Hate Crime Bill is about to be passed - Page 4 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 25th, 2009, 11:50 PM   #61
traveller
Senior Member
 
traveller's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-01-09
Location: williamston mi
Posts: 536
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesova View Post
The problem, Pete, is that simpletons like aber, Toes, LC4X, etc. is that they can't see the difference between being gay and being a pedophile. They think that they are equally evil. It's insane, I know, but you have to remember this when talking about it with them. It's so weird for me how people can claim that and still have a straight face...
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteC View Post
For a crime to be a hate crime, it has to be proven that the crime (usually a physical assault) was perpetrated simply and only because of a person being a minority, or gay, or Muslim, or white (yes, white people can be victims as well). It is not that easy to bring these charges. It is there to deter this kind of hate filed violence.
.
Can either one of you find any cases where any minority was charged with a hate crime against a white person? I can find several group attacks on a one white person but they are never considered hate crimes. If anything the victim of the beatings are all most always accused of inciting the violence against then by using racial slurs.

Once again all hate crime laws do is to make special treatment for selected groups under law, not equal protection.
traveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old October 26th, 2009, 12:07 AM   #62
C.K.
Dont Feed the Cyco
 
C.K.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: 48386
Posts: 17,301
iTrader: (21)
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Default

If I walk up to a black guy and call him a "insert racial slur here" before killing him is he more dead than if I would have jst shot him? No

Would his family be less upset if I just shot him? No

Is it OK to beat a gay guy as long as I dont call him a fag first? No.

Do we need thought police? No.
C.K. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2009, 01:46 PM   #63
PeteC
Get Up and Go
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Oak Park, Michigan
Posts: 2,566
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

[quote=aber61;1916736


No need to apologize. I should for the name calling, sorry. [/quote]
Sarcasm lost again. I am in no way sorry that I was getting under your skin. And yes, you went off the handle and you are the one may find it in oneself to apologize.

Quote:
It is your lack of understanding, to put it bluntly.
Don't you mean my lack of agrreing with you? Your comments were about me not understanding what "sovereign" means, and guess what, I seem to understand the word much better than you.

Quote:
I do suppose that Iraq is and was a soverign nation,
Now that you admit this, do I still lack understanding about this fact?

Quote:
but under the rule of an evil man killing his own people to test his weapons (mustard gas)WMD.
According to the world and congress we had the right and authority to take him out.
Those that agreed with the invasion were fed misinformation from the Bush abministration.

Quote:
Social, liberal, fiscal, conservative and moderate. I am sorry to see that you see your self as so mixed up and confused. Do you take your lead from Obama so as to look good to everybody? Welll at least you have all your bases covered.
Let me try this again. I am socially liberal because I beleive in helping people who need help. This does not mean I am interested in blindly throwing dollars to amyone with a hand out. But I do still beleive that a strong nation is not a divided nation, one of haves and have nots.
Fiscally conservative. Again, no throwing money out blindly. Lower taxes when able, but realize that spending has to be balanced with revenue. Tax and spend Democrats are no better than spend on credit Republicans. Get rid of the pork barrell crap. Get rid of the no bid contracts. Control the costs of defense spending (while NOT depleting the ability of the Military) with better oversight of where the money goes.


Quote:
The government does need to step up and do what it was put in place to do. Which is not to create programs to grow government even larger.
Actually, there is nothing in the Constitution that says Government can not get larger. Now, I do not like larger government but I also realize that as our society gets bigger and more complicated, so does the task of governing. Balance must prevail once again.

Quote:
Loop holes. The rich in this country pay roughly 90% of the taxes, if you want to pay more in taxes just wait it's coming.
That is a percentage I would like to see backed up by actual numbers. What percentage of people make up that "rich" group? Is it the top 7%? In 2004 numbers they paid 51% of all taxes. The top 7 % in 2004 included my household income. Adjusted incomes of $75,000 or more.

When I talk about look holes I am talking about people who use the tax on capital gains, a mere 15%, instead of having all income taxed the same. Many on Wall Street do this.

And yes, taxes will probably go up at some point. After all we eventually have to pay for the increase in deficit and debt from the last administration.


Quote:
As far as enjoying the ranks of the liberal left you go for it Pete. Because all I see is trillions of $$ of debt being dumped on this generation and the next 3 or 4. The government is over spending way to much as the last admin also was spending too much and growing way to big.
We have seen so mnay trillions of dollars in debt dumped by both sides. Now is a question of what do we get for our money. At least, IMO, money is now being spent on the greater good. Or at least an attempt to improve the greater good.


