President Obama Signs "Hate Crimes" Bill into Law

• President Barack Obama has now signed into law a controversial "hate crimes" bill that authorizes the federal government to intervene in violent crimes that appear motivated by hatred of homosexuals and apply stiffer penalties and sentences.
  
  President Barack Obama signed the measure into law at 2:30 pm today. A reception is planned for 5 pm., and President Obama is expected to deliver some brief remarks on the bill at around 6:05 pm.
  
  The expanded hate crime legislation extends special protection to victims of crime who are targeted by perpetrators based on an actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.
  
  President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law as part of a provision added to the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill.
  
  Opponents of the hate crimes legislation have charged that the bill violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution by making an individual's thought regarding certain groups as much a factor as the nature of his act in prosecuting a crime.
  
  The US Commissioners on Civil Rights wrote letters to US House and Senate leaders condemning the legislation, saying they "regard the broad federalization of crime as a menace to civil liberties." The commissioners also pointed out that the law creates a legal loophole to the Constitution's prohibitions to double jeopardy, because it allows the federal government to try an individual who has already been acquitted in a state trial, for the same crime.
  
  The bill has also been labeled the "pedophile protection act," in large part due to [the fact that] the term "sexual orientation" is not defined in the bill, an oversight that some legislators charged could lead to an overly broad interpretation - since the term is used by psychologists to encompass a variety of sexual deviancies (including pedophilia), and not just homosexuality.

Disgusting. But just another example of how this administration winks at child abusers.

Why am I not surprised?

Ah, back when you were still kind of reasonable.

Would pedophilia actually hold up in a court of law though as a "sexual orientation"? I mean...that would imply that "rapist" is a sexual orientation. Or that "self castrating" is a sexual orientation.

I suppose a population that holds such skewed values as vast swaths of Americans might indeed take this one to task in court...but somehow, I don't see something so intrinsically immoral as raping a child as standing a chance of gaining protective legislation. Logic and general morality should dictate that the law would be redefined, should it ever be challenged (and I've no doubt it will be...opportunist filth, the lot of you).

Granted, it was lazy not to define it's exact terms of inclusion at it's onset...but your leap to declare the administration 'supporting' pedophilia is not only absurd, but just cheap and petty.

Fuck, it's shit like this that remind me why I stopped coming here. The tunnel vision idiocy in here is physically painful to see.

You have a large segment of the creative community rallying behind, and trying to protect, Roman Polanski for doing exactly that (raping a child). This, while not exactly the same thing, demonstrates that, unfortunately, some "progressives" have a tendency to rationalize and defend bad, or even evil, behavior, especially if they can hide behind a diagnosis.

Laws have an unfortunate tendency to get expanded in ways that the drafters might not have intended. Furthermore, one generation's view of what is "intrisically immoral" sometimes ends up another generation's "personal business."

For example, here's a story about a law that was intended to allow parents to teach their kids about sex education but which got twisted to allow a dad to show his underaged daughters hard-corn porn.

The fact the matter is that the loophole could have been closed but, for some reason, the drafters of this law didn't want to do that. We'll see if it creates the legal issues predicted.

g-man has gone off the deep end. He even thinks letterman making fun of sarah palin's kids is the same as drugging and raping a 13 year old.

You yourself have called this law an attempt to create "thought crimes" so clearly you believe that it can be interpreted too broadly.

I think the Polanski case is too unique to bring into this. It's not even about the rape anymore, but about thwarting the legal system. The victim herself is the foremost critic of the arrest.

But the more I think on it, the more I realize that the terminology really needed to be vague. Sexuality is a spectrum. We have everything from transgendered issues, to asexuality, to corn fed heterosexuality...the most fringe among them being the most in need of protection (hell, I feel the need to beat down trannies in the street, so I can only imagine what most breeders feel), and the definitions thereof still being debated by psychiatric communities.

I think it will be defined as the need arises (lookit how quickly marriage laws were amended when people decided a union between two people with the same bits was an abomination). You really need to retract your "pedo supporter" comments, mate. Shit like that makes anything of merit you might have to say lose any value. You've clearly been watching too much Faux News.

Vague laws are exactly the kind that end up being misinterpreted.

I'll agree. But the likelihood of this one following the course you've outlined is virtually non-existent. You've overstepped your own insane zeal to vilify the administration by spouting bullshit, yet again.

As I said though, there is no way to pin this down and say exactly who is protected...as this is not yet defined as a society. It needs some wiggle room. The legal system can define both who is included, and who is excluded, via normal legal proceedings.

I don't think there's a doctor out there (although, again, being a nation of opportunist leeches...anything's possible) who would stand up and declare pedophilia as a viable 'sexual orientation'. It's clearly in the category of 'criminally insane'....much the same as a serial killer and a rapist.

You need to remember, however, this law isn't about creating a defense for a criminal proceeding. It's about criminalizing behavior taken against certain classes of "victims" and, some argue (including rex), creating penalties for what would be otherwise constitutionally-protected protests against those classes.

Don't include me in your old man rantings. You have no idea what I'm talking about. Just stick to your fox news talking points. Its what you do best.

I do understand that, and I do think that there needs to be heavier penalties for hate crimes. I know the average joe doesn't see the need, but anyone of a minority group will tell you that being subjected to violent activity on account of your colour/gender/sexuality is a very real, very terrifying prospect. And the outcomes of such attacks are more often than not more vicious and degrading than the average random violent act.

