http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1009/Boehner_Pence_voting_against_defense_bill_.html

Quote :

"House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) are voting against the House/Senate fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill — because it contains hate crimes provisions designed to protect gays and lesbians. Boehner, speaking at his weekly press conference Thursday, said the inclusion of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act in the defense bill was "an abuse of power" by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that sought to punish offenders for what they thought — and not what they did. He accused the speaker of pursuing her social agenda "on the backs" of the troops. GOP Whip Eric Cantor is also a no, saying that the legislation constitutes classifying a new group of "thought crimes." Pelosi adviser Jennifer Crider shot back: "They are total hypocrites when it comes to their support of our troops — or lack thereof." Not every Republican is stiff-arming the authorization: POLITICO's Jen DiMascio reports that Rep. Buck McKeon of California, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, has pledged his support for the bill, despite his opposition to the provision. He gave his blessing to members of his party who would vote no, saying that vote would “not diminish” their support for the military. “I committed to each of you that this vote should be a vote of conscience, and I appreciate that some of you may feel that you need to oppose final passage,” he said. At least one other Republican, Rep. Peter King of New York, also says he'll vote with the Democrats for the measure. The bill makes illegal, for the first time, hate crimes based on sexual orientation, adding it to race and gender as factors in Justice Department prosecutions. Proponents say it's no different than existing bias crime legislation and is, thus, constitutional. Despite GOP opposition, the authorization bill is expected to pass the House, as early as this afternoon."

So, House Republicans want fags to be beaten up so badly that they would rather vote against defense spending than support a bill that would make beating them up a crime.

Any conservatives want to try and defend this?

10/9/2009 9:44:00 AM

Conservatives typically live in an ideal world in which bias crimes do not happen, therefore they will not see a problem with stopping hate crimes legislation.

10/9/2009 9:47:09 AM

No, the point is that murder is murder, and that the law should apply equally to everyone. There shouldn't be an increased punishment for killing a gay person over a straight person. It doesn't matter whether the person hated the person because they were gay...they're going to be punished for killing them.

It's not that bias crimes don't happen. It's that they shouldn't carry an increased punishment. Killing someone for being gay or black is killing someone for no good reason, and should be treated as such.

10/9/2009 9:57:40 AM

^^ not really - they don't mind hate crime legislation based on religion, sex, and even race.
It's just when the queers are added. That's too far!

I mean, you can't protect a class of people because of a choice they make, right? Not like race or religion, which you're born with.

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 9:59 AM. Reason : .]

10/9/2009 9:59:05 AM

Quote :

"hate crime legislation based on religion, sex, and even race."

Those are just as bad, in my opinion.

10/9/2009 10:01:24 AM

hate crime laws are fucking retarded regardless of who they're designed to protect.

10/9/2009 10:01:27 AM

Quote :

"No, the point is that murder is murder, and that the law should apply equally to everyone. There shouldn't be an increased punishment for killing a gay person over a straight person. It doesn't matter whether the person hated the person because they were gay...they're going to be punished for killing them."

The problem with this line of thinking is that if the person did not fit the criterion of the murders racial/religious/gender/sexual orientation then the individual would still be alive.

These are crimes (not all are murder) perpetuated against someone based out of a desire to punish them for fitting a criterion the murder does not like. These are crimes of terrorism.

10/9/2009 10:03:45 AM

Quote :

"Republicans criticized the legislation, saying violent attacks were already illegal regardless of motive. They said the measure was an effort to create a class of “thought crimes” whose prosecution would require ascribing motivation to the attacker. Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, called the legislation radical social policy. “The idea that we’re going to pass a law that’s going to add further charges to someone based on what they may have been thinking, I think is wrong,” Mr. Boehner said. Republicans were also furious that the measure was attached to an essential $681 billion military policy bill, and accused Democrats of legislative blackmail."

That's his explanation for voting against it.


Also,

Quote :

"The bill makes illegal, for the first time, hate crimes"

Is just retarded. For the first time, crimes are illegal?




In other news, the bill passed the House yesterday, 281-146.

10/9/2009 10:12:43 AM

Quote :

"The problem with this line of thinking is that if the person did not fit the criterion of the murders racial/religious/gender/sexual orientation then the individual would still be alive. "

We should punish people more harshly for killing over adultery more. I mean if they didn't take someone boning their wife so seriously, the cheating bastard would still be alive.