Quote:
Yes Bush did seem to stumble over his words.
Seem to stumble? He, as the figurehead for this nation, was an embarrassment.

Quote:
He was not a smooth talker as Obama is and that is why he got elected. He is a good salesman.
Aren't most politicians good salesmen?

Quote:
Did you not read what I posted? a majority of muslims are peace loving muslims. There are still a large % of them that agree with what Bin Ladin is doing. According to polls its like 1 or 2 % but with the millions of muslims in the world, it is still staggering the amount the are radical.
Then why did you say this? "The difference between muslims is they convert by the sword and Christians convert through the Holy Spirit from the heart."

Seems like you are still lumping all Muslims in with the violent, radical group.



Quote:
If you were to do a poll about Christians and their view about bombing abortion clinics the numbers would not even get on the screen, the percentage would be nil.
Percentage for or against? I bet you many Christians would say that abortion should be eradicated, what ever the cost. They sure seem to be a vocal set. May not actually come out and support bombing the clinics, but they are probably not protesting against these bombings either. But wait, isn't that what we say about Muslims too? That the peace loving ones are not vocal enough in their denouncing the radical set? I know I have said that time and again.

Quote:
Im the Psalms you bring up are from David asking God for help(Prayers) and yes there is violence in the bible and a lot of it. Christ came to divide and as you can see this world is divided on every issue.
And how shall those passages be interpreted? I could easily read those and think that God wants me to use violence against those that do not accept him.

Christ came to divide the world? First I heard of this. In all of my years going to church and catechism, in all of these years of talking with and arguing against those that believe, this is the first time I have heard this. Hell, if you think about it, the Muslims at least tell you they want to bring the world together, even if it is under one religion. Christ came to divide, there is a great recruitment poster for you.


Quote:
It is good that you know your short coming, and you should not use religion as a crutch to find forgiveness. The only One that can forgive you is Jesus Christ.

Yea, I need a mythical character to forgive me.
PeteC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2009, 01:49 PM   #64
PeteC
Get Up and Go
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Oak Park, Michigan
Posts: 2,566
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by traveller View Post
Can either one of you find any cases where any minority was charged with a hate crime against a white person? I can find several group attacks on a one white person but they are never considered hate crimes. If anything the victim of the beatings are all most always accused of inciting the violence against then by using racial slurs.

Once again all hate crime laws do is to make special treatment for selected groups under law, not equal protection.
Hate crimes against whites do happen. Are they prosecuted often? I do not know, but I do know we do not hear about it often, if ever in the media.

They should be prosecuted.


Quote:
Originally Posted by C.K. View Post
If I walk up to a black guy and call him a "insert racial slur here" before killing him is he more dead than if I would have jst shot him? No

Would his family be less upset if I just shot him? No

Is it OK to beat a gay guy as long as I dont call him a fag first? No.

Do we need thought police? No.

There is more to hate crimes than just the violent and illegal act.

And no, thought police are not on the way,because thought is still not illegal.
PeteC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2009, 01:58 PM   #65
C.K.
Dont Feed the Cyco
 
C.K.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: 48386
Posts: 17,301
iTrader: (21)
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteC View Post
There is more to hate crimes than just the violent and illegal act.

And no, thought police are not on the way, because thought is still not illegal.
#1. What? #2. None of my questions were answered by your post.

#1. How do you know? #2. Not illegal yet.

You say thought police are not on the way. Wrong. They are already here. How many times have cases become about race just because the piece of shit committing the crime is black? I might concede that at this point it is more thought lawyers than Police. Thought Police is the next step.
C.K. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2009, 02:04 PM   #66
PeteC
Get Up and Go
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Oak Park, Michigan
Posts: 2,566
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post
.....................................To protect gays, pedofiles and transgendered people.
There you go with the scare tactics again, throwing pedophiles in the mix.

Pedophiles are commiting a heinous crime. They are not protected in this, or any bill.

As I hacve said before, prove it or STFU.


Quote:
This new law will have spin offs in other directions as far as speech and thought. The begining of controling the masses.
Yep, sure.



