Internet sources claim anti-gay Senator to be outed

[chanel]

The man is against gay marriage - as many, many people on the left and right are. But for some reason that has now been labeled "hate" Call the Southern Poverty Law Center quick! Add the executive branch of the government to the list!

 

[Political Junky]

Where's your link, bitch?

Oh i get it. You actually think these disgraceful assholes doing these outings are Conservative Republicans? Yea that's it. Hey enjoy those fantasies but that's all they are. These assholes are radical & hateful Leftist Democrats. You,the OP,and they should be ashamed. But somehow i bet you're not. So sad.

Outing someone is hateful? Maybe it's being honest....or is that the REAL problem?

It's kinda funny that the "Conservative" right wingers of South Carolina keep electing closeted gays to higher office.

 

[Synthaholic]

Btw,this OP is a well known Leftist Democrat on this board. As are the assholes who are doing these "Outings." So it's certainly no coincidence this OP is cheerleading for this awful stuff. The Democrats should condemn and disown these creeps. Leave the man alone.

Where's your link, bitch?

Oh i get it. You actually think these disgraceful assholes doing these outings are Conservative Republicans? Yea that's it. Hey enjoy those fantasies but that's all they are. These assholes are radical & hateful Leftist Democrats. You,the OP,and they should be ashamed. But somehow i bet you're not. So sad.

If that's true, then where's your link, bitch?

 

[rdean]

you friggen lefties are some hateful people.

So gays should never fight back? Is that your position?

LOL, just what is it that homosexuals are fighting for?
They have all the SAME RIGHTS as Straight people do.
good grief,

What does it feel like when your argument gets blown completely out of the water? Unless you are one of those people who say, "Oh, but they get all those rights if they marry someone they don't love who they aren't attracted to of the the opposite sex". Is that going to be your "argument"?

On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

Legal and economic benefits of marriage

 

[rdean]

The man is against gay marriage - as many, many people on the left and right are. But for some reason that has now been labeled "hate" Call the Southern Poverty Law Center quick! Add the executive branch of the government to the list!

You don't deny equal rights to people you love. Isn't that clear? Why does that even need to be explained?

 

[chanel]

Oh - not loving complete strangers is now "hate". Got it.

BTW - The people of CA and all other states who voted down gay marriage need to be put on that hate list too.

My my rdean. Do you hate the "haters". That's a pretty big fuckin list. In fact that might make you the biggest hater on the board. Ironic aint it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

let's see if you can follow this...

no one cares if he's gay. at least no one on the left....

they care if he's gay and spends his time trying to divest other gays of their rights.

it's the hypocrisy that's the problem... not the 'diversity'.

nice try.

Gays have the exact same rights as everyone else. And you know it.

The idea that they are somehow some underprivileged class is utter nonsense. It's just an attempt for the left to manufacture a cause.

Are you lying or simply woefully ignorant?

I know how you love reading Coulter, so here she is expounding on the subject:

"1. The media love describing the Republican Party base as “anti-gay”- as opposed to “anti-gay marriage.” Let’s see who’s anti-gay…

a. Gays are the victims of hate crimes, or as Republicans call them, “crimes.” But in the gay enclave of West Hollywood, law and order prevail…cops are everywhere…the average “Parking Restrictions” sign is longer than ‘Gone With the Wind.’

b. Gays have high incomes- a study a few years ago says 60 percent higher than the median income in America.

c. In Islamic countries, gays are punished with death.

Consequently, the three most important issues for any sane gay person ought to be crime, taxes, and the war on Islamic fascists…Manifestly, Republican policies are more pro-gay than Democrat policies and we don’t make a sport of outing political opponents who happen to be gay. The Democratic Party supports criminals and Islamic terrorists but has no sympathy for taxpayers…

2. Democrats love using the tax code to enact lots of special-interest goodies with great appeal to suburban soccer moms but of absolutely no use to most gays, such as
a. Child tax credits
b. Tuition tax credits
c. Child-care credits
d. Education savings accounts
e. Student loans
f. The Family and Medical Leave Act
g. There is only one issue more important to Democrats than raising taxes, and that is keeping abortion legal at all stages of pregnancy. This is probably not a big issue for most gays.