That said...I still don't see anyone finding it appropriate to protect a child rapist. As a culture (in so much as we in Canada share certain core values as well...), this is among the most abhorrent of crimes. No judge or jury is going to sit there and punish someone for beating down the guy who attacked their child with any extra sentence this law may allow. He's still going to see his day in court for the retaliation, but I don't see him being sentenced under hate crimes provisions.

It's already against the law to assault people. And when an assault is especially violent or degrading the penalties are already enhanced without reference to the victim's race/gender/sexuality. Instead the enhancement is based on what it should be based on: the level of injury to the victim.

So, really, there's no need for the law. But once the law takes effect and broadens the existing law you get into the problem I'm pointing out.

I'm telling you it is necessary to address hate crimes as a particularly heinous crime, with punishment over and above the norm. And I'm saying that the 'problem you are pointing out' is negligible at best (and speaks to a greater social ill than any law can address).

I'm also saying that your inflammatory remarks at the onset of this thread are absurd, and need to be retracted. This kind of sensationalist stance is more of a problem to your country than any hate crime legislation ever could be.

If someone hates [fill in group] so much that he or she is going to attack them in a particularly "heinous" way, how is passing a hate crime law a deterrent? Wouldn't education be a better way to deal with it than passing a law that can have dangerous unintended consequences.

Finally, I must note that your insistence that I "retract" a legal theory that you find offensive is actually a pretty good example of why these laws are dangerous. You find my argument offensive so you don't just explain why you disagree. Instead you demand I not make it. That's a censoring mentality and one that (when practiced by governments) many opponents of the hate crimes law (see, for example, rex) find dangerous to free expression.

If someone beat your mother to paralysis with a pipe because she cut them off in traffic. and someone beat your buddy up because he was gay. you actually think the guy who beat your buddy up because he was gay should get a stiffer sentence based soely on his reasons?

I think the viciousness of the attack should be the only concern. there are civil remedies for the harassment aspect of any crime.

For starters, education would solve a great many ills in the cesspool we call the modern United States of America. So yes, I'll agree. Education on equality is the least of your problems. Basic reading and writing skills would be a boon to you people.

I'm not saying it to sensor you, I'm attempting to appeal to your humanity. What purpose is served by declaring an obvious falsehood? That is Faux News tactics, and serves little more than to rile up the ignorant. I'm certain you don't honestly believe the administration meant to provide a loophole for pedophiles, so why say as much? It makes you, and anything you may have to say sound ridiculous.

That's an unfair comparison, as I'm supposed to get all confused here by the inclusion of my mother...you're looking for an emotional response irrelevant to the discourse. Sadly, I can't stand the bitch...the reasons for which actually dovetail nicely with this discussion.

The thing is, along with the physical attack comes the psychological aspect of it all. No one should have to feel that they should be subjected to such a targeted attack. If the guy beats my mom over a traffic incident, the reasons are outside herself. She's going to be traumatized, sure...but she won't feel the internal void that a rape victim or a victim of a racial/sexual bashing will. The damage is over and above the physicality of it all.

But it's not an "obvious falsehood." Creative lawyers and judges find ways to twist and expand laws every day and, sometimes, the results aren't good for society as a whole. You're assuming that won't happen here because you are emotionally invested in the law.

In fact, given how your own country has used laws against "hate speech" to try and censor journalists, I could probably make an argument that you're the one being disingenuous. However, I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt and refrain from accusing you of the bad faith you attribute to me.



That's merely an assumption on your part. Crime victims also report a feeling of mental violation regardless of whether the crime is a "hate crime." There's often a feeling of "what did I do to deserve this?"

Case in point: in traffic court I've seen people who were hit by drunk drivers who are emotionally distraught over what happened. Obviously the drunk driver didn't target them because of their race/gender/sexual preferance. He just got wasted and plowed into them. But the sense of loss and violation in the victim is still great.

What's that saying about people in glass houses?

I just assumed that was how they spelled it up there.

I think Canada is part of that whole 'self esteem' society that allows you to spell words however you think it's best to spell.

I thought it was sensour! lolz lern 2 reed dumas!!1!

Personally, as I've said before, 'thought crime' legislation like this is bullshit and unnecessary. Secondly, I don't see it being used to defend pedophiles as I don't see any prosecutor willing to attach a hate crime to someone who attacks one out of fear of the public backlash.

So, answer me: do you actually believe that the current administration intended to create a loophole for pedophiles?

And yes, as I said, there are greater ills at play than the vague wording of the law. The bottom feeding, exploitative nature of you people is the problem here, not the intent of the law. I've no doubt that someone, somewhere will challenge the law. I've an equal amount of faith that pedophiles are universally regarded not as a sexual orientation, but as 'criminally insane'. As I've stated repeatedly, I don't see an argument that a pedophile suffered a hate crime standing up in court. It has not been, nor will be defined as a sexual orientation any more than 'rapist' has been.

I think you all do need more control over your...*ahem* journalists (term used lightly). I think sensational crap like this should be outlawed, and news presented as a series of facts, without such fantastic spin. You go off about "freedom of speech"...but freedom always comes hand in hand with responsibility. Laws come into effect when people cannot or will not respect their responsibility. Laws by their very nature are limiting freedoms. This is one area where I think it's appropriate. The story can, and should be presented...but biased tabloid style presentation should be held accountable for the bullshit it is, with penalties for this tripe.



Again, spoken like a straight, white, middle class male. Yes, it is going to affect you to be victimized, no matter who you are or when it happens. But hate crime is something else.

