What Will It Take To Save America.....?

[wkuhillhound]

Please explain the "special" treatment I am looking for?

Please explain WHAT THE **** I AM asking for that every other American doesn't have???

Gladly...

If I get the **** kicked out of me on the street, the attacker is charged with the appropriate crime, tried, sentenced and goes to jail for the appropriate number of years...

But gays want an additional charge added if the person attacked is gay...called hate crime...so that additional time is added to the sentence...


An attack is an attack is an attack...if someone attacks me, they obviously hate me...but because I'm a straight, white male, I'm not entitled to the additional "coverage" you have demanded...

Do you really believe that a gay person would kick the shit out of you? I guarantee you the reason why your ass would be kicked wouldn't be because you're straight? Come on, even you wouldn't drink that amount of Kool-Aid.

Additionally, attacks on still exist today, ONLY because of physical differences between each other, rather it be instigated or not.

[Col Hogan]

Gladly...

If I get the **** kicked out of me on the street, the attacker is charged with the appropriate crime, tried, sentenced and goes to jail for the appropriate number of years...

But gays want an additional charge added if the person attacked is gay...called hate crime...so that additional time is added to the sentence...


An attack is an attack is an attack...if someone attacks me, they obviously hate me...but because I'm a straight, white male, I'm not entitled to the additional "coverage" you have demanded...

Do you really believe that a gay person would kick the **** out of you? I guarantee you the reason why your ass would be kicked wouldn't be because you're straight? Come on, even you wouldn't drink that amount of Kool-Aid.

Additionally, attacks on still exist today, ONLY because of physical differences between each other, rather it be instigated or not.

So what you're saying is an attack on me is not as bad as an attack on a gay...

[wkuhillhound]

Do you really believe that a gay person would kick the **** out of you? I guarantee you the reason why your ass would be kicked wouldn't be because you're straight? Come on, even you wouldn't drink that amount of Kool-Aid.

Additionally, attacks on still exist today, ONLY because of physical differences between each other, rather it be instigated or not.

So what you're saying is an attack on me is not as bad as an attack on a gay...

So you're saying that straights are better than gays?

[Col Hogan]

So what you're saying is an attack on me is not as bad as an attack on a gay...

So you're saying that straights are better than gays?

I'm saying we're the same when it comes to the justice system...if I'm attacked, and a gay is attacked, our attackers should receive the same sentence...

This "hate crime" system sets up two seperate and not equal justice systems...that's wrong...

It doesn't matter what the reason was for the attack...the sentence should be the same for someone who attacks a straight and someone who attacks a gay...no more, no less...

You got a problem with that???

[travelinman67]

Yup!!!

That's what an Ivy league education will learn ya'.

No problem can be solved.

?...T-man are you commenting on my post..?
Because if you are - your reading comprehension has slipped into senility

How does recognizing things for what they are - and relating that to our historical tendency to exaggerate our "state of decline" have anything to do with: "No problem can be solved"

dude... lay off the sauce for a few days - your insanity is blinding you

Fv*k you...

...had too many crab puffs and green bean caserole yesterday...

...my eyes are still crossed.

[Cap'n Cat]

?...T-man are you commenting on my post..?
Because if you are - your reading comprehension has slipped into senility

How does recognizing things for what they are - and relating that to our historical tendency to exaggerate our "state of decline" have anything to do with: "No problem can be solved"

dude... lay off the sauce for a few days - your insanity is blinding you

Fv*k you...

...had too many crab puffs and green bean caserole yesterday...

...my eyes are still crossed.

[JoltinJoe]

proof that our current 2 party system is the problem

country is more polarized than at any time i can ever remember, even than vietnam or watergate

Our country is divided because special interest groups, and segments of the political parties which court them, seek to impose social and moral legislation either on a national basis through congressional legislation; or through the federal courts by seeking to overturn local state social and moral legislation by declaring them unconsitutional.

Get the federal government and the federal court system out of the business of trying to nationalize a social and moral viewpoint, and leave such divisive matters to the states to be resolved locally, on a state-by-state basis -- as the founding fathers intended. Nothing as done more to divide this nation on social and moral grounds that the attempts to overturn expressions of local state values, and to impose such values on a uniform, national basis.

Also, get federal spending under control. We must start running budget surpluses in the near future by cutting spending. We must also start paying down out $12 trillion national debt. I believe Pres. Obama's instincts may be to the contrary, but he is a smart enough man to know that we cannot keep this up, and I think he will start to advocate this message.

[travelinman67]

Our country is divided because special interest groups, and segments of the political parties which court them, seek to impose social and moral legislation either on a national basis through congressional legislation; or through the federal courts by seeking to overturn local state social and moral legislation by declaring them unconsitutional.