3. After surrendering to Muslim terrorists and common criminals, aborting babies, and raising taxes, the Left’s favorite pastime is outing gay Republicans. Liberals claim to love gays, but their default comeback to a conservative they disagree with is to call him gay…Liberals insist on letting ay men leas Boy Scouts on overnight camping trips, but won’t let a gay man be a Republican.

4. The media love describing the Republican Party base as “anti-gay”- as opposed to “anti-gay marriage.”…The purpose of marriage is not to sanctify the intense feeling people have for each other. The purpose is to harness men’s predatory biological impulses into a paired heterosexual relationship directed toward raising children. Mankind has never concocted a better scheme for civilizing men than marriage. And while we’re on the subject, animalkind has never developed a better mechanism for destroying civilization than liberalism.

5. We need to get a rule book from the Democrats [on gays]:
a. Boy Scouts: As gay as you want to be
b. Priests: No gays!
c. Democratic politicians: Proud gay Americans.
d. Republican politicians: Presumed guilty.
e. White House press corps: No gays, unless they hate Bush.
f. Active-duty U.S. military: As gay as possible.
g. Men who date Liza Minnelli: Do I have to draw you a picture, Miss Thing?"

 

[Synthaholic]

Democrats love using the tax code to enact lots of special-interest goodies with great appeal to suburban soccer moms but of absolutely no use to most gays, such as
a. Child tax credits
b. Tuition tax credits
c. Child-care credits
d. Education savings accounts
e. Student loans
f. The Family and Medical Leave Act

Gay couples who adopt have "absolutely no use" for A, C, & D?

Gays don't go to college, so therefore they don't need B, C, D, & E?


You should try using your own words. Mann Coulter's words are ignorant.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Democrats love using the tax code to enact lots of special-interest goodies with great appeal to suburban soccer moms but of absolutely no use to most gays, such as
a. Child tax credits
b. Tuition tax credits
c. Child-care credits
d. Education savings accounts
e. Student loans
f. The Family and Medical Leave Act

Gay couples who adopt have "absolutely no use" for A, C, & D?

Gays don't go to college, so therefore they don't need B, C, D, & E?


You should try using your own words. Mann Coulter's words are ignorant.

Having spent so much time in careful perusal of the post, even to the exent of resizing part...then you must have felt agreement with the essence of Coulter's exposition..eh?

Am I to assume that these few items were the only ones that you would contest?

(I hate to show how utterly useless your post really is by indicating the use of the word "most" that you carelessly included... so I'll allow you slide by on that one.)

Kind of obviates the rest of the thread, doesn't it?

That Coulter, she really is sharp, eh?

 

[rdean]

Gays have the exact same rights as everyone else. And you know it.

The idea that they are somehow some underprivileged class is utter nonsense. It's just an attempt for the left to manufacture a cause.

Are you lying or simply woefully ignorant?

I know how you love reading Coulter, so here she is expounding on the subject:

"1. The media love describing the Republican Party base as “anti-gay”- as opposed to “anti-gay marriage.” Let’s see who’s anti-gay…

a. Gays are the victims of hate crimes, or as Republicans call them, “crimes.” But in the gay enclave of West Hollywood, law and order prevail…cops are everywhere…the average “Parking Restrictions” sign is longer than ‘Gone With the Wind.’

b. Gays have high incomes- a study a few years ago says 60 percent higher than the median income in America.

c. In Islamic countries, gays are punished with death.

Consequently, the three most important issues for any sane gay person ought to be crime, taxes, and the war on Islamic fascists…Manifestly, Republican policies are more pro-gay than Democrat policies and we don’t make a sport of outing political opponents who happen to be gay. The Democratic Party supports criminals and Islamic terrorists but has no sympathy for taxpayers…

2. Democrats love using the tax code to enact lots of special-interest goodies with great appeal to suburban soccer moms but of absolutely no use to most gays, such as
a. Child tax credits
b. Tuition tax credits
c. Child-care credits
d. Education savings accounts
e. Student loans
f. The Family and Medical Leave Act
g. There is only one issue more important to Democrats than raising taxes, and that is keeping abortion legal at all stages of pregnancy. This is probably not a big issue for most gays.