Imagine if going anywhere: every street, shopping mall, night club, corner store...was the equivalent of you walking your white ass through a ghetto in Detroit. Just think about the ramifications of that on your daily life, your psychological well being...and you'll start to get the idea. It.Is.Not.The.Same.Thing.

maybe not exactly the same thing, but I'm sure he'd acquire a comparable chip on his shoulder given adequate time.

Unless the prosecutor is elected by the residents of San Francisco.

Hahaha...Busted.

the worst thing about a victim mentality is that thoughts are equivocated with actions to the point where an individual populates the world around them with victimizers and anyone who doesn't think or speak in an acceptable fashion is a hate criminal lying in wait. basically, they come to rely on the exact same stereotyping they blame for their own perceived victimization. "hate crime" legislation lends that victim mentality force of law, and more dangerously, as has been said a few times in here, it sets a legal precedent for rendering entire patterns of thought and belief unlawful.

You know, forty or fifty years ago, the idea that gay men should be able to get married or adopt (hell or even teach kids) was considered by most people to be "crap." If the government at the time had the ability you advocate to censor unpopular ideas I doubt you'd have the rights you have today. You'd probably be living in a far worse society than the one you fear if these laws aren't passed.

The whole point of a free society is to be able to think and talk about ideas, even crazy ones. That's the only way to test what the truth is: by debating it, not by having some bureaucrat declare it.

This neither answers nor even addresses what I asked of you.

DO YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DELIBERATELY CREATED A LOOPHOLE FOR PEDOPHILES?

You brought up the point about censoring journalists. It's in your post. If you didn't want me to respond why did you bring it up.

Just answer the question.

I personally don't think it was a deliberate loophole. politicians ultimately look out for their own interests and repaying the party, lobbyists and interest groups who put them in office, which means satisfying a platform and an agenda. like many elements of the liberal agenda, hate-crimes legislation stems from good intentions but doesn't get refined beyond the good idea phase. no one sees beyond the most immediate potential positive outcome for their own little group or movement. but legislative and judicial precedent can be used by anyone who knows it's there regardless of the intent behind the initial decision.

I wonder how many of the architects of the original black civil-rights movement in the 1950s and 60s would have been so enthusiastic about the gay-rights movement using legislative and judicial precedents set back then to make their own political gains. who knows who'll come along in another three or four decades - probably sooner - and look back at this decision as an important step in legitimizing their own movement?

whether or not you think it's a good idea is heavily dependent on whether or not you personally benefit from it. everyone wants their own agenda to succeed, and every politician wants to get elected and then reelected. it doesn't seem that those behind this current development are very concerned about what may come out of their decisions in the long run.

Dude, you just need to shut the fuck up. Your own posts show how fucking self absorbed you really are when it comes to this issue. Guess what. I grew up in the Mississippi Delta where white people ARE the minority. I went to the 'white school' that was 40% white. So fuck this whole 'white males don't know what it's like to be a minority' bullshit people like you spew. The fact is that I believe everyone should be treated 100% equally with no relation what so ever to their ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. I also believe that people should be judged by their actions and not their thoughts. We can all think things that we'd never act on; but once we do, we should be judged by what we've done.

Hahaha...then you know exactly what I'm talking about.

No one is talking about judging thoughts over actions. We are talking about when those thoughts become actions. We are talking about ensuring that people are all treated 100% equal. It's the attempt of the few to act on their ignorance that makes these provisions necessary.

EDIT: And Sammich, I didn't address your last post, as I more or less agree with it in it's entirety.

you left the T out of my screen name. therefore your argument is invalid.

There's no way to prove a congress of thought and action. You can only prove action and intent of action.

Anyhow...I think I've proved my point. G-man's lack of response to my initial accusation that he was being sensationalist (the whole reason I posted to this thread) has been answered by his refusal to respond to it directly.

Your post more or less summed up any semantics arguments about the law itself, for better or worse.

So, there's really nothing more to be said here.

And an intent is....what, exactly?

The thing that most right wing nuts don't get is the phrase "consenting adults". They whine and bitch about if gays get married it would lead to people marrying animals and pedophiles marrying kids. Neither kids nor animals can give consent. This is what people like g-man don't understand.

You're making a person's thoughts criminal by adding more years to a sentence for them.

Intent is what's evident according to action. It distinguishes crimes of passion from premeditated crime.

Punishment is not relative according to motivation. It's relative according to what motivation inspires because that's all that can be proven about it without being a mind reader.

The only arguments I've heard refer to polygamy, and they're right.

The institution of marriage wasn't built on the idea of marrying "consenting adults."

You don't need to be a mind reader to establish hate crime. The evidence is always clearly present. This is why they're called 'hate crimes'.

You've not argued against the concept...you're throwing support on, but looking at it through your own bias.

We (you all) already do this. This is why we have parole reviews. People are released/detained based on the probability of recurrence all the time. Sentences are decided based directly on the assumed threat to society the individual poses.

Based on their actions in prison. If they're constantly in fights, they won't get paroled. If they've become 'model' prisoners and not been disciplinary problems, done work releases, etc., then they will. Once again, it's based on their actions in prison and not some reading on a thought-o-meter.

That's a nice sidestep, but sadly amiss. A large part of these decisions come down to psychological profiling (mind reading, if you will)...and in the case of sentencing, personal opinion based on assumed remorse or lack thereof.

I'm pretty damn sure that their actions as an inmate have a huge factor in whether or not they'll get parole. Inmates aren't given regular psychological exams in custody unless it is ordered by the court, which would indicate a mental disorder or handicap. Most inmates don't receive such testing. You've been watching too many movies.

Anyhow...yeah. I give up.

Clearly, it is only in the case of attempting to thwart hate crime that we attempt to divine the intent of the attacker.