Get the federal government and the federal court system out of the business of trying to nationalize a social and moral viewpoint, and leave such divisive matters to the states to be resolved locally, on a state-by-state basis -- as the founding fathers intended. Nothing as done more to divide this nation on social and moral grounds that the attempts to overturn expressions of local state values, and to impose such values on a uniform, national basis.

Not to hijack this thread...

...but what would prevent local communities from legalizing drugs...or pedophilia? And how would congress prevent the other 99.9999% of Americans from using their political strength to block federal aid (HHS,Transportation, etc...) to those local communities who've enacted standards the rest of the country finds repugnant, if not unlawful/unconstitutional?

I understand SCOTUS's position on local/state control of subjective "obscenity" standards, but what check can be used to prevent the "run amok" scenario, without employing a defacto federal imposition of social/moral guideline in the same manner as is currently practiced?

[JoltinJoe]

Our country is divided because special interest groups, and segments of the political parties which court them, seek to impose social and moral legislation either on a national basis through congressional legislation; or through the federal courts by seeking to overturn local state social and moral legislation by declaring them unconsitutional.

Get the federal government and the federal court system out of the business of trying to nationalize a social and moral viewpoint, and leave such divisive matters to the states to be resolved locally, on a state-by-state basis -- as the founding fathers intended. Nothing as done more to divide this nation on social and moral grounds that the attempts to overturn expressions of local state values, and to impose such values on a uniform, national basis.

Not to hijack this thread...

...but what would prevent local communities from legalizing drugs...or pedophilia? And how would congress prevent the other 99.9999% of Americans from using their political strength to block federal aid (HHS,Transportation, etc...) to those local communities who've enacted standards the rest of the country finds repugnant, if not unlawful/unconstitutional?

I understand SCOTUS's position on local/state control of subjective "obscenity" standards, but what check can be used to prevent the "run amok" scenario, without employing a defacto federal imposition of social/moral guideline in the same manner as is currently practiced?

First question: the good, common sense of the majority. (Incidentally, what would prevent the federal government from doing the same?)

Second question: how can that 99% act but through congress/federal government?

Third question: again, the good, common sense of the majority.

[dbackjon]

Not to hijack this thread...

...but what would prevent local communities from legalizing drugs...or pedophilia? And how would congress prevent the other 99.9999% of Americans from using their political strength to block federal aid (HHS,Transportation, etc...) to those local communities who've enacted standards the rest of the country finds repugnant, if not unlawful/unconstitutional?

I understand SCOTUS's position on local/state control of subjective "obscenity" standards, but what check can be used to prevent the "run amok" scenario, without employing a defacto federal imposition of social/moral guideline in the same manner as is currently practiced?

First question: the good, common sense of the majority. (Incidentally, what would prevent the federal government from doing the same?)

Second question: how can that 99% act but through congress/federal government?

Third question: again, the good, common sense of the majority.

By their actions/inactions, state have shown that they are incapable of ensuring basic civil rights to all inhabitants.

Or are you advocating a return of Jim Crow laws?

[Cap'n Cat]

First question: the good, common sense of the majority. (Incidentally, what would prevent the federal government from doing the same?)

Second question: how can that 99% act but through congress/federal government?

Third question: again, the good, common sense of the majority.

By their actions/inactions, states have shown that they are incapable of ensuring basic civil rights to all inhabitants.

Or are you advocating a return of Jim Crow laws?

Good point, Jon. Alabama and Mississippi, 1800-1980.

[Ibanez]

By their actions/inactions, states have shown that they are incapable of ensuring basic civil rights to all inhabitants.

Or are you advocating a return of Jim Crow laws?

Good point, Jon. Alabama and Mississippi, 1800-1980.

Wasn't just in the south where civil rights were only for the white. Slaves moved to places like Chicago, only to find out that the same racists minds and attitudes were still against them. Racism, hate and discrimination knows no geographical location.

[Col Hogan]

Good point, Jon. Alabama and Mississippi, 1800-1980.

Wasn't just in the south where civil rights were only for the white. Slaves moved to places like Chicago, only to find out that the same racists minds and attitudes were still against them. Racism, hate and discrimination knows no geographical location.

And cannot be wiped out by legislative edict...

[JoltinJoe]

First question: the good, common sense of the majority. (Incidentally, what would prevent the federal government from doing the same?)

Second question: how can that 99% act but through congress/federal government?

Third question: again, the good, common sense of the majority.

By their actions/inactions, state have shown that they are incapable of ensuring basic civil rights to all inhabitants.

Or are you advocating a return of Jim Crow laws?

No,of course not. When state action infringes on federally protected constitutional rights, they are unconstitutional and are properly struck down -- like the Jim Crow laws were.

