Every single Democrat voted it down. Does this mean that because I find pedophilia repugnant that I am breaking the law if I say so out loud because that would be "hate speech"? Ok, I have to ask again....Those of you who profess Christ how can you continue to support politicians who are in favor of protecting pedophiles? Are the special interest of pedophiles more important to you than your very own special interest which is your right to express your spiritual convictions?
This bill presupposes that because one finds a lifestyle, sexual act or sexual orientation personally distasteful, repugnant or even repulsive that merely by harboring such feelings leads to the action of inflicting bodily harm. If I happen to have a physical altercation with a homosexual or a pedophile person (which would never happen) and I whoop their azz (which is equally unlikely since I don't know how to fight) then I could receive an "extra" penalty for "preconceived hatred" as well has whooping their azz. Of course it would be a foregone conclusion that I must "hate" homosexuals because I believe what the Bible says about homosexuality. Actually homosexuals should be outraged that they are placed in the same category as pedophiles and necrophiliacs.
H.R. 1913 is yet another brainchild of political correctness advocates aka liberal democrats who are teetering dangerously close fascism. What else do you call this sort of thought policing? This bill is the government's attempt to infringe on our conscience and demand that we believe only that which is deemed as politically correct. So, as Christians we are facing big trouble because the Bible is not politically correct. But on second thought many Christian don't let their faith hinder their political sensibilities.
Update: It has been suggested by our resident liberal contrarian UptownSteve that the right is just making this up and that pedophiles are not a protected class under HR 1913. So I have found the video of Alcee Hasting reading the amendment to HR 1913 which outlines what sexual orientiations "isms" are to be protected:
97 comments:
You have it all wrong. My reasoning for supporting these people is....
"Republicans are all racist and I hate George Bush."
What in this post has anything to do with racist Republicans or George Bush.
You will have to try harder to convince me.
Protected class pretty much covers every friggin body from what I can see.
"Protected class is a term used in United States anti-discrimination law. The term describes groups of people who are protected from discrimination and harassment. The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" and persons cannot be discriminated against based on these characteristics:
Race - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The Civil Rights Act of 1866
Ethnicity
Religion or sect - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Color - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) - Federal: Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex - Federal: Equal Pay Act of 1963 & Civil Rights Act of 1964
Familial status (Housing, cannot discriminate for having children, exception for senior housing)
Sexual orientation (in some jurisdictions and not in others)
Disability status - Federal: Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 & Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status - Federal Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974
Genetic Information - Federal: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination
BTW CBW
I didn't see "pedophiles" anywhere on that list.
UTS~Well thanks to HR 1913 they are now. Did you watch the video?
And so are all of these:
The Hate Crime law, HR-1913, will make 30 sexual orientations federally-protected. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has published 30 such sexual orientations that, because of Congress's refusal to define "sexual orientation," will be protected under this legislation. These 30 orientations are listed in the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), which is used by physicians, psychologists, social workers, nurses, and psychiatrists throughout the U.S. It is considered the dictionary of mental disorders. Those 30 sexual orientations include behaviors that are felonies or misdemeanors in most states. Among those sexual orientations being protected by HR-1913 are these: Apotemnophilia - sexual arousal associated with the stump(s) of an Amputee Asphyxophilia - sexual gratification derived from activities that involve oxygen deprivation through hanging, strangulation, or other means Autogynephilia - the sexual arousal of a man by his own perception of himself as a woman or dressed as a woman Bisexual - the capacity to feel erotic attraction toward, or to engage in sexual interaction with, both males and females Coprophilia - sexual arousal associated with feces Exhibitionism - the act of exposing one’s genitals to an unwilling observer to obtain sexual gratification Fetishism/Sexual Fetishism - obtaining sexual excitement primarily or exclusively from an inanimate object or a particular part of the body Frotteurism - approaching an unknown woman from the rear and pressing or rubbing the penis against her buttocks Heterosexuality - the universal norm of sexuality with those of the opposite sex Homosexual/Gay/Lesbian - people who form sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with members of their own gender Gender Identity Disorder - a strong and persistent cross-gender identification, which is the desire to be, or the insistence that one is, or the other sex, "along with" persistent discomfort about one’s assigned sex or a sense of the inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex Gerontosexuality - distinct preference for sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with an elderly partner Incest - sex with a sibling or parent Kleptophilia - obtaining sexual excitement from stealing Klismaphilia - erotic pleasure derived from enemas Necrophilia - sexual arousal and/or activity with a corpse Partialism - A fetish in which a person is sexually attracted to a specific body part exclusive of the person Pedophilia - Sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger). The individual with pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least 5 years older than the child. For individuals in late adolescence with pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used; both the sexual maturity of the child and the age difference must be taken into account; the adult may be sexually attracted to opposite sex, same sex, or prefer either Prostitution - the act or practice of offering sexual stimulation or intercourse for money Sexual Masochism - obtaining sexual gratification by being subjected to pain or humiliation Sexual Sadism - the intentional infliction of pain or humiliation on another person in order to achieve sexual excitement Telephone Scatalogia - sexual arousal associated with making or receiving obscene phone calls Toucherism - characterized by a strong desire to touch the breast or genitals of an unknown woman without her consent; often occurs in conjunction with other paraphilia Transgenderism - an umbrella term referring to and/or covering transvestitism, drag queen/king, and transsexualism Transsexual - a person whose gender identity is different from his or her anatomical gender Transvestite - a person who is sexually stimulated or gratified by wearing the clothes of the other gender Transvestic Fetishism - intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing Urophilia - sexual arousal associated with urine Voyeurism - obtaining sexual arousal by observing people without their consent when they are undressed or engaged in sexual activity Zoophilia/Bestiality - engaging in sexual activity with animals To protect a "sexual orientation" under H.R. 1913 - while leaving that term undefined -- is to protect this whole range of bizarre sexual behaviors. It is to normalize by federal law what are still considered to be mental disorders (paraphilias) by the American Psychiatric Association. This is what you need to say when you call - Ask For: Chief of Staff Talking Points: 1) I ask you to vote against H.R. 1913 - the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Because of pressure from homosexual groups, Congress has refused to define what is meant by sexual orientation in H.R. 1913. By doing so, this means that the 30 different sexual orientations will be federally protected classes. 2) Laws already exist in all 50 states to punish violent crime, making H.R. 1913 unnecessary, unfair, indefinable, un-American and constitutionally suspect. H.R. 1913 is not designed to aid in crime fighting. Instead, punishing wrong beliefs about homosexuality is its sole purpose. 3) H.R. 1913 is one more step in the campaign to legitimize homosexuality in our culture by treating it as a protected class along with race, gender, and religion.
