of the burden to the person is in
furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the
least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental
interest, if such exercise of religion, speech, expression,
or association was not intended to—
(A) plan or prepare for an act of physical violence;
or
(B) incite an imminent act of physical violence against
another.

It can be easily argued that preaching certain passages in the Bible do just this. Incite violence.

My original example holds up.

Winehole23

11-01-2009, 07:13 PM

The mere possibility that someone may lodge a frivolous claim under the law does not impugn the law but the litigant, and the way I read the excerpted section, mere recitation of bible verses followed by violence are do not constitute a crime:

Nor shall anything in this division, or an amendment made by
this division, be construed or applied in a manner that substantially
burdens a person’s exercise of religion...if such exercise of religion, speech, expression,
or association was not intended to—
(A) plan or prepare for an act of physical violence;
or
(B) incite an imminent act of physical violence against
another. Intent to incite violence must be shown.

You original example is contemplated and ruled out by the plain language of the statute.

MannyIsGod

11-01-2009, 07:25 PM

I was just waiting for you to use the findings section, WC. It shows how little you know of congressional legislation. You should do so more research on the findings sections of bills and what it is.

I'm shocked you can't find anything to back up your previous statement, though. Which begs to question: why are you searching for something to back up what you believe and not simply information on the situation? Should the information itself lead you to the truth and not some predisposed belief you have?

Its amazing for me to hear people say "I can't find something to back up what I believe". Then how the hell did that belief formulate if there is no information to back it up?

spursncowboys

11-01-2009, 07:52 PM

MannyIsGod

11-01-2009, 07:57 PM

I doubt you can find anything to back up the notion of welfare being successful in any definition of the word.

Leprechauns perhaps?

Wild Cobra

11-01-2009, 08:08 PM

Intent to incite violence must be shown.

You original example is contemplated and ruled out by the plain language of the statute.
I'll admit maybe I'm wrong on it. There was a serious concern about the intitial wording, maybe it was modified by amendment.

Still, a crime is a crime. Why should a crime that cane be percieved as a hate crime from a strait white male, to amy minority, be more serious than on commited by a minority against a strait white male?

Do you see any logic in that? Why do people applaud special rights?

Wild Cobra

11-01-2009, 08:25 PM

Consider these words:

gCl7scJ1ByM

Hvxmm1bzdP4

MannyIsGod

11-01-2009, 08:28 PM

How gracious to admit you might be wrong. No one was arguing for the merits of hate crime legislation just against your incorrect statements and assertions so please don't move the goal posts.

Winehole23

11-01-2009, 10:47 PM

Still, a crime is a crime. Why should a crime that cane be percieved as a hate crime from a strait white male, to amy minority, be more serious than on commited by a minority against a strait white male?I have a problem with hate crimes per se. Prosecuting intent separately from the underlying crimes is overkill, and has the effect of criminalizing thoughts, ideas or private beliefs.

Wild Cobra

11-02-2009, 07:46 AM

I have a problem with hate crimes per se. Prosecuting intent separately from the underlying crimes is overkill, and has the effect of criminalizing thoughts, ideas or private beliefs.

Plus, it violates equal protection.

Winehole23

11-02-2009, 08:31 AM

Plus, it violates equal protection.Eh, I could care less about this, and you made the case badly. The sort of violent behaviors hate crimes compass are already illegal. Just prosecute violent crimes as such; the intent behind them shouldn't be separately indictable.

MannyIsGod

11-02-2009, 09:00 AM

Plus, it violates equal protection.

Show me the place in the constitution where it says this law is illegal.

/Wild Cobra

Wild Cobra

11-02-2009, 11:49 AM

Show me the place in the constitution where it says this law is illegal.

/Wild Cobra

Are you serious?

One of the amendments garentee equal protections. When you better finance a crime investigation against one group better than another, equal protection is violated.

ChumpDumper

11-02-2009, 11:54 AM

Are you serious?

One of the amendments garentee equal protections. When you better finance a crime investigation against one group better than another, equal protection is violated.Really? I guess you'll have to prove that the resources used to investigate every group up to this point has been equal in every case.

spursncowboys

11-02-2009, 12:06 PM

April 29, 2009
Federal Hate Crimes Statute: An Unconstitutional Exercise of Legislative Power
by Brian W. Walsh (http://spurstalk.com/about/staff/BrianWalsh.cfm)
WebMemo #2416

Every decent person abhors violent crimes that are motivated by prejudice or bias. Thus, the case for congressional legislation that would expand federal authority that already prohibits some "hate crimes"[1] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#_ftn1) may seem compelling. But the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (H.R. 1913, HCPA) is based on serious analytical and constitutional flaws and would actually be counterproductive to prosecuting violent crime.