Quote:
Canada has this type of law on thier books and pastors have been jailed because of what they say about what the bible says about homosexuallality. They are reading from a book!
Nobody has been jailed, that I can find. There is one preist that is being investigated for possibly incited hatred. A comlaint was made an investigation was started. Seems like it might still be going on, but it has been over a year now. I am looking for more information.

Quote:
It also happens in Europe with their hate crime laws.
Not the way you are suggesting

Quote:
It will happen here, even though PeteC says its not the same law.
Yep, the sky is falling.

Quote:
But then again Pete believes that the government is our friend.
The government is for the people, by the people and of the people. The government is us, but we should still be skeptical of anyone in government. Terms of office and elections are how we keep them in check.

Quote:
How is it that the ones in the minority have the loudest voice?
This has been said about both the right and the left. But who are you saying is the minority now?
PeteC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2009, 02:16 PM   #67
PeteC
Get Up and Go
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Oak Park, Michigan
Posts: 2,566
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by C.K. View Post
If I walk up to a black guy and call him a "insert racial slur here" before killing him is he more dead than if I would have jst shot him? No
No, he is not more dead.

Quote:
Would his family be less upset if I just shot him? No
Not likely

Quote:
Is it OK to beat a gay guy as long as I dont call him a fag first? No.
No

Quote:
Do we need thought police? No.
Agreed.

Now, is it OK to have an organization like the KKK that preaches and commits violence against minorities? (They have expanded thier hatred) NO. Hate Crimes laws help to control this.

If the Phelps church decides to turn violent against Gays, should we treat them just as common criminals or can we prosecute them for furthering hatred? Hate laws help draw the line between everyday Douchery and planned, orchestrated Douchery. (Let's not forget, the Phelps gang hates dead soldiers too)

The Mafia has members that commit crimes. The are arrested for and convicted of these crimes. Yet that does not address the criminal conspiracy and underlying issues. RICO laws are in place to fight the greater issue. Hate laws, in my opinion, should be targeted in the same manner.


Quote:
Originally Posted by C.K. View Post
#1. What? #2. None of my questions were answered by your post.

Tried

#1. How do you know? #2. Not illegal yet.

You say thought police are not on the way. Wrong. They are already here. How many times have cases become about race just because the piece of shit committing the crime is black? I might concede that at this point it is more thought lawyers than Police. Thought Police is the next step.
When thought becomes action, it is no longer thought. When action is taken, consequences apply. Just as there are different level of assualt, Hate Crime laws just add another layer.
PeteC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2009, 02:36 PM   #68
C.K.
Dont Feed the Cyco
 
C.K.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: 48386
Posts: 17,301
iTrader: (21)
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteC View Post
No, he is not more dead.
Not likely
No
Agreed.

Then the current laws should do just fine. We need more enforcement not more laws.




Now, is it OK to have an organization like the KKK that preaches and commits violence against minorities? (They have expanded thier hatred) NO. Hate Crimes laws help to control this.

They should be allowed to preach it, it is the commiting part I have a problem with. If nobody cares what they have to say than they will go away. We can fight their ignorance with educating people not more laws.

If the Phelps church decides to turn violent against Gays, should we treat them just as common criminals or can we prosecute them for furthering hatred? Hate laws help draw the line between everyday Douchery and planned, orchestrated Douchery. (Let's not forget, the Phelps gang hates dead soldiers too)


Yes we should treat them the same. They aren't special criminals. They are criminals. I dont care if they target a certain type of person or just a random person. If they can not control their douche baggery and commit a crime against somebody they should be punished accordingly not extra.

The Mafia has members that commit crimes. The are arrested for and convicted of these crimes. Yet that does not address the criminal conspiracy and underlying issues. RICO laws are in place to fight the greater issue. Hate laws, in my opinion, should be targeted in the same manner.

I have no knowledge of RICO laws.


When thought becomes action, it is no longer thought. When action is taken, consequences apply. Just as there are different level of assualt, Hate Crime laws just add another layer.
I agree. But hate IS thought. The beating IS action. By adding a new law you are punishing the thought behind the crime and not the crime. It then is a thought Police kind of law.

We have plenty of laws on the books. The problem isnt that we dont have laws protecting gays, black, Mexicans, etc. They problem is the laws arent enforced with a tough enough penalty.