Skewed reporting of news is healthy and beneficial to all.

America is the greatest country in the world.

Freedom applies only to those who wish to impose their hatred on others, not freedom from their ideologies.

Anything else I've learned today that I'm forgetting? Every visit to the RKMBs is just so bloody educational, I can't seem to absorb it all.

'bout goddamned time you admitted it, snowback.

All that's required to establish a "hate crime" crime case is for a white individual to beat up a black or gay person. But that's neither evidence of racism or hatred of homosexuals. So no, it's clearly present. It's intuited.



...You're drunk aren't you?

I've been in fights where I was being an ass and someone called me on it. I earned those, fair and square.

I've been mugged at random on the street.

I've also been in fights where someone had to step up on behalf a woman that was indeed being victimized.

And, finally, I've been in fights where someone felt the need to educate me about how sick and twisted I was for being a fag.

I know the difference in each occasion, and I'd never attempt to overlay one on the other. The last one was clearly what it was.

If there is a problem with such an attempt to exploit the law...it's not the fault of the law. The problem is something else. The proposed idea that there will be those who will abuse it doesn't negate the need for the law.

And yes, I may indeed be on my way to being drunk. Would I be here at all if that weren't the case?

I had to go visit my parents and run some errands. I haven't been at my computer for a couple hours now.

And now I'm going to get ready for dinner. But I will respond.

A simple "yes" or "no" would have taken less time than typing out your explanation of what else you're doing.

I'm really not interested in hearing anything else you have to say.

I'm glad you at least appreciate the reasoning behind my slippery slope concerns. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I just think it's kind of a scary thing to give any court license to intuit a defendant's inner motives and attitudes. and that would be almost necessary, it seems, in any attempt to determine whether a particular crime was a hate crime. I agree with doc that the severity of the offense should be the primary determinant in sentencing at all times.

are you supposed to get all confused here? your the dude fucking other dudes, you are already confused. i got nothing to do with that.

but seriously. are you saying gays are lesser people than straights? that they are somehow more hurt by being beaten by someone that doesnt like their sexual perversions than if someone beats a straight woman for cutting them off in traffic?

fear is fear. for you to say an old woman being beaten for a traffic mistake will live in less fear than a gay guy beaten for being gay is laughable and not based at all in reality.

the real truth here is that many gays, and certainly not all of them feel a guilt for their sexual desires. they look for a special legal status for validation. deep down you know its true.

Hahaha...no, not at all. What I want is forced equality. It's not my own self image that's at fault, it's people like you who perceive a difference. Addressing me in condescending tones or as somehow 'confused' or in possession of 'perversions' (as you so charmingly put it) is proof positive that people are still ignorant and set in their hate. And I don't consider you any sort of evil...you're just average joe.

It's not a special legal status they're talking about, nor is it primarily for homosexuals. I think a more common target for hate crimes in the United States is actually the Muslim population. I don't think it's "special status" to insist people be held accountable for xenophobia and bigotry. You cannot govern how someone feels...but you can punish their actions. Hate crime legislation is a step in the right direction.

Like I said when responding to you...any victim of a violent attack is going to feel violated. But the woman in your analogy is a victim of random violence. She was not targeted for something she is and cannot (nor should have to in a 'free country') change. She happened to be driving in the wrong lane. She's not likely to head out in the near future and be subjected to slurs and future threats.

It really is apples and oranges, mate.

If the people who passed the law know that it's logic can be attributed to pedophiles, then that means there's something inherently wrong with the law itself.



You can't force equality.



If the law refers to a person or persons' particular characteristic, then it ascribing a special legal status.

you say this because you are gay and not an old lady. to say that old people dont live in fear is absurd.

Here's the thing. If someone beats me to a pulp because of something I really believe in, I would not live in fear. Fear is something you give no one can put it in you. If you give someone fear that's your fault. If some punks walked up to me and threatened to beat me up because I was straight. I would tell them they better have packed a lunch because it's gunna be an all nighter. Not because I really think I could beat the punks, likely if I was out numbered I would be beaten sensless. But I wont live in fear, I wont allow it. I'm not a tough guy, but I can't be arsed to be scared of dying or being beaten. If some scrubs are gunna kill me or beat me, being scared isnt going to stop it.

I've been attacked for being in the wrong town, or dating the wrong girl before. I've taken my lumps and I've given them. I dated who I wanted and went where I wanted, fuck the bullies.

If gays want to stop this crap(I think it's bull to physically attack people because of differing views), you got to quit being victims man. Don't take the shit, and if you get it dont whine about it. I never cried about an ass whooping in my life deserved or not deserved.

I'm actually going to agree with that one. Far more appropriate (and effective) than any legislation is personal ownership. A victim is always going to allow themselves to be a victim. I berate the same class of people for standing up and declaring Obama as some sort of validation of their existence, when clearly he's nothing like them, having moved past the idea of being a societal victim and taken life by the horns. He's not an example of what a 'black man' can accomplish. He's an example of what a man can accomplish, skin colour is irrelevant.

That said though, as a society, we are in need of guidelines. People respond to punishment (or the prospect thereof) and not suggestion. You can't make people stop...and you can't condone this behavior (as a society). Vigilante justice isn't the answer either.