We should punish people who kill for money more. I mean if they weren't poor, the person they shot and robbed would still be alive.

What the hell does the motivation have to do with the punishment?

10/9/2009 10:12:47 AM

^^^How is that different than killing someone randomly? A serial killer might only kill people that are female with blonde hair, for some weird reason. They chose their victim based on those random criteria. If the victim hadn't fit that description, the serial killer wouldn't have chosen them.

It doesn't matter why the serial killer chose that person, though. All that matters is that it was a random person that had no relation to the killer. Random acts of violence (assault, murder, doesn't really matter) should be treated the same across the board. A random person is no more deserving of a beating than a random gay person.

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 10:15 AM. Reason : ]

10/9/2009 10:14:40 AM

Quote :

"What the hell does the motivation have to do with the punishment?"

Everything, that is what our court system is based upon.

Quote :

"How is that that different than killing someone randomly?"

Because it specifically terrorises a certain segment of the population.

Quote :

"A serial killer might only kill people that are female with blonde hair, for some weird reason. They chose their victim based on those random criteria. If the victim hadn't fit that description, the serial killer wouldn't have chosen them."

The fact that it is a serial killer serves as a mitigating circumstance in the punishment.

Quote :

"A random person is no more deserving of a beating than a random gay person."

and the odds of a random person being beaten for no reason are slim to none and the only victim of said crime is the beating victim. When someone is beaten for their sexual orientation, the color of their skin, etc. there is more than just one victim. The entire community that that person was a representative of are victims.

10/9/2009 10:19:11 AM

Don't we already let motives affect the punishment for a wide variety of crimes? Premeditated vs temporary insanity? Arson vs insurance fraud vs negligence?

10/9/2009 10:22:00 AM

yes.

10/9/2009 10:23:00 AM

God first ask yourself this:
Why does a "defense authorization bill"

contain
"hate crimes provisions designed to protect gays and lesbians."


Don't worry we'll get you all back when we put out a bill for "Helping save the whales" that contains a 'provision' for a missle defense sheild to protect the innocent children of europe and north america.


It'll be like opposite day for sick fucks like you!

10/9/2009 10:28:01 AM

do you understand how federal legislation is written?

10/9/2009 10:33:41 AM

I think the time is way overdue to grant the line-item veto to the president (may not help with the current administration) but
when gay rights and liberal hippy environmental legislation works its way into a package along with an urgent military defense
spending bill then we have a problem and our congressional system is obviously broken.

Every piece of important legislation it seems ends up getting extorted (votes instead of money) into including piles and piles
of garbage that serve special interest groups.

I would be surprised if Patriot Acts (not that I agree with them) included some earmark garbage such as a corn history museum
in rural iowa.

10/9/2009 10:35:09 AM

a line item veto is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has already ruled that in the 1990s. I wish people would quit bringing it up.

10/9/2009 10:36:38 AM

I support the "We hate fags more than we support troops" bill. Personally that is. Am I not allowed to have this opinion in this country?



[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 10:37 AM. Reason : g]

10/9/2009 10:37:18 AM

some of the arguments against this bill- in this thread- are rather compelling. i don't know if i can go as far as to support these hate crimes as terrorism. i see the logic in that argument but still believe the point to be a bit of a stretch.

ultimately if there is a hate crime bill for other major factors, and if these same republicans supported hate crime bills that protected against those who are jewish and christian then i see not voting for this bill as nothing other than signs of hypocrisy, bigotry, or both.

10/9/2009 10:38:29 AM

I seriously think corn history is interesting and would love to see a local exhibit.

10/9/2009 10:38:53 AM

This bill must have the Wesboro faction really bent out of shape.

10/9/2009 10:42:04 AM

Quote :

"Everything, that is what our court system is based upon."

Uh, I wouldn't say that. Our justice system is based on equality. The law should apply to everyone equally, and protect everyone equally. Now, to say that motivation doesn't factor into the punishment is false. Mitigating circumstances can often make a crime like murder have lesser consequences, if the murderer had some justified reason for doing what they did.

Random violence is as bad as it gets though. There are no justifications for it. It doesn't matter what criteria the person used to determine the victim, because they killed/hurt them for no reason.