Now I would support raising the punishments for violent crimes. I think crimes like rape and murder should be automatic death penalties. It doesnt matter if the victim is gay, old, black, white, pink, Dutch, male, female, or crippled. Laws apply to people not how the people chose to live their lives.
C.K. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2009, 03:28 PM   #69
PeteC
Get Up and Go
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Oak Park, Michigan
Posts: 2,566
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by C.K. View Post
I agree. But hate IS thought. The beating IS action. By adding a new law you are punishing the thought behind the crime and not the crime. It then is a thought Police kind of law.

We have plenty of laws on the books. The problem isnt that we dont have laws protecting gays, black, Mexicans, etc. They problem is the laws arent enforced with a tough enough penalty.

Now I would support raising the punishments for violent crimes. I think crimes like rape and murder should be automatic death penalties. It doesnt matter if the victim is gay, old, black, white, pink, Dutch, male, female, or crippled. Laws apply to people not how the people chose to live their lives.
What I meant about the KKK, is not the preaching, but the inciting to violence. I think there is a difference there.

I really do not disagree with you. I too think that a crime is a crime is a crime. And that some punishments should become harsher.

But, I am going to continue playing devils advocate, especially as long as people like Aber continue to imply that pedophiles are included in this protection legislation, an ignorant claim at best.



The RICO laws provide for punishment against organized crime. The leaders of crime families can be convicted of acts carried out in thier name, or in the name of the organization. They can be convicted of conspiracy to commit crime rather than the crime itself. They are laws designed to go after those that do not get thier hands dirty in the commission of mob crimes.
PeteC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2009, 04:20 PM   #70
C.K.
Dont Feed the Cyco
 
C.K.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: 48386
Posts: 17,301
iTrader: (21)
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteC View Post
What I meant about the KKK, is not the preaching, but the inciting to violence. I think there is a difference there.
There is some charge related to starting a riot. Charge them with that.
I really do not disagree with you. I too think that a crime is a crime is a crime. And that some punishments should become harsher.

But, I am going to continue playing devils advocate, especially as long as people like Aber continue to imply that pedophiles are included in this protection legislation, an ignorant claim at best.

Fair enough

The RICO laws provide for punishment against organized crime. The leaders of crime families can be convicted of acts carried out in thier name, or in the name of the organization. They can be convicted of conspiracy to commit crime rather than the crime itself. They are laws designed to go after those that do not get thier hands dirty in the commission of mob crimes.

Thaks for the info. To me this isnt really the same as the hate crimes law. The leaders of crime families are being charged more along the lines of how the KKK would be charged for starting a riot. Not the why(the Hate) of the crime.
C.K. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2009, 04:33 PM   #71
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 6,270
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteC View Post
Sarcasm lost again. I am in no way sorry that I was getting under your skin. And yes, you went off the handle and you are the one may find it in oneself to apologize.

you were not getting under my skin.

Don't you mean my lack of agrreing with you? Your comments were about me not understanding what "sovereign" means, and guess what, I seem to understand the word much better than you.

Yes your lack of agrreing with me. And it was not about sovereign, we had come to the agreement that yes Iraq was and is a sovereign nation even under dictator rule.

Now that you admit this, do I still lack understanding about this fact?



Those that agreed with the invasion were fed misinformation from the Bush abministration.

Says you

Let me try this again. I am socially liberal because I beleive in helping people who need help. This does not mean I am interested in blindly throwing dollars to amyone with a hand out. But I do still beleive that a strong nation is not a divided nation, one of haves and have nots.
Fiscally conservative. Again, no throwing money out blindly. Lower taxes when able, but realize that spending has to be balanced with revenue. Tax and spend Democrats are no better than spend on credit Republicans. Get rid of the pork barrell crap. Get rid of the no bid contracts. Control the costs of defense spending (while NOT depleting the ability of the Military) with better oversight of where the money goes.

Yes you are socially liberal and I will not hold it against you. As far as the government throwing money out the window blindly yes they do


Actually, there is nothing in the Constitution that says Government can not get larger. Now, I do not like larger government but I also realize that as our society gets bigger and more complicated, so does the task of governing. Balance must prevail once again.



That is a percentage I would like to see backed up by actual numbers. What percentage of people make up that "rich" group? Is it the top 7%? In 2004 numbers they paid 51% of all taxes. The top 7 % in 2004 included my household income. Adjusted incomes of $75,000 or more.

When I talk about look holes I am talking about people who use the tax on capital gains, a mere 15%, instead of having all income taxed the same. Many on Wall Street do this.

And yes, taxes will probably go up at some point. After all we eventually have to pay for the increase in deficit and debt from the last administration.