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=13234266&content_dir=ua_congressorg
CBW
Your using the Fox TV method of reporting.
You wrote "Congressman Steve King (R-IA) introduced an amendment to H.R. 1913 Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act bill to remove Pedophiles as a protected class under the law."
How can they be "removed" as a protected class when they never were a protected class???
King's amendment was pure street theatre.
The dumbos who listen to Rush and watch Fox will fall for this nonsense but not anyone with operating gray matter.
OMG Steve~It's there in BLACK AND WHITE!!!! If HR 1913 passes in the senate all of those "proclivities" will be protected under the law.
Steve King wanted to amended the bill to remove pedophiles and the dems voted against it! What are you not getting. Why would they vote not to amended it there was nothing to vote on.
FYI, we have done away with cable in our home so I couldn't watch Fox news if I wanted to. But I suggest you start because clearly MSNBC is keeping you informed.
I just checked out that website you linked.
You really ARE a rightwing extremist, aren't you?
Wow.
This is so cheap and transparent.
The righties are trying to equate pedophilia and perversion with homosexuality.
John Briggs tried that 30 years ago in California and failed.
The right is morally and intellectually bankrupt.
Where else can I get information? On Wednesday April 25 the headlines were all about how Michelle Obama likes to sneak out and eat at fun restaurants. There was almost no coverage by the MSM on the passage HR 1913 in committee. Which is why you are so clueless about it.
UTS~"The righties are trying to equate pedophilia and perversion with homosexuality."
It's really sad how blind you are. The right isn't doing this. The "right" thinks this bill is preposterous and wanted pedophilia removed. So what are you talking about? It's the Dems...I even questioned in the original post why Homosexuals aren't outraged to be included the same category as pedophiles and necrophiliacs. Do you just assume that I everything I write is flawed and not even read it before you launch your attacks?
CBW
Cut and paste the passage from the bill which states that pedophilia is a protected class.
If you do I will apologize.
But I bet you don't.
CBW, CBW, CBW
Hastings clearly stated that HR 1913 DOES NOT protect pedophilia, phone sex, stump caressing, touch feeley and all that other crap.
This is sad.
UTS~The list of sexual orientations outline below were proposed as an amendment which passed in the House by committee.
`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerouse weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person--
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c111:./temp/~c111VF78Gk
Here is Alcee Hastings talking about the Amendment that was proposed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBYhkQpcQxY
I have actually updated the original post with this video.
But guess where I found it Einstein….Huffpo
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/talking-dirty-congressman_n_193161.html
No he didn't. Did you watch until the end. This is a classic example of you believing only that with you "want" to believe.
Scary. They've got you Brother. Hoodwinked, bamboozled, brainwashed. You are a complete DRONE.
UTS~@ the 2:47 mark of the video Hastings says that (I'm paraphrasing)...based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation and ALL OF THESE ISMS (and he lifts up the amendment)need not live in fear because of who they are....
omigod.
This is totally insane and beneath you CBW.
What the righties are clearly doing is trying to lump various perversions and mental disorders under the aegis of "sexual orientation" as a tactic to buttress their opposition to homosexuals being protected under hate crime laws.
It is vile ugly demagoguery and it will only get attention from far right morons.
You can have the last word.
I'm out.
"They've got you Brother. Hoodwinked, bamboozled, brainwashed. You are a complete DRONE."
You, a black woman, gleefully support the party of white racists and "they've" got ME???
If it wasn't so pathetic, it would actually be funny.
Did you set up the podcast??
uptownsteve,.
Let me break this down for you.
- If there's a guy...
- and he's a pedophile...
- and you punch him in the head...
...and the slightest argument could be made for you knowing that he was a pedophile when you punched him in the head...
Under this legislation, you would be charged with simple assault - and a hate crime, because the courts would be allowed to infer that his status as a protected 'phile'/'ism' was part of your motivation for punching him in the head - which would be against the law, because his 'phile'/'ism' counts as a 'protected category'.
Does that make more sense to you?
- MuscleDaddy
MuscleDaddy~It's not that UTS doesn't understand that it's that he doesn't believe it. In spite of the fact the "sexual oriention" named in HR 1913 could be interpreted very broadly to include all of the "phile" and "isms" outlined by Alcee Hastings. My question is why wouldn't the house simply vote "yea" to King's proposal to exclude pedophiles from protection since some slick lawyer somewhere and at someplace in time will most assuredly try to exploit this loophole? But the real point of this post isn't whether or not pedophiles are protected or not but that this entire bill is just crazy. No crime should go unpunished so to imposed harsher penalties because of an "assumption" that someone holds a low opinion of someone else is tantamount to fascism. But that's the liberal way I guess... Check out how UTS impunes me. Because I am a BLACK woman I'm supposed to think that every word that proceededth out of the mouth of a democrat is good and everyword that proceedeth out of the mouth of a white conservative republican is racist.
Here's the list Uptown:
The Hate Crime law, S.909 (and HR1913), will make 30 sexual orientations federally-protected. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has published 30 such sexual orientations that, because of Congress's refusal to define "sexual orientation," will be protected under this legislation. These 30 orientations are listed in the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), which is used by physicians, psychologists, social workers, nurses, and psychiatrists throughout the U.S. It is considered the dictionary of mental disorders. Those 30 sexual orientations include behaviors that are felonies or misdemeanors in most states.
