Pence for Governor '12!!!

[melensdad]

Because societies in some circles have said it's ok. Because everyone knows it's not ok to thump someone unless... see it's institutionalized. Some parents with the way they talk to their kids make it more ok. That is very much part of it. It's the intent, the malice, and it's the whole idea that is being legislated against. It's a reminder and one we need clearly with all the suicides, deaths, bullying, and rash of issues the last few years.

Thanks,
Matthew

OK I take it you are gay and you think that a crime against gays is worse that a crime against straights.

But you defend that by saying that its because of you being you and you cannot be separated from what you are.

But I am a Catholic, it is my faith, it is what I am and makes up my nature. It cannot be separated from me anymore than I from it. People hate me because of my inextricable faith. Yet being Catholic is not protected.

Why you and not me? As you say 'some circles' have said its OK to hate you, other circles have said its OK to hate me. But you are protected and I am not. You claim its the intent of the crime that makes it worse but why you and not me if both criminals who attempt to make us their victims have hateful intent against us for who/what we are?

I honestly do not understand your logic.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Matthew -

Chill for a second... You say that you are hated for who you are. I have been hated for who I am. There are others here who have been hated for what they are. In that we are not different. Can a person change being Jewish or Black or [insert any of a thousand things here]. Of course not. There are those who would say that one can choose religion or sexual orientation or whatever. For the sake of this discussion - LET'S THROW ALL OF THAT OUT and assume that nobody's changing nor should they. Agreed?

So what do we choose to DO ABOUT those who hate a person for what he/she is????

First off - it's their right to hate! It IS NOT THEIR RIGHT to inflict harm/violence. Agreed?

You have every right to not like me because of the color of my hair, my mannerisms or anything... You just don't have the right to beat the hell out of me for it.

I choose to treat all people EQUALLY. Is that not what you would want as well? I would think that you would simply want to be left alone and not hated upon (ie done violence to because of who you are). I don't hate you for who you are. I would think that if you are intellectually consistent, you don't hate me for who I am. Hate legislation - as opposed to even handed enforcement of the law - breeds resentment. I'm all for even handed enforcement of the law. Cause harm to ANYONE and suffer the consequences of the law. PERIOD. Is this not consistent with what you want?

This is where you and I would appear to disagree.

 

[awatarius]

OK I take it you are gay and you think that a crime against gays is worse that a crime against straights.

But you defend that by saying that its because of you being you and you cannot be separated from what you are.

But I am a Catholic, it is my faith, it is what I am and makes up my nature. It cannot be separated from me anymore than I from it. People hate me because of my inextricable faith. Yet being Catholic is not protected.

Why you and not me? As you say 'some circles' have said its OK to hate you, other circles have said its OK to hate me. But you are protected and I am not. You claim its the intent of the crime that makes it worse but why you and not me if both criminals who attempt to make us their victims have hateful intent against us for who/what we are?

I honestly do not understand your logic.

LOL nope sexual identity is just that. If a group of rabid mean homos attacked you for being a "breeder" as they would call it. It would be a hate crime equal totally to if a bunch of haters attacked me.

 

[melensdad]

So why are you protected from breeders but I am not protected from those who hate Catholics?

Again you logic is simply illogic.

 

[awatarius]

Matthew -

Chill for a second... You say that you are hated for who you are. I have been hated for who I am. There are others here who have been hated for what they are. In that we are not different. Can a person change being Jewish or Black or [insert any of a thousand things here]. Of course not. There are those who would say that one can choose religion or sexual orientation or whatever. For the sake of this discussion - LET'S THROW ALL OF THAT OUT and assume that nobody's changing nor should they. Agreed?

So what do we choose to DO ABOUT those who hate a person for what he/she is????

First off - it's their right to hate! It IS NOT THEIR RIGHT to inflict harm/violence. Agreed?

You have every right to not like me because of the color of my hair, my mannerisms or anything... You just don't have the right to beat the hell out of me for it.

