Reply With Quote
What legislation, please? I have no idea what you're talking about.
He was an ent loving hippy!
What legislation, please? I have no idea what you're talking about.
Public Law 111-84
It is the signed law after HR 2647 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 led "DIVISION E--MATTHEW SHEPARD AND JAMES BYRD, JR. HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT"
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 10-31-2009 at 07:49 PM.
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.
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.
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.
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."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.
Look, here's another:http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/1...really_shot_atSergeant 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."
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.
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?actually the sheriffs department said that they believed it was a hunter, read the article and stop just reading drudgeheadlines for your "news".
Last edited by spursncowboys; 11-01-2009 at 04:01 PM.
Direct quote from the same guy:http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/2...-Wantage-home-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.”
None of the legislation in there says what you are saying it does.
However, feel free to point it out.
actually the sheriffs department said that they believed it was a hunter, read the article and stop just reading drudgeheadlines for your "news".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.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.”
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.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 11-01-2009 at 04:58 PM.
Seems plausible, given all the cir stances, 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.
oh because a supposed "left-wing goon" would be theoretically opposed to what Dr. Tiller did?
are there even any confirmed accounts of left wing violence in recent history?
Have a lawyer read it and ask if those senerio's can happen.
I would say it could be either way myself. There is nothing to side one way or the other unless one is biased.
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.
Why don't you back up your own bs, instead of asking other posters to do your own homework for you...
...again.
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.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.
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..
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?
The irony in that post is so delicious.
" o, I think this but I don't know why but I think you don't think for yourself"
So classic.
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
I don't remember the right keyword phrase to search for, and there are too many links on a search otherwise.
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?
Fed protections based on sexual orientations to pass U.S. SenateSome 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 sexual 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 s" 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 " for saying that marriage should be between a man and a woman — stranger things are sure to happen.
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?I wasn't able to listen to this, but it might have some good info: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 Cons ution and create unequal justice by elevating some groups of victims at the expense of others. Victims who engage in sexual, transgender, or other sexual behavior get special treatment over victims who are military officers, police officers or veterans.
I'll have to remember to bring my headphones down.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