3. After surrendering to Muslim terrorists and common criminals, aborting babies, and raising taxes, the Left’s favorite pastime is outing gay Republicans. Liberals claim to love gays, but their default comeback to a conservative they disagree with is to call him gay…Liberals insist on letting ay men leas Boy Scouts on overnight camping trips, but won’t let a gay man be a Republican.

4. The media love describing the Republican Party base as “anti-gay”- as opposed to “anti-gay marriage.”…The purpose of marriage is not to sanctify the intense feeling people have for each other. The purpose is to harness men’s predatory biological impulses into a paired heterosexual relationship directed toward raising children. Mankind has never concocted a better scheme for civilizing men than marriage. And while we’re on the subject, animalkind has never developed a better mechanism for destroying civilization than liberalism.

5. We need to get a rule book from the Democrats [on gays]:
a. Boy Scouts: As gay as you want to be
b. Priests: No gays!
c. Democratic politicians: Proud gay Americans.
d. Republican politicians: Presumed guilty.
e. White House press corps: No gays, unless they hate Bush.
f. Active-duty U.S. military: As gay as possible.
g. Men who date Liza Minnelli: Do I have to draw you a picture, Miss Thing?"

You don't really believe a lot of what you say? Right? That's why, instead of "links", you say things like, "One study shows".

Just a couple of things.

You know a "hate crime" is committed where the ONLY motivation for the crime is hate. If you have some rabid right wingers who hate Jews or Muslims go out looking for a "Jew or Muslim" to "take out", then that is a hate crime. The only reason for the crime was hate. Without the hate, no crime.

And what makes a "hate crime" worse? Those guys that tortured Mathew Shepard and left him on a fence said they only wanted to rob him. How many robberies end up with torture strung out on a fence? When people hate, they want their victim to feel agony, to suffer, to beg. It's not about robbery or theft, but about agony and suffering. Not really the same crime at all.

Even you have to admit, this part was hilarious. Thanks for bringing it up: In Islamic countries, gays are punished with death.

Texas GOP: Proudly Following...Uganda?
The Texas Republican Party has released its 2010 platform, and where did they turn for inspiration? To the Founding Fathers? To a strict reading of the Constitution? Actually, it looks to me like they turned to…Uganda.

The international community has raised a stink over Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality bill. But the Texas GOP has built some of its key features into its party platform, including a policy of imprisoning straight people who help gays get married.

Texas GOP: Proudly Following…Uganda? wakingupnow.com

Isn't that hilarious? Both Texans and Ugandans want to imprison people who help gays.

And where did the Ugandans get their "inspiration"? From right wing Republican Conservatives. Hilarious!

And I love this part. Thanks once again: Mankind has never concocted a better scheme for civilizing men than marriage.

Which would mean that since marriage civilizes MEN, what better method than civilizing them two at a time? You see? Once again, "hilarious".

Marriage was so good, that's why men married women a dozen at a time.

I love reading the "history of marriage".

Sparta, while encouraging sexual relationships between men, nevertheless insisted on their marrying and producing children. Single and childless men were treated with scorn.

However, while marriage was deemed important, it was usually treated as a practical matter without much romantic significance

Women were considered inferior to men and remained confined to the home.

"We have prostitutes for our pleasure, concubines for our health, and wives to bear us lawful offspring."

The status of women was low—they were regarded as the property of their fathers or husbands and could do nothing without their consent.

In Germanic law, for example, marriage was essentially a business deal between the bridegroom and the bride's father ("sale marriage"). The symbol of a successful "bride sale" was the ring (a form of down payment) which was given to the bride herself

The English Puritans in the 17th century even passed an Act of Parliament asserting "marriage to be no sacrament" and soon thereafter made marriage purely secular. It was no longer to be performed by a minister, but by a justice of the peace.

And very recently: The parents began to lose influence over the marital choices of their children, and romantic love became an important factor in marriage.

