Skip to content

Watch Conservatives Defend Hate Crimes

April 29, 2009

THESE CONSERVATIVES ARE ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE!

9 Comments
  1. Thomas J Canton permalink
    April 30, 2009 9:18 AM

    Yes, hate crimes are abhorrent. Call me an alarmist. I feel one of the purposes of this bill is to demonize and criminalize thought, and it will lay the groundwork for outlawing speech expressing the belief that homosexuality is sinful from the pulpit.

    The practice of criminalizing peaceful expression of this belief has already occurred in other nations — including Sweden, Canada and Great Britain.

  2. Ellen permalink
    April 29, 2009 11:34 PM

    When my brother was beat and left in a coma for being gay outside the city limits of Fort Worth it was clearly a hate crime. I think it best left to those who feel the wrath of the haters to have extra legal protection. This hate crime bill is what my family supports. I left a message thanking my member of Congress for supporting it, as should everyone who cares. I think these on the video are an embarassment.

  3. April 29, 2009 10:42 PM

    What I am arguing for is the addition of gay people, and some other classifications as well to the already existing hate crime law that covers, among others, ethnic groups.

    Ok. I’ll take your word that’s what you mean to be arguing for. But in the process you are saying illogical things such as opposing such a bill makes one “for hate crimes”. It does not. You either don’t understand this or are just pretending not to for rhetorical effect.

    When I speak of the heaviest penalty I speak to that which is included in the bill.

    But why stop there? If you REALLY oppose “hate crime” you must go further. You can never oppose any proposed increase in punishment (otherwise you would be “for hate crimes”, by your own logic). I’ve proposed an increased punishment (torture and execution). Do you support my proposal or not? Are you against hate crimes or “for hate crimes”?

    It sounds like you’re “for hate crimes” since you haven’t signed on to my proposal to torture and execute the perpetrators of hate crimes and their families. Why are you “for hate crimes”?

    If I beat you up and take your car based on the need for your car it is one thing. But if I target you based on your racial make-up, or you being a gay man, etc. then that is more than a crime of theft and battery.

    Either way I’m beat up and my car is gone. Regardless, opposing a law making this distinction doesn’t make one “for hate crimes”. And I don’t believe you honestly think it does.

    The folks in the video on this post are either for hate crimes, or against them.

    Assuming they are still in favor of laws against battery, theft, attempted murder, murder, etc, etc, it’s safe to say they’re against them.

    Are you honestly suggesting that the folks in the video are arguing for making those acts legal? Simple question: if those folks got their way, then would it be (a) legal or (b) illegal to kill, say, a gay man? If your answer is (b) then your claim that they are “for hate crimes” is demonstrated nonsense that you don’t actually believe.

    If your answer is (a) that’s a whole different conversation.

    I know it is fun to cloud these issues.

    Well, you would know. You’re the one doing it.

  4. April 29, 2009 10:21 PM

    What I am arguing for is the addition of gay people, and some other classifications as well to the already existing hate crime law that covers, among others, ethnic groups. When I speak of the heaviest penalty I speak to that which is included in the bill. Not only would federal authorities help investigate the hate crime, but there would be ramped up punishment.

    You seem to have fallen victim to the conservative Kool-Aid that a crime, is a crime, is a crime. It is not. If I beat you up and take your car based on the need for your car it is one thing. But if I target you based on your racial make-up, or you being a gay man, etc. then that is more than a crime of theft and battery. It is a crime motivated by race and/or bigotry. Those are then areas that are more serious than just the actual theft and battery. The Housse agrees with that, as does our President.

    The folks in the video on this post are either for hate crimes, or against them. I know it is fun to cloud these issues. I am not. I am plainly stating a fact.

    Once again, have a nice evening…but I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

  5. April 29, 2009 9:19 PM

    You are either for hate crimes or against them.

    PERIOD.

    No argument there. What you’re missing is that the people in the clip aren’t “for hate crimes”. You really don’t understand that? Because I’m still giving you the benefit of the doubt & assuming that you’re only pretending not to.

    You either work to prevent them, and insure that they are dealt with through the heaviest legal actions possible, or you do not.

    Hate crimes are already crimes. Assault, kidnapping and murder are crimes. We have things called “laws” against them already. There is no further need to “work to prevent” these crimes.

    I don’t know what “heaviest legal actions possible”. The heaviest legal action I can think of would be the death penalty. Actually, no: it would be prolonged torture, and then the death penalty. Wait: prolonged torture, and the death penalty, for you and your entire family.

    Are you saying you’re in favor of torturing and executing people who commit hate crimes and their family members? Because that’s the “heaviest legal action possible” (unless you can think of a better one?) so if not, then using your logic, you too must be “for hate crimes”.

    You can comment again, but you can not change the fact.

    Well, nobody can change facts, after all. I wouldn’t dream of trying. Fortunately your commentary is devoid of them.

    And what you have on your blog is offensive…..and I quote….

    watch a blogger who doesn’t comprehend sarcasm….

  6. April 29, 2009 9:10 PM

    You are either for hate crimes or against them.

    PERIOD.

    You either work to prevent them, and insure that they are dealt with through the heaviest legal actions possible, or you do not.

    You can comment again, but you can not change the fact.

    And what you have on your blog is offensive…..and I quote…

    “Remember how the Bush-Cheney cabal orchestrated 9/11 so that they could achieve their Neocon goals?

    Howcome President Obama hasn’t ‘opened the files’ on all that and brought the conspiracy out into the light?

    Why is he covering up for them?

    Could he be… in on it?”

    I am no fan of GW, but even I do not stoop to that level.

    So when I read that on your blog a minute ago I better understand how you can not fathom my post.

    Have a nice evening.

  7. April 29, 2009 8:55 PM

    watch a blogger apparently oblivious to the concept of ‘excluded middle’.

    again, you’re either pretending not to understand the difference between ‘opposing law against X’ and ‘defending X’, or you really don’t understand that difference.

    which is it? You tell me,

  8. April 29, 2009 8:51 PM

    One is either for hate crimes, or one is opposed to hate crimes and wishes to put the HEAVIEST penalty possible on the books to fight hate crimes.

    PERIOD.

    No clouding or confusion.

    IT REAlly IS THAT SIMPLE.

  9. April 29, 2009 8:32 PM

    watch a blogger pretending not to understand the difference between ‘opposing a federal law against crime X’ and ‘defending crime X’

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: