Dear Commander-in-Chief...

[Okla-homey]

Ok. You wanted it. You are now The Man. The HMFIC. We are closing in on one year post-election.

Here's the dealio. Give our guys what they need to accomplish the mission, you know, equipment, enough guys, and some mission focus, or redeploy them home.

TIA

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6865359.ece

[King Crimson]

i agree.

however, i think to say that Bush was doing that in the original, "forgotten" war is preferential and opportunistic in political terms by the author.

[afs]

the biggest mistake we made was placing importance in Iraq and not Afghanistan. the second biggest mistake we can make is not dedicating the manpower and resources required for victory in Afghanistan.

[iwannabelikesam]

the biggest mistake we made was placing importance in Iraq and not Afghanistan. the second biggest mistake we can make is not dedicating the manpower and resources required for victory in Afghanistan.

That's what Obama said during the campaign. He has yet to place any importance on Afghanistan. Hell, in a year, he only met with the commander in Afghanistan once, ONCE! Well, he did meet with him a second time recently, but that was only after the backlash against Obama for only meeting with him once for an entire year as CinC.

[OUMallen]

That's a sad, enlightening article.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Here's another sad enlightening article on why funding may not happen...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/08/boehner-pence-vote-agains_n_314194.html


GOP Leaders Voting AGAINST Defense Bill Because of Hate Crime Protections

AP WASHINGTON — Assaulting people because of their sexual orientation would become a federal hate crime in legislation the House is set to vote on Thursday. The bill would significantly expand the hate crimes law enacted in the days after Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination in 1968.

With the expected House passage and eventual approval by the Senate, federal prosecutors will for the first time be able to intervene in cases of violence perpetrated against gays based on their sexual orientation.
Many Republicans, normally stalwart supporters of defense bills, declared they would vote against it because of the addition of what they referred to as "thought crimes" legislation.

"The very idea that we would erode the freedoms for which our soldiers wear the uniform in a bill that is designed to provide resources those soldiers need to get the job done and come home safe is unconscionable," said Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, a member of the Republican leadership.

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the inclusion of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act in the defense bill (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1009/Boehner_Pence_voting_against_defense_bill_.html?sh owall) was "an abuse of power" by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who was pursuing her social agenda "on the backs" of the troops.

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) also declared his opposition.

GOP opponents were not assuaged by late changes in the bill to strengthen protections for religious speech and association – critics argued that pastors expressing beliefs about homosexuality could be prosecuted if their sermons were connected to later acts of violence against gays.

Supporters countered that prosecutions could occur only when bodily injury is involved, and no minister or protestor could be targeted for expressing opposition to homosexuality.

Civil rights groups and their Democratic allies have been trying for decades to broaden the reach of hate crimes law. This time it appears they will succeed. The measure is attached to a must-pass $680 billion defense policy bill and President Barack Obama – unlike President George W. Bush – is a strong supporter.

"It's a very exciting day for us here in the Capitol," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., saying hate crimes legislation was on her agenda when she first entered Congress 22 years ago.

She said it's been 11 years since the gay Wyoming college student Matthew Shepard, whose name is attached to the legislation, was murdered.

The late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., was a longtime advocate of the legislation. The bill also creates a new federal crime to penalize attacks against U.S. service members on account of their service.

Hate crimes legislation enacted after King's assassination defined hate crimes as those carried out on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. It also limits the scope of activities that would trigger federal involvement.

The proposed expansion would include crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. It eases restrictions on federally protected activities.

Some 45 states have hate crimes statutes, and the bill would not change the current situation where investigations and prosecutions are carried out by state and local officials.

But it would provide federal grants to help with the prosecuting of hate crimes and funds programs to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles.
The federal government can step in after the Justice Department certifies that a state is unwilling or unable to follow through on a purported hate crime.

While Republicans said they would vote against the defense bill because of the hate crimes addition, openly gay Democrat Jared Polis of Colorado said he would vote for it despite his opposition to U.S. military presence in Iraq. The reason hate crimes are so odious, he said, "is that they are not just crimes against individuals, they are crimes against entire communities and create environments of fear in entire communities."

Tom McClusky, vice president of the conservative Family Research Council's legislative arm said the next step likely would be contesting the legislation in court. "The religious protections are pretty flimsy," he said. He contended that Democrats were trying to move their "homosexual agenda" this year because it would prove unpopular with voters next year.

The FBI says there are some 8,000 hate crimes reported around the country in a year. More than half of those are motivated by racial bias. Next most frequent are crimes based on religious bias at around 18 percent and sexual orientation at 16 percent.Blind partisan hackery putting our soldiers at risk.

[SicEmBaylor]

Does anyone seriously think we can keep the radicals at bay in Afghanistan indefinitely or setup an internal situation where Afghanistan can keep them out themselves?

I don't. I'm not sure what else we can do in Afghanistan that we haven't been doing for almost a decade now.

[JohnnyMack]

The American people simply don't have the stomach to endure what it would take in terms of lives and dollars spent to make Afghanistan resemble even Iraq. Nor should they.

[soonerscuba]

The American, Greek, Arab, Persian, Turkish, British, and Russian people simply don't/didn't have the stomach to endure what it would take in terms of lives and dollars spent to make Afghanistan resemble even Iraq. Nor should they.It was just, reasonable, and fool hearty from go. All things considered, Bush did a hell of job there. I hope Obama knows something Alexander did not, because I don't see an end in sight.

[landrun]

Here's another sad enlightening article on why funding may not happen...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/08/boehner-pence-vote-agains_n_314194.html

Blind partisan hackery putting our soldiers at risk.

LA, serious question. If this were a pro-life amendment attached to this bill, would you see the partisanship in it? Or would you consider it a good and noble thing?

You're right in that it is a demonstration of politicians being partisan hacks.

This is the sort of insincere, manipulative and unethical behavior that causes so much deadlock in our government. It shows the dems are not concerned in the least about protecting US soldiers abroad.

Basically they're saying, that for all they care, US soldiers can die unless they get to force their gay agenda down American's throats. There is no justification to attach a hate crimes amendment onto a bill that is addressing a WAR. :mad: Just as it would be completely unethical for a right-winger attaching a pro-life amendment to this bill.

It absolutely corrupt and until the voters of this country get sick of it, it will continue to happen. In the mean time, the American people suffer while our politicians continue to be.... politicians .... serving their own interest.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Overturning a long standing law that has the approval of the majority of Americans is NOT the same thing as protecting a minority from violent hate crimes and prosecuting those who engage in them. This is about protecting SOLDIERS.

And it's not the Dems who are standing in the way of the funding going to our troops and not being concerned about protecting our troops...it's the GOP.

There is no "gay agenda." That's just one of the dumbest things EVER. Mentioning the "Gay Agenda" with any seriousness is akin to talking about how Unicorns are stalking you at night on your way home from work. It's crazy/stupid talk. And protecting minorities from hate crimes IS NOT A BAD THING. Especially when those minorities are SOLDIERS.

And to stand in the way is just more of the same partisan hackery and blind obstructionist policies that have been tearing the GOP down from within for 15+ years.

[King Crimson]

Does anyone seriously think we can keep the radicals at bay in Afghanistan indefinitely or setup an internal situation where Afghanistan can keep them out themselves?

I don't. I'm not sure what else we can do in Afghanistan that we haven't been doing for almost a decade now.

if you are defining "radicals" by indefinitely.....i'd suggest that maybe those are the people.

taliban is what it is, which is pretty bad. that's not my apology.

but all that hearts and minds crap hired by the most powerful PR companies in thr world hasn't worked on their TV.

we need to decide what our strategic interests are here. and, whose, non immediatate leftover from the last admins buddy contracts need to be fulfilled to get out or kick total ***.

[JohnnyMack]

What Failure in Afghanistan?
By Fareed Zakaria
Monday, October 12, 2009

At the heart of Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request for a major surge in troops is the assumption that we are failing in Afghanistan. But are we really? The United States has had one central objective: to deny al-Qaeda the means to reconstitute, to train and to plan major terrorist attacks. This mission has been largely successful for the past eight years. Al-Qaeda is dispersed, on the run and unable to direct attacks of the kind it planned and executed routinely in the 1990s. Fourteen of the top 20 leaders of the group have been killed by drone attacks. Its funding sources are drying up, and its political appeal is at an all-time low. All this is not an accident but rather a product of the U.S. presence in the region and efforts to disrupt terrorists, track funds, gain intelligence, aid development, help allies and kill enemies.

It's true that the security situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated considerably. While it is nothing like Iraq in 2006 -- civilian deaths are a tenth as numerous -- parts of the country are effectively controlled by the Taliban. Other parts are no man's land. But these areas are sparsely populated tracts of countryside. All the major population centers remain in the hands of the Kabul government. Is it worth the effort to gain control of all 35,000 Afghan villages scattered throughout the country? That goal has eluded most Afghan governments for the past 200 years and is a very high bar to set for the U.S. mission there.

Why has security gotten worse? Largely because Hamid Karzai's government is ineffective and corrupt and has alienated large numbers of Pashtuns, who have migrated to the Taliban. It is not clear that this problem can be solved by force, even using a smart counterinsurgency strategy. In fact, more troops injected into the current climate could provoke an anti-government or nationalist backlash.
ad_icon

It's important to remember that the crucial, lasting element of the surge in Iraq was not the influx of troops but getting Sunni tribes to switch sides, by offering them security, money and a place at the table. U.S. troops are now drawing down and yet -- despite some violence -- the Sunnis have not resumed fighting because Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is courting their support.

The United States and the Afghan government need to make much greater efforts to wean Pashtun tribes away from the most radical Taliban factions. It is unclear how many Taliban fighters believe in a global jihadist ideology, but most U.S. commanders with whom I've spoken feel that the number is less than 30 percent. The other 70 percent are driven by money, gangland peer pressure or opposition to Karzai.

And when we think through our strategy in Afghanistan, let's please remember that there is virtually no al-Qaeda presence there. Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently acknowledged what U.S. intelligence and all independent observers have long said: Al-Qaeda is in Pakistan, as is the leadership of the hard-core Afghan Taliban. (That's why it's called the Quetta Shura, Quetta being a Pakistani city.) All attacks against Western targets that have emanated from the region in the past eight years have come from Pakistan, not from Afghanistan. Even the most recently foiled plot in the United States, which involved the first Afghan that I know of to be implicated in global terrorism, originated in Pakistan. Yet we spend $30 in Afghanistan for every dollar in Pakistan.

There's little evidence that Pakistan's generals have truly accepted that they must defeat all the jihadis in their country (as opposed to just those who threaten the Pakistani state). But they have been more cooperative and active in the past year than ever before. A civilian government, the jihadi takeover of the Swat Valley, a change in public attitudes and increased American aid have all contributed to a more effective U.S.- Pakistan relationship. Greater energy, attention, and resources will surely yield even more.

What about the argument that Osama bin Laden and his minions will simply shift back across the border if the Taliban is allowed free rein? Well, they haven't done so yet, despite the pockets of turf the insurgents control. And it is easier for us to deny them territory than to insist that we control it all ourselves -- we can fight like guerrillas, too. Remember that the United States and its allies have close to 100,000 troops in Afghanistan now. Keeping them there is the right commitment, one that keeps in mind the stakes, but also the costs, and most important, the other vital interests around the world to which U.S. foreign policy must also be attentive. .

[CrimsonandCreamForever]

Overturning a long standing law that has the approval of the majority of Americans is NOT the same thing as protecting a minority from violent hate crimes and prosecuting those who engage in them. This is about protecting SOLDIERS.

And it's not the Dems who are standing in the way of the funding going to our troops and not being concerned about protecting our troops...it's the GOP.

There is no "gay agenda." That's just one of the dumbest things EVER. Mentioning the "Gay Agenda" with any seriousness is akin to talking about how Unicorns are stalking you at night on your way home from work. It's crazy/stupid talk. And protecting minorities from hate crimes IS NOT A BAD THING. Especially when those minorities are SOLDIERS.

And to stand in the way is just more of the same partisan hackery and blind obstructionist policies that have been tearing the GOP down from within for 15+ years.

Dude, there is TOO a gay agenda in Washington. With all the marches and protests, and especially the media coverage about the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" thing, you'd have to be living under a rock and never talk to a living soul to believe a comment like the one you just made.

And I think what landrun was saying was that and amendment to this legislation not having anything to do with the original intent of the bill itself is just as much partisan hackery as the GOP voting against it. Do you honestly believe the Dems thought the Repubs would go for an amendment like that? It's like they don't want to fund the troops worse than the Repubs don't.

landrun was trying to illustrate his point with another social issue supported by the other side, and you just blew right past that and kept blowing your "Conservatives are STUPID" whistle. Do you think the Dems would support a bill like this if there was a Pro-life amendment attached? It's a reasonable question that you must not have an answer for, and THAT, my friend, is a prime example of the hypocrisy running rampant in Washington today, killing the ability of our government to do anything.

[StoopTroup]

Hell....even they Repubs had a gay faction prior to GWB taking the party back to the closet.

http://www.gayrepublicans.org/about_gay_republicans.htm

[yermom]

i gotta side with the Pubs on this one. making the bill where the R's won't want to vote for it is pretty abusive IMO

[Turd_Ferguson]

i gotta side with the Pubs on this one. making the bill where the R's won't want to vote for it is pretty abusive IMOI just wanted to quote it before you edited it.:D

[yermom]

i don't have a problem with gays, and what some of you might call a "gay agenda" i might call "supporting civil rights" but "hate crimes" seem a little off to me

but still, it's weird enough that they attach crap like this to bills, but they are being a little too obvious in trying to either make conservatives mad, or make them look like *** holes with this one

[AggieTool]

Here's another sad enlightening article on why funding may not happen...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/08/boehner-pence-vote-agains_n_314194.html

Blind partisan hackery putting our soldiers at risk.

Hate crimes legislation is dumb to begin with.

Even more dumb is the notion of raising the plight of homosexuals to the same level as the plight blacks have suffered.

That's why 75% of blacks voted for prop 8 in CA. It was offensive to them.

Sorry, I blame the dems for politicizing a funding bill while our troops are getting trounced.

[AggieTool]

i don't have a problem with gays, and what some of you might call a "gay agenda" i might call "supporting civil rights" but "hate crimes" seem a little off to me

but still, it's weird enough that they attach crap like this to bills, but they are being a little too obvious in trying to either make conservatives mad, or make them look like *** holes with this one

Gays have all the civil rights anyone else does.

:)

[Turd_Ferguson]

Even more dumb is the notion of raising the plight of homosexuals to the same level as the plight blacks have suffered.Can you elaborate on that please.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Besides, isn't a crime just that? A crime?

If I put a .38 in Fred's skull because he's A) banging my wife or B) is banging random dudes, does not the fact remain that I am guilty of putting a .38 in someone's head, REGARDLESS of the motive? To adjust/increase the penalty based on intent is a very dangerous, very slippery road to go down.

How the very premise of "hate crimes" isn't an VIII Amendment violation, I don't know. I enjoy I Amendment protections, but as soon as I exercise those protections while executing a crime, I then suffer from extended punishment BECAUSE of the I Amendment rights I expressed during the execution of said crime?

I'm no lawyer, but that's beyond jacked up. Crime is crime.

[AggieTool]

Can you elaborate on that please.

Well lets see....

Black people pretty much are born with physiological genetic trait they can't hide nor should. It has no bearing on intelligence, behavior, capability or character, yet through ignorance they have been mistreated in our history solely because of their appearance.

Homosexuals choose to behave in a certain way and choose to partake in a particular lifestyle.

Even if it could be argued that homosexuals have a genetic predisposition for their sexual preference, it still boils down to choice and behavior.

After all, experts say pedophiles have a predisposition too....

The difference is, what two consenting adults do behind closed doors isn't illegal.

To equate the two in a discussion about equal or civil rights is particular disparaging to blacks...and they have overwhelmingly expressed this at the polls.

Clear as mud?:)

[StoopTroup]

Sorry, I blame the dems for politicizing a funding bill while our troops are getting trounced.

Who put them over there in the first place?

I thought it was a joint effort by both parties?

I don't get it when once another party gets into office...things that really need our 100% effort as Americans continues to be a Us vs Them fight while our Troops are in harms way or at the very least...trying to Police a Country that has never been under control ever. Afghanistan is a losing effort. No way anyone should hang this on the current administration. The General over there is one of the first ever to even try to win over the Afghani People instead of conquer.

This bill is just politics as usual. What's going on in Afghanistan with our Troops is a very different approach than what the last administration tried. This isn't going to be easy and in the end...I think the effort in Afghanistan is a much better place to spend our resources than Iraq was.

The Iraqis People have everything they need to undo Saddam's Reign. They should get on with it IMO.

Afghanistan...it's not gonna happen over night folks.

[bluedogok]

i don't have a problem with gays, and what some of you might call a "gay agenda" i might call "supporting civil rights" but "hate crimes" seem a little off to me

but still, it's weird enough that they attach crap like this to bills, but they are being a little too obvious in trying to either make conservatives mad, or make them look like *** holes with this one
I agree, no group should have "special rights" above and beyond what any other person has. If what is on the books already is enforced equally then there is no need for special legislation.

...and the Democratic leadership attaching this is a rider to this particular bill was nothing more than a torpedo aimed to kill the bill. They knew exactly what they were doing. I think totally unrelated riders attached to bills should be illegal, but then I think riders should be illegal as every piece of legislation should be voted on its own merits.

[AggieTool]

Who put them over there in the first place?

I thought it was a joint effort by both parties?

I don't get it when once another party gets into office...things that really need our 100% effort as Americans continues to be a Us vs Them fight while our Troops are in harms way or at the very least...trying to Police a Country that has never been under control ever. Afghanistan is a losing effort. No way anyone should hang this on the current administration. The General over there is one of the first ever to even try to win over the Afghani People instead of conquer.

This bill is just politics as usual. What's going on in Afghanistan with our Troops is a very different approach than what the last administration tried. This isn't going to be easy and in the end...I think the effort in Afghanistan is a much better place to spend our resources than Iraq was.

The Iraqis People have everything they need to undo Saddam's Reign. They should get on with it IMO.

Afghanistan...it's not gonna happen over night folks.

NOT giving the experts what they believe they need to succeed is THIS president's choice. Regardless of how or why our troops are over there.

This whole notion about Afghanistan being unwinnable and the graveyard of empires is only true if we let it go that way. They said the same **** about Japan.

Agree about the Iraqis. It just seems they like to blow each other up for fun.:)

[StoopTroup]

NOT giving the experts what they believe they need to succeed is THIS president's choice. Regardless of how or why our troops are over there.

This whole notion about Afghanistan being unwinnable and the graveyard of empires is only true if we let it go that way. They said the same **** about Japan.

Agree about the Iraqis. It just seems they like to blow each other up for fun.:)

I'm not fighting anyone one about Afghanistan unless they want to start blaming just the Dems. Both sides of Congress and the House are culpable IMO

[JohnnyMack]

NOT giving the experts what they believe they need to succeed is THIS president's choice. Regardless of how or why our troops are over there.

This whole notion about Afghanistan being unwinnable and the graveyard of empires is only true if we let it go that way. They said the same **** about Japan.

Agree about the Iraqis. It just seems they like to blow each other up for fun.:)

The reason we "won" in Japan is because Truman decided to drop the bomb. Something that the court of public opinion won't allow us to do (even though post 09/11 it's exactly what we should have done).

[Frozen Sooner]

I challenge someone to come up with a felony crime that doesn't have a component that looks at the intent of the malefactor.

[Frozen Sooner]

Besides, isn't a crime just that? A crime?

If I put a .38 in Fred's skull because he's A) banging my wife or B) is banging random dudes, does not the fact remain that I am guilty of putting a .38 in someone's head, REGARDLESS of the motive? To adjust/increase the penalty based on intent is a very dangerous, very slippery road to go down.

How the very premise of "hate crimes" isn't an VIII Amendment violation, I don't know. I enjoy I Amendment protections, but as soon as I exercise those protections while executing a crime, I then suffer from extended punishment BECAUSE of the I Amendment rights I expressed during the execution of said crime?

I'm no lawyer, but that's beyond jacked up. Crime is crime.

Violence is not protected speech.

[Frozen Sooner]

I challenge someone to come up with a felony crime that doesn't have a component that looks at the intent of the malefactor.

Pardon me, excluding crimes involving carnal knowledge.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Violence is not protected speech.

But expressing opinion is.

The difference being, "I hate queers" versus "I'm gonna kill that homo".

The beauty of protected speech is in that myself and any other American can decree their position under the safety of the Constitution. Where the two cloud is in the action thereof. To base intent BEYOND the purpose of the crime is where this falls off the rails into retarded-land.

I intended to kill Fred the polesmoker/wifebanger. I planned it, I was premeditated in my action, therefore under the law I am punishable under that offense as dictated by my intent. The premeditated murder of Fred the Polesmoker/Wifebanger. To press that further and increase the penalty for the crime because the intent qualified under existing statutes in the prosecution of said crime but was driven by the victim's protected status is again, beyond me as to why that is not an VIII Amendment violation.

I possessed a controlled substance with the intent to distribute. I possessed a controlled substance with the intent to distribute to black people.

That officially qualifies as stupid.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Hate crimes legislation is dumb to begin with.Spoken like a white man.


Even more dumb is the notion of raising the plight of homosexuals to the same level as the plight blacks have suffered.Nobody is doing that. But civil rights are civil rights and to discount them as not being so is dishonest and inaccurate.


That's why 75% of blacks voted for prop 8 in CA. It was offensive to them.Uhm...no. That's isn't the reason the voted for it AT ALL. You're talking WAY out of your *** on this one. The reason they voted for it is because a) homosexuality is even less accepted in the black community than in the white community and b) by and large the black community is very staunchly Christian and most tend towards being Baptists, therefore their religion is expressly against homosexuality as it is taught to them nowadays.

It had NOTHING to do with being "offended by the thought of gays fighting for civil rights." That's just dumb.


Sorry, I blame the dems for politicizing a funding bill while our troops are getting trounced.Except for the fact that they were trying to provide protections for OUR TROOPS and the Republicans politicized the funding bill and voted against it.

I guess they would rather a gay soldier can get beaten to death than send weapons and armor to our troops.

Good priorities, guys... :rolleyes:

[LosAngelesSooner]

Dude, there is TOO a gay agenda in Washington. With all the marches and protests, and especially the media coverage about the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" thing, you'd have to be living under a rock and never talk to a living soul to believe a comment like the one you just made.
If their agenda is to be treated the same as everyone else, then yes, you are right. But normally when people refer to the "Gay Agenda" they are referring to a specific, coordinated, attempt/attack by the homosexual community to "CONVERT" as many people to being gay as possible and an effort to destroy other people's beliefs and make them think what the homosexual community wants them to think.

This just ain't even remotely true. And if you think it is, you don't know any gay people.


And I think what landrun was saying was that and amendment to this legislation not having anything to do with the original intent of the bill itself is just as much partisan hackery as the GOP voting against it. Do you honestly believe the Dems thought the Repubs would go for an amendment like that? It's like they don't want to fund the troops worse than the Repubs don't.They SHOULD support the bill since the amendment is to PROTECT OUR TROOPS from discrimination and attack and the Republicans should be more concerned with arming and protecting our troops than carrying out their OWN discriminatory agenda against gay people.


landrun was trying to illustrate his point with another social issue supported by the other side, and you just blew right past that and kept blowing your "Conservatives are STUPID" whistle. Do you think the Dems would support a bill like this if there was a Pro-life amendment attached? It's a reasonable question that you must not have an answer for, and THAT, my friend, is a prime example of the hypocrisy running rampant in Washington today, killing the ability of our government to do anything.I blew by it because it was ludicrous. To equate gay rights (which a majority of Americans currently support) to repealing Roe v. Wade (which a majority of Americans have ALWAYS opposed) is not accurate. In fact, it's dishonest. ALSO, Roe v. Wade isn't about our troops, while this bill WAS. This bill was to PROTECT OUR TROOPS. Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with this.

So yeah...I blew by it because IT WAS A ****ING STUPID ANALOGY.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Gays have all the civil rights anyone else does.

:)No, they don't.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Well lets see....

Homosexuals are born with physiological genetic trait they can't hide nor should. It has no bearing on intelligence, behavior, capability or character, yet through ignorance they have been mistreated in our history solely because of their appearance.

Homosexuals don't choose to behave in a certain way or choose to partake in a particular lifestyle because to even suggest that would be both stupid and absolutely blindingly ignorant.

Now some will say that experts say pedophiles have a predisposition too...., however this can't be equated to homosexuality since it is a crime with a victim and is against the law. After all, the vast majority of pedophiles are HETEROSEXUAL, so it would be both offensive and silly.

The very important difference is, what two consenting adults do behind closed doors isn't illegal because there is no victim. Just as the difference between sex and rape is that in the first two consenting adults do it behind closed doors while in rape one of the parties isn't consenting. So, again, to even try to equate pedophilia to homosexuality is ****ING RETARDED.

To equate the two in a discussion about equal or civil rights is completely justifiable...but the Black Community has overwhelmingly expressed its disapproval of this based on their religious beliefs which is sad because it demonstrates how short the human memory is and how easy it is to oppress or discriminate against someone once you are in a position to do so.

Clear as crystal?:)
Fixed your rambling bunch of incoherent and illogical thoughts to make them actually true.

****ing people around here sometimes...I swear to ****ing God...:rolleyes:

[LosAngelesSooner]

I agree, no group should have "special rights" above and beyond what any other person has. If what is on the books already is enforced equally then there is no need for special legislation.

...and the Democratic leadership attaching this is a rider to this particular bill was nothing more than a torpedo aimed to kill the bill. They knew exactly what they were doing. I think totally unrelated riders attached to bills should be illegal, but then I think riders should be illegal as every piece of legislation should be voted on its own merits.So you're saying the Republicans who voted against it were justified in putting PREJUDICE over the PROTECTION OF OUR TROOPS?!

That doesn't even remotely make sense. :rolleyes:

[LosAngelesSooner]

NOT giving the experts what they believe they need to succeed is THIS president's choice. Regardless of how or why our troops are over there.

This whole notion about Afghanistan being unwinnable and the graveyard of empires is only true if we let it go that way. They said the same **** about Japan.

Agree about the Iraqis. It just seems they like to blow each other up for fun.:)You DO realize that the "experts" you think aren't getting what they need to succeed are the ones who are counseling the President to take this approach with Afghanistan, don't you? They, in fact, ARE getting exactly what they need...and what they ask for.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Isn't all murders....a hate crime?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

In a way, yes.

But if you stand on the soapbox and yell louder than the next guy, it totally invalidates their opinion.

Word.

[LosAngelesSooner]

A crime of hate? Yes. A hate crime? No.

I hate YOU, therefore I kill you = Murder

I hate (insert minority here), therefore I kill/maim/attack members of (insert minority here) simply because they are a member of that minority = Hate Crime



It would make sense of you guys if you had ever been a member or an oppressed minority. In 100 years blacks probably won't have hate crime protection, but they still need it in our nation's current climate.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

According to who?

You!?

Crime is crime is crime. Being a member of a protected class has jack squat to do with the personal justification of someone thinking that established punishment for a set of crimes that are ALREADY tiered by intent should have an added tier of increased punishment based SOLELY on whom that crime was perpetrated against.

Victims are faceless. Lady Justice is blind.

Hate crime legislation is posturing to minorities by giving them legislative compensation for crimes committed against them. The fact remains, if I commit a crime with the applicable level of intent, then I shall be tried under the law that is applicable. To add another tier based strictly on the protected class of that victim, which in turn can and would increase the penalty for offense for what would normally be lesser offenses along with increase above and beyond existing penalty is in and of itself offensive.

Offensive to the premise that we are "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all".

[stoopified]

Hate crimes legislation is dumb to begin with.

Even more dumb is the notion of raising the plight of homosexuals to the same level as the plight blacks have suffered.

That's why 75% of blacks voted for prop 8 in CA. It was offensive to them.

Sorry, I blame the dems for politicizing a funding bill while our troops are getting trounced.OMG,I actually agree with YOU!I never thought that would happen. :)

[LosAngelesSooner]

According to who?

You!?No. According to the law.


Crime is crime is crime. Being a member of a protected class has jack squat to do with the personal justification of someone thinking that established punishment for a set of crimes that are ALREADY tiered by intent should have an added tier of increased punishment based SOLELY on whom that crime was perpetrated against.That's where burden of proof lays. If they prove it was a hate crime, then crime is not just crime, it's a hate crime. That's the law...and being a member of a protected class has quite a bit to do with the justification.


Victims are faceless. Lady Justice is blind.Rrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiight. I got that deed on that bridge you wanted to buy from me. :rolleyes:


Hate crime legislation is posturing to minorities by giving them legislative compensation for crimes committed against them. The fact remains, if I commit a crime with the applicable level of intent, then I shall be tried under the law that is applicable. To add another tier based strictly on the protected class of that victim, which in turn can and would increase the penalty for offense for what would normally be lesser offenses along with increase above and beyond existing penalty is in and of itself offensive.Clearly you don't understand hate crime legislation. It doesn't apply to every crime against a protected class, dude. If I kill a black guy while I'm robbing a convenience store it doesn't qualify as a hate crime. If I kill a black guy BECAUSE HE'S BLACK, THAT qualifies.

Now...please...try to tell me that never happens anymore.


Offensive to the premise that we are "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all".Do you even read what you write? ^^^ THIS has nothing to do with EITHER argument. TOTAL non-sequitur.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Well my issue is that if let's say, I am crazy and like to have sex with dead girls so I kill 6 girls. Let's say they give me 6 life sentences with no chance at parole. Now let's say I kill 6 gay guys because I hate those gays. Now it is a hate crime and I get 8 Life Sentences with no chance at parole. Now let's take I beat up a guy because he slept with my g'f, he lives and no real permanent injury. The jury probably isn't sending me to the pen for that one. Now let's say I beat up a gay guy cuz he I think he looked at me at a bar. Most juries are naturally going to give a harsher sentence...because that guy sounds crazy. Then let's say we send him to prison for 6 months. When he gets out...do you think he is cured of his hate. Probably not.... We aren't fixing the root of the problem...which is ignorance. I would be more in line with giving the guy a court appointed cop and forcing him to do charity events with gay groups and what not.

[CrimsonandCreamForever]

If their agenda is to be treated the same as everyone else, then yes, you are right. But normally when people refer to the "Gay Agenda" they are referring to a specific, coordinated, attempt/attack by the homosexual community to "CONVERT" as many people to being gay as possible and an effort to destroy other people's beliefs and make them think what the homosexual community wants them to think.

This just ain't even remotely true. And if you think it is, you don't know any gay people.

They SHOULD support the bill since the amendment is to PROTECT OUR TROOPS from discrimination and attack and the Republicans should be more concerned with arming and protecting our troops than carrying out their OWN discriminatory agenda against gay people.

I blew by it because it was ludicrous. To equate gay rights (which a majority of Americans currently support) to repealing Roe v. Wade (which a majority of Americans have ALWAYS opposed) is not accurate. In fact, it's dishonest. ALSO, Roe v. Wade isn't about our troops, while this bill WAS. This bill was to PROTECT OUR TROOPS. Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with this.

So yeah...I blew by it because IT WAS A ****ING STUPID ANALOGY.

The point here is FUNDING TROOPS. That's what the initial legislation was about. If you want to address civil issues, you're more than welcome to do that, but introduce a NEW bill to do so, don't tack it on to another bill dealing with an ENTIRELY different issue.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Even though it has to do with troops.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Well my issue is that if let's say, I am crazy and like to have sex with dead girls so I kill 6 girls. Let's say they give me 6 life sentences with no chance at parole. Now let's say I kill 6 gay guys because I hate those gays. Now it is a hate crime and I get 8 Life Sentences with no chance at parole. Now let's take I beat up a guy because he slept with my g'f, he lives and no real permanent injury. The jury probably isn't sending me to the pen for that one. Now let's say I beat up a gay guy cuz he I think he looked at me at a bar. Most juries are naturally going to give a harsher sentence...because that guy sounds crazy. Then let's say we send him to prison for 6 months. When he gets out...do you think he is cured of his hate. Probably not.... We aren't fixing the root of the problem...which is ignorance. I would be more in line with giving the guy a court appointed cop and forcing him to do charity events with gay groups and what not.I'm in favor of Gay Bussing. We need to bus gay families into uber-conservative straight neighborhoods.

That'll cure 'em. :D

[KABOOKIE]

I'm in favor of Gay Bussing. We need to bus gay families into uber-conservative straight neighborhoods.

That'll cure 'em. :D

Yep. That'll cure 'em dead.

[CrimsonandCreamForever]

Even though it has to do with troops.

Are you saying the sexual preference of the troops should dictate what equipment they need?

That's like saying the hypothetical 'Pro-Life' amendment to this same bill is just as relevant because there are female troops.

[AggieTool]

Fixed your rambling bunch of incoherent and illogical thoughts to make them actually true.

****ing people around here sometimes...I swear to ****ing God...:rolleyes:

Wuz up wit da red spek girlfriend?:O

No need to git yer panties in a wad.:D

...you know I'm right and no amount of blathering will change the fact that at the end of the day, a person decides to do the nasty with someone of the same sex.

Deal wit it!:) :)

[LosAngelesSooner]

Are you saying the sexual preference of the troops should dictate what equipment they need?

That's like saying the hypothetical 'Pro-Life' amendment to this same bill is just as relevant because there are female troops.Uhm, no. You should work on your reading comprehension skills. And work hard...you've got a lot of catching up to do.


Wuz up wit da red spek girlfriend?:O

No need to git yer panties in a wad.:D

...you know I'm right and no amount of blathering will change the fact that at the end of the day, a person decides to do the nasty with someone of the same sex.

Deal wit it!:) :)The act is a decision. The impulse is not. Just as the act of sex with a woman is a decision, but the impulse is not. So you can blather all you want about your completely retarded beliefs, it doesn't change the fact...and it won't make it illegal.

But you can keep ranting about stuff that you've made up in your basement as if they are facts. Real world be damned! :rolleyes:


Yep. That'll cure 'em dead.Nothing like joking about murdering people because you don't like them.

Next you'll claim that hate crimes don't exist. :rolleyes:

You never cease to find a new low level to reach, Kabookistalker.

[CrimsonandCreamForever]

Uhm, no.

Show me where I went wrong in comprehending that post.

[KABOOKIE]

Nothing like joking about murdering people because you don't like them.

Next you'll claim that hate crimes don't exist. :rolleyes:

You never cease to find a new low level to reach, Kabookistalker.


You're the one having fantasies about your own little Columbine by bussing them into those "uber-conservative straight neighborhoods." Any moran could see that would be asking for bad things to happen. Geez, Cpt. Stalksalot.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Show me where I went wrong in comprehending that post.If I have to show you, it'll take more than one post to accomplish it.

I'd suggest OKCCC to start. LOL


You're the one having fantasies about your own little Columbine by bussing them into those "uber-conservative straight neighborhoods." Any moran could see that would be asking for bad things to happen. Geez, Cpt. Stalksalot.Yeah...because having a gay person live in a neighborhood (something that I clearly was joking about, btw) would TOTALLY warrant them getting killed. Yep. You're totally right. Why didn't I realize that? I mean, the logical conclusion to a gay couple moving into a neighborhood would be that they were murdered. Totally.

