Pence for Governor '12!!!

[christman]

WTF is wrong with you?

I really enjoy minor league football. Why so angry? I think football is very entertaining. Jeez....

 

[rjstew317]

Gay bashing is when you drive up in your pickup truck. Jump out of the back and beat someone down with baseball bats while calling them a ******. That is gay bashing. In parts of the south it is considered sport. It almost happened to me a few years ago, but I am a former minor league football player.. that size and a weapon changed minds. For the poor liberal gays that won't arm themselves it's not as pleasant.

Thanks,
Matthew

so if you do the same thing, without the insult, it's not the same crime with the same intention?

 

[Plinker]

Well then I stand corrected, it is a crime.

Some people must have a much better gaydar than I do, because I'm pretty bad at noticing who's gay and who's not (except the obvious hand holding, etc...). I know a few effeminate straight guys, and I know a few more manly gay guys. How do these gaybashers find their targets, do they already know them?

Gay bashing is when you drive up in your pickup truck. Jump out of the back and beat someone down with baseball bats while calling them a ******. That is gay bashing. In parts of the south it is considered sport. It almost happened to me a few years ago, but I am a former minor league football player.. that size and a weapon changed minds. For the poor liberal gays that won't arm themselves it's not as pleasant.

Thanks,
Matthew

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

Personally, I'm NOT happy about Pence's involvement with the Patriot Act & DHS.

But I still think that he is absolutely the best candidate for Governor of Indiana. And I plan on supporting him despite his "warts" I mentioned above.

Mike Pence is, in his own words, "A Christian first, a Conservative second, and a Republican third."

And personally, I appreciate the order of those.


-J-

 

[awatarius]

You want to control people's thoughts. You want to strike down the First Amendment right to freedom of association. You want people to think one way - your way. You want laws in place to "educate" the public. You want to provide a special class based upon your behavior. You want to enhance crimes committed that involve one class to the exclusion of all others. That make you a libtard.

Lets break this down for you.

First Amendment right to freedom of association-- Um what? No? Just don't abuse anyone thats all? This makes no sense at all.

You want people to think one way - your way--When did I say this? Think whatever you want, it's your actions I care about. These are all straw man arguments I am seeing a theme here.

You want laws in place to "educate" the public.--Actually yes a little. Committing crimes because you think it's ok requires
some education.

You want to provide a special class based upon your behavior.---Um what?

You want to enhance crimes committed that involve one class to the exclusion of all others.---Clearly you are not reading. I support protecting anyone that is picked on for the bases of religion, sexuality, race, and so on. That includes you sir. Pretty simple.

Libtard----OK that is your opinion and Im sure everyone that isn't a right wing republican fit's into your little special category.

 

[awatarius]

I really enjoy minor league football. Why so angry? I think football is very entertaining. Jeez....

Well played sir. If that is what you are clapping for (mmhmmm) then I thank you.

Thanks,
Matthew

 

[awatarius]

Well then I stand corrected, it is a crime.

Some people must have a much better gaydar than I do, because I'm pretty bad at noticing who's gay and who's not (except the obvious hand holding, etc...). I know a few effeminate straight guys, and I know a few more manly gay guys. How do these gaybashers find their targets, do they already know them?

Many times they send someone in to a gay bar and find a target. They phone friends and set it up. Or they simply follow someone walking out of gay bar going home. Sometimes if it's a local they just target someone they know, and sometimes they just guess and get it wrong

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Lets break this down for you.

First Amendment right to freedom of association-- Um what? No? Just don't abuse anyone thats all? This makes no sense at all.

You want people to think one way - your way--When did I say this? Think whatever you want, it's your actions I care about. These are all straw man arguments I am seeing a theme here.

You want laws in place to "educate" the public.--Actually yes a little. Committing crimes because you think it's ok requires
some education.

You want to provide a special class based upon your behavior.---Um what?

You want to enhance crimes committed that involve one class to the exclusion of all others.---Clearly you are not reading. I support protecting anyone that is picked on for the bases of religion, sexuality, race, and so on. That includes you sir. Pretty simple.

Libtard----OK that is your opinion and Im sure everyone that isn't a right wing republican fit's into your little special category.

Anyone that would:

trample a person's most innate rights (the right to your own thoughts, the right to use your property as you see fit, etc);

create little groups of disaffected individuals based upon violation of the First Amendment rights of association (that infers an inverse right of non-association) and provide those groups with special privileges unavailable to any other;

limit the First Amendment right to freedom of expression;

use the power of law and authority of the government to re-educate the population;

use the power of law and authority of the government to enforce their socialist dream;

is a libtard.

