Ignoring threat of Bush veto, House votes to expand hate cri

mysteryman wrote:

I understand quite well what the law said.

Then why did you ask this ridiculous question if you understood the law?

Quote:

Without arguing the merits of the bill,couldnt the word "attack" as used in your quote be defined to include verbal attacks,if the prosecutor chose to?

Please point to where in the bill the word "attack" could possibly be used to define a "verbal attack."

The first point REQUIRED to charge a hate crime is this..

Quote:

(A) constitutes a crime of violence;

How is a verbal attack a "crime of violence" as defined by US law?

Prosecutors can ONLY use the law to charge crimes. Your question was stupid if you truly understood the law. It was ignorant if you didn't understand the law.

And you are apparently to stupid to read what I wrote.
I clearly said that I had NOT read the bill when I asked the question.

Having read the bill,this is the one part I have a problem with...

mysteryman wrote:

And you are apparently to stupid to read what I wrote.
I clearly said that I had NOT read the bill when I asked the question.

Could you please point to where you clearly said you had not read the bill. I am sure all the other stupid people would like it pointed out as well. Maybe you can find a nice English teacher to explain it to me then too since I don't see where you "clearly" said you had not read the bill.

Not wanting to discuss the merits of the bill doesn't say whether you read it or not.

The only point I see where you mention "reading" and "the bill" you state..

Quote:

Having read the bill,this is the one part I have a problem with...

There is nothing in that statement to say when you read the bill. You might have read it weeks ago but didn't want to discuss it's merits after having read it.



Since you now admit you hadn't read it when you first posted here can we both agree that your original statement about charges based on "verbal attacks" was made out of ignorance of what was in the bill. Since you now claim you have read the bill can we both agree that michael1's statements about this bill are based on ignorance of what is in the bill.

Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 08:18 Post: 2644192 -

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Montana wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
parados wrote:
It seems some people can't read....

Quote:
WASHINGTON - The House voted 237-180 on Thursday to expand federal hate crime categories to include attacks against gays and people targeted because of gender, acting just hours after the White House threatened a veto.


Unless you are spending time at church physically beating up gays you don't have much to worry about michael1. (I can understand your concern though considering your posts here. I think you would be willing to physically attack gays if you thought you could get away with it in this world.)



Without arguing the merits of the bill,couldnt the word "attack" as used in your quote be defined to include verbal attacks,if the prosecutor chose to?


You want them prosecuting for verbal attacks? I don't think there's enough room left on the planet to build the amount of jails and courts we would need to prosecute the verbal attackers


Quite the opposite.
When I asked that,I hadnt read the bill.
I was simply wondering if the language in the bill left room for "attacks" to be interpreted as verbal attacks,nothing more.

I dont think verbal attacks,racist,sexist,or any other kind,should ever be prosecuted.
That would infringe on the right of free speech.

Since you now admit you hadn't read it when you first posted here can we both agree that your original statement about charges based on "verbal attacks" was made out of ignorance of what was in the bill. Since you now claim you have read the bill can we both agree that michael1's statements about this bill are based on ignorance of what is in the bill.

Quote:

Since you now admit you hadn't read it when you first posted here can we both agree that your original statement about charges based on "verbal attacks" was made out of ignorance of what was in the bill. Since you now claim you have read the bill can we both agree that michael1's statements about this bill are based on ignorance of what is in the bill.

parados wrote:

Quote:

Since you now admit you hadn't read it when you first posted here can we both agree that your original statement about charges based on "verbal attacks" was made out of ignorance of what was in the bill. Since you now claim you have read the bill can we both agree that michael1's statements about this bill are based on ignorance of what is in the bill.

What,no admission that you were wrong??

Somehow,I'm not surprised.

mysteryman wrote:

parados wrote:

Quote:

Since you now admit you hadn't read it when you first posted here can we both agree that your original statement about charges based on "verbal attacks" was made out of ignorance of what was in the bill. Since you now claim you have read the bill can we both agree that michael1's statements about this bill are based on ignorance of what is in the bill.

What,no admission that you were wrong??

Somehow,I'm not surprised.

Gee.. and when did you admit your question was ignorant? I pointed it out right after you posted. How could you be surprised that others act the way you do?

I clearly said that I had NOT read the bill when I asked the question.

Quote:

I clearly said that I had NOT read the bill when I asked the question.

It seems I misinterpreted this sentence by you.

I thought it to mean your question included a statement that you had not yet read the bill.

Upon rereading your statement it is ambiguous.