You're a pillar of the community. :rolleyes:

Keep on following me around and replying to every post I make, then creating threads about me wherein you whine about getting negged for dumb posts like some interweb newb. It's making for a fun Tuesday night watching you melt down. :D

SMOOCHES, Stalker boy. ;)

[Okla-homey]

I challenge someone to come up with a felony crime that doesn't have a component that looks at the intent of the malefactor.

Here's three Blackstone. Involuntary manslaughter, statutory rape and possession of child pornography. I could come up with more, but it's early.

[LosAngelesSooner]

WAY too early for this seriousness. Go to bed. :D

[Frozen Sooner]

Here's three Blackstone. Involuntary manslaughter, statutory rape and possession of child pornography. I could come up with more, but it's early.

Involuntary manslaughter has a lesser penalty than murder, does it not? But under Fireman's definition, you should get the same penalty for killing someone for whatever reason. "Involuntary" looks to intent. Bad example.

Already mentioned crimes of carnal knowledge.

State v. X-Citement Video, 513 U.S. 64 (1994). The Supreme Court held that a statute regulating child pornography did indeed contain language to intent and would be unconstitutional if it did not. Your hero Scalia writing in the dissent said that it didn't and was therefore unconstitutional. Regardless, in Staples the Court held that a statute mandating a felony crime must cannot be based on strict liability and must speak to the actor's intent.

[Frozen Sooner]

Noted Liberal William Rehnquist:


In determining what sentence to impose, sentencing judges have traditionally considered a wide variety of factors in addition to evidence bearing on guilt, including a defendant's motive for committing the offense. While it is equally true that a sentencing judge may not take into consideration a defendant's abstract beliefs, however obnoxious to most people, the Constitution does not erect a per se barrier to the

477

admission of evidence concerning one's beliefs and associations at sentencing simply because they are protected by the First Amendment. Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U. S. 159; Barclay v. Florida, 463 U. S. 939 (plurality opinion)

Mitchell v. Wisconsin.

[bluewcc]

No, they don't.

Exactly what civil rights do gays not have?

[CrimsonandCreamForever]

If I have to show you, it'll take more than one post to accomplish it.

I'd suggest OKCCC to start. LOL


Still waiting...

Take a break with the name-calling and personal attacks and try to counter some decent arguments.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Involuntary manslaughter has a lesser penalty than murder, does it not? But under Fireman's definition, you should get the same penalty for killing someone for whatever reason. "Involuntary" looks to intent. Bad example.

Bad form, my friend. Bad form.

Intent as in specific intent, as is established to define tier of crime in existing statute. You're a student of the law, man. C'mon.

Think about that for a sec. Theft. Unlawfully obtaining possession of another's property with the specific intent to deprive that person of their property in perpetua. Now, let's make it a hate crime!

Theft. Unlawfully obtaining possession of another's property with the specific intent to deprive that person of said property in perpetua BASED SOLELY on the fact that they are of a protected class.

If I broke into a gay man's home and stole all of his anal lube and rubber dongs STRICTLY BECAUSE he is a gay man and said action was in protest against the victim's lifestyle, is that a hate crime, or is that burglary deemed punishable by existing statute? If I shot a woman's poodle because she had a vagina and boobs, is that a hate crime? Or am I subject to animal cruelty statutes and subject to harsh civil penalty pending review?

The dog is dead. The rubber dongs are gone. Criminally, the laws apply as the laws apply. Civilly, pursuance of the violation of the victim's rights is in its very premise, hate crime prosecution and it belongs in the civil court, prosecuted toward existing federal laws/standards as rights violations. It has no place whatsoever in the criminal courts.

[Frozen Sooner]

Bad form, my friend. Bad form.

Intent as in specific intent, as is established to define tier of crime in existing statute. You're a student of the law, man. C'mon.

Think about that for a sec. Theft. Unlawfully obtaining possession of another's property with the specific intent to deprive that person of their property in perpetua. Now, let's make it a hate crime!

Theft. Unlawfully obtaining possession of another's property with the specific intent to deprive that person of said property in perpetua BASED SOLELY on the fact that they are of a protected class.

If I broke into a gay man's home and stole all of his anal lube and rubber dongs STRICTLY BECAUSE he is a gay man and said action was in protest against the victim's lifestyle, is that a hate crime, or is that burglary deemed punishable by existing statute? If I shot a woman's poodle because she had a vagina and boobs, is that a hate crime? Or am I subject to animal cruelty statutes and subject to harsh civil penalty pending review?

The dog is dead. The rubber dongs are gone. Criminally, the laws apply as the laws apply. Civilly, pursuance of the violation of the victim's rights is in its very premise, hate crime prosecution and it belongs in the civil court, prosecuted toward existing federal laws/standards as rights violations. It has no place whatsoever in the criminal courts.

You're right. I am a student of the law. And yes, I'm aware of the difference between the colloquial usage of "intent" and the legal meaning, as well as the difference between specific intent (knowledge, purpose) general intent (recklessness, negligence) and strict liability.

I'm also aware that (as Rehnquist pointed out and I've pointed out to you NUMEROUS times) that the trier of fact has always had the ability to look at what motivated the perpetration of a crime and that it's ridiculous to think that they shouldn't.

Further, you keep bringing up the 8th amendment prohibition against cruel, unusual, or excessive punishment. This isn't any kind of an argument against a punishment for a crime that society has deemed heinous-and targeting a specified group for terror and intimidation is indeed heinous. Have there even been any challenges to hate crime legislation on this basis that didn't get laughed out of court at the trial level?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I don't know about challenges to hate crime legislation. I'm not a law student nor do I have the resources and time to truly research it.

But I DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.


I'm also aware that (as Rehnquist pointed out and I've pointed out to you NUMEROUS times) that the trier of fact has always had the ability to look at what motivated the perpetration of a crime and that it's ridiculous to think that they shouldn't.

As would only be right. I don't disagree with you here. The establishment of motive drives intent in the pursuit of the establishment of the tier of the offense. I was motivated by his being <insert class here> into sitting intentionally outside his house with a pistol waiting for him to exit. There's premeditation. There's intent. Motive being whatever it is can like you said, assist in the definition of intent.

BUT...

I guess through my layman's approach, I've missed the boat here. I've been barking intent, outside of specific intent when I should've been barking motive. The back-and-forth with you shed that light on it for me, so thanks for that. Intent establishes the level of offense. The INCLUSION of motive into the determination of intent is what we have here, PLUS the usage of said motive to define recourse BEYOND what is established via the intent.

Okay, yeah, I'm wrapping my head around it now. Lemme summarize all my blathering.

Motive drives intent. Intent establishes the level of offense in specific-intent defined crime. Hate crime legislation includes additional punishment based solely on motive if said motive is geared toward federally protected classes as defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Presidential Declaration.

But if my motive is because you screwed my wife, we're cool. If my motive is because you're a pacific islander, I deserve greater punishment than if my crime were directed against someone who is not a member of a protected class.