Among those sexual orientations being protected by S.909 (and HR1913) are these:
*Apotemnophilia - sexual arousal associated with the stump(s) of an Amputee
*Asphyxophilia - sexual gratification derived from activities that involve oxygen deprivation through hanging, strangulation, or other means
*Autogynephilia - the sexual arousal of a man by his own perception of himself as a woman or dressed as a woman
*Bisexual - the capacity to feel erotic attraction toward, or to engage in sexual interaction with, both males and females
*Coprophilia - sexual arousal associated with feces
*Exhibitionism - the act of exposing one’s genitals to an unwilling observer to obtain sexual gratification
*Fetishism/Sexual Fetishism - obtaining sexual excitement primarily or exclusively from an inanimate object or a particular part of the body
*Frotteurism - approaching an unknown woman from the rear and pressing or rubbing the penis against her buttocks
*Heterosexuality - the universal norm of sexuality with those of the opposite sex
*Homosexual/Gay/Lesbian - people who form sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with members of their own gender
*Gender Identity Disorder - a strong and persistent cross-gender identification, which is the desire to be, or the insistence that one is, or the other sex, "along with" persistent discomfort about one’s assigned sex or a sense of the inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex
*Gerontosexuality - distinct preference for sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with an elderly partner
*Incest - sex with a sibling or parent
*Kleptophilia - obtaining sexual excitement from stealing
*Klismaphilia - erotic pleasure derived from enemas
*Necrophilia - sexual arousal and/or activity with a corpse
*Partialism - A fetish in which a person is sexually attracted to a specific body part exclusive of the person
*PEDOPHILIA - Sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger). The individual with pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least 5 years older than the child. For individuals in late adolescence with pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used; both the sexual maturity of the child and the age difference must be taken into account; the adult may be sexually attracted to opposite sex, same sex, or prefer either
*Prostitution - the act or practice of offering sexual stimulation or intercourse for money
*Sexual Masochism - obtaining sexual gratification by being subjected to pain or humiliation
*Sexual Sadism - the intentional infliction of pain or humiliation on another person in order to achieve sexual excitement
*Telephone Scatalogia - sexual arousal associated with making or receiving obscene phone calls
Toucherism - characterized by a strong desire to touch the breast or genitals of an unknown woman without her consent; often occurs in conjunction with other paraphilia
*Transgenderism - an umbrella term referring to and/or covering transvestitism, drag queen/king, and transsexualism
*Transsexual - a person whose gender identity is different from his or her anatomical gender
*Transvestite - a person who is sexually stimulated or gratified by wearing the clothes of the other gender
*Transvestic Fetishism - intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing
*Urophilia - sexual arousal associated with urine
*Voyeurism - obtaining sexual arousal by observing people without their consent when they are undressed or engaged in sexual activity
*Zoophilia/Bestiality - engaging in sexual activity with animals
To protect a "sexual orientation" under S.909 (and HR1913) - while leaving that term undefined -- is to protect this whole range of bizarre sexual behaviors. It is to normalize by federal law what are still considered to be mental disorders (paraphilias) by the American Psychiatric Association.
Don't try to tell me what this admistration isn't heading for! Stop hiding your head in the sand!
We have laws on the books that cover murder,battery,and all other forms that seek to harm an individual no matter what or who they are or think they are. I content this is nothing more than amendment to the civil rights to legitimize the abnormal behavior of these people or what the Bible calls reprobates. As for Alcee Hastings, Jesus, this guy should be locked up for life.
Excerpt from Byron York - National Review
Eighteen years ago, Democratic Rep. John Conyers came to believe that Alcee Hastings, at the time a federal judge in Florida, was guilty of impeachable offenses. Hastings stood accused of conspiring to take bribes, and, although it is little remembered today, Conyers served as the chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee that investigated Hastings and unanimously recommended his impeachment. After the House voted 413 to 3 to impeach Hastings, Conyers went on to serve as one of the House impeachment managers who successfully argued before the Senate that Hastings should be convicted and removed from office.
This cat has a lot more than nine lives and these criminals masquerading as lawmakers are ruining this nation - God help us.
OK THEN! It's a relief to know that this Congress (the one that can't find enough time to debate trillion-dollar spending sprees) has the time to devote to these pressing issues.
It certainly is high time we move to provide special protection and recognition for those who harbor the desire to perform illegal sex acts and those who "suffer" from pathological sexual orientations.
Who among us does not know someone who needs federal protection for their sexual arousal associated with feces?
...Seriously, at what point will rational Democrats say "enough is enough"?
HATE CRIME LAWS ARE STUPID AND WERE A PERVERSION OF JUSTICE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Instead of arguing this point - we need to go back to the source of this diversion.
If someone assaults and American citizen, thus violating their rights - PROSECUTE THEM.
Case closed.
When Uptown Steve acknowledges that the recent stabbings at the Baltimore Inner Harbor has generated FEAR among people who are now loathed to go down there as a result - then he will see that FEAR AND TERROR is not limited to crimes done to protected classes.
Uptown Steve, why, why, why? Will you someday reveal yourself to really be a rightie who was only posting to keep us on our toes?
If not, you are truly frightening and are a glaring example of what the KGB agent in the previous post referred to i.e.-not be able to accept truth no matter how often it is presented to them. Your response says a lot and is troubling.
CBW,
Why do you even bother to entertain UTS. You will never convince him that his mind is closed and he will never convince you of anything either.
He always drops to a level of name calling especially the calling the Right racists. He is an odd fella!
CBW Here’s another Bill concerning free speech and silence of the conservative media, namely radio, which includes all our favorites Limbaugh, Ingram, Savage, and Monica Crowley. It’s amazing that these democrats can’t win on ideas and, they seek to silence us through censorship. No one wants to listen to Air America and all that American hating drivel. Obama is leading this charge, because of his thin skin, when the last time a president attacked a private citizen, probably Woodrow Wilson, when he had Dewey Jailed. CBW, I don’t think conservatives will have the luxury of letting God take care of this. Our backs will be against the wall soon and we will have to make a decision to fight or flee. Faith is definitely the order of the for these precarious times.
Excerpt from Wall Street Journal, Randal BloomQuist
"localism" policy now wending its way through the FCC rule-making process. Introduced in 2007 by, oddly enough, the Republican-controlled FCC headed by Bush-appointee Kevin Martin, the initiative would increase community involvement with broadcast stations and require them to provide "locally-oriented programming." An Obama FCC is likely to be even more avid: The president himself is on record as opposing the Fairness Doctrine but favoring media ownership caps and "opening up the airwaves . . . to as many diverse viewpoints as possible." In February, Michael Copps, a Democrat currently serving as acting chairman of the FCC, echoed Mr. Obama when he told CNSNews.com: "If markets cannot produce what society really cares about, like a media that reflects the true diversity and spirit of our country, then government has a legitimate role to play."
The most troubling localism proposal would require stations to create "permanent advisory boards," including members of "underserved community segments" to inform management about local concerns. While this sounds innocuous enough, Mr. Jennings sees a Trojan horse. Once the panels were established, the FCC could dramatically boost their influence by giving them a role in the license-renewal process. According to Mr. Jennings, even if the advisory boards didn't have that kind of power, they would still be problematic. Radio stations succeed by identifying a segment of the audience and super-serving it around the clock. Are they supposed to alter programming to serve other segments of the community? How would that affect their business? What if a Christian station's advisory board decides that its programming should be more "inclusive"?
Laurie and Alan
"Here's the list Uptown:
The Hate Crime law, S.909 (and HR1913), will make 30 sexual orientations federally-protected."
Sorry folks but you just cut and pasted this bs from the rightwing American Family Association website.
Nowhere in the actual law does it state that perversions and mental disorders are protected classes.