As G-man said earlier, education is necessary. But when simple things like birth control are a massive hurdle in a crippled system....where do you start?

presactly. because I learned just about everything I really needed to know on these boards (fucking hell), it's become obvious to me that when someone is the target of some good old-fashioned lulz, BAWWWWWWWWing about it will usually not help their cause. more often than not, it just lends people that much more ammo. it completely escapes me why no matter how many times that's been made obvious, people insist on lending their detractors more and more and more power by making themselves into either cowering, whimpering victims or self-absorbed, indignant WHARRGARBLERs who lash out at every real and perceived persecutor within reach.



very good. at no point is personal responsibility ever a bad idea, and it's especially imperative when you are trying to affect others' perception of a group with which you identify. as an individual, don't be a lolcow. if you willingly self-identify with a group of people, you share in the collective responsibility for how that group is perceived.

if people seek to invoke hate-crimes laws for comparatively minor offenses (albeit offenses nonetheless) such as verbal abuse, they are essentially the same thing as the pussy bitch who whines to rob about being picked on in OT. regardless of why you're being subjected to it, it's not like other people who don't identify with the same group(s) as you don't ever see verbal abuse of their own. wanting punishments to be stiffer when your 'people' are singled out than when other people are implies unwarranted self-importance.

look at the 60s for a moment. there were a couple different ways blacks in America reacted to injustice and sought equality. who do we remember as the most effective and meaningful? time and again it's the most dignified ones who kept their heads, didn't lash out blindly no matter how justified it might have seemed, and never compromised the integrity of their message for the sake of sheer volume. now look at the different ways gays are pursuing what they want today. I've seen one or two of the parades, and most of 'em are the antithesis of dignified. don't confront prejudice with actions that confirm stereotypes. I think you recognize this; your responses here tell me that you do. no movement will collectively be perceived as more legitimate than you as an individual representative of said movement choose to behave.

you start with you. as an individual, you have absolutely no control over the course of events around you. but you have every bit of control over how you choose to respond and how you choose to represent the cause to which you adhere. if you can do that and manage to get enough of your allies to do the same, then you have nothing to be ashamed of regardless of the success or failure of your cause. I'm not saying that as an open proponent or opponent of your movement; it's true for any would-be movement in this society.

I'll get back to the rest in a bit (watching a movie, and just dropping in occasionally out of curiosity), but this statement is amiss.

No one group is seeking hate crime legislation, nor is represented over and above another. This level of legislation applies to you if you're black, white, spanish, male, female, straight, gay, christian, muslim...anything. It's not special punishment for an attack on any one group...it's acting as a deterrent on hate crimes for anyone based on any criteria. If you think it especially applies to one group more than another, then perhaps it's you holding the bias (or feel no need for such protection of whatever group you most closely define your person by, or are seeing a disproportionate amount of hatred enacted towards the group you feel it applies to).

You want equality by being treated differently? Does not compute.



Those actions ARE punished already under laws without the need for 'hate crime' legislation. Hate crime laws, again, punish thought and not actions.



She's targeted because she is seen as weak. You think someone would try the same shit against someone like an NFL linebacker or UFC fighter or even just some big, corn fed mother fucker? I'll tell you what. I'll side with you on this argument as long as you're willing to say that gay people in general are weak and unable to take care of themselves and that's why they need legislation like his to protect them from the big, bad, mean ole world.

Anyhow...Sammich and company, I just wanted to mention that this was never a "gay rights" discussion. Somehow it always comes down to that on here, but that really wasn't how I came at this thread.

Do I think homos are singled out for violence? Yup. Do I think they're the most in need of protection? Nope. Do I think gay pride parades and flaming fags are an eyesore? Yup. Does that matter right now? Nope.

The whole reason I entered this fray was the headline on the front page, and the implication that hate crime laws were designed to protect pedophiles from retaliation, or at the very least designed with provisions allowing this in mind.

I came to point out that that is clearly not the case, and technicalities won't serve as gateways for pedophiles to seek recourse (that's right, that's how it all started: the difficulty of defining 'sexuality' legally). Pedophilia does not equal 'sexuality' any more than 'cannibal' is equal to 'chef'.

It really doesn't matter who I feel needs this sort of legal recourse, or who your government finds most in need (although, I think it has more to do with anti-muslim and perhaps even anti-mexican acts than homos, truth be told).

My issue was the bullshit way it was addressed. Blatant lies and skewed implications are never a healthy way to initiate dialogue. The sad part is, this is how a great portion of your population gets their 'news'. Declaring that Obama is a pedophile supporter has no more to do with the legislation than telling you what I had for dinner this evening.

That's the issue. Whether or not a mincing faggot makes for a choice target to beat down is irrelevant.

Did I say Obama was a pedophile supporter? No, I did not. I said that there were concerns with this law that Obama and his administration were seemingly ignoring and that this (like the ACORN child hooker scandal and the hiring of a safe schools czar who encouraged teenaged boys to have sex with male teachers). That was, I said, basically "winking at" the threat of pedophilia.



A couple of hours later....



Ah, hypocrisy, thy name is Klinton....

Mmmhmmm...the headline was a picture of Obama all 'thumbs up' superimposed on a pro pedophile protest, accompanied with the text "Obama's fans in NAMBLA" and "Pedophile Rights?"....but there was no implication on your part? The thread is labeled "Pedophile Protection Act".

Either you're completely at ease with being duplicitous...or you've been watching far too much Faux News and can't see the difference between simply reporting the news, and skewing it all out of true.




It's not hypocritical. I told you I wanted to hear something specific from you. This is possible while discussing tangent issues with others.

or is it...

Interesting. Only what does all this have to do with the North American Marlon Brando Look-Alikes? Am I missing something here?

Only a sense of humor.

Report: Pedophilia more common among gays

I thought that was common knowledge.