I believe that the top wage earners are in the 1% of the country which pay the most in tax.


We have seen so mnay trillions of dollars in debt dumped by both sides. Now is a question of what do we get for our money. At least, IMO, money is now being spent on the greater good. Or at least an attempt to improve the greater good.

Obama has spent more that all presidents combined and the money is being wasted more than you could imagine.


Seem to stumble? He, as the figurehead for this nation, was an embarrassment.

Speaking of embarassedment, O bama has been running around the world aploigizing for america for the wrongs we have done, He is an embarassment.

Aren't most politicians good salesmen?

I believe are better at the whole sales pitch thing, maybe because it is easier for them to lie with a straight face. Obama 's real good at it, you can't tell when he's liing.

Then why did you say this? "The difference between muslims is they convert by the sword and Christians convert through the Holy Spirit from the heart."

Seems like you are still lumping all Muslims in with the violent, radical group.

Because that is what their koran says and the RADICAL ones do murder non-believers in that manner if you do not accept allah. And again you did not read what I posted, not all muslims are radical just like not everybody is as far left wing as you are.



Percentage for or against? I bet you many Christians would say that abortion should be eradicated, what ever the cost. They sure seem to be a vocal set. May not actually come out and support bombing the clinics, but they are probably not protesting against these bombings either. But wait, isn't that what we say about Muslims too? That the peace loving ones are not vocal enough in their denouncing the radical set? I know I have said that time and again.

And so it should be, Why kill an innocent child? What did the child do to die? As far as bombings is you do not listen to right wing radio , tv or go to church so that is why you do not hear of it

And how shall those passages be interpreted? I could easily read those and think that God wants me to use violence against those that do not accept him.

Christ came to divide the world? First I heard of this. In all of my years going to church and catechism, in all of these years of talking with and arguing against those that believe, this is the first time I have heard this. Hell, if you think about it, the Muslims at least tell you they want to bring the world together, even if it is under one religion. Christ came to divide, there is a great recruitment poster for you.

You could read those passages and come up with many diffferent interpretations, but as Christ said it you cannot understand the word of God until you have been born again.



Yea, I need a mythical character to forgive me.
So you tell me you went to church and believed yet you say Christ is mythical? umm
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2009, 12:16 PM   #72
traveller
Senior Member
 
traveller's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-01-09
Location: williamston mi
Posts: 536
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteC View Post
What I meant about the KKK, is not the preaching, but the inciting to violence. I think there is a difference there.

I really do not disagree with you. I too think that a crime is a crime is a crime. And that some punishments should become harsher.

But, I am going to continue playing devils advocate, especially as long as people like Aber continue to imply that pedophiles are included in this protection legislation, an ignorant claim at best.



The RICO laws provide for punishment against organized crime. The leaders of crime families can be convicted of acts carried out in thier name, or in the name of the organization. They can be convicted of conspiracy to commit crime rather than the crime itself. They are laws designed to go after those that do not get thier hands dirty in the commission of mob crimes.

How would hate crime laws as written change how hate groups are treated compared to before? Please keep in mind they are responsible for acts carried out by those who listen to them. For example-
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/a...nes/102472.php
traveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2009, 11:26 AM   #73
PeteC
Get Up and Go
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Oak Park, Michigan
Posts: 2,566
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by C.K. View Post
Thaks for the info. To me this isnt really the same as the hate crimes law. The leaders of crime families are being charged more along the lines of how the KKK would be charged for starting a riot. Not the why(the Hate) of the crime.


You are right, the RICO laws have nothing to do with hate crimes. I was trying to point out how some laws are more encompassing because of real need.


Here is a scenarion that payed out many times over the years.

A person starts a fire on a neighbors lawn and spray paints swear words on the house. That person is caught and charged with misdemeanor trespassing and defacing of private property. A fine and maybe some community service along with restitution for any damages.

Laws are in place to deal with this.

Now, the other possibility that has also played out many time.

Black family moves into a neightborhood. A cross is burned on the front laws. The messages spray painted are "nigger go home" and "whites only". Other things spray painted are KKK and Aryan and skin head group names/signs.

SHould these people, when caught, also be charged with the same charges as the first scenario?
This is where hate crimes laws come into play.
PeteC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2009, 12:14 PM   #74
PeteC
Get Up and Go
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Oak Park, Michigan
Posts: 2,566
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post
So you tell me you went to church and believed yet you say Christ is mythical? umm

Answering a person who inserts his own thoughts into someone elses quotes is difficult at best, but I will try.