So take this weak shyt elsewhere.
Harbinjer sez,
"It’s amazing that these democrats can’t win on ideas and, they seek to silence us through censorship."
I'm starting to believe that ya'll really are a bunch of drooling nuts.
Dude, open your eyes.
The world is passing you righties by and you black righties belong on the set of the remake of "Gone with the Wind".
The Dems control all 3 branches of government, Obama's approval ratings are through the roof and conservatism is generally recognized as a joke and a failure.
That's why you're reduced to sick demagoguery like this.
You have no ideas, no solutions and nothing intelligent to say.
Obama on Christianity
(March 27, 2004)
The most detailed explication of Barack Obama's faith came in a 2004 interview he gave Chicago Sun Times columnist Cathleen Falsani when he was running for U.S. Senate in Illinois. The column she wrote about the interview has been quoted and misquoted many times over, but she'd never before published the full transcript in a major publication.
Because of how controversial that interview became, Falsani has graciously allowed us to print the full conversation here."
Excerpt from Interview
FALSANI:
The conversation stopper, when you say you're a Christian and leave it at that.
OBAMA:
Where do you move forward with that?
This is something that I'm sure I'd have serious debates with my fellow Christians about. I think that the difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and prostelytize. There's the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven't embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they're going to hell.
FALSANI:
You don't believe that?
OBAMA:
I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell.
I can't imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity.
That's just not part of my religious makeup.
Part of the reason I think it's always difficult for public figures to talk about this is that the nature of politics is that you want to have everybody like you and project the best possible traits onto you. Oftentimes that's by being as vague as possible, or appealing to the lowest commong denominators. The more specific and detailed you are on issues as personal and fundamental as your faith, the more potentially dangerous it is.
ole boy is not a Christian or Muslim, I'm thinking secular humanist - agnostic - defintely moving toward atheist. I've known a few atheist who actually go to Church. This is one confused man, but look at his upbringing. Now we are have to live with this fool!
- truly telling - heres the the URL if you like to read further - http://community.cfaith.com/blogs/yankeegato/default.aspx
upyours sez
The Dems control all 3 branches of government, Obama's approval ratings are through the roof and conservatism is generally recognized as a joke and a failure.
Just because alot of people like something doesn't make it good, many people like slavery at one time, wasn't that great I hear. I remember reading Hannah Arendt concerning the Banality of Evil, I believe it was about Adolh Eichmann and the systematic execution of the Jews. Arendt remembers following crowds tothe cattle cars, but suddenly realized it wans't in her best interest to get on and be lead to her doom. This is what I see in uptown steve and other brain dead democrats, especially the black ones, who believes theres something in it for them.
While riding the train from maryland to DC, I can often feel and even see into many of the souls on the train, they can't wait for there reparations check. It will never come, but I promise you steve, Obama will reward you, much like the germans did for the Jews
Harbinjer
What doesn't penetrate your skull is that we've had 8 years of total control from your side and it produced a clusterfuck that has been rejected by all but the most obtuse reactionaries.
And when did I (or Obama for that matter) mention anything about reparations???
You clowns can't go to the bathroom without your Lushbo talking points.
Righties rteally live in the bizarro world.
They expect us to believe that blacks will be worse off with a progressive black man who is dialouging with every segmment of the population for ideas and solutions than we were with white rightingers in charge who wouldn't even speak to us.
Retarded.
DJBA
I'm interested in your take.
Do you see anywhere in writing where Democrats are supporting pedophilia and perverts as "protected classes" or isn't this just rightwing misinformation?
I have seen this video a few times already. The listed sexual fetishes were NOT to be protected as a "sexual orientation".
@Uptown:
You are actually trying to inform the willfully ignorant, brave man.
I read HR 1913, NOTHING in it or the hate crimes legislation it refers to protects pedophiles. The suggestion it does is not only intellectually fraudulent but in this case a prime example of fear mongering fictions the RIGHT always falls back on to manipulate their witless racist and homophobic base.
Let me just peruse through the comments of the folks here. Let's start with CBW. When you attempted to define what a protected class is and showed that peds arene't protected, CBW responded with: "Well thanks to HR 1913 they are now. Did you watch the video?"
The video. See this is the problem with most Americans, left or right, how about just reading HR 1913 which we can find here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1913
Here is the refernce to sexual orientation: ‘(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-
‘(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerouse weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person--
‘(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
‘(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
‘(I) death results from the offense; or
‘(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill."
Now if someone can go to a CONGRESSIONAL WEBSITE and SHOW that pedophillia is PROTECTED under this or ANY federal LAW, I'd be damn impressed.
@CBW:
You wrote: "But on second thought many Christian don't let their faith hinder their political sensibilities"
I have also come to find, MANY Christians let their political senibilities to hinder thier FAITH.
I might have to blog about that...
Thank you both.
And bless their pointed little heads.
Clearly reading comprehension is problematic for some so let me AGAIN attempt to explain the POINT.
The bill says "`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerouse weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person--
However, the bill does NOT DEFINE WHICH sexual orientations are inclusive. Rep. King asked that they SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE PEDOPHILIA and the democrats FLATLY resolved not to which is problematic.
Alcee Hastings "disgustedly" reads the list of sexual proclivities which are defined as sexual orientations. The impression one gets is that he thought it was a huge waste of time, however at the end of his time on the floor at the 2:47 point in the video posted Rep. Hastings says that it is his hope that ALL AMERICANS, all of these "philes" and "isms" would have full protection under the law. Now, perhaps he didn't realize what he was actually saying but he said it none-the-less.
Since we live in an extremely litigious society where one can sue for just about anything, why is it so problematic to exclude pedophiles from protection in PLAIN LANGUAGE. Why not just remove any room for interpretation?
If it's because as UTS said because Pedophilia is illegal and so they wouldn't be protected anyway? Well, that's logical. But the point of this post was not to even debate whether or not pedophiles are protected because since they voted NOT TO EXCLUDE a legally binding case can now be made should some sicko pedophile get's his azz whooped that he/she is indeed PROTECTED. The POINT was that this law is ludicrous and nothing more then a veiled attempt to mandate "political correctness". Further my point that Christians who believe God's word is true can not be politically correct. There are times when we will have to call things as they are -- call a spade a spade if you will.
UTS, regarding your indictment that as a BLACK WOMAN I should be ashamed to indentify as conservative because a republican rally looks like a country club... well, that's just stupid. As a CHRISTIAN Black woman I wouldn't care if every single black person in the world said Jesus isn't Lord and his word isn't true I would not renounce it. My worldview is informed by my faith in Jesus Christ not the color of my skin the width of my nose, the thickness of my lips or the texture of my hair.