I'm going to have to look into your report, and the sponsors behind it...as the agenda is pretty clear. The numbers don't match up, as "according to the FBI, 61% of rape victims are under age 18, and 29% are younger than 11. Generally accepted academic studies say one out of every four women was sexually molested by an adult before she was 18. For men: 1 out of 10." (some quick googling)

Clearly, being given to bullshit and skewed presentation though...you'll believe whatever you wish regardless of fact.

EDIT: Everything you wanted to know about pedophilia by a non biased source.

And with that, I'm done with this ridiculous debate. I can't believe I'm sitting here pouring over articles about kiddie rapists just to argue with you fucknuts (I now know more about this shit than I ever needed or wanted). This is fucking absurd.

If you genuinely gave a shit one way or another, you would be the ones digging up facts, rather than resorting to inflammatory bullshit and juvenile discourse.

Youre a bit over emotional klinton. I think the fact the Dems have lumped you gay guys in with the pedophiles has you upset.

Say basams did you photoshop Obama with the Nambla background or is G-man doing his own photoshops these days?

Actually, no. The "generally accepted" statistic is that 1 in 4 college women have either been raped or suffered attempted rape at some point in their lives. Furthermore, 57% of the women were on dates at the time. Therefore, given the age at which most women begin dating, the odds would seem to indicate that more of the women are 18, near 18, or older than 18.

Also, at least one basis for that statistic was a Cornell University study where the professor (Andrea Parrot) so expanded the definition of "rape" beyond what is considered the legal definition that she rendered the statistic meaningless:

• Dr. Andrea Parrot, chair of the Cornell University Coalition Advocating Rape Education and author of Sexual Assault on Campus, begins her date rape prevention manual with the words, "Any sexual intercourse without mutual desire is a form of rape. Anyone who is psychologically or physically pressured into sexual contact on any occasion is as much a victim as the person who is attacked in the streets"

I was a student at Cornell at the time and worked on a journal that covered the professors research. Therefore, I am familiar with the professor and her methodology. That professor called pretty much any sex that wasn't initiated by the woman as "rape," including sex resulting from the man, basically, "begging" the female for sex (ie, a "pity fuck").

what are you on about now?

Matter-eater Man argumentative User Fair Play!
7500+ posts 2 minutes 45 seconds ago Making a new reply
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Re: Act

klinton argumentative User Tabarnak!
6000+ posts 8 seconds ago Making a new reply
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Re: Pedophile Protection Act

I was just curious who did the phony picture of Obama with a Nambla background that G-man is using to headline this thread. Don't you do some of his photoshops?

I think he's back to whining about our "vast right wing conspiracy" where you and I get our orders from Dick Cheney and Fox News and then team up to write our posts from the "partisan hive mind."

No, no...that is clearly the Christian right (and, the most vocal posters here). The law, as it reads, includes everyone. Even if you all fail to accept that pedophilia is not a sexual orientation...heterosexuality is included in the mix of "sexual orientation". It is not some magnificent 'other' option over and above everything else.

Nope I don't do his photoshops, I dont even visit the front page. More libelous slander from the left!

Yep. I was right.

The law as MEM quoted above recognizes sexual attration to males or females of the same sex, it doesn not say adult males and females of the same sex. therefore an activist judge could easily apply this to a pedophile. and as Obama has recently appointed an activist judge to the supreme court, this law down the road could be troubling. judges no longer interpret the law as it is written but as they would like it to be done.

Google 25 seconds ago Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Obama Signs Pedophile Protection Act

I just asked a nuetral question basams.

Youre attacking the messenger will not work with me! The supreme court has roundly rejected prior restraint!

Google 11 seconds ago Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Obama Signs Pedophile Protection Act

AFLAC!

AFLAC!

Anonymous 11/09/09 12:14 PM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Obama Signs Pedophile Protection Act

Hi klinton

AFLAC!

Google 46 minutes 41 seconds ago Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Obama Signs Pedophile Protection Act

Yahoo 5 minutes 5 seconds ago Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Obama Signs Pedophile Protection Act

Obama's Safe Schools Czar Tied to Lewd Readings for School Kids:

• President Obama's "Safe Schools Czar," already a target of social conservatives for his past drug abuse and what they say is his promotion of homosexuality in schools, is under fresh attack after it was revealed that the pro-gay group he formerly headed recommends books his critics say are pornographic.
  
  One recommended book is titled "Queer 13: Lesbian and Gay Writers Recall Seventh Grade." On pages 43 through 45, writer Justin Chin tells of how as a 13-year-old, he went along with "near-rapes" by older men, but "really did enjoy those sexual encounters." Chin also recounts each sexual action he performed with an "ugly f*** of a man" he met on a bus.
  
  In another book, "Passages of Pride," the author writes about a 15-year-old boy's relationship with a much older man.

What IS it with Obama and support of child rape?

Yahoo 1 minute 22 seconds ago Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Obama Signs Pedophile Protection Act

Anti child-porn provision sinks Dem jobs bill

In all seriousness how can the Democrats keep defending pedophiles? I don't support the socialist ideals of the Democrat fringe but at least understand that some may truly believe it's a better way to go. But I fail to understand why the Democrat Party continues to run cover for pedophiles.

Rule 9!

This might be the most retarded thread that g-man ever made.

And I will, of course, defer to rex on something being retarded, insofar as he has actual experience with it and all.

Yes, reading your threads have made me an expert on retardism.

Feds Asleep on Sex Offender Passport Law: State Department reportedly unaware it has the ability to deny passports to anyone convicted of sex crimes, a law signed by President Bush.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politics/...-110436894.html

sadly this isnt surprising.