You want to criminalize the reason a crime is committed against another person (hate crime). Reason comes from thought. Hate crimes are thought crimes. Hate crimes are used today the world over to criminalize words accompanying no deeds. Hate crime legislation is a blatent violation of the First Amendment rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of religion.

You agree it is valid to use the power of government and law to re-educate.

You believe your bedroom behavior (which I could not care less about) should entitle you to special status not afforded others.

See, here's the difference between your position and mine. I believe a black man has an absolute right to hate a white man for being white. I believe a Christian has an absolute right to not want to rent an apartment to a Muslim. These examples are offensive to me, but we are talking about rights, not what I want others to think. You want to control how people think. I am satisfied leaving them to their own thoughts.

I believe a property owner has a near absolute right to use or direct the use of his property, whether it's a bar that wants to allow smoking or a flower shop owner that doesn't want any firearms in the store. This is freedom of association and the government has no authority to intervene. The most basic and fundamental rights are the rights to think what we want. Or not.

I am totally against any violence inflicted on anyone. Period. I feel no need to bucket certain people for special attention. I am absolutely for individuals. You on the other hand want to protect special groups (your own words above).

So if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is probably a libtard.

 

[awatarius]

Anyone that would:

trample a person's most innate rights (the right to your own thoughts, the right to use your property as you see fit, etc);

create little groups of disaffected individuals based upon violation of the First Amendment rights of association (that infers an inverse right of non-association) and provide those groups with special privileges unavailable to any other;

limit the First Amendment right to freedom of expression;

use the power of law and authority of the government to re-educate the population;

use the power of law and authority of the government to enforce their socialist dream;

is a libtard.

You want to criminalize the reason a crime is committed against another person (hate crime). Reason comes from thought. Hate crimes are thought crimes. Hate crimes are used today the world over to criminalize words accompanying no deeds. Hate crime legislation is a blatent violation of the First Amendment rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of religion.

You agree it is valid to use the power of government and law to re-educate.

You believe your bedroom behavior (which I could not care less about) should entitle you to special status not afforded others.

See, here's the difference between your position and mine. I believe a black man has an absolute right to hate a white man for being white. I believe a Christian has an absolute right to not want to rent an apartment to a Muslim. These examples are offensive to me, but we are talking about rights, not what I want others to think. You want to control how people think. I am satisfied leaving them to their own thoughts.

I believe a property owner has a near absolute right to use or direct the use of his property, whether it's a bar that wants to allow smoking or a flower shop owner that doesn't want any firearms in the store. This is freedom of association and the government has no authority to intervene. The most basic and fundamental rights are the rights to think what we want. Or not.

I am totally against any violence inflicted on anyone. Period. I feel no need to bucket certain people for special attention. I am absolutely for individuals. You on the other hand want to protect special groups (your own words above).

So if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is probably a libtard.

You come close to almost making sense.

trample a person's most innate rights (the right to your own thoughts, the right to use your property as you see fit, etc);---I still never said this or feel this way

create little groups of disaffected individuals based upon violation of the First Amendment rights of association (that infers an inverse right of non-association) and provide those groups with special privileges unavailable to any other;---I don't do this at all. Again you and everyone happens to be protected by the same laws I am talking about

limit the First Amendment right to freedom of expression; Not at all

use the power of law and authority of the government to re-educate the population; kind of, here again is your only point that makes sense. I did say that. I do feel that way when the populace is against a minority. Such as the case in civil rights, segregation, and the apathy shown towards victims of sexual identity abuse.

You believe your bedroom behavior (which I could not care less about) should entitle you to special status not afforded others.---This actually infuriates me, and is the best example that you actually care more than you say. It's the argument everytime I hear about gay marriage, or DOMA, DADT and blah blah blah. I WANT THE SAME STATUS PERIOD, and I WANT the LAW to make it possible. IF you would strike out against me for wanting those rights I want you struck down. Because an attack against my rights is an attack against me.

use the power of law and authority of the government to enforce their socialist dream; Ummmmmmm clearly you have a bias here

Thanks,
Matthew

 

[kwatters]

Personally, I'm NOT happy about Pence's involvement with the Patriot Act & DHS.

But I still think that he is absolutely the best candidate for Governor of Indiana. And I plan on supporting him despite his "warts" I mentioned above.

Mike Pence is, in his own words, "A Christian first, a Conservative second, and a Republican third."

And personally, I appreciate the order of those.


-J-

I like Mike, met him in DC a few years ago.