DJBA~"I have also come to find, MANY Christians let their political senibilities to hinder thier FAITH."
Well, Duh..... Isn't that the point of 95% of my posts! How many times have I said that my problem is with Christian folks. The world is doing just as you'd expected to do.
BTW, no the POTUS does not have to be Christian or Muslim. I'd just like to know what I'm working with and in the case of Barack Obama I knew all along. Which again is why I have said over and over again, he is doing what I expected him to do-- its the christian that are astonishing me.
@CBW:
You all need to know how LAWYERS TALK. You wrote: “Rep. King asked that they SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE PEDOPHILIA and the democrats FLATLY resolved not to which is problematic”
If you exclude pedophilia as a “protected class in sexual orientation” is to the state that pedophilia IS a sexual orientation which you are choosing to exclude. Pedophilia is NOT a sexual orientation and thereby cannot be excluded as a sexual orientation PEDOPHILIA IS A CRIME not a SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
Say it with me people: “PEDOPHILIA IS A CRIME not a SEXUAL ORIENTATION” to exclude it from being a protected sexual orientation would define this CRIME as a SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
Do we follow along people? Or do I have to suggest the next TNT or USA Network Law and Order marathon so that we can all at least get an idea on how legal language works?
DJBA
Maybe if you type it in double space they'll get it.
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"UTS, regarding your indictment that as a BLACK WOMAN I should be ashamed to indentify as conservative because a republican rally looks like a country club... well, that's just stupid. As a CHRISTIAN Black woman I wouldn't care if every single black person in the world said Jesus isn't Lord and his word isn't true I would not renounce it. My worldview is informed by my faith in Jesus Christ not the color of my skin the width of my nose, the thickness of my lips or the texture of my hair."
What does being a Christian have to do with being a Republican?
I'm a Christian.
DJBA~You write"PEDOPHILIA IS A CRIME not a SEXUAL ORIENTATION"
We are clear on the fact that it is a crime however you will need to tell the American Psychiatric Association that it is not a "SEXUAL ORIENTATION". Let me direct your attention to the list compiled by The American Psychiatric Association (APA)which published 30 such sexual orientations which both myself and Laurie & Alan posted in comments on yesterday. That list of 30 orientations are listed in the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), which is used by physicians, psychologists, social workers, nurses, and psychiatrists throughout the U.S. consider the dictionary of mental disorders. Those 30 sexual orientations include behaviors that are felonies or misdemeanors in most states however, Pedophilia is indeed listed among those SEXUAL ORIENTATIONS
@CBW:
Oy veh. You wrote: "Let me direct your attention to the list compiled by The American Psychiatric Association (APA)which published 30 such sexual orientations which both myself and Laurie & Alan posted in comments on yesterday"
Then you all should direct your ATTENTION to the APA, since the APA does not write federal statutes, and the congress of the United States has not stated in any form that pedophila is anything less than a SERIOUS CRIME.
My point, is that the Democrats in the congress (nor the Republicans that voted with them)were NOT trying to protect pedophiles, and in fact were doing the opposite by denying the implication that pedophila is a sexual orientation that could ever be "protected".
DJBA~"in fact were doing the opposite by denying the implication that pedophila is a sexual orientation that could ever be "protected"."
Denial of a fact doesn't not change the fact. A case can be made (and most probably will)that an angry parent should be charged with not only assault but commission of a "hate crime" because they popped a cap in the azz of a sick pedophile who molested their child. Why can that case be made? Because the democrats in congress and the REPUBLICANs that voted with them resolved NOT to excluded pedophilia as a protected class of sexual orientations. The attorney bringing up such a proposterous charge will call as a witness an expert -- a psychiatrist who will be compelled to CONFIRM that pedophilia is indeed a SEXUAL ORIENTATION because the published journals of his/her profession defines it as such and neither your denial or the denial of theses congressional representatives who DID NOT exclude pedophilia will mean a hill of beans.
UTS~Being a christian has nothing to do with being a republican. Yes, I am a registered republican but I identify as a conservative and cast my vote based on conservative principles not party lines. I'm not even happy with the republican party right now and see little difference between democrats and republicans at this point. But let me ask you this...what does being BLACK have to do with being a democrat or a liberal? Shouldn't you identify with an ideology or a party based on principles which are important to you as a person?
Anonymous & DJBA~ Here is the definition of sexual orientation copied and pasted from the APA's website.
What is sexual orientation?
Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions. Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex. However, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of the other sex), gay/lesbian (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of one’s own sex), and bisexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to both men and women). This range of behaviors and attractions has been described in various cultures and nations throughout the world. Many cultures use identity labels to describe people who express these attractions. In the United States the most frequent labels are lesbians (women attracted to women), gay men (men attracted to men), and bisexual people (men or women attracted to both sexes). However, some people may use different labels or none at all.
Sexual orientation is distinct from other components of sex and gender, including biological sex (the anatomical, physiological, and genetic characteristics associated with being male or female), gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female),* and social gender role (the cultural norms that define feminine and masculine behavior).
Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as if it were solely a characteristic of an individual, like biological sex, gender identity, or age. This perspective is incomplete because sexual orientation is defined in terms of relationships with others. People express their sexual orientation through behaviors with others, including such simple actions as holding hands or kissing. Thus, sexual orientation is closely tied to the intimate personal relationships that meet deeply felt needs for love, attachment, and intimacy. In addition to sexual behaviors, these bonds include nonsexual physical affection between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support, and ongoing commitment. Therefore, sexual orientation is not merely a personal characteristic within an individual. Rather, one’s sexual orientation defines the group of people in which one is likely to find the satisfying and fulfilling romantic relationships that are an essential component of personal identity for many people.http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatis
The "sexual orientation" of a heterosexual is an opposite sex attraction; The "sexual orientation" of a homosexual is a same sex attraction;The "sexual orientation" of a pedophile is a child. I'm not saying it's not deviant IT IS, but based on the definition above it can not be said that it isn't a "SEXUAL ORIENTATION"
@CBW:
Nothing you said changes the fact that PEDOPHILIA under FEDERAL LAW is a CRIME. Not protected “sexual orientation”. It cannot be protected UNDER LAW, because it is NOT A SEXUAL ORIENTATION UNDER LAW.
Look CBW, say what you will, but the FACT is that pedophiles are NOT PROTECTED by "hate crimes legislation". To keep saying that is to forward an out and out LIE.
THE RIGHT (Hannity and his cronies) keep acting like the legal language is guided by medical opinion regarding pedophiles IT IS NOT.