History of Marriage in Western Civilization

My favorites:

Founded by John Noyes in 1948, the Oneida colony in upstate New York cultivated a form of group marriage called "complex marriage" in which theoretically every woman was married to every man. (Wedding nights must have been a blast)

The members of the Mormon church were relentlessly persecuted, harassed, and ridiculed because of their polygamy. Finally, they were forced to abandon the practice.

------------------

And this is only "Western" marriage. Imagine the rest of the world. Could you imagine what history would be like if we allowed Republicans to rewrite it? They way they want to?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are you lying or simply woefully ignorant?

I know how you love reading Coulter, so here she is expounding on the subject:

"1. The media love describing the Republican Party base as “anti-gay”- as opposed to “anti-gay marriage.” Let’s see who’s anti-gay…

a. Gays are the victims of hate crimes, or as Republicans call them, “crimes.” But in the gay enclave of West Hollywood, law and order prevail…cops are everywhere…the average “Parking Restrictions” sign is longer than ‘Gone With the Wind.’

b. Gays have high incomes- a study a few years ago says 60 percent higher than the median income in America.

c. In Islamic countries, gays are punished with death.

Consequently, the three most important issues for any sane gay person ought to be crime, taxes, and the war on Islamic fascists…Manifestly, Republican policies are more pro-gay than Democrat policies and we don’t make a sport of outing political opponents who happen to be gay. The Democratic Party supports criminals and Islamic terrorists but has no sympathy for taxpayers…

2. Democrats love using the tax code to enact lots of special-interest goodies with great appeal to suburban soccer moms but of absolutely no use to most gays, such as
a. Child tax credits
b. Tuition tax credits
c. Child-care credits
d. Education savings accounts
e. Student loans
f. The Family and Medical Leave Act
g. There is only one issue more important to Democrats than raising taxes, and that is keeping abortion legal at all stages of pregnancy. This is probably not a big issue for most gays.

3. After surrendering to Muslim terrorists and common criminals, aborting babies, and raising taxes, the Left’s favorite pastime is outing gay Republicans. Liberals claim to love gays, but their default comeback to a conservative they disagree with is to call him gay…Liberals insist on letting ay men leas Boy Scouts on overnight camping trips, but won’t let a gay man be a Republican.

4. The media love describing the Republican Party base as “anti-gay”- as opposed to “anti-gay marriage.”…The purpose of marriage is not to sanctify the intense feeling people have for each other. The purpose is to harness men’s predatory biological impulses into a paired heterosexual relationship directed toward raising children. Mankind has never concocted a better scheme for civilizing men than marriage. And while we’re on the subject, animalkind has never developed a better mechanism for destroying civilization than liberalism.

5. We need to get a rule book from the Democrats [on gays]:
a. Boy Scouts: As gay as you want to be
b. Priests: No gays!
c. Democratic politicians: Proud gay Americans.
d. Republican politicians: Presumed guilty.
e. White House press corps: No gays, unless they hate Bush.
f. Active-duty U.S. military: As gay as possible.
g. Men who date Liza Minnelli: Do I have to draw you a picture, Miss Thing?"

You don't really believe a lot of what you say? Right? That's why, instead of "links", you say things like, "One study shows".

Just a couple of things.

You know a "hate crime" is committed where the ONLY motivation for the crime is hate. If you have some rabid right wingers who hate Jews or Muslims go out looking for a "Jew or Muslim" to "take out", then that is a hate crime. The only reason for the crime was hate. Without the hate, no crime.

And what makes a "hate crime" worse? Those guys that tortured Mathew Shepard and left him on a fence said they only wanted to rob him. How many robberies end up with torture strung out on a fence? When people hate, they want their victim to feel agony, to suffer, to beg. It's not about robbery or theft, but about agony and suffering. Not really the same crime at all.

Even you have to admit, this part was hilarious. Thanks for bringing it up: In Islamic countries, gays are punished with death.

Texas GOP: Proudly Following...Uganda?
The Texas Republican Party has released its 2010 platform, and where did they turn for inspiration? To the Founding Fathers? To a strict reading of the Constitution? Actually, it looks to me like they turned to…Uganda.

The international community has raised a stink over Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality bill. But the Texas GOP has built some of its key features into its party platform, including a policy of imprisoning straight people who help gays get married.