When MEM gives up defending Obama's pro-pedophile track record you know the Admin is in trouble.

Anonymous 1 minute 51 seconds ago Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Obama Signs Pedophile Protection Act

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/internet/undercover-web-site-derailed-hosting-firm

There should be an investigation to see if this site doubled as a liberal fund raising tool.

investigation? just check mem's browser history!

The normalization of pedophilia by the left continues.

The Guardian suggests that pedophilia may just be another “sexual orientation,” and points to some academics who say that sex with adults doesn’t hurt children.

Pedophile Myths & Facts

http://childprotection.lifetips.com/faq/...acts/index.html

Eight year olds,Dude.

Why am I not surprised that MEM and rex are offended by an anti-pedophile thread?

I wouldn't be offended by an anti-pedophile thread. This however isn't that.

#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl

• liberals have joined a crusade that, if succeesful, would effectively legalize sex with 14-year-olds in Florida.
  
  The case involves Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt, an 18-year-old in Sebastian, Florida, who was arrested in February after admitting that she had a lesbian affair with a 14-year high-school freshman. (Click here to read the affidavit in Hunt’s arrest.) It is a felony in Florida to have sex with 14-year-olds. Hunt was expelled from Sebastian High School — where she and the younger girl had sex in a restroom stall — and charged with two counts of “felony lewd and lascivious battery on a child.” The charges could put Hunt in prison for up to 15 years. Prosecutors have offered Hunt a plea bargain that would spare her jail time, but her supporters have organized an online crusade to have her let off scot-free — in effect, nullifying Florida’s law, which sets the age of consent at 16.
  Using the slogan “Stop the Hate, Free Kate” (the Twitter hashtag is #FreeKate) this social-media campaign has attracted the support of liberals including Chris Hayes of MSNBC, Daily Kos, Think Progress and the gay-rights group Equality Florida.
  
  Undoubtedly, part of the appeal of the case is that Hunt is a petite attractive green-eyed blonde. One critic wondered on Twitter how long activists have “been waiting for a properly photogenic poster child of the correct gender to come along?”
  
  Portraying Hunt as the victim of prejudice, her supporters claim she was only prosecuted because she is homosexual and because the parents of the unnamed 14-year-old are “bigoted religious zealots,” as Hunt’s mother said in a poorly written Facebook post. The apparent public-relations strategy was described by Matthew Philbin of Newsbusters: “If you can play the gay card, you immediately trigger knee-jerk support from the liberal media and homosexual activists anxious to topple any and all rules regarding sex.”
  
  None of Hunt’s supporters seem to care about the possible consequences of issuing what Philbin calls a “Get Out of Jail Free” card to their teenage lesbian hero-victim. Some have deliberately falsified the narrative of Hunt’s crime, claiming that the sexual relationship began when she was 17, when in fact Hunt turned 18 last August and the incidents at issue occurred between November and January. According to the arrest affidavit, the 14-year-old ran away from home on Jan. 4 and spent the night at Hunt’s home where, in the words of a Sheriff’s Department detective, the two teens “put their fingers inside of each other’s vaginas, put their mouths on each other’s vaginas, and both of them used a vibrator on each other to insert it in each other’s vaginas.”
  
  This is “behavior that is both fairly innocuous and extremely common,” the American Civil Liberties Union declared Tuesday in a statement condemning the prosecution of Hunt. The ACLU statement parrots the arguments of all the other “Free Kate” crusaders who emphasize that the sex between Hunt and the 14-year-old was consensual, and who are apparently indifferent (or even openly hostile) to the right of parents to safeguard their minor children against sexual exploitation. The liberal Daily Kos blog goes so far as to proclaim that officials are “prosecuting an 18-year-old for being in love.”
  
  This confusing clamor from Hunt’s liberal supporters has nearly drowned out the common-sense caution expressed by Florida authorities. “If this was an 18-year-old male and that was a 14-year-old girl, it would have been prosecuted the same way,” Indian River County Sheriff Deryl Loar told reporters at a Monday news conference. The state’s attorney for the district, Bruce Colton, explained: “The idea is to protect people in that vulnerable group from people who are older, 18 and above. … The statute specifically says that consent is not a defense. … You’re talking the difference between a senior in high school and a freshman in high school. That’s what the law is designed to protect.”
  
  Prosecutors in the case are apparently determined to resist the politically correct demands of the ACLU, MSNBC and other liberals who don’t care about the precedent that might be set by nullifying Florida’s age of consent laws. What is remarkable — and alarming to many parents — is that liberals appear to be unashamed to argue for legalizing sex with 14-year-olds. Such arguments are a logical result of the Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling that cited an “emerging awareness” doctrine as the basis for overturning state sodomy laws. Who knows in which direction this awareness might further emerge?
  
  As I remarked after learning of the Hunt case yesterday, “You deviant weirdos thought Jailbait Lesbian School Girls was just a popular DVD title, but now it’s a civil right.”

Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt

K. Hunt......really?

Perpetual victimhood. The centerpiece of every liberal wedge issue. Everyone is a minority victim, no one is accountable.

It reminds me of a black friend I had (Eric), who had been fired as a teacher. I kept inviting him out to do stuff after work, and he kept declining. A mutual friend told me that he had been fired for having sex with a female student, and was on house arrest with a monitoring bracelet. And that he bemoaned he was only fired and prosecuted because he was black.
Seriously.
Even if the student were over 18, it's still an unprofessional abuse of his trusted role as a teacher. The same would be true of a college professor having sex with adult students, or a doctor or psychiatric professional sexually involved with patients, or even a supervisor over subordinate employees.