Being the law student that you are (serious question here), are you aware of/familiar with any instances where motive defines the level of punishment instead of intent?

[Frozen Sooner]

Sure. Sitting in class for the rest of the day. I'll get back to you later on that.

However, honestly, wrapping motive into mens rea is probably the wrong approach. It's more actus reus as an attendant circumstance.

Also, I think we're talking past each other on a key point: the purpose of the hate crime isn't to enhance punishment for crimes against protected groups per se. It's to enhance punishment for crimes that are undertaken for the purpose of intimidation of protected groups, which is another kettle of fish.

Beating up someone who's black because he screwed your wife is assault and battery. Beating up someone who's black because you don't like black people walking down your street is a hate crime.

[Frozen Sooner]

Though just right quick: the difference between joyriding and grand theft auto comes to mind.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Sure. Sitting in class for the rest of the day. I'll get back to you later on that.

However, honestly, wrapping motive into mens rea is probably the wrong approach. It's more actus reus as an attendant circumstance.

Again, talking to a layman here. Bear with the dancing monkey. Isn't motive and intent what establishes Mens Rea in the first place? Why I did it and what I intended for it to do? Followed by actus reus, the overt act thereof, with the attendant circumstance being the fact(s) surrounding the event? This isn't even part of the argument. This is me trying to stay up to speed.


Also, I think we're talking past each other on a key point: the purpose of the hate crime isn't to enhance punishment for crimes against protected groups per se. It's to enhance punishment for crimes that are undertaken for the purpose of intimidation of protected groups, which is another kettle of fish.

Therein lies the sticking point for me. If the States want to establish intimidation/coercion/whatever legislation to define such as a crime, I DON'T have a problem with that. None whatsoever. Where I DO have a problem is in the limited application of said legislation to protected classes as defined by the previous. If "hate" is to be legislated and prosecuted, legislate and prosecute for EVERYONE when said violations of the law are performed with the purpose of intimidation, influence, or coercion. There is no room for federally defined protected class in the violation of criminal law, in my opinion. Again, Lady Justice is blind. Crime is crime.


Beating up someone who's black because he screwed your wife is assault and battery. Beating up someone who's black because you don't like black people walking down your street is a hate crime.

No, it's still assault and battery. And with generalized intimidation legislation at the State level, your intent to intimidate/coerce could be tried and prosecuted and that's awesome. Take that, bad guy. But when/if the roles are reversed, it's not popular and deferential to minority groups for the Hoover Crips or Mexican Mafia members to be staring down the barrel of intimidation AND assault charges. It's posturing, plain and simple.

[JohnnyMack]

****ing lawyers.

[Frozen Sooner]

Again, talking to a layman here. Bear with the dancing monkey. Isn't motive and intent what establishes Mens Rea in the first place? Why I did it and what I intended for it to do? Followed by actus reus, the overt act thereof, with the attendant circumstance being the fact(s) surrounding the event? This isn't even part of the argument. This is me trying to stay up to speed.



Therein lies the sticking point for me. If the States want to establish intimidation/coercion/whatever legislation to define such as a crime, I DON'T have a problem with that. None whatsoever. Where I DO have a problem is in the limited application of said legislation to protected classes as defined by the previous. If "hate" is to be legislated and prosecuted, legislate and prosecute for EVERYONE when said violations of the law are performed with the purpose of intimidation, influence, or coercion. There is no room for federally defined protected class in the violation of criminal law, in my opinion. Again, Lady Justice is blind. Crime is crime.



No, it's still assault and battery. And with generalized intimidation legislation at the State level, your intent to intimidate/coerce could be tried and prosecuted and that's awesome. Take that, bad guy. But when/if the roles are reversed, it's not popular and deferential to minority groups for the Hoover Crips or Mexican Mafia members to be staring down the barrel of intimidation AND assault charges. It's posturing, plain and simple.

I think that brings us to an impasse, since we have a fundamental normative disagreement. Doesn't make either one of us a bad person, but we can't conduct a logical debate because to each of us the other's logic is flawed.

As to the difference between mens rea and actus reus:

Actus reus has three parts:
Conduct
Attendant Circumstance
Result

Mens rea is the attendant mental state applied to each of those parts.

So, say, in your example of theft. Common law theft is the knowingly taking of the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive them of the property.

The conduct is taking.
The attendant circumstance is property of another.
The result is permanently deprive them of the property.

The mens rea component applies:

Was the taking knowing? If someone secreted the property on your person, you are not liable for theft.
Did you know that it was someone else's property? No criminal liability attaches for taking an umbrella that you mistakenly believed was yours.
Did you intend to permanently deprive them of the property or did you mean to quickly return it?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

See, this is quality stuff.

Even a dumb ol' fireman can wrap his head around that. Thanks.

[Frozen Sooner]

Well, keep in mind I'm about halfway through one Crim Law class, so I'm no expert. Hell, I haven't even taken an exam on this stuff yet.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Exactly what civil rights do gays not have?The ability to serve openly in the military, the ability to be married, the ability to visit their partner in the hospital, the same rights married couples have to shared insurance and retirement benefits, protection from testifying against their partner.

That's just off the top of my head.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Still waiting...

Take a break with the name-calling and personal attacks and try to counter some decent arguments.Come up with some decent arguments and maybe I'll take the energy to counter them. As it is you're being lazy and wanting me to do your homework for you.

Try going back and reading the post. I wasn't using big words or anything and the concepts were pretty basic. You should finally "get it" after 5 or 6 reads.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

The ability to serve openly in the military, the ability to be married, the ability to visit their partner in the hospital, the same rights married couples have to shared insurance and retirement benefits, protection from testifying against their partner.

That's just off the top of my head.

Are those rights or the ability to act in that regard?

Last time I checked, the Constitution and her Amendments don't express the "Right To Visit Your Gay Partner In The Hospital".

[LosAngelesSooner]

Are those rights or the ability to act in that regard?

Last time I checked, the Constitution and her Amendments don't express the "Right To Visit Your Gay Partner In The Hospital".But if one class of person is allowed to do so it is discrimination to not allow another class of people to do the same based solely upon their race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

But if one class of person is allowed to do so it is discrimination to not allow another class of people to do the same based solely upon their race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

See, that's sneaky. That's honestly smooth, bud.

All of the above in matters of the federal government thanks to Clinton's presidential directive. As per the Civil Rights Act of 1964, all sans sexual orientation. Given that this has yet to pass before Congress and signed as law to include sexual orientation as a protected class, it has no applicability beyond the federal government as it's currently based ONLY in said Presidential Directive.

So no, with that in mind, that is not discrimination.

By the general term, yes it would be.

And given the varied opinions from our elected representation on Capitol Hill, I would bet a cold root beer that it stays that way, which in turn makes it a state's rights issue which for me is exactly the way it needs to be.

[Chuck Bao]

All that legal mumbo jumbo is not making me feel safer.

The idea of a hate crime is terrorism.

You guys clearly are not catching this, so I will explain it to you slowly.

There is no protected class of people and don't get your panties in a wad because you think that you are being perscuted as a majority because a minority as suffered a crime by siomeone of the majority race.

I really don't think it works that way.

If you somehow kill a guy who you think is looking at you in an inappropiate way, that is NOT a hate crime.