Quote:
you were not getting under my skin.
Really? Sure sounded like it when you posted this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post
Iraq did not choose Saddam, you fool. Saddam choose Iraq to dictate. It is amazing the with all your stupidity that you are still alive to spew your rethoric. I can see how you like Obama, your rethoric sounds the same.
Quote:
Yes your lack of agrreing with me. And it was not about sovereign, we had come to the agreement that yes Iraq was and is a sovereign nation even under dictator rule.
Thought we were still talking about sovereignty at that time.


Quote:
Says you
Say's me? Nice, I can influence the rest of the world. Say's the CIA, the FBI, the UN, the U.S. Congress. Hell, even Dick Cheney admitted to not being completely truthfull. I think I even heard a mention of it on Fox News. The US Military, etc., etc.

p.s. For those that do not want to scroll back, this is in response to my statement that much, if not all of the evidence the Bush administration presented as reason to invade Iraq was false, fabricated or at the very least over stated.


Quote:
Yes you are socially liberal and I will not hold it against you.
Gee Thanks

Quote:
As far as the government throwing money out the window blindly yes they do
At least we agree on this.


Quote:
Obama has spent more that all presidents combined
Wow, really? The National debt under Reagan and Bush I went from 909 Billion to 3,206.3 in 1990 ans went further to 1992 at the end of Bush's term.
In 2000 when Clinton left the debt was 5,628.7 Billion. That is a much smaller increase then his "Conservative" predecessors.
In the next 8 years it increased to 9,985.8 billion. Almost doubled.
The projected debt for 2009 is 12,800 billion. Don't even think about forgetting that some of that increase was because of the Bush Administration. They are the ones that established the budget for 2009.
Projections are the the debt will increase to 14,400 billion for 2010.

Yes it is an increase, and yes the Obama administration is overseeing the largest National Debt ever, but spending more than all other Presidents combined? I think not.


Quote:
and the money is being wasted more than you could imagine.
Many still believe that the money spent on the Iraq war was a waste. And that is certainly more than Obama has "spent" so far.
The bailouts were a joint effort between the Bush and Obama administrations. The ideas started with Bush and were carried through with Obama. Whether that money is a waste or not, is still to be seen, IMO. Yes, some of it has been wasted, especially on the Wall streests and the Banks, considering what they are doing with the money. But our infrastructure is being improved and the people on those crews are working.



Quote:
Speaking of embarassedment, O bama has been running around the world aploigizing for america for the wrongs we have done, He is an embarassment
Guess what, America has made mistakes, has been wrong. The rest of the world see that and a lot of the ill will towards America has been because of those wrongs. Obama has been left with crisis after crisis. His admitting that the US has made mistakes has gone a long way to rebuilding international cooperation. Something long lacking. I think it was quite refreshing myself.
And he did not apologize for America being the free democratic country that it is.


Quote:
I believe are better at the whole sales pitch thing, maybe because it is easier for them to lie with a straight face. Obama 's real good at it, you can't tell when he's liing.
I know, I know, the right can do no wrong and Obama is evil and speaks with a forked tongue [/sarcasm]


Quote:
Because that is what their koran says and the RADICAL ones do murder non-believers in that manner if you do not accept allah.
I have not read the Koran, have you? I have heard a lot of people say that the Koran is often misinterpereted. Just like the Bible is.

Quote:
And again you did not read what I posted, not all muslims are radical
You say that in one sentence and then in the next you lump them all together again.

Quote:
just like not everybody is as far left wing as you are.
You really think I am that far left wing? Really? How? I would love to know.
I lean left on some things, right on other things. I am sure I seem far left to you since you seem far, far right to me.


Quote:
And so it should be, Why kill an innocent child? What did the child do to die?
A child should not be killed, anywhere in the world. But, in the great abortion debate, what constitues a child? Some say at the moment of conception, some say at the moment of viability outside the womb. I agree with the latter.
I would never ask anyone to get an abortion on my behalf. I am actually against abortion. What I am is pro-choice. I feel that, within established medical guidelines, it is the individuals choice.