 

[longbow]

He is a good man....I've talked to him on the phone, met him in DC and in the state.
One time he was walking on the mall in DC and saw me about 50 feet away. He came over and said hi.

He gets my vote....

 

[Plinker]

I like Mike...

That needs to be put on a button and worn.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

You come close to almost making sense.

trample a person's most innate rights (the right to your own thoughts, the right to use your property as you see fit, etc);---I still never said this or feel this way

create little groups of disaffected individuals based upon violation of the First Amendment rights of association (that infers an inverse right of non-association) and provide those groups with special privileges unavailable to any other;---I don't do this at all. Again you and everyone happens to be protected by the same laws I am talking about

limit the First Amendment right to freedom of expression; Not at all

use the power of law and authority of the government to re-educate the population; kind of, here again is your only point that makes sense. I did say that. I do feel that way when the populace is against a minority. Such as the case in civil rights, segregation, and the apathy shown towards victims of sexual identity abuse.

You believe your bedroom behavior (which I could not care less about) should entitle you to special status not afforded others.---This actually infuriates me, and is the best example that you actually care more than you say. It's the argument everytime I hear about gay marriage, or DOMA, DADT and blah blah blah. I WANT THE SAME STATUS PERIOD, and I WANT the LAW to make it possible. IF you would strike out against me for wanting those rights I want you struck down. Because an attack against my rights is an attack against me.

use the power of law and authority of the government to enforce their socialist dream; Ummmmmmm clearly you have a bias here

Thanks,
Matthew

I do have a bias. I look toward government to do things I can't do myself. Provide roads, national security, set and test water supplies, etc. I don't need or want government to tell my neighbors how they must think about or interact with me.

Life is full of choices, and some decisions you make may not have the intended consequences. When you decide to step outside societal norms, society may take exception. You want the law to require acceptance of activity outside those norms thereby forcing society to sucumb to your personal desires based upon your decision. That is truely offensive.

Things you've said in this thread:

He voted against the hate crimes bill that would include sexual identity because "the hate crimes bill is broad enough to encompass legitimate beliefs". So my beliefs and me being who I am is not legitimate? Not only is he making a stance on something I feel strongly about BUT he insulted me. No he won't be getting my vote.

Calling it a hate crime brings more eduction, tougher penalties, and lets it be known that it's not ok to hate.

So you do want enhanced penalties based upon the reason a crime is perpetrated? You want to criminalize the reason (thought) behind a crime, not just the act of the crime itself.

When you tell them that I am less than human and it becomes a rash of violence because those people start stoning my family and myself... then it's not morality its stopping a rash of violence against a certain sect of people you hate. It's saying that there is premeditation and the mindset needs legislated against to make a statement. Committing crimes with hate and premeditation is less ok than one of passion.

This sure sounds like you want to limit the First Amendment right to free expression. You've moved the yard stick further down field in an attempt to sound reasonable, but you've moved it nonetheless.

Committing crimes is unacceptable and not OK. Regardless of the reason.

Committing crimes AGAINST a human for WHO THEY ARE simply for being is something that can't be tolerated. It's hating me because I live, because I am, because I exist. Hate and violence for those reasons is worse, and should be treated as such.

Again, your want to regulate thought. Commiting crimes against humans can't be tolerated period. Everything else you said is thought police mentality.

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.

It's the crime that is being legislated against. Again, more thought police.

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.

So it's OK for the Federal government to violate the First Amendment because sovereign states don't see a need to provide special protections to special classes of people? That is offensive at so many levels.

I am glad that the United States is making a stance against hate crimes to teach people who would like to commit them that there is an imperative that they stop.

Again, using the power of the federal government to enact special laws for special people. What Constitutional provision would you have the government violate next?

 

[awatarius]

Life is full of choices, and some decisions you make may not have the intended consequences. When you decide to step outside societal norms, society may take exception. You want the law to require acceptance of activity outside those norms thereby forcing society to sucumb to your personal desires based upon your decision. That is truely offensive.

Things you've said in this thread:

Ahh and so you truly show yourself. See that's all that was needed. I didn't choose to live outside of societal norms. I was born that way. It's not my fault. So yes I want the law to protect my rights, choices, and the way I was born from people like you (and it does) who think I have simply made a poor choice. If the internet was around 100 years ago this conversation would be about so many other things that were taboo then, and accepted now because of laws. And so it will be again.