The HCPA builds off of a powerful truth: Racially motivated violence is especially repugnant. The Fourteenth Amendment was enacted to ensure that no state would deny the equal protection of its laws. Yet there is no serious argument that any particular state does not enforce its civil and criminal laws against violence in an even-handed manner today. Indeed, 45 of the 50 states have enacted "hate crimes" statutes that increase the punishment for crimes of violence and intimidation that are motivated by bias.

A broad federal "hate crimes" law, however, raises unique concerns. In addition to going well beyond punishing crimes motivated by hatred, the HCPA would federalize violent, non-economic conduct that is truly local in nature and have little or no federal nexus. However politically expedient "hate crimes" legislation might seem, Congress simply lacks the constitutional power to enact HCPA's sweeping criminal offenses, and doing so would likely undermine state enforcement efforts--unless and until the statute is struck down.

A Sweeping Scope
The two new "hate crimes" offenses that HCPA creates cover violent conduct that should be punished criminally--as indeed it is under the laws of every state. In addition to general state criminal laws, 45 states have criminal statutes that impose harsher penalties for crimes that are motivated by bias.[2] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#_ftn2) Forty-four of these states impose stiffer penalties for violent conduct related to race, religion, or ethnicity,[3] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#_ftn3) and 31 states do so for violent conduct related to sexual orientation.[4] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#_ftn4) What are the benefits and problems resulting from such motive-based statutes remains an open question, but the overwhelming trend in the states has been to increase them in number and scope.

HCPA sweeps far more broadly than many state "hate crimes" statutes because neither of the two offenses in HCPA would actually require the government to prove that the accused was motivated by bias, prejudice, or hatred. Subsection 249(a)(1) merely states that the act must be "because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person," and subsection 249(a)(2) similarly states that the act must be "because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person." ."
This amorphous standard would federalize almost all incidents of violent crime, even those that have nothing to do with bias, prejudice, or animus toward the victim because of his or her membership in a particular group.[5] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#_ftn5) Virtually every sexual assault, for example, is committed "because of" the gender of the victim, the gender of the perpetrator, and the perpetrator's gender preferences. Many criminals target women or those with real or perceived disabilities, believing that such victims may offer less resistance. It is even possible that a defendant could be deemed a "hate crimes" offender if he engaged in the violent conduct "because of" his own religion, gender, or national origin in some way. Thus an enormous proportion of local violent crime would become federal "hate crimes."

An Unconstitutional Approach
Even more so than for run-of-the-mill federal "hate crimes" legislation, HCPA's sweeping scope raises serious constitutional concerns. Congress is a body of limited, enumerated powers. Unless the Constitution has granted Congress the power to legislate in an area, it cannot do so. Because the Constitution grants the federal government no general police power, Congress lacks the power to criminalize the vast majority of the violent, non-economic activity covered by the two principal criminal offenses in the HCPA.

The constitutional bases offered by HCPA's sponsors are unconvincing. Subsection 249(a)(2) purports to rely on Congress's Commerce Clause power--i.e., the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states." But the offense would apply to anyone who, "willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person." This describes quintessentially violent, non-economic activity that has nothing to do with interstate commerce.
To be sure, all conduct has some indirect or attenuated connection to interstate commerce, but such distant links are insufficient to bring conduct within Congress's commerce power. The Supreme Court has held that violent conduct that does not target economic activity is among the types of crime that have the least connection to Congress's commerce power.[6] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#_ftn6) Yet it is precisely this sort of violent, non-economic conduct that HCPA would federalize.