Texas GOP: Proudly Following…Uganda? wakingupnow.com

Isn't that hilarious? Both Texans and Ugandans want to imprison people who help gays.

And where did the Ugandans get their "inspiration"? From right wing Republican Conservatives. Hilarious!

And I love this part. Thanks once again: Mankind has never concocted a better scheme for civilizing men than marriage.

Which would mean that since marriage civilizes MEN, what better method than civilizing them two at a time? You see? Once again, "hilarious".

Marriage was so good, that's why men married women a dozen at a time.

I love reading the "history of marriage".

Sparta, while encouraging sexual relationships between men, nevertheless insisted on their marrying and producing children. Single and childless men were treated with scorn.

However, while marriage was deemed important, it was usually treated as a practical matter without much romantic significance

Women were considered inferior to men and remained confined to the home.

"We have prostitutes for our pleasure, concubines for our health, and wives to bear us lawful offspring."

The status of women was low—they were regarded as the property of their fathers or husbands and could do nothing without their consent.

In Germanic law, for example, marriage was essentially a business deal between the bridegroom and the bride's father ("sale marriage"). The symbol of a successful "bride sale" was the ring (a form of down payment) which was given to the bride herself

The English Puritans in the 17th century even passed an Act of Parliament asserting "marriage to be no sacrament" and soon thereafter made marriage purely secular. It was no longer to be performed by a minister, but by a justice of the peace.

And very recently: The parents began to lose influence over the marital choices of their children, and romantic love became an important factor in marriage.

History of Marriage in Western Civilization

My favorites:

Founded by John Noyes in 1948, the Oneida colony in upstate New York cultivated a form of group marriage called "complex marriage" in which theoretically every woman was married to every man. (Wedding nights must have been a blast)

The members of the Mormon church were relentlessly persecuted, harassed, and ridiculed because of their polygamy. Finally, they were forced to abandon the practice.

------------------

And this is only "Western" marriage. Imagine the rest of the world. Could you imagine what history would be like if we allowed Republicans to rewrite it? They way they want to?

Deanie, there are only two possible explanations for your silly acceptance of the imaginary concept of 'hate crimes.'

1. The invention is a not-so-subtle pandering to groups that the left deems 'protected,' i.e. whose votes are necessary to keep the left in power.

2. One is convinced that mind reading is a verifiable method of criminology...a strange view, as the criminal whose words identify the 'hate crime' could not have his words acceptable when the words are SODDI (some other dude did it).

Happy New Year, deanie...I look forward to another year of the peals of laughter your posts provide.

 

[WillowTree]

Oh - not loving complete strangers is now "hate". Got it.

BTW - The people of CA and all other states who voted down gay marriage need to be put on that hate list too.

My my rdean. Do you hate the "haters". That's a pretty big fuckin list. In fact that might make you the biggest hater on the board. Ironic aint it?

I remember the a-hole in the white house stating that "marriage was between a man and a woman" and all the gays voted for him anyway. Go figure!

 

[Synthaholic]

Democrats love using the tax code to enact lots of special-interest goodies with great appeal to suburban soccer moms but of absolutely no use to most gays, such as
a. Child tax credits
b. Tuition tax credits
c. Child-care credits
d. Education savings accounts
e. Student loans
f. The Family and Medical Leave Act

Gay couples who adopt have "absolutely no use" for A, C, & D?

Gays don't go to college, so therefore they don't need B, C, D, & E?


You should try using your own words. Mann Coulter's words are ignorant.

Having spent so much time in careful perusal of the post,

False. Your (Coulter's) lettered bullet points stood out, so I read the preceding paragraph, found your (Coulter's) error, and quoted it in my reply.

even to the exent of resizing part...

The better to highlight your (Coulter's) errors.

then you must have felt agreement with the essence of Coulter's exposition..eh?

Am I to assume that these few items were the only ones that you would contest?

I didn't read the rest. This was enough to discredit it all.

(I hate to show how utterly useless your post really is by indicating the use of the word "most" that you carelessly included... so I'll allow you slide by on that one.)

I can't find where I used the word "most". I do not know what you are talking about.