Again, sorry to burst the “Democrats want to protect pedophile” parade you all are having, that is not TRUE, it is a LIE, and why do you want to perpetrate a LIE? It is false witness to keep saying this, I am SURE I can find something in that book we both hold as authoritative that says we shouldn’t forward LIES about people?
CONGRESS did not allow pedophila to be excluded as a protected class under sexual orientation because as far as the FEDEREAL LAW IS CONCERNED, pedophilia is NOT a sexual orientation it is a CRIME that cannot be protected.
Federal Law regarding pedophilia: http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+1012+0++%28pedophile%29%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20
18 USC Sec. 2251: “Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or
coerces any minor to engage in, or who has a minor assist any other
person to engage in, or who transports any minor in interstate or
foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United
States, with the intent that such minor engage in, any sexually
explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction
of such conduct, shall be punished as provided under subsection”
That’s how FEDERAL LAW SEES IT, nothing in Hate Crimes Legislations changes THAT LEGAL FACT.
LAW and medical opinion are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
@CBW:
Again, YOUR PROBLEM is with HOW the APA defines this issue, YOU ALL ACTING LIKE THAT IS BINDING ON FEDERAL LAW is LAUGHABLE.
Meidcal OPINION is OPINION, FEDERAL LAW is what CONGRESS was dealing with, and FEDERAL LAW says PEDOPHILES are CRIMINALS, why are you right wingers trying to get the APA definition to be the FEDERAL LEGAL Definition?
Well, DJBA I am not say that Democrats are "intentionally" protecting pedophiles. Time will tell. Hopefully this will never come up but if it does there certainly is a loophole to be exploited (I just believe that there is some attorney somewhere who is just vile enough to try).
@CBW:
Oh come on, dare I say most democrats AND most republicans more than likely are NOT defenders of pedophiles?
And of course some lawyer may or may have already tried to defend a pedophile by the APA's definition, I don't think Hate Crimes legislation can be used to defend a pedophile who is not protected under federal law and cannot be protected under hate crime legislation.
In any case, can we all admit that the RIGHT was fear mongering here? Can someone give me a real reason why the RIGHT opposes hate crimes legislation?
"But let me ask you this...what does being BLACK have to do with being a democrat or a liberal? Shouldn't you identify with an ideology or a party based on principles which are important to you as a person?"
The simple fact that there are no black Republicans elected to any significant office, that your fellow white Republicans have shown no inclination to support to black candidates, Republicans don't speak to black audiences, Republicans have used race demogoguery and wedge issues to appeal to white fears and resentment, and they've opposed every measure toward black advancement and racial reconciliation for the past 40 years.
Ya think?
Most "righties" that is.
UTS~"The simple fact that there are no black Republicans elected to any significant office, that your fellow white Republicans have shown no inclination to support to black candidates, Republicans don't speak to black audiences, Republicans have used race demogoguery and wedge issues to appeal to white fears and resentment, and they've opposed every measure toward black advancement and racial reconciliation for the past 40 years.
Ya think?"
What I think is that the democrats have you just where they want you...DEVOTED. The fact that you don't believe that liberal democrats can be as racist as the most egregious lily-white republican is exceedly pleasing to democrats who just "use" the black community for their votes. They know you will never hold them accountable because you have pledged their allegiance to them because there are some strategically placed blacks in positions of power. The difference between you and I Steve is I don't need some "white" or (black one) politician to look out for my permanent interests or to "care" about me-- That's my husband's job. I need politicians who are not going to stifle the free markets but are more concerned with americans (I'm one of those you know in spite of being black) keeping more of the money they work so hard to earn.
DJBA~"In any case, can we all admit that the RIGHT was fear mongering here? Can someone give me a real reason why the RIGHT opposes hate crimes legislation?"
No we can't agree that the right is fear monger but so what we rarely agree...lol. I have already given my reason for opposing this legislation and it wasn't about pedophilia. I am thinking that most conservatives feel the same way...we feel this legislation is merely an attempt to mandate thought control...political correctness.
"I need politicians who are not going to stifle the free markets but are more concerned with americans (I'm one of those you know in spite of being black) keeping more of the money they work so hard to earn."
So your boys the Republicans were in total power for 6 of the last eight years and are you going to tell me with a straight face that:
You're keeping more of your money now than 8 years ago?
That today we have greater freedom of speech and personal freedoms?
That the economy is in better shape than it was 8 years ago?
That the world is a safer place?
You're keeping more of your money now than 8 years ago?<====I was before PSBO.
That today we have greater freedom of speech and personal freedoms?<====HELL NO, thanks to the liberal agenda of the left. Do some research on the "sin tax" my personal sin would be diet cokes just for clarification.
That the economy is in better shape than it was 8 years ago?<====No, but it will be worst in the next 8 years thats for sure. Hell it's worse now then it was on Jan.20 2009.
That the world is a safer place?<===HELL NO, thanks to PSBO. WWIV here we come.
"thanks to PSBO"
Oh Lawd.
Obama has been office less than 3 months and HE tanked a robust economy, ramped up terrorist activity, circumvented political speech, and abrogated personal freedoms?
Obama youse a bad mutha.....shut yo mouf!
UTS~"Obama has been office less than 3 months and HE tanked a robust economy, ramped up terrorist activity, circumvented political speech, and abrogated personal freedoms?'Pretty much. I agree he is one bad MF'er. I thought this was an interesting article but I'm sure you will consider it LIES because of the source:
http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/04252009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/100_days__100_mistakes_166177.htm
CBW
For some reason I can't access your link.
But the NY Post????????????
A rag so vile no self-respecting house cat will even crap on it.
Okay, Let's Review:
1) Pedophilia, is a paraphilia & condition, defined by the APA & in the DSMas: " a form of paraphilia in which a person either has acted on intense sexual urges towards children, or experiences recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about children that cause distress or interpersonal difficulty".
2) Under our criminal legal system, acting on the urges resulting from this condition is a crime.
3) A person identified by such actions is a 'pedophile'.
4) While pedophiles are frequently incarcerated for such actions, many have been released into society, as can be seen here.
5) No, the APA is not a legislative body - but this Bill does not propose to change existing laws concerning Pedophilia as a crime - it changes the law as it relates to your interactions with someone with the condition of pedophilia.
6) No, the APA is not a legislative/government body - BUT they do produce the DSM and are accepted as the authority for definitions of things like "Sexual Orientation" (as CBW has noted above) when a legislative definition does not exist - as is the case in this Bill.