Quote :

"Because it specifically terrorises a certain segment of the population."

Doesn't matter. You want to classify hate crimes as terrorism, but that isn't how it works. You don't punish someone more for some perceived "fear" effect on the community...you punish them for the crime they committed. What you want to do is to send a message to people that want to commit violence against certain groups of people. I don't think that's an appropriate thing to consider when determining a person's punishment.

Quote :

"The fact that it is a serial killer serves as a mitigating circumstance in the punishment."

Oh, really? So serial killers get punished less on the basis that they're serial killers?

Quote :

"and the odds of a random person being beaten for no reason are slim to none and the only victim of said crime is the beating victim. "

Irrelevant.

Quote :

"When someone is beaten for their sexual orientation, the color of their skin, etc. there is more than just one victim. The entire community that that person was a representative of are victims."

No, there isn't more than one victim. The people that are afraid that they might be the next victim are not actually victims. The community is also not the victim. The victim is...the person that got assaulted/killed. No one else.

10/9/2009 10:43:49 AM

Quote :

"i see the logic in that argument but still believe the point to be a bit of a stretch. "

Think about the two people this bill is named after, Matthew Shepherd and Dennis Byrd. Both individuals were kill because of their sexual orientation and race respectively. Their murders were to serve as warning to gays to not come to that Wyoming town and for Dennis Byrd to not let the sun set on his nigger ass.

Yes, there are towns in this country were there are signs that still read "Don't let the sun set on your nigger ass." It is utterly shameful.

10/9/2009 10:45:07 AM

Quote :

"Uh, I wouldn't say that. Our justice system is based on equality. The law should apply to everyone equally, and protect everyone equally."

Not all crimes are equally appalling to the people and our sense of equality and justice.

Quote :

"You don't punish someone more for some perceived "fear" effect on the community...you punish them for the crime they committed. What you want to do is to send a message to people that want to commit violence against certain groups of people. I don't think that's an appropriate thing to consider when determining a person's punishment."

Yes, yes we do. We treat terrorism specifically different in our justice system specifically because of the message of fear that it delivers.

Quote :

"Oh, really? So serial killers get punished less on the basis that they're serial killers?"

Sorry, I used the wrong word. I should have written aggravating

Quote :

"Irrelevant."

Not irrelevant at all. Dennis Byrd wouldn't have been dragged behind a truck to his death if he weren't black. Matthew Shepherd wouldn't have been bludgeoned to death if he weren't gay.

Quote :

"No, there isn't more than one victim. The people that are afraid that they might be the next victim are not actually victims. The community is also not the victim. The victim is...the person that got assaulted/killed. No one else."

Your concept of legally theory is completely flawed.

10/9/2009 10:50:12 AM

If I get murdered, I would hope that my murderer would not be punished less than if I had liked to have homosexual intercourse. That's just dumb.

Person gets murdered. If it was over a life insurance policy it's somehow not as bad as if it was because the murderer was a bigot. Why are you so complacent towards greedy fucks that murder other people solely based on greed? Is that not appalling to you and your sense of equality and justice?

10/9/2009 10:57:33 AM

I like nutsmackrs tactics. Literally never agree or even try to agree with anything a conservative speaks. ha.

10/9/2009 10:57:52 AM

It's pretty gutless on the part of those who attached this to a defense bill, basically holding our military ransom in favor of political pandering.

Why not pass this separately? Blaming it on the way things are done in Washington is pure cowardness. It certainly doesn't make it right or fair and underlines just how shitty of an amendment it is. Why not introduce this bill on its own merits instead of trying to conceal it under the guise of supporting our troops?

10/9/2009 11:02:17 AM

Quote :

"Think about the two people this bill is named after, Matthew Shepherd and Dennis Byrd. Both individuals were kill because of their sexual orientation and race respectively. Their murders were to serve as warning to gays to not come to that Wyoming town and for Dennis Byrd to not let the sun set on his nigger ass."

James Byrd. Dennis Byrd played for the Jets.



The guys that killed Sheperd are serving two life sentences each, no parole.

And of the guys that killed Byrd, two got the death penalty, one got life.




So what does the new law do?

