Comments (35) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   parkersinthehouse said, 4 months ago

   oh dana - your best one yet

   aw - it makes me kinda sad

2. 

   big G 3469 said, 4 months ago

   (Speaking like Tweety Bird) “Aaaaah wook at the widdle elliphant with those puddy dog eyes!” (sarcasm).

   LOL!

3. 

   oldlegodad said, 4 months ago

   But he will be feeding on “donkey” mistakes and will recover. As A.Lincoln founder said…You can fool….

4. 

   believecommonsense said, 4 months ago

   but Rush alone would make the poor little fellow larger than that …

5. 

   PlainBill said, 4 months ago

   Don’t worry, ANandy. The Republicans will keep on doing the same things they always have. Sooner or later the results will change. Won’t they?

6. 

   dtroutma said, 4 months ago

   Also puts their “new” ideas in perspective? Old, small and wrinkled- Sanford and Ensign can relate.

7. 

   striper77 said, 4 months ago

   A few republicans may be having some problems. The worst one is no worse than Clinton himself had. But at least the governor was only having an affair with one person. Clinton was hitting every skirt in Washington, DC.
   While all of this is happening the liberal media are not saying anything on the following:

   
   
   1. Obama kneeling down to the middle east leaders.
   
   
   2. Billions of dollars Obama has already given to partial birth abortion and abortion through his stimulus package.
   
   
   3. Obama has given 8 billion dollars given to ACORN in an attempt to steal the next election and help democrats gain more seats through out the land.
   
   
   4. Obama’s latest bill to put homosexuals, bestiality, child molesters and other perverts under the hate crimes act to protect them.
   
   
   5. Obama’s racial pastor.
   
   
   6. The democrats have control of all three branches of the government.
   
   
   7. Obama’s approval of millions of babies murdered through abortion.
   
   
   8. His approval of marriage for homosexuals, child molesters, bestialities and other perverts.
   
   

   They are not going to show the end result of Obama and the democrats. Which will ultimately be:

   
   
   1. During Obama’s term the spread of STD’s, from his liberal laws and liberal appointees.
   
   
   2. Obama bankrupting the nation.
   
   
   3. Other nations and the terrorists Obama releases will attack our Nation. Many people will die from it. Most will be from the larger cities that put Obama and the democrats in power.
   
   
   4. Downsizing the military and our military weapons while the enemies of our nation is increasing theirs.
   
   

   In the end when all of this or some of this happens Obama and the media will blame it on Bush. When Bush himself did everything he could to stop the above items for eight years.

8. 

   striper77 said, 4 months ago

   Obama’s faults continue:

   Unemployemnt up.
   Jobs down
   Most of his promises are not being followed through with and were no more than lies.

9. 

   Dale Hopson said, 4 months ago

   striper77, maybe in the next 6 months Obama will wave his magic want and make it all better…

   “Bush himself did everything he could to stop the above items for eight years.” When? When wanting to push Social Security into stock purchasing or when he called the start of the economic melt down a “Wall Street adjustment”? I don’t see Obama starting two wars paid ON CREDIT!

10. 

    striper77 said, 4 months ago

    The total debt from Clintons last years and all of Bush was one trillion. Obama has it up to 10 trillion and climbing. None of his major promises has happened or he has changed his mind on them.
    Do you know how much one trillion dollars is? The whole war and Clinton got it their. Obama has raised it 9 trillion more and nothing has changed for the better. Everything has gotten worse.

11. 

    Tigger said, 4 months ago

    Now this is funny.

    The Republicans keep shooting their own feet.

12. 

    parkersinthehouse said, 4 months ago

    ok, i’m whispering; i’m cupping my hands around my mouth; my eyebrows are knitting; i’m asking

    who is this guy 77 and from what bizarre, anachronistic, misguided dust bunny did he come?

13. 

    Gladius said, 4 months ago

    Well you can always hope one of the various viruses hanging around this site will send his computer somewhere else. I’ve seen some extreme views here but i’ve pretty much stopped reading his. I spend enough time here.

14. 

    striper77 said, 4 months ago

    parkerinthehouse,

    I am just stating what is really going on behind the Obama administration and what the democrats are actually doing. The debt has gone way up under Obama, further than any other president ever.
    Under Google search there is 14,500,000 sites on it. All the information I have stated is easily found. You either care about it or you are hiding your head in the sand hoping for a low life president to correct all your problems.
    In the end everything is just going to be worse. Take time and see what is really going on government health care. While you are at it take a look at this site.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA

15. 

    nomad2112 said, 4 months ago

    They’re drunk on stimulus money.