7) "Protected" in the current context does not mean "protected from prosecution for their actions under the law" - but rather "Protected" in the sense that YOU, as a private citizen, may not engage in negative-behavior toward that person/group without incurring GREATER legal ramifications than would ordinarily come under the law-as-written.
- Effectively, saying that "a crime committed against some is legally worth-more than the same crime committed against others".
WITHOUT 'hate-crime' laws in place, we would ordinarily have approached such things as 'aggravating circumstance' and as such could be considered and have an effect at sentencing - 'hate-crime' designation elevates what you may have felt in your heart at the time to being a separate crime in itself, and establishes minimum-madatory sentencing.
(note also that there is no provision for hating someone 'a-lot' or 'a-little' or 'with-the-heat-of-1,000-blazing-suns' - Hate? here's your mandatory sentence - over-and-above whatever you get for the actual crime).
To wit:
- If there's a guy in your neighborhood...
- and he's a pedophile...
- and you punch him in the head (for whatever reason)...
...and the slightest argument could be made for you knowing that he was a pedophile when you punched him in the head...
Under this legislation, you would be charged with simple assault - and a hate crime, because the courts would be allowed to infer that his status as a protected 'phile'/'ism' was part of your motivation for punching him in the head - which would be against the law, because his 'phile'/'ism' counts as a 'protected category'.
...because, as the legislation itself carries no legal definition of sexual orientation for the purpose of this Bill - in practice, the courts would have to refer to the APA/DSM for the definitions necessary for the application of this - as a law.
That's as completely as I can explain this.
You may now pile-on with cries of 'racism'.
- MuscleDaddy
DJBA
If you watch the movie "Milk" in which Sean Penn gives an Oscar winning performance as the great gay politician Harvey Milk, you'll see that rightwing pinheads were saying the same thing 30 years ago in California while trying to pass an amendment barring gays from teaching positions.
"Homosexuality is the same as bestiality and pedophilia."
The amendment was soundly defeated at the polls and even denounced by Ronald Reagan!!!!
Talk about the tactics and politics of the past.
They just don't get it.
@Muscledaddy:
You assert: “...because, as the legislation itself carries no legal definition of sexual orientation for the purpose of this Bill - in practice, the courts would have to refer to the APA/DSM for the definitions necessary for the application of this - as a law. You may now pile-on with cries of 'racism'.”
Wow MD, I was almost moved to asked you for precedent to back up your flawed assertion, as I was pressed for time, however, after just a few SECONDS of looking around federal code for precedent I found this thing here: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/docdownload/hcact82206.pdf
And I quote: “Nothing in this section creates a cause of action or a right to bring an action, including an action based on discrimination due to sexual orientation. As used in this section, the term ‘sexual orientation’ means consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality. This subsection does not limit any existing cause of action or right to bring an action, including any action under the administrative Procedure Act or the All Writs Act [5 USCS §§ 551 et seq. or 28 USCS § 1651
Again: “the term ‘sexual orientation’ means consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality”
Operative word: “CONSENUSAL”, minors CANNOT consent.
Oh my God, you are actually worse at understanding Federal law than Biblical law, wonders never cease. No, you are not a racist, just a fear monger.
DJBA,
"O.K. Counselor, how about some case law to back up this assertion?"Caselaw - pertaining to a bill that is not yet a law...
Um.. sure - as soon as you enter into evidence proof of your having filed a tax return for 2011.
"...in practice, the courts would have to refer to the APA/DSM for the definitions necessary for the application of this - as a law." - I ask again, show precedent for this assertion."Ok - hereThe DSM is constantly used in the courts as a basic-reference for psychological conditions not specifically defined under statute.
(there is, as one might expect, constant debate as to whether-or-not this "should" be the case - but until something better comes along...)As to your latest re-re-post:
Did you even read what you pasted there?
"As used in this section, the term ‘sexual orientation’ means..." - means that the 'Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 2005' did, for the expressed purpose of the application of the Act ...(wait for it)... *Define Sexual Orientation*.
It Also...
"This subsection does not limit any existing cause of action or right to bring an action,
including any action under the administrative Procedure Act or the All Writs Act".
...limits the effects/application of its definition to the HCSA.
As it should.
As 1913 does not.
Thank you for helping me make my point ... even if you were only knee-jerking under the compulsion of your Conservative Derangement Syndrome.
(I'm actually very good at legislative/legal analysis)Check y'all later this evening - I'm goin' home.
- MuscleDaddy
DJBA~Precedent in federal code? LMBAO....now who is being "intellectually fraudently".This isn't even the same law, it's an amendment, and it OLD. We are discussing H.R. 1913 Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act
Uniform Crime Report
Hate Crime Statistics, 2005
Hate Crime Statistics, 2005 U.S. Department of Justice—Federal Bureau of Investigation
Released October 2006
Hate Crime Statistics Act
As Amended, 28 USC § 534Good try though. I'm with you MuscleDaddy.
I feel an overwhelming need to apologize to my readers and the participants in this tread.
I allowed this entire thread to become derailed (well that's not all that unusual)by something as petty as a definition. So, I apology define anything however you'd like. Stick a fork in me on this one I'm done.
I'll catch ya'll on another topic.
Peace out....
@MuscleDaddy:
You are ridicules enough to believe you actual have a point.
I have shown you all to be flawed in your thinking numerous times.
Peds aren't protected, you are of no integrity, you feel if you yell loud enough your lies will become true.
MD, people like you are the reason I have no respect for the right, pillars of morality yet blatant liars.
@CBW:
I am surprised you still wish to go with "democrats protecting peds", sad. If you righties would at leat attempt to be honest, maybe you could add something to the debate regarding hate crimes, but, you all always resort back to fear mongering, weaving fictions, sad.
DJBA~I'm done with this but I suggest you read over my comments because you will find that this statement "I am surprised you still wish to go with "democrats protecting peds", at best is inaccurate and I'll assume that you just haven't read my comments very closely attentions and that you are'nt twisting my intentionally twisting my words.
How many examples will they give us of liberal not looking out for the people, there constituents. TERM LIMITS at the Ballot Box. The ultra left must go. The do not represent the values of the majority of voters.
DJBA,.
"You are ridicules enough to believe you actual have a point".
And you're short-attention-span enough to believe that your 'precedent citation' was somehow relevant to making your argument. What's your point?
"I have shown you all to be flawed in your thinking numerous times".
No - you've repeated numerous times that we're 'flawed in our thinking' - but I can see you have a problem discerning between the two.
"Peds aren't protected, you are of no integrity, you feel if you yell loud enough your lies will become true".