But why take personal responsibility when you can feign outrage, and flash the race-card or the gay-card?

Kaitlyn Ashley was a prominent 1990's pornstar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VteOxYA5_tA
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0039073/


No relation to the 18-year-old statutory rapist.

Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt, lesbian statutory rape poster girl:





She looks a bit more goth/emo (i.e., dyke-y and less atttractive) in her mugshots:

she looks like that girl from game of thrones, the stark kid.

Iron Man has a daughter?
And why is an HBO series borrowing from Disney/Marvel?
So confused.

The lesbian IRON MAN (?) of the future!

That's hawt.

http://on.aol.com/video/teen-arrested-ov...related_thumb_4

AOL is reporting this as if this girl was singled out just because their daughter was in a lesbian relationship with an older girl.
But the fact is, there are plenty of heterosexual couples who similarly prosecute over-18 guys who bang their under-age daughters.

Jailbait is jailbait, whether heterosexual or lesbian.

The Left-wing media is just spinning it as gay-bashing. But for the thousands of hetero cases prosecuted that don't push their pro-gay agenda, they're not even news.

Bombshell book: Matthew Shepard tortured, murdered by gay lover.

In other words, the Political Correctness propaganda narrative of "homophobia" is infinitely more important to the gay community than the truth.

It's a bit confusing, that hopefully the book can fully explain. Apparently the 2 guys who murdered Shepard were enlisted to kill him by Shepard's lover and fellow drug dealer/user. And the two prosecuted killers had an ongoing connection to Shepard and his gay lover, because they supplied the two with drugs.

Amazing that the gay community scorns a story from the Advocate, a publication among the most ardent defenders of the gay community. If THEY are abandoning the Shepard narrative, it must stink to high heaven.

And just a reminder...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jesse_Dirkhising

..of another story from the exact same period where two gay men brutally premeditated, kidnapped, raped, tortured, raped some more and finally murdered a 13-year old boy.
This story the pro-gay liberal media absolutely refused to report.

Fox News was (again) the ONLY mainstream news network to cover the murder, and subsequent arrest and trial of two men who reflected badly on the gay community, in a story that (opposite the Shepard narrative) presented an image of gays the media absolutely refused to report.

You have to keep in mind that it was Shepard's killers that tried using the gay panic defense. It's not political correctness that people took them at their word. They revised their story a couple of years ago and it looks like this is another one. It doesn't make it untrue but I'm unsure how much you can rely on the sources being credable.

From here:

Joseph Oguntodu, a senior sociology major and 2001 graduate of South Grand Prairie High School, says he considered a minor in religion studies before choosing the study in sexualities minor.

"As a gay man, I wanted to find a minor that related to who I am as a person," he says. "I think study in sexualities is great for anyone who may be struggling with who they are, or if they have a gay or lesbian brother, sister or friend that they would like to better understand. I think that most of the students here want something dealing with sexuality, which is something to be celebrated, not something to be hated."

After graduating in May, Oguntodu plans to work for a nonprofit organization, such as Lambda Legal, Planned Parenthood or the AIDS Resource Center of Dallas. He may also go to a seminary.

"I hope the minor will help to open doors for me," he says. "Even though not all of the classes covered GLBT issues or talked about HIV and AIDS, I learned something from all of them, and I'm grateful that I took them. I hope that in the near future UNT will offer a degree in the study of sexualities."

Well. That worked out well for him.

More about the book's author:
Jimenez, who is gay himself, has been praised by prominent gay rights activists, including Andrew Sullivan. In response to the new information, Sullivan has even called the narrative “a politically convenient myth” deployed to “raise gobs of money and pass unnecessary laws.”

American Psychiatric Association Reclassifies Pedophilia, Backtracks: In the original printing of DSM-5, “pedophilia” was changed to a “sexual orientation,” but public outcry led APA to admit an “error” that will be corrected in “the next printing of the manual.”

Like I always say: scientific discovery and classification are no longer subject to empirical evidence. It's all about social pressure.

Italy's Highest Court Overturns Pedophile's Conviction Because 11-Year-Old Was 'In Love': Pietro Lamberti, a social services worker in Catanzaro in southern Italy, was convicted in February 2011 and sentenced to five years in prison for sexual acts with a minor.

So far, the normalization of pedophilia is largely confined to the Eurotrash nations. However, when you consider how many jurists, especially [though not exclusively] on the left, advocate that our courts adopt foreign precedents, coupled with the likelihood that pedophila (like homosexuality) has a genetic component, it's difficult to see how this won't be coming to the U.S. sooner than later.

I told you, Jim. But would you listen? Noooooooo.

i.e., being denied tenure and advancement if you so much as objectively investigate un-PC perspectives of issues like homosexuality, global warming and so forth.

I wonder what Galileo would think of the current academic/scientific research environment.
He might have run less risk of being excommunicated in his own time.

'Paedophilia is natural and normal for males': How some university academics make the case for paedophiles at summer conferences

They based their studies on the RKMBs.

I bet they are sorry they ever looked at this place.

...but enough about the insurgency.

And now the New York Times gets into the act: Pedophilia: A Disorder, Not a Crime

Now, Cracked.com is jumping on the normalizing pedophilia bandwagon.

Mxy, are you sure you aren't going to get us all put on a watch list or something for hanging out with those guys?

Hey, it's just another alternative lifestyle.

Christians are the only really twisted and hateful belief system. They're the real haters and terrorists. Quit picking on muslims!

Sincerely,
--the liberal media.

Uh...