I choose to treat all people EQUALLY. Is that not what you would want as well? I would think that you would simply want to be left alone and not hated upon (ie done violence to because of who you are). I don't hate you for who you are. I would think that if you are intellectually consistent, you don't hate me for who I am. Hate legislation - as opposed to even handed enforcement of the law - breeds resentment. I'm all for even handed enforcement of the law. Cause harm to ANYONE and suffer the consequences of the law. PERIOD. Is this not consistent with what you want?

This is where you and I would appear to disagree.

Actually here I would agree with you. Part of the reason hate crime legislation was enacted was it made it a federal crime. It took the law of hurting gays, and subordinate groups out of local hands. IF the law could be applied in all areas evenly I would agree with you 100%. It isn't being done that way. This way they can ensure that the crime is punished and out of the hands of potential prejudice officials/towns/communities. This was a huge issue.. If there was a way of ensuring this rampant hate didn't infect and affect local officials you would be correct. I wait/hope/pray for the day that is possible.

Thanks,
Matthew

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

LOL nope sexual identity is just that. If a group of rabid mean homos attacked you for being a "breeder" as they would call it. It would be a hate crime equal totally to if a bunch of haters attacked me.

I think melensdad was making the point that what if ANYONE of any persuasion attacked him because he was Catholic or had blonde hair or [WHATEVER REASON]??? Is that still not a hate crime?

What if they thought he was a "Rich Bastard" and wanted his money? In the end what makes a hate crime different that all violent crime?

Every response here has said that if anyone attacked you the should be punished, right? Same as if ANYONE is attacked.

So to label a particular attack as worse than another says that you are somehow a more valuable citizen than me, right???

All animals are created equal, just some are more equal than others, right?

I don't think that's what you intended... but that's the logical result of protecting classes of people. I'm all for you AND EVERYONE ELSE being protected equally and your right to be who you are being completely protected. Others deserve the same courtesy, no?

 

[awatarius]

I think melensdad was making the point that what if ANYONE of any persuasion attacked him because he was Catholic or had blonde hair or [WHATEVER REASON]??? Is that still not a hate crime?

What if they thought he was a "Rich Bastard" and wanted his money? In the end what makes a hate crime different that all violent crime?

Every response here has said that if anyone attacked you the should be punished, right? Same as if ANYONE is attacked.

So to label a particular attack as worse than another says that you are somehow a more valuable citizen than me, right???

All animals are created equal, just some are more equal than others, right?

I don't think that's what you intended... but that's the logical result of protecting classes of people. I'm all for you AND EVERYONE ELSE being protected equally and your right to be who you are being completely protected. Others deserve the same courtesy, no?

If you want to expand the law, and can show that someone was attacked and that issue was not being addressed in local areas then yes expand the hate crimes act for sure. I believe if it doesn't, that the hate crimes act should protect religions.

Thanks,
Matthew

 

[melensdad]

If you want to expand the law, and can show that someone was attacked and that issue was not being addressed in local areas then yes expand the hate crimes act for sure. I believe if it doesn't, that the hate crimes act should protect religions.

Thanks,
Matthew

OK so lets just say that there are NO hate crimes and ALL crimes should be treated EQUALLY then everyone would be protected the same.

 

[tv1217]

Why should the motive behind an attack matter? If I beat you up for being a gay black midget, I should get the same sentence as if I'd beaten you up for driving a purple nissan.

 

[melensdad]

Why should the motive behind an attack matter? If I beat you up for being a gay black midget, I should get the same sentence as if I'd beaten you up for driving a purple nissan.

Purple yes, but not a blue one.

 

[ViperJock]

Actually here I would agree with you. Part of the reason hate crime legislation was enacted was it made it a federal crime. It took the law of hurting gays, and subordinate groups out of local hands. IF the law could be applied in all areas evenly I would agree with you 100%. It isn't being done that way. This way they can ensure that the crime is punished and out of the hands of potential prejudice officials/towns/communities. This was a huge issue.. If there was a way of ensuring this rampant hate didn't infect and affect local officials you would be correct. I wait/hope/pray for the day that is possible.