16. 

    striper77 said, 4 months ago

    Here is the web link for the hate crimes act or “Pedophile Protection Act.” That Obama and the Democrats are trying to so hard to get signed into law. It has already passed the house on party lines. Democrats for it and Republicans against it.

    http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=581080

17. 

    striper77 said, 4 months ago

    I just got this today. It mentions Canada’s hate crime and the similarity between the democrats one.
    Senate Democrats are Pushing for Vote on the ‘Pedophile Protection Act’ –

    ALERT: There’s a dangerous bill sitting in the U.S. Senate right now – one that liberal Senators want to sneak through without anyone stopping them. If this bill that the U.S. House passed isn’t STOPPED in the Senate, here’s what can happen, according to Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX):
    If a mother hears that their child has been raped and she slaps the assailant with her purse, she is now gone after as a hate criminal because this is a protected class. There are other protected classes in here. I mean simple exhibitionism. I have female friends who have told me over the years that some guy flashed them, and their immediate reaction was to hit them with their purse. Well now, he’s committed a misdemeanor, [and] she has committed a federal hate crime because the exhibitionism is protected under sexual orientation… You see someone spying on you changing clothes and you hit them – they’ve committed a misdemeanor; you’ve committed a federal felony under this bill. It is so wrong.
    Rep. Gohmert is right: IT IS SO WRONG!

    But now, the Senate is ready to PASS that bill and send it to Barack Obama to sign into law –

    Whatever happened to “equal justice for all”? As Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) stated, “Under this bill, justice will no longer be equal. Justice will now depend on the race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status of the victim. It will allow different penalties to be imposed for the same crime. This is the real injustice.”

    Look, we all know that every year, many violent crimes are committed out of hate. But just as many violent crimes, if not more, are motivated by something other than hate – whether it’s greed, jealously, desperation, or revenge, to name a few. A person’s motivation for committing a violent crime is usually complex, and often we can only guess as to why he or she did it.

    Every violent crime is deplorable – regardless of its motivation. Every violent crime can be devastating not only to the victim and their family, but also to the larger community whose sense of safety has been violated. That’s why ALL violent crimes must be vigorously prosecuted.

    But this bill goes MUCH, MUCH FARTHER that simply prosecuting violent crime – it creates a new “protected class” of people that would now be protected under “hate crimes” definitions. That means that this bill will protect all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or “Paraphilias” listed by the American Psychiatric Association! This would provide a HUGE MASS of “sacred cows” in our society, which includes pedophiles who would be given elevated protection – giving “the offender” an additional decade behind bars.

    And that “offender” could be YOU! If a pedophile tries to molest your daughter, or your nephew, or your granddaughter, or some little boy in the street – if you step in and beat the pedophile to get him away, YOU could spend ten years in prison for your “offense”!

    I am NOT exaggerating this. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), who supports this horrendous bill, admitted that the bill would protect all 547 forms of sexual deviancy listed by the APA. Here’s what Hastings said on the floor of the U.S. House itself:
    This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these “Philias” and fetishes and “isms” that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.
    Apparently, supporters of this bill have no problem with sexual deviants, including pedophiles, getting a higher level of protection against you and me!

    Don’t think that some people in the House didn’t try to stand up against the Thought Police crowd. The House version of the so-called “hate crimes” bill was adopted on a 249-175 vote, but not before several amendments were proposed by Republicans trying to mitigate the impact of the draconian law.

    For example, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) offered an amendment that was very simple: “The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia.”

    The majority Democrats refused to accept that amendment – or any OTHER amendment along the same lines!

    Far-leftist Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) have introduced the bill into the Senate. However, because of the OUTRAGE they’re hearing from their constituents – YOU AND ME – they’re going to try to sneak in through by adding it as an amendment to a completely different bill… and Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid has reaffirmed his plans to have the Senate vote on this dangerous bill before Congress’ August recess!

    In George Orwell’s classic book, “1984,” the State was constantly cracking down on what they called “thought crimes” – that is, you didn’t face prosecution just because of what you DID – but also because of what you THOUGHT.

    That is EXACTLY what this so-called “hate crimes” bill will do – it blurs the lines between violent belief, which is constitutionally protected, and violent action, which is not. If we go down this road, where does it end? With speech monitors and thought police?

    As Janet Porter of Faith2Action noted, “Pushing away an unwelcome advance of a homosexual, transgender, cross-dresser or exhibitionist could make you a felon under this law. Speaking out against the homosexual agenda could also make you a felon if you are said to influence someone who pushes away that unwelcome advance. And pedophiles and other sexual deviants would enjoy an elevated level of protection while children, seniors, veterans, and churches would not.”

    Rep. Gohmert warned that this law would be used against pastors – or anyone else – who speaks against homosexuality or other alternative sexual lifestyle choices, saying that it provides that anyone who through speech “induces” commission of a violent hate crime “will be tried as a principal” alongside the active offender.

    Critics say that would allow for prosecutions against pastors who preach on biblical opposition to homosexuality if someone who hears such a message later is accused of any crime. A pastor’s sermon could be considered “hate speech” under this legislation if it’s heard by someone who then commits an act of violence against someone based on “sexual orientation.” The pastor could be prosecuted for “conspiracy to commit a hate crime”. Don’t think it could happen?