Thanks,
Matthew

 

[Ogre]

Ahh and so you truly show yourself. See that's all that was needed. I didn't choose to live outside of societal norms. I was born that way. It's not my fault. So yes I want the law to protect my rights, choices, and the way I was born from people like you (and it does) who think I have simply made a poor choice. If the internet was around 100 years ago this conversation would be about so many other things that were taboo then, and accepted now because of laws. And so it will be again.

Thanks,
Matthew

So how does Hate Crime legislation help you in any way that previous laws had not? You were born with the same rights as I, If a man hits me over the head, and a man hits you over the head, shouldn't the man be treated the same for both crimes in the eyes of the law.?..

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Ahh and so you truly show yourself. See that's all that was needed. I didn't choose to live outside of societal norms. I was born that way. It's not my fault. So yes I want the law to protect my rights, choices, and the way I was born from people like you (and it does) who think I have simply made a poor choice. If the internet was around 100 years ago this conversation would be about so many other things that were taboo then, and accepted now because of laws. And so it will be again.

Thanks,
Matthew

What true self did I show? Society has set norms. They revolve around everything from the way you look to the way you talk to the way you dress to the way you act. Step outside any of these norms and you set yourself up to be ostracized by some segment of society as a whole.

You want to be a victim (it's not my fault), and you want your victimhood legitimized legislatively (yes I want the law to protect my rights, choices, and the way I was born).

I didn't say you made a poor choice. It's your victimhood mentality coming through. You yearn to be offended so you are. Your choice has no bearing on me one way or the other. I don't care what you choose to do or not do, until it impacts me.

Special classes, rights and protections are not what America was founded on. Where we cross swords is when you demand special rights to "protect my rights, choices, and the way I was born". So while you say it's not a choice, just one sentence later you demand laws to protect your choices. Which is it?

 

[awatarius]

So how does Hate Crime legislation help you in any way that previous laws had not? You were born with the same rights as I, If a man hits me over the head, and a man hits you over the head, shouldn't the man be treated the same for both crimes in the eyes of the law.?..

Yes I agree with you. In many areas it didn't however. ALL OVER it didn't. Families, and communities didn't want to be embarrassed or associated with prosecuting someone who commits crimes against gays. The apathy that said "well he is making a dumb choice so dumb things happen", and a shrug of the shoulder the crime is not taken seriously. Gay teen suicide was on the rise and yet, nobody knew why. When investigations were done lot's of abuse was found but never reported. Again.. I hope, pray, and wish for the day that the law is not required and we are treated equally.

Thanks,
Matthew

 

[awatarius]

What true self did I show? Society has set norms. They revolve around everything from the way you look to the way you talk to the way you dress to the way you act. Step outside any of these norms and you set yourself up to be ostracized by some segment of society as a whole.

You want to be a victim (it's not my fault), and you want your victimhood legitimized legislatively (yes I want the law to protect my rights, choices, and the way I was born).

I didn't say you made a poor choice. It's your victimhood mentality coming through. You yearn to be offended so you are. Your choice has no bearing on me one way or the other. I don't care what you choose to do or not do, until it impacts me.

Special classes, rights and protections are not what America was founded on. Where we cross swords is when you demand special rights to "protect my rights, choices, and the way I was born". So while you say it's not a choice, just one sentence later you demand laws to protect your choices. Which is it?

I could choose to stay in the closet and lie, I could choose to stay in my house and never leave. I could choose not to talk about things like this on a message boards with social conservatives. Those are the choices, the fact of who I am is not. I do not feel like a victim! Genetics, and my parents gifted me with a physical presence, and a brain that ensure for the most part that I am fine. I fight for everyone else that is a victim, and there are many. "Special classes" when you can guarantee that everyone is protected equally under the law we can talk about this again. Trust me I don't want special classes.

 

[Expat]

I will never support so called hate crime legislation. You defined gay bashing above. It is clearly against the law already to carry out an assault, attempted murder or even murder. You should be no more protected than anyone else on this board nor any less. All of the other "extra" rights that the homosexual lobby wants result in infringements on other people's rights. You are hypocrites. You cry about your right to do this or that, but you are more than happy to legislate away other people's rights. I have the right to hate you. I hate a lot of people. I hate a lot of people on this board. I don't know the sexuality of any of them. So I guess I am free to hate them. But not you... oh no. You are special so it should be a criminal act to hate you. I hate you more for that than what you like to do with other men.

 

[awatarius]

ll of the other "extra" rights that the homosexual lobby wants result in infringements on other people's rights. You are hypocrites.

Specifics please.

Hate me fine. Try to kill me, or convince others to do it because I am gay--not fine. It's the inequities in the current execution of the law that makes this law so important.