In an attempt to insulate this overreaching from constitutional challenge, the 249(a)(2) offense includes a list of factors, at least one of which must be satisfied. Although each of these factors requires the violent conduct, the perpetrator, or the victim to have something to do with commerce or interstate travel, the final factor, which permits a conviction if the activity merely "affects interstate commerce" in any attenuated manner, eviscerates any limitation. Though some activities that would be covered by the offense could indeed involve interstate commerce in a non-trivial manner, this does not distinguish the provision from those the Supreme Court struck down in United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000). If this approach were permissible, Congress could claim to rely on the Commerce Clause and legislate any criminal law it wants.[7] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#_ftn7) When it comes to criminal law, Congress would no longer be a body of limited, enumerated powers but would have plenary power to criminalize any and all conduct that is already criminalized by the states.[8] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#_ftn8)
HCPA's second criminal offense does not specify on which enumerated constitutional power the bills' sponsors rely, but the original "findings" section, as well as some supporters, suggest reliance on the enforcement clauses of one or more of the Civil War amendments. Of the three, the Fourteenth Amendment provides Congress with the greatest power, but even it only prohibits state action, not private conduct unrelated to state action. While Congress clearly does have authority to punish state actors for racially discriminatory conduct and pass other civil rights statutes to ensure that states do not deny citizens the equal protection of their laws, the Supreme Court held in Morrison that the Fourteenth Amendment did not authorize a federal tort action against private individuals, not acting under color of law, who perpetrate violence against women.[9] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#_ftn9)

The Thirteenth Amendment, which gives Congress the power to eliminate "badges, incidents, and relics" of slavery and involuntary servitude, is also unavailing. The Supreme Court has written that Congress may legislate to remove such badges and incidents of slavery[10] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#_ftn10) but has never defined the purported scope of that power. It is not serious, however, to equate all violence that involves a member of an indentifiable group or a person with certain identifiable characteristics with a badge or relic of slavery. Further, by its very terms the HCPA would apply equally to violence against a white victim if the crime occurred "because of" his race.
Whatever the Court might determine is the scope of the power to remove the relics of slavery today (and this power was much easier to conceptualize in 1883 when Congress could help remove the incidents of slavery from actual freed slaves), it cannot be so broad.
Finally, in a similarly unavailing attempt to insulate the bill from constitutional attack, HCPA would require the Justice Department to "certify" that contemplated prosecutions under its "hate crimes" offenses meet certain conditions, such as that the state in which the conduct occurred does not object to the federal usurpation of state authority and jurisdiction. But the unconstitutionality of a statute cannot be "cured" by a ministerial certification or by state acquiescence to an improper assertion of federal authority. Most states joined briefs supporting the purported need for the provision in the Violence Against Women Act that the Supreme Court properly struck down. The limits on Congress's powers were designed to protect the individual rights of national citizens, not the states qua states. In short, a state can no more acquiesce to and thereby cure a violation of constitutional federalism than the federal courts can acquiesce to and thereby cure a President's violation of the constitutional separation of powers.

Undermining State Enforcement Efforts
Violent crime is always a serious problem, but bad federal criminal laws such as those in the HCPA detract from effective law enforcement strategies. Congress must tread very carefully when bringing federal criminal law to bear on any problem at the state and local level. Federal criminal law should be used to combat only those problems reserved to the national government in the Constitution. These include offenses against the federal government or its interests, responsibilities the Constitution expressly assigns to the federal government (such as counterfeiting), and commercial crimes with a substantial multi-state or international impact.
Federalizing yet another category of truly local conduct is almost certain to accelerate the ongoing erosion of state and local law enforcement's primary role in combating common street crime. Doing so invites serious unintended consequences, including the dilution of accountability among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.[11] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#_ftn11) The best way to combat violent crime (regardless of to which group or groups its perpetrators and victims belong) is to adhere to federalist principles that respect the proper allocation of responsibilities among national, state, and local governments.

Punishing Violent Conduct
The fact that the federal Constitution does not authorize Congress to address particular conduct does not mean that such conduct must be left unpunished. In the case of "hate crimes," the underlying violent conduct is punishable as a crime in every state, regardless of the motivation of the perpetrator or identity of the victim. Further, almost every state has adopted criminal offenses that increase the penalty for certain violent crimes deemed to be "hate crimes." Whether or not such enhancements are needed, they do not exceed the states' authority under the Constitution to criminalize violent, non-economic activity that is truly local in nature. And they do not undermine the ultimate responsibility and accountability of state and local officials to investigate and prosecute such crime.

ChumpDumper

11-02-2009, 12:11 PM

Great. Should be easily declared unconstitutional in federal courts if it's that cut and dry.

Problem solved.

Now, is there any new information regarding the assassination attempt on Dobbs' attic?

Winehole23

11-02-2009, 12:12 PM

The author's insistence on federalism and a more restrictive reading of the Commerce Clause is quaint and most likely unavailing, but I am sympathetic to it.