10/9/2009 11:04:15 AM

Quote :

"Quote : "No, there isn't more than one victim. The people that are afraid that they might be the next victim are not actually victims. The community is also not the victim. The victim is...the person that got assaulted/killed. No one else." Your concept of legally theory is completely flawed. "

So if someone was beating up random people in Raleigh, you would not be concerned or affected?

10/9/2009 11:05:44 AM

Quote :

"do you understand how federal legislation is written?"

yeah, unfortunately it's pretty fucked up

10/9/2009 11:05:46 AM

Quote :

"So if someone was beating up random people in Raleigh, you would not be concerned or affected? "

Yes I would be and I hope the cops would find and arrest them.

Quote :

"I like nutsmackrs tactics. Literally never agree or even try to agree with anything a conservative speaks. ha."

Well, when a conservative says something that is patently against what I stand for and believe in, why would I agree with them? Are you a dense retard.

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 11:08 AM. Reason : .]

10/9/2009 11:07:12 AM

So it would be impossible then to propose this bill as its own piece of legislation, rather than attaching it to the troops and rainbows and puppies and kittens?

I mean, I'm just wondering here. Are the Democrats afraid of actually debating the issue on its own, rather than cramming it through an omnibus bill? Do they somehow lack the votes to force it through committee? Too many homophobes from their own party just waiting to smother it in the crib?

10/9/2009 11:10:12 AM

TWW Conservatives: "Lynching? pfft... more like regular murder...am I right?"

10/9/2009 11:11:19 AM

Quote :

"I mean, I'm just wondering here. Are the Democrats afraid of actually debating the issue on its own, rather than cramming it through an omnibus bill? Do they somehow lack the votes to force it through committee? Too many homophobes from their own party just waiting to smother it in the crib? "

This bill has already been debated and it was awesome when Virginia Foxx got up in the House Chamber, with Matthew Shepherd's mom in the gallery, and said Matthew Shepherd wasn't bludgeoned to death because he was gay, but he was killed in a failed murder and called Matthew Shepherd's murder a fraud.

That was fucking awesome.

As for the omnibus legislation, it is used as a quicker vehicle to get something passed instead of having votes on every single little piece of legislation that needs to be enacted.

10/9/2009 11:12:27 AM

So then, clearly we have a crisis on our hands, one that must be pushed through right now! Because again, clearly the Democrats lack the votes for cloture.

10/9/2009 11:14:28 AM

This passed the house and not the senate. cloture is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

And why take even more time to discuss something that has been discussed ad nauseum? No one's vote was going to change. They had the votes and they went ahead and passed it. Your anger at the way it was passed is misguided.

10/9/2009 11:15:55 AM

I'm just saying that it should be trivial for the Senate to pass it as its own bill. Just take the House bill, slap a Senate number on it, and pass it.

I mean, what's the problem here? They have the votes. Propose it, move it out of committee, call previous question, hit cloture, vote, and done.

Unless, of course, this procedure wouldn't work for some reason, and therefore it has to be crammed in with puppies and kittens and soldiers and rainbows. Hm, can you think of any, kids?

10/9/2009 11:21:02 AM

Quote :

"Not all crimes are equally appalling to the people and our sense of equality and justice."

I didn't say they were. I said that everyone should be protected equally under the law. I view beating/killing someone randomly just as bad as beating/killing them because they're gay. Either way, it's violence against someone that has done nothing to deserve it. Your reason for doing it doesn't matter, because I don't view it as a valid reason. I view it as random violence.

Quote :

"Yes, yes we do. We treat terrorism specifically different in our justice system specifically because of the message of fear that it delivers."

I'm not sure about that. Terrorism is called terrorism because it is meant to inflict fear upon a larger group of people. Terrorists shouldn't be punished for that, though. They should be punished for what they actually did...bombing a building, for instance. Even if a so-called "terrorist" blew up a building for a reason other than scaring the public, it wouldn't matter. The person is going to be put behind bars for their entire life, or executed. They don't get an increased punishment because they wanted to scare the community. They don't get a decreased punishment because they just hated the people in the building, and not the surrounding community.

So, to clarify, we don't treat terrorism differently because of the message of fear it delivers. We punish terrorists accordingly because of the amount of destruction and loss of human life they cause.