Thanks,
Matthew

The reason why this law was enacted is because it was politically correct. You say that noone else gets it, but actually it is you who does not get it. Everyone else is saying that it doesn't matter how you feel about someone, if you hurt them, you pay for it. Hated groups are included in this as is everyone else. Everybody is hated by somebody. The problem is that these laws, as mentioned earlier, are only applied to minority groups. As if a hate crime cannot be perpetrated against a majority (ie the much maligned straight white male) then the law is unjust by nature. While people would say that it will be applies equally, we all know that it will not.

If you haven't noticed, I am playing the "reverse discrimination card." I am seriously tired of minority groups playing their card anytime someone disagrees with them. Don't think Obama is awesome? "OH! you must be a racist!" Don't think gays should have rights that straights don't have? "OH! you must a bigot!"

You want to be treated equally? Then don't ask for special rights. You think that you were the only person that gets made fun of or is hated because of something personal about them? Wow, get out of your "me" bubble.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

If you want to expand the law, and can show that someone was attacked and that issue was not being addressed in local areas then yes expand the hate crimes act for sure. I believe if it doesn't, that the hate crimes act should protect religions.

Thanks,
Matthew

That's why we have an appellate system... If local officials are unjust, TAKE IT UP THE CHAIN of the appellate system. I'm glad that you recognize that "hate crime legislation" is at it's core a means of federalizing things. We both agree that all people should be treated equally. I am VEHEMENTLY against federalizing stuff as a rule. There are better ways to accomplish your goals.

There have been times when federalizing things worked... for example with racial issues in the Civil Rights era. That was arguably needed when a system was SO LOPSIDED that they would be dead before the case hit the Supreme Court. That is generally not the case now. A lot has changed, both in communications speed, hearts, minds, etc. But that's still what's in people's playbooks, so that becomes the "go to" maneuver.

With the advent of the internet, localized injustices can be displayed to the world and corrected FAR faster now. THAT helps to correct things far better than federalizing things. I don't disagree with wanting equality, and non violence towards anyone. We simply disagree on how to obtain it.

If you want to correct injustice - sunlight is the best disinfectant. Shine the light of publicity on it and it tends to get cleaned up. This is one of the cool things that the internet has made possible. This was not possible in the civil rights era to nearly the same degree. Federalization is a tired and liberty-bankrupt way to go about things.

 

[christman]

Why should the motive behind an attack matter? If I beat you up for being a gay black midget, I should get the same sentence as if I'd beaten you up for driving a purple nissan.

This...Being treated equally should account across the board in all aspects, including punishment.

 

[Pocketman]

Did someone mention Mike Pence is running for governor?

 

[drobpk]

Surely the Tea Parties of Indiana won't be endorsing Pence, will they?

I can tell you for sure that they will! Mike Pence is as conservative as they get. He is not a big government guy. He is truly a Reagan Conservative. He has my vote!

 

[John Galt]

I started the Tea Party in our county, with my own time and money, and built it up into a decent little group, and yes, I will throw all of my weight behind Mike Pence. There is no such thing as the "perfect" candidate out there, and until we quit destroying everyone that throws their hat in the ring because they aren't the perfect candidate, we will continue to get what we get.
Ask yourself this, would YOU, as a candidate, want to go through the venom that you see on even just this board, let alone face the general public?

 

[christman]

I started the Tea Party in our county, with my own time and money, and built it up into a decent little group, and yes, I will throw all of my weight behind Mike Pence. There is no such thing as the "perfect" candidate out there, and until we quit destroying everyone that throws their hat in the ring because they aren't the perfect candidate, we will continue to get what we get.
Ask yourself this, would YOU, as a candidate, want to go through the venom that you see on even just this board, let alone face the general public?

I agree. I certainly do not like all his stances, but Im voting for someone, and so far, he is the frontrunner in the long line of poopstains.

 

[shooter1054]

As always it will be a matter of choosing the canidate who will screw me the least. I will wait to see who will be running in the race before I pick my horse.

 

[christman]

As always it will be a matter of choosing the canidate who will screw me the least. I will wait to see who will be running in the race before I pick my horse.

They are HUMAN BEINGS!!! Not horses. I'm pretty sure you just committed a hate crime.

 

[Clay]

Jebus you guys....... thread crap much?

Start your own freaking hate crime thread.