But if your idea is to kill all men, women and even teens who are queers and fags, then this rider bill was probably meant for you.

"I was raped and sodomized by those bastards" equals a court ruling that punishes the culprits. Our laws already cover that.

"I am going to kill every queer and fag within my neighborhood" : probably not.

Can someone back me up here? I am thinking that even in conservative neighhoods that a man and man or a woman and woman couple is not getting such as a negative reaction. In effect the vast majority of Americans have already moved on.

[LosAngelesSooner]

"All men are created equal."

To discriminate is to discriminate. Period. You can't help how you're born. And even if birth had nothing to do with it, you CHOOSE your religion, but it's illegal to discriminate on someone BASED on religion.

Either way, I proved my point: Gays are discriminated against currently in America and don't have the same rights as other people.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Either way, I proved my point: Gays are discriminated against currently in America and don't have the same rights as other people.

Aaaaaaaaand you're wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.

In fact, you're King Wrong of Wrongsylvania. If there was a constitution of wrong, you would be its Thomas Wrongfferson and would open with "we the people are wrong".

All kidding aside, you're being awful loose with the term "rights". There's the argument, not LAS versus a bunch of knuckle dragging hillbillies that hate dem queers n' their buttsecks. Yes, homosexuals enjoy the "rights" we all do by their very status as citizens of the United States of America. They are discriminated against in many social and professional circles. Said discrimination can be permissible given it does not infringe on the rights enjoyed by ALL citizens of the United States of America. Special consideration as a protected class does not exist as per the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Americans with Disabilities Act for homosexuals. Nor should it.

Religion as a choice is established and protected in the I Amendment. Homosexuality is not, therefore the argument that freedom of religion and the choice thereof equals the choice of homosexuality isn't just a stretch, it's apples and oranges.

Way to trip on all of the wrong, Wrongy McWrongerson.

[Chuck Bao]

Aaaaaaaaand you're wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.

In fact, you're King Wrong of Wrongsylvania. If there was a constitution of wrong, you would be its Thomas Wrongfferson and would open with "we the people are wrong".

All kidding aside, you're being awful loose with the term "rights". There's the argument, not LAS versus a bunch of knuckle dragging hillbillies that hate dem queers n' their buttsecks. Yes, homosexuals enjoy the "rights" we all do by their very status as citizens of the United States of America. They are discriminated against in many social and professional circles. Said discrimination can be permissible given it does not infringe on the rights enjoyed by ALL citizens of the United States of America. Special consideration as a protected class does not exist as per the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Americans with Disabilities Act for homosexuals. Nor should it.

Religion as a choice is established and protected in the I Amendment. Homosexuality is not, therefore the argument that freedom of religion and the choice thereof equals the choice of homosexuality isn't just a stretch, it's apples and oranges.

Way to trip on all of the wrong, Wrongy McWrongerson.

What the hell are you talking about?

Like a US citizen is wanting to live in his/her country of birth with a life partner, the grand ole US iof A is currently against that. You can check with various US embasses on that issue is you want.

And, you are here to lecture me that I am mistaken and civil rights are afforded to all American citizens?

Seriously, that is either sad or misguided.

[KABOOKIE]

So do we let beastiality enter the mix? Hell, what those ****ers do is a crime. We have legal discrimination against them.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Aaaaaaaaand you're wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.

In fact, you're King Wrong of Wrongsylvania. If there was a constitution of wrong, you would be its Thomas Wrongfferson and would open with "we the people are wrong".

All kidding aside, you're being awful loose with the term "rights". There's the argument, not LAS versus a bunch of knuckle dragging hillbillies that hate dem queers n' their buttsecks. Yes, homosexuals enjoy the "rights" we all do by their very status as citizens of the United States of America. They are discriminated against in many social and professional circles. Said discrimination can be permissible given it does not infringe on the rights enjoyed by ALL citizens of the United States of America. Special consideration as a protected class does not exist as per the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Americans with Disabilities Act for homosexuals. Nor should it.

Religion as a choice is established and protected in the I Amendment. Homosexuality is not, therefore the argument that freedom of religion and the choice thereof equals the choice of homosexuality isn't just a stretch, it's apples and oranges.

Way to trip on all of the wrong, Wrongy McWrongerson.;)

Thanks for proving me right.

Again. :D

As for everything else, you're so damnably wrong that it's funny. LOL

[LosAngelesSooner]

So do we let beastiality enter the mix? Hell, what those ****ers do is a crime. We have legal discrimination against them.What the Oklahoma State Cowboys do is a crime and therefore has no relevance in this conversation.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

This thread is monkey balls.

I'll take my fingers out of my ears while I scream if everyone else promises to do the same.

[CrimsonandCreamForever]

Come up with some decent arguments and maybe I'll take the energy to counter them. As it is you're being lazy and wanting me to do your homework for you.

Try going back and reading the post. I wasn't using big words or anything and the concepts were pretty basic. You should finally "get it" after 5 or 6 reads.

Ok, so, if I go to OKCCC, they'll tell me what's going wrong inside your head?

[LosAngelesSooner]

:rolleyes:

CLEARLY you need to take some basic English comprehension classes...

[CrimsonandCreamForever]

You'd be surprised at how well other people's comprehension skills improved if you started making sense in your posts.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURN

[LosAngelesSooner]

You'd be surprised at how well other people's comprehension skills improved if you started making sense in your posts.Okay...I'll use small words and simple thought just for you from now on. :rolleyes:

[Frozen Sooner]

So do we let beastiality enter the mix? Hell, what those ****ers do is a crime. We have legal discrimination against them.

Man this is a terrible argument.

First, homosexuality is not just about carnal relief or the sexual act itself.
Second, the desire of two people of the same sex to get married is regarding an action between two consenting people who have reached the age of majority. Obviously a person can't marry a chicken, because a chicken cannot form a contract. Also just as obviously, no consent to the sex act can be imputed to a chicken. Or to a child for that matter.

The adult incest angle is a much better argument.

[KABOOKIE]

Man this is a terrible argument.

First, homosexuality is not just about carnal relief or the sexual act itself.
Second, the desire of two people of the same sex to get married is regarding an action between two consenting people who have reached the age of majority. Obviously a person can't marry a chicken, because a chicken cannot form a contract. Also just as obviously, no consent to the sex act can be imputed to a chicken. Or to a child for that matter.

The adult incest angle is a much better argument.


So is it OK? Or is it just a moral issue?

[SicEmBaylor]

As disgusting as bestiality is, I have to ask myself how it impacts anyone else but the Aggie involved in the abuse and the animal itself.

Since I don't really believe in animal-rights, it would seem hard to really justify laws banning the practice. Don't get me wrong -- it's f'ing disgusting. But people should have the right to be as sick and twisted as they want so long as they aren't hurting other people or infringing upon the rights of others.

[Frozen Sooner]

So is it OK? Or is it just a moral issue?

So is what OK? Bestiality?

As a general rule, I'm against animal abuse. Bestiality falls convincingly under that rubric.

[LosAngelesSooner]

So is what OK? Bestiality?

As a general rule, I'm against animal abuse. Bestiality falls convincingly under that rubric.Unless you have the goddamned courtesy to give the sheep a reach-around.