Quote :

"Sorry, I used the wrong word. I should have written aggravating"

Okay. It doesn't change the fact that serial killers have actually acted on their impulses. Serial killers are punished more because they've killed random people, for seemingly no reason, based on whatever arbitrary criteria they picked. The criteria that they have chosen for their victims is not why they get an increased punishment - it's because their crimes were extraordinarily heinous and unwarranted.

Quote :

"Not irrelevant at all. Dennis Byrd wouldn't have been dragged behind a truck to his death if he weren't black. Matthew Shepherd wouldn't have been bludgeoned to death if he weren't gay."

What's irrelevant is the odds of someone being beaten based on certain criteria.

Quote :

"Your concept of legally theory is completely flawed."

Great. So we should try to calculate the perceived social effects of a person's crime, and how afraid people are of being affected by that person (who is now being punished, presumably), into the person's punishment? I don't think I'm the one with flawed thinking.

Quote :

"It's pretty gutless on the part of those who attached this to a defense bill, basically holding our military ransom in favor of political pandering. Why not pass this separately? Blaming it on the way things are done in Washington is pure cowardness. It certainly doesn't make it right or fair and underlines just how shitty of an amendment it is. Why not introduce this bill on its own merits instead of trying to conceal it under the guise of supporting our troops?"

That's not how the legislative process works, these days. If you don't get these laws in a piece of omnibus legislation, it's most likely never even going to be heard. It would be nice if every law could be passed separately, on its own merits, but our representatives are way too incompetent to allow that.

Quote :

"So if someone was beating up random people in Raleigh, you would not be concerned or affected?"

I would be concerned, but I wouldn't suggest that a person arrested for beating some individual be punished more because I'm concerned about the increased rate of random beatings.

Quote :

"TWW Conservatives: "Lynching? pfft... more like regular murder...am I right?""

Not just regular murder. Premeditated, with no mitigating circumstances. The punishment should fit the crime. In the case of hanging a person, that punishment is going to be very harsh, which is appropriate. It wouldn't matter if they had hung the person for no reason at all...the act is still just as deplorable and would entail the appropriate punishment.

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 11:24 AM. Reason : ]

10/9/2009 11:23:58 AM

rawr i make big misleading headlines in my shitty threads

10/9/2009 11:33:30 AM

TWW Conservatives: "We want the Civil Rights act abolished. You shouldn't legislate thought!"

[Edited on October 9, 2009 at 12:14 PM. Reason : ]

10/9/2009 12:14:32 PM

you know what i hate more than fags? uh, rednecks...they're the worst!!1

10/9/2009 12:15:09 PM

it's too bad there is already a thread about this. And it's labeled "hate crimes." jeez

10/9/2009 12:23:13 PM

Quote :

"TWW Conservatives: "We want the Civil Rights act abolished. You shouldn't legislate thought!""

No, you're grasping. Instead of misrepresenting your opposition, you should make a coherent argument.

All random violence is wrong, and should have a harsh punishment associated with it. It's not the motivation that we should punish - it's the lack of good motivation. You shouldn't differentiate between someone that kills a person because they're gay, and someone that kills a person because they felt like it. Both are equally unjustified, and deserve equal punishments. If you disagree, you are saying that the person killed because the killer just felt like is deserving of lesser protection under the law.

10/9/2009 12:27:06 PM

So do you disagree with all civil rights protections, or just ones that punish you more when you kill niggers?

10/9/2009 12:29:08 PM

i'm surprised this thread wasn't immediately locked

10/9/2009 12:31:22 PM

laws that punish you more when you "kill niggers" are NOT civil rights laws.

10/9/2009 12:32:35 PM

^^^Wow, dude. I think we're done until you finish trolling and start responding to points made in the thread. I think civil rights protections are good, and one of the legitimate functions of government. And, yes, I disagree with laws that specifically protect one group more than another.

I like how the best argument people in this thread can come up with is "Oh, you think we should apply the law equally to everyone, regardless of their individual characteristics? You hate blacks and gays!"

10/9/2009 12:34:33 PM

Quote :

"I think we're done until you finish trolling and start responding to points made in the thread."

Don't hold your breath on that one.

10/9/2009 12:38:34 PM

I don't think you understand the purpose of hate crime laws.

10/9/2009 12:38:34 PM

I don't think you understand how unConstitutional laws are that only protect one group of people

10/9/2009 12:40:41 PM