Hey man, you're the one who provided the useful example of what
1913 would have looked like - if you were actually right on that point (thanks again, btw) - so don't get all mad now and go shootin' the messeng...oh, wait - you were the messenger this time..K, nevermind.
I've explained what 1913 needed to be straight, and then you provided the example - where's the 'lack of integrity' in there?
"MD, people like you are the reason I have no respect for the right, pillars of morality yet blatant liars".
You needed to have it explained - I explained it. You asked for citations - I (and you) gave you citations.
I will wait patiently now for you to expose the legal-logic and citations as "lies".
Or you could continue the impotent name-calling... whatever gets you through the night, I guess.
Peace-out, Y'all - bedtime for me!
- MuscleDaddy
(btw - "I have no respect for the right" implicitly states 'disrespect' for our host - thought you didn't do that?)
Nothing But A Blackman, Ivan Dixon, (Hogans Heroes) and Abbey Lincoln. I saw this film the other day, really compelling, especially one scene in particular. Dixon in one of his rages, asks Lincoln why she doesn't fear white folk. I believe you still have a lot of black folks who are extremely fearful of white people, especially white men. Many of the post with uptownsteve seems obsessive and bordering on complete paranoia and rage. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom, not the fear of man. I believe when black folks lose there fear of white folk, they will finally be free. This is what I see as the greatest wedge between liberal and conservative blacks. conservative don't do fear, but it part of the liberal black makeup. And yes, DJ Black Adam, Obama misled blacks into thinking he was a Christian, not that it would have mattered being that folks voted for Obama based on color. Obama has nothing in common with most black folk, he would have been in masters house during slavery, and I'm sure he would enjoyed ratting out the likes of a Denmark Vessey or Gabriel Prosser. Its late gotta got to work.
The movie is actually named "Nothing but a Man" and as far as the rest of your drivel, don't make me laugh.
It's actually people like you who fear black strength, pride and indominatability.
You feel if blacks are meek, humble and obsequious maybe white folks won't hate us so much.
It was and is black progressives who confronted the white power structure and demanded to be heard and respected.
You think Barack Obama feared white people?
Or Jesse Jackson before him?
You black conservatives are modern slaves grinning and reaching for scraps from massas table.
Be for real fool.
UTS,.
Man, you are so twisted-up with anger & hate - it hurts my heart.
- MD
Try a different tact than the "anger and hate" routine.
That's old and it doesn't work on me.
DJBA
According to these minstrels Obama isn't a Christian but Massa Bush was.
Even though he engaged in such unchristian activities as approving waterboarding and torture, spying on US citizens, detaining people without counsel or trial and invading a nation which neither threatened nor attacked us.
@Uptown:
"According to these minstrels Obama isn't a Christian but Massa Bush was."
My point exactly, the right wingers, especiallay so called "black chuch folk" ate the b/s up. Accepting Bush as a "Christian" and allowing such obvious false flagging to manipulate some of them at the polls.
@Harbinjer
Since 1968 the average Democratic presidential candidate has received well over 80% of the black vote.
Humphrey, Mondale, Gore, Dukakis and Kerry all received more than 85% of the black vote. In fact the first three received at least 90%. In elections where white Democrats run against black Republicans a la Michael Steele, the Democrat receives a vastly higher percentage of the black vote.
In spite of all the facts you decide that most blacks voted for Obama because of his colour, rather than his party affiliation.
Apart from prejudice, what exactly is your opinion based on?
@Ilie:
"Apart from prejudice, what exactly is your opinion based on?"
Harb and MD base their opinions on listening to people like Rush, Hannity and any other wingnut from Faux News.
UTS,.
Ain't a tact - ain't even a specific indictment of you-as-a-person - it just is what it is.
DJBA,.
I'm noticing that every time I invite you to "expose the lies", you lean ever-more-heavily on the name-calling.
I'm supposed to be 'without honor', but you're the one who doubles-back on his own words when called on them ("I have no respect for the right" - is pretty plain).
I'm supposed to be the 'base cretin', but you're the one who brushes off asked-for (by you) caselaw citation as 'faux-news-opinion and deliberately attributes the opinions of others to me - because that fits your narrative more easily.
I'm supposed to be 'without integrity', but you're the one abandons the debate to throw your head back and howl BOOOOOSSHH!!!Talk about your 'Sound and Fury'.
Begone, churl - if you're not even going to try, then you are of no further use to me.
- MD
@MD:
I would stop, BUT:
"Everytime I stop it seems you stuck
Soon as I try to step off, you self-destruct
I came to overcome before I'm gone
By showin and provin and lettin knowledge be born
Then after that I'll live forever -you disagree?
You say never? Then follow me!
From century to century you'll remember me
In history - not a mystery or a memory
God by nature, mind raised in Asia
Since you was tricked, I have to raise ya
From the cradle to the grave, but remember....You're not a slave
Cause we was put here to be much more than that but YOU can't see it because your minds are trapped...
But I'm here to break away the chains, take away the pains
Remake the brains, reveal His name
I guess nobody told you a little knowledge is dangerous
It can't be mixed, diluted; it can't be changed or switched
Here's a lesson since ya guessing and borrowing Hurry hurry, step right up and keep following
The leader"
Rakim Allah
@DJBA
Heh another Old School East Coast fan!
DJBA,.
Aw, Snap! What was that, 20 years ago?
Now I'm not getting anything accomplished today...
- MD
I live in Iowa. God help us! First the gay extremists pushed through the Bullying law, then add sexual orientation and gender identification as protected classes. Then our Constitution was amended to allow same-sex marriage without allowing us to vote. This happened within the last few weeks. Prior to amending the state Constitution there was much discussion from those for and against but now only the gay extremists and local gays are commenting. We that are not gay are fearful of the legal suits we may suffer if our side of the argument is considered a hate crime. It seems that the gay extremists sent their own paid shills to confront us that did not agree with same-sex marriage. My granddaughter is in 3rd grade and is already being taught that consuming fecal material is normal. God help us!!!
Joan you write~"My granddaughter is in 3rd grade and is already being taught that consuming fecal material is normal. God help us!!"
Are you kidding? How on earth was this rationalized? Why would such a think come up in a 3rd grade class room? That's very troubling. I don't even let my dogs get away with that without a firm lecture and swat on the butt...lol
Uptown Steve,
You are now so intellectually easy to devour and so lacking in substance, that from now on I'm going to call you "snackalicious"--or, alternately, "snacky-snack-snack."
"The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.”
--G. K. Chesterton
Jules,
Is that why you're on here yacking at 4:00 AM 3 days after I made my last post?
What you're actually devouring are the peanuts out of my shyt.
Post a Comment