Quote:
As far as bombings is you do not listen to right wing radio , tv or go to church so that is why you do not hear of it
Actually, I do peruse "right wing" media of all sorts. I use all the sources I can find to establish my personal "book of knowledge". I do not listen to and get my news from one or two sources (right or left) which you have implied you do.
I know plenty of people who do go to church and I do discuss current events with them, quite often. I do not have to go to church to know what is going on. BTW, the Preist who performed our marriage is still someone who is in our lives. We do see him often, but when we do, it is nothing but smiles and good times. He is fully aware of my disinchantment and the reasons behind it. He also is fully supportive of my wifes ministry as they both help some of of the same shut-ins in our community. IMHO, he is a true man of the cloth and has a tremendous amount of respect from both oif us.

Quote:
You could read those passages and come up with many diffferent interpretations,
Gee, you made many of my points for me.



Quote:
but as Christ said it you cannot understand the word of God until you have been born again
One of the reasons I no longer practice religion is statements like this. One group (born again) are the only ones that understand God. Muslims say the same. Jew say the same. JW's say the same. etc., etc., ad nauseum etc.


Quote:
So you tell me you went to church and believed yet you say Christ is mythical? umm
Bingo

I did believe, then I learned and questioned and learned some more. Then I observed, and read and observed some more. Almost 50 years of this routine has brought me to my conclusions.
PeteC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2009, 01:03 PM   #75
traveller
Senior Member
 
traveller's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-01-09
Location: williamston mi
Posts: 536
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteC View Post
You are right, the RICO laws have nothing to do with hate crimes. I was trying to point out how some laws are more encompassing because of real need.


Here is a scenarion that payed out many times over the years.

A person starts a fire on a neighbors lawn and spray paints swear words on the house. That person is caught and charged with misdemeanor trespassing and defacing of private property. A fine and maybe some community service along with restitution for any damages.You forgot about the arson charge they would face for starting a fire in someone else's yard.

Laws are in place to deal with this.

Now, the other possibility that has also played out many time.

Black family moves into a neightborhood. A cross is burned on the front laws. The messages spray painted are "nigger go home" and "whites only". Other things spray painted are KKK and Aryan and skin head group names/signs.

SHould these people, when caught, also be charged with the same charges as the first scenario?
This is where hate crimes laws come into play.
Yes same crime same charge. You can't be the thought police.
traveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2009, 01:17 PM   #76
GreaseMonkey
Pew pew!
 
GreaseMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Madison Heights, MI
Posts: 18,045
iTrader: (22)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

What happened to my right to hate someone for whatever reason I damn choose?

If someone ever acts violently on a prejudice thought, so what? This damn thought police thing pisses me off.
__________________
GreaseMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2009, 03:50 PM   #77
C.K.
Dont Feed the Cyco
 
C.K.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: 48386
Posts: 17,301
iTrader: (21)
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteC View Post
You are right, the RICO laws have nothing to do with hate crimes. I was trying to point out how some laws are more encompassing because of real need.


Here is a scenarion that payed out many times over the years.

A person starts a fire on a neighbors lawn and spray paints swear words on the house. That person is caught and charged with misdemeanor trespassing and defacing of private property. A fine and maybe some community service along with restitution for any damages.

Laws are in place to deal with this.

Now, the other possibility that has also played out many time.

Black family moves into a neightborhood. A cross is burned on the front laws. The messages spray painted are "nigger go home" and "whites only". Other things spray painted are KKK and Aryan and skin head group names/signs.

SHould these people, when caught, also be charged with the same charges as the first scenario?This is where hate crimes laws come into play.
Of course they should. They did the same thing. You can not punish the why of the crime, only the act of the crime.
C.K. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2009, 03:51 PM   #78
disorder xj
Happy,happy,joy,joy
 
disorder xj's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-13-06
Location: Mio MI.
Posts: 2,900
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by C.K. View Post
Of course they should. They did the same thing. You can not punish the why of the crime, only the act of the crime.
disorder xj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2009, 04:40 PM   #79
PeteC
Get Up and Go
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Oak Park, Michigan
Posts: 2,566
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by C.K. View Post
Of course they should. They did the same thing. You can not punish the why of the crime, only the act of the crime.

On this we will simply agree to disagree.
PeteC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2009, 04:52 PM   #80
disorder xj
Happy,happy,joy,joy
 
disorder xj's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-13-06
Location: Mio MI.
Posts: 2,900
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteC View Post
On this we will simply agree to disagree.
So now what you think of before is a crime is a crime ?
disorder xj is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:56 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.76805 seconds with 80 queries