[Pwns]

A Strong Federal Government is an absolute requirement. Individuals, Corporations and local governments, whether at a state or local level, have proven time and time again of being incapable of allowing/promoting equality for all Americans

WADR Jon, I think you are way off on this one. Look at the gay rights issue. Iowa, Vermont, Maine, and a few other states have done far more for gay rights for the people in those states than the federal government has for all Americans.

Also, have any state governments ever assaulted the bill of rights with legislation like "The Patriot Act" and the Military Commissions act? Or FISA? Are the state governments accruing debt that will bury future generations? Nope, when the states have a deficit they actually have to make cuts instead of just printing out more money. Have any state governments said it's okay for the government to take someone's property via eminent domain and give it to a corporation? Nope, in fact, many of them have passed laws to make it more difficult to do that.

Personally, I could certainly live with taking the federal government down a few notches.

[CID1990]

Wasn't just in the south where civil rights were only for the white. Slaves moved to places like Chicago, only to find out that the same racists minds and attitudes were still against them. Racism, hate and discrimination knows no geographical location.

And cannot be wiped out by legislative edict...

Sure it can!

See: Yugoslavia 1945-1991.

Soviet legislative edict werked real gud.

[JayJ79]

Techincally, don't you want the rights that married people have? I mean, 15 year olds don't have the rights you want.

15 year olds aren't full citizens, nor are any minors.

[JayJ79]

I say we get rid of all political parties.
That would eliminate much of the nonsense that goes on with our government (which both sides are responsible for)

George Washington had it right.

[clenz]

Techincally, don't you want the rights that married people have? I mean, 15 year olds don't have the rights you want.

15 year olds aren't full citizens, nor are any minors.

A 15 year old is too a full American citizen....

SMFH at you thinking they were not.


In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who:

Is born in the United States
Whose parents, at the time of birth, are subjects of a foreign power
Whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
Whose parents are there on business and not in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject
...becomes, at time of birth, a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution.



They can not vote, but that doesn't make the not a citizen.

[RobsPics]

So what you're saying is an attack on me is not as bad as an attack on a gay...

Come on you need to take your analysis a step further.

1.
If a perp beats up a gay person, because the person is gay, the perp has committed a hate crime.

Similarly If a perp beats you up, because you are White, that perp would also have also committed a hate crime.

2.
If a perp beats up a gay person, for other reasons such as a financial dispute, robbery, etc., then no hate crime has been committed...only traditional assault & battery

Similarly, If a perp beats you up, for other reasons such as a financial dispute, robbery, etc., then no hate crime has been committed...only traditional assault & battery.

The whole purpose of hate crime legislation is to identify the reason why a crime was committed.

[clenz]

So what you're saying is an attack on me is not as bad as an attack on a gay...

Come on you need to take your analysis a step further.

1.
If a perp beats up a gay person, because the person is gay, the perp has committed a hate crime.

Similarly If a perp beats you up, because you are White, that perp would also have also committed a hate crime.

2.
If a perp beats up a gay person, for other reasons such as a financial dispute, robbery, etc., then no hate crime has been committed...only traditional assault & battery

Similarly, If a perp beats you up, for other reasons such as a financial dispute, robbery, etc., then no hate crime has been committed...only traditional assault & battery.

The whole purpose of hate crime legislation is to identify the reason why a crime was committed.

Good luck convincing a black person beat up a white person because he was white, or a gay beat up a straight because he was straight. They wouldn't ever believe that. White and straight guilt are all over this country.

[RobsPics]

And cannot be wiped out by legislative edict...

But racism has been wiped out by legislative edict...not 100% though, just in areas where the government has jurisdiction over peoples' actions.

[RobsPics]

Good luck convincing a black person beat up a white person because he was white, or a gay beat up a straight because he was straight. They wouldn't ever believe that. White and straight guilt are all over this country.

That is up to the prosecutor to argue, and the jury/judge to decide.

No one is saying the system is perfect.

But just because some fault or error may exist, does not mean there is a need to abandon the system all together.

[JayJ79]

15 year olds aren't full citizens, nor are any minors.

A 15 year old is too a full American citizen....
...
They can not vote, but that doesn't make the not a citizen.

They can't vote. They can't sign a legal contract. They can't legally consent to anything. They aren't held fully responsible for their actions (i.e. breaking the law, etc.).

Thus they aren't full citizens, IMO.

[Col Hogan]

So what you're saying is an attack on me is not as bad as an attack on a gay...

The whole purpose of hate crime legislation is to identify the reason why a crime was committed.

Why does a reason need to be identified??? A beating is a beating...the sentence should be the same no matter what the reason...unless we want to establish a special class of people who get extra special treatment...