Hilary's finest moments

Ad captandum vulgus

 

Aut Caesar aut nullus

 

Romani ite Domum

 

"Hillary Clinton says if she is elected president, she will use Bill Clinton as an ambassador because 'she can't think of a better cheerleader for America.' To which Bill Clinton said, 'I can think of 20 and I have their phone numbers.'" --

Conan O'Brien

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/hillaryclinton/a/hillaryclinton.htm

 

Recedite, plebe! Gero rem imperialem

 

Yeah but, it quickly tirned into a Bush & Blair bashing thread. Now if one was done seperately from this one, it would have more impact and might be even funnier? Just a thought.

 

only 2 anti H threads ? I could start another one if people would like ?

 

Assinus aes, caena non paerator est!

Pardon my spelling.

 

Hi E, D~E~F~I~N~A~T~E~L~Y like )

 

Gentlemen, im sorry but if that, (for lack of a better word) BITCH gets elected president, Kai might have to find me a place in Finland!

 

H.R. 1592........It's getting crazier and crazier!
ATTENTION AMERICANS: Contact your State Representatives at www.house.gov
The truth about H.R. 1592:
www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54905

 

Although President Bush will veto this ungodly piece of legislation it is important that YOU get involved. Especially important is the dissuading needed for the 25 Republicans who sided with the nutjobs on this one. They need to know that their state's citizenry will remember their actions during the next election. Those who sided with Democrats on H.R. 1592 hail from states such as California, Deleware, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, New Jersey, Nevada, and Pennsylvania to name a few. Democrats must not be allowed to possess the power of a 2/3 majority. Only Republican collaborators can allow this to happen!

 

Correct me if I'm wrong (which I'm sure you will) but doesn't H.R. 1592 merely update existing hate crime legislation so as to cover hate-crimes coverage to include physically violent crimes in which the perpetrator was motivated by hatred of the victim's sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. Most of Europe already has similar legislation, and it works fine.

Seems completely sensible to me. And the application of the bill seems to be pretty restricted anyway:-

1) A crime occurs that includes an assault, aggravated assault, or shooting, and

2) It can be shown that the perpetrator was motivated to commit the law because of hatred of one of the protected groups, and

3) If the crime included:

a) Travel across a state line or national border, or

b) Used a "channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce," or

c) A weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce, or

d) An interference with commercial or other economic activity.


As to the idea of a "ungodly" piece of legislation, I thought there was a seperation of the state and religion?

 

I find the whole idea of any crime being specially defined as a "hate crime" particularly idiotic and pointless. A crime of violence or against another person regardless of motivation should be treated equally under law. Why should someone who say, assaults a homosexual get a greater degree of punishment than someone who assaults the average Joe or a woman?
By the government defining any crime in a way that some group, minority, or other interest group gets preferential treatment they are saying that group is more protected and more important than society as a whole. That is just plain wrong.

 

No it isn't. What it does is recognise that some groups are specific targets of crime, and that these groups are more liable to be attacked for who they are or what they believe.

Racists will specifically attack non-whites; homophobes (whether religious or social) will attack homosexuals; and the list goes on.

 

Yes, but how do you actually determine whether the suspect was motivated to commit a hate crime. In some cases it is obvious and they might actually admit it. In others not so much.

 

That H.R. 1592 is Bullshit. I have a "case-in-point" for this one too.

About 5 or so years ago, I was kinda friends with someone who turned out to be a "sandwich-short-of-a-picnic" and who caused me some trouble.

What happened was, we were peacefully having a dinner at a fastfood Hamburger joint. I was not paying any attention to whoever was coming to the restaurant to eat--as I do not care who goes out to eat.

OK, I barely even remember it registering in my mind seeing two black guys come into the restaurant and sit at a table about 30 or so feet from where we sat. In the meantime, we finished eating and I was waltzing my way to the stairs to go down and to go use the restroom before I left the restaurant.