Perhaps you can point it out.

Then perhaps you could address my post, where I refute ('refudiate', in Palin-speak) your (Coulter's) argument that those lettered bullet points are "absolutely no use to most gays".

Because you haven't yet, preferring instead to revel in the sound of your own voice. That is, when you aren't hiding behind Coulter's.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Gay couples who adopt have "absolutely no use" for A, C, & D?

Gays don't go to college, so therefore they don't need B, C, D, & E?


You should try using your own words. Mann Coulter's words are ignorant.

Having spent so much time in careful perusal of the post,

False. Your (Coulter's) lettered bullet points stood out, so I read the preceding paragraph, found your (Coulter's) error, and quoted it in my reply.



The better to highlight your (Coulter's) errors.

then you must have felt agreement with the essence of Coulter's exposition..eh?

Am I to assume that these few items were the only ones that you would contest?

I didn't read the rest. This was enough to discredit it all.

(I hate to show how utterly useless your post really is by indicating the use of the word "most" that you carelessly included... so I'll allow you slide by on that one.)

I can't find where I used the word "most". I do not know what you are talking about.

Perhaps you can point it out.

Then perhaps you could address my post, where I refute ('refudiate', in Palin-speak) your (Coulter's) argument that those lettered bullet points are "absolutely no use to most gays".

Because you haven't yet, preferring instead to revel in the sound of your own voice. That is, when you aren't hiding behind Coulter's.

"...absolutely no use to most gays,..."

'Most' is the fifth word in.

Since Queen Ann used the word 'most,' your critique is pointless.

Take the wind out of your sails?



"...instead to revel in the sound of your own voice."
(sigh...) guilty as charged.


"I didn't read the rest."
I think you're fibbing.
You checked, didn't you, just to see if I wrote that you were the most brilliant
poster on the board....

Psyche!

 

[Gadawg73]

The top lawyer against the California anti gay marriage amendment is a conservative Republican.
With the economy going in the tank, health care becoming unaffordble, 2 wars going on, the deficit is increasing, gas is back over $3 a gallon and the politicians want to set our minds at ease by supporting a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. That is more important than all the other things mentioned above.
Yes, we have needed this for a long time as a ban on gay marriage will solve all of the problems we face as Americans.
Let us use the United States Constitution, a document that is dedicated to our inalienable rights, to tell a certain group of people what they can not do, rather than tell the government what it can not do.
We do not need to balance the budget, cut earmark spending, reduce the size of government and support reforms to make health care affordable again. We do not need any of that. We definitely need a Constitutional Amendment that will not allow two people that love and are committed to each other to marry.
That should be our #1 focus.

 

[rdean]

Oh - not loving complete strangers is now "hate". Got it.

BTW - The people of CA and all other states who voted down gay marriage need to be put on that hate list too.

My my rdean. Do you hate the "haters". That's a pretty big fuckin list. In fact that might make you the biggest hater on the board. Ironic aint it?

I remember the a-hole in the white house stating that "marriage was between a man and a woman" and all the gays voted for him anyway. Go figure!

And now DADT is history and McCain, who would have made sure it stays in place, probably would have made it worse is NOT president. Funny how those things worked out.

 

[Father Time]

4. The media love describing the Republican Party base as “anti-gay”- as opposed to “anti-gay marriage.”…

I may have sympathy for you if you didn't also accuse dems of being pro-terrorist in the same damn post.

Yes Obama sends drones and soldiers off to fight terrorists, none of the other Dems complain much and yet somehow they're all pro-terrorist.

 

[rdean]

Deanie, there are only two possible explanations for your silly acceptance of the imaginary concept of 'hate crimes.'

1. The invention is a not-so-subtle pandering to groups that the left deems 'protected,' i.e. whose votes are necessary to keep the left in power.

2. One is convinced that mind reading is a verifiable method of criminology...a strange view, as the criminal whose words identify the 'hate crime' could not have his words acceptable when the words are SODDI (some other dude did it).

Happy New Year, deanie...I look forward to another year of the peals of laughter your posts provide.

I guess buried in there is some "special" meaning, but who knows what the "special" meaning is?