Unknownst to me, the dork that was with me opened his big mouth by saying something (I have no clue what it was?) to those two black guys that pissed them off. I came out of the restroom and saw one standing by the door-not thinking that he was going to follow me out the eatery. The other was waiting outside and the dork that had been with me--was sitting in my car--which I thought was odd.

At any rate, I stood a few feet outside the entrance and the two black guys came by one on each side of me. I then knew something was up and said: "whats up?" It shocked the heck out of me that one said something to the tune of: "I hated Ni@@ers, and that I had a problem with them." To which I said: "No I do not but what gave them that idea anyway?" They both pointed at dork sitting in my car.

To make a long story short, I almost got jumped because the dork sitting in my car tried to start a fight between me and the two guys. Then one guy decided he would enter into "my-personal-space" at which started to piss me off and I said: "Now I have a problem with you." One tried to buck up while the other ran away to get more help.

I turned and said he had better take a few steps back and or just leave. Little did I know, that there was a truck parked a few spaces away from my car that had a few guys in it who were U.S. Marines and who were observing what was going on. All of them got out of the truck and started walking across the parkinglot towards the restaurant (about a 200 foot or so walk.)

Before they could cross the parkinglot, that black guy bumped his chest into mine and I pushed him away from me. Nothing else happened because several employees ran from the restaurant and stopped us--and the Marines came up as well. That black guy ran off down the street in the direction his friend had run a few minutes before.

The Marines said that if they both had tried to jump me, thet they were going to jump them. I thought that was nice of them and thanked them. Needless to say, I walked back to my car pissed as hell at the dork sitting in the front seat. I should have but did not, kick him out of the car. I demanded to know why he started this fight? He claimed it was all a joke. He was VERY lucky that I did not beat his face into the ground and leave him there.

I thought it was over when we turned into the 1 way street and drove to the stopsign before turning left onto Ocean Drive. As I was just starting to turn the corner, I saw about 30 black guys trying to reach my car (a few did but I drove away) and I simply drove a few blocks away - stopped the car and was going to leave that dork there. I don't know why I didn't!

Anyway, my point is, is if this had happened now and there would have been a fight, then who would the anti-racil hate law; be used against? I certainly had not started the trouble but it was I, that was cought up in the middle of it.

At any rate, that H.R. 1592 thing, is P~U~R~E bullshit!

Fragging politicians, the vast majority of them have their heads up their a$$e$ and they do not know what time it is.

 

Notwithstanding the many problems associated with this bill I do have a VERY BIG PROBLEM with any further legislation to protect someone with a gender identity disorder over and above the crimes against our military - such as the incident of a soldier being spat upon by some lowlife in Los Angeles who should have had his skull caved in.

"We" do not want to emulate the examples set forth by European Socialism. It is the bane of what true Americanism is all about and only helps to propagate the growth of government - which is already too big for its britches.

Lastly, there is no such thing (for the 26,987,984,545,876th time) as separation of church and state in this country. There is no law and it appears nowhere in our Constitution. Only the erroneous interpretation of a letter written to Thomas Jefferson. While Congress has made no law respecting the establishment of religion it does not deny that this IS a religious (Christian) nation as made apparent by the Supreme Court Decision - The Church Of The Holy Trinity v. United States. Additionally, every state in our country sets forth reverence for the Christian God in its own respective state Constitution. Constitution of the state of Mississippi: "No person who denies the being of God, [...] shall hold any office in the civil department of this state..."

 

The Church Of The Holy Trinity v. United States was a case in the C19th concerning contract law - the importation of alien workers.

If you're basing your arguement on David Barton's The Myth of Separation, then it is an erroneous interpretation.

Whether or not America was a Christian Nation was not even at issue in Holy Trinity, and the court's reference to this being a religious people is refering to the Chuch - and the court's opinion states -"unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation" - NOTE - unofficial declarations.

So the case in point is no more or less valid than the "erroneous interpretation of a letter written to Thomas Jefferson" because it never officially established that the United States was a christian nation - it merely noted that it was believed to be by it's citizens.


For those European Socialists (!):
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/history_of_the_separation_of_chu.htm

 

Then you have a problem.