Houston, Texas
Latino boy David Richardson, 16, beaten, tortured and sodomized by Gang of White Cowards that call him "****, wetback" and yell "White Power".
All this happened in Houston, Texas during 2006

Sodomized with an umbrella, tortured and burnt
Later he is in a Wheelchair and has a Colostomy Bag
House Judiciary committee hears him asking to strengthen laws against Hate Crime
Finally he commits suicide

Raciality.com - and Brutality: Latino boy 16, David Ritcheson, tortured and sodomized by Gang of Whites - Wheelchair and Colostomy Bag - commits suicide - Houston, Texas

---------------------------------

Because he "lived", the perps got off with barely a slap on the wrist compared to what they put this kid through. They may be in prison for 30 years, but they exercise, and watch TV. Their lives, while ruined, are merely "uncomfortable" compared to what they put this kid through. They may still get out while in their 40's. Imagine if this kid were gay instead of Hispanic. Right wingers might have sent money for the defense of the perps.

This is what you are defending? This level of violence and hate. The law doesn't specifically take into account this level of torture. According to the law, this is the same as getting "slapped around". The ONLY reason they were able to make the punishment as severe as it is, is because of the "umbrella" stuck up his butt. That made it "sexual". If they couldn't use the "sexual" angle, the perps could only be charged with "battery".

Has your phobia blinded you so badly that you support this level of violence?

Tuck punched Ritcheson. The first punch was so powerful it broke Ritcheson's cheekbone and knocked him unconscious, stated Dr. Red Duke, the emergency physician who treated him. Tuck and Turner dragged Ritcheson outside, stripped him naked, burned him with cigarettes, and attempted to engrave a swastika into Ritcheson's chest. Tuck kicked Ritcheson with steel-toed boots and forced the pointed end of a PVC patio umbrella pole up his rectum several inches while yelling racial slurs. After the sodomy ended, the perpetrators poured bleach on the victim's body to conceal the evidence of the crime. The attack lasted five hours. Ritcheson was left lying behind the house for more than 10 hours before he was found and an ambulance was called. Ritcheson suffered from extensive injuries including a perforated bladder. The night after the assault, Ritcheson's lungs failed, and he was placed on a ventilator. According to Harris County prosecutor Mike Trent, the attackers may have poured bleach inside the pipe as high levels of toxins were found in Ritcheson's organs.

2006 Harris County, Texas hate crime assault - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

------------------------------

It makes me wonder something. If a woman is raped and the only injury is "slight bruising", should her perp be charged with a misdemeanor? After all, it wasn't that bad. Are women getting "special" treatment. Is the crime more severe simply because it's a "woman"? She wasn't "tortured". Not with bleach and burns. What is your opinion on that?

 

[Synthaholic]

Having spent so much time in careful perusal of the post,

False. Your (Coulter's) lettered bullet points stood out, so I read the preceding paragraph, found your (Coulter's) error, and quoted it in my reply.



The better to highlight your (Coulter's) errors.



I didn't read the rest. This was enough to discredit it all.

(I hate to show how utterly useless your post really is by indicating the use of the word "most" that you carelessly included... so I'll allow you slide by on that one.)

I can't find where I used the word "most". I do not know what you are talking about.

Perhaps you can point it out.

Then perhaps you could address my post, where I refute ('refudiate', in Palin-speak) your (Coulter's) argument that those lettered bullet points are "absolutely no use to most gays".

Because you haven't yet, preferring instead to revel in the sound of your own voice. That is, when you aren't hiding behind Coulter's.

"...absolutely no use to most gays,..."

'Most' is the fifth word in.

Since Queen Ann used the word 'most,' your critique is pointless.

Take the wind out of your sails?

You worded it as if I had used the word 'most'. Hence, my confusion.

'Most' homosexuals do not go to college?

'Most' homosexuals couldn't use tuition tax credits?

'Most' homosexuals couldn't use student loans?

'Most' homosexuals couldn't use Family Leave?[/quote]

 

[boedicca]

Oh - not loving complete strangers is now "hate". Got it.

Well, yes. It's part of the philosophical foundation which requires that one works to support complete strangers instead of one's own self and family.