    It already is.

    Similar state laws have already resulted in persecution for Christians. In Philadelphia several years ago, a 73-year-old grandmother was jailed for trying to share Christian tracts with people at a homosexual festival. In Canada, which already has severely restrictive “hate crime” laws, government “Human Rights Commissions” review any “suspect” speech or actions that might be perceived as being against any of their “protected classes.”

    So today, Canada has a major national magazine, a federal political party leader and a registered political party, a major Catholic newspaper (Catholic Insight) and an internationally renowned journalist (Mark Steyn) – all of whom are being investigated by appointed “hate speech therapists” from the commissions. Even Focus on the Family, one of the largest Christian publishing and broadcasting organizations in the nation, has admitted that it has been reviewing, and if necessary editing, its broadcasts to avoid complications with Canadian “hate crimes” laws.

    THIS IS WHAT WE FACE IN OUR FUTURE – unless we take action NOW to stop this bill in the Senate!

18. 

    dtroutma said, 4 months ago

    Striper must think they’re painting the “black helicopters” pink?

19. 

    striper77 said, 4 months ago

    dtroutma

    Or they could put the USSR communist flag on it or the Middle Eastern Muslim flag, it would make no difference to you.
    As long as you thought you were getting something for nothing.

20. 

    tpenna said, 4 months ago

    Yeah, this Striper guy only has an audience here on the internet. I doubt anyone listens to him in the real world. You’re right, Gladius. This guy’s views are reprehensible.

21. 

    fennec said, 4 months ago

    So let’s not give him a responsive audience, OK?

22. 

    tpenna said, 4 months ago

    Agreed, fennec.

23. 

    NoFearPup said, 4 months ago

    So distorting the meaning of “crime” isn’t worth debate here? In their interest to justify “gayness” the Libs already have had to include tran-sexuals and trans-vestites as specially-protected classes; what’s next? Some african and middle eastern immigrants marry and have sexual relations at an earlier age - will America’s laws have to include their cultural standards; if so what’s stops perverts like that nursing home guy that got the 11 year old pregnant from being found innocent? Some people like to expose themselves - is that to be protected?
    “No, just shut up, Striper77 (or some other concerned citizen) - we’re Libs and we know what’s right and wrong!”(and they say “fundies” push their beliefs on other people!). Good job, free and open Libs. When chaos rules in America, Dems, it will be your baby.

24. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 4 months ago

    Puppy, just to make things clearer for everyone, why don’t you just list all the classes of people you mindlessly hate?

    Atheists?
    Gays?
    Transsexuals?
    Transvestites?
    African-Americans?
    Middle eastern immigrants?
    Anyone you call “Libs”?
    Democrats? (Same as above)
    Anyone who doesn’t think Bush was our best president?

25. 

    churchillwasright said, 4 months ago

    TONY: Instead of calling NFP a mindless hater, why don’t you respond to his question?

    If you think that certain “perverts” (not the one’s you listed, but the one’s he listed) are entitled to special rights under the law, then say so. I don’t understand why you and others here are being so dismissive.

    I agree with you that STRIPER77 is a homophobe, and should probably be wearing a tin foiled hat. So I don’t enjoy defending him. But that doesn’t mean the bill as written is a figment of his imagination.

    If you feel that pedophiles and exhibitionists deserve special protection under the constitution, just say so. At least you’ll be being honest, not dismissive.

26. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 4 months ago

    Good call, Church.

    I’m as much against pedophiles as anyone, but I try not to let that cloud my judgment. I’m also against mob justice, and people taking the law into their own hands.

    Take two criminals-to-be: One robs a bank, the other commits pedophile crimes. Do you not think that the latter is far more likely to suffer from acts outside the law? Whether he deserves it is not the question, because that question should be determined in a court of law, not by the parents of the victim, or anyone else who hates pedophiles.

    I think that is the intent of the law…to keep the administration of justice where it belongs. If people like Striper think this is equivalent to the persecution of christians, well I think that is his problem, not a problem with the legislation. Perhaps he should be wondering why he has such a guilty conscience that would lead to such an interpretation.

27. 

    churchillwasright said, 4 months ago

    Your analogy of a robber to a pedophile is apples and oranges. A better analogy would have been if I had caught a rapist with my wife or my daughter. I’d shoot the rapist in either case. Then I’d (probably) be charged with murder, but in the ped case, I’d be charged with additional hate crimes.

    I’m generally against special hate crime legislation. Say a gay guy gets knifed in a bar. Now I work in overnight news, and I know that people in my county get knifed in bars almost every night. The perps usually wind up on probation. People who are for a hate crime charge might argue, “hey, that’s not right, this guy deserves more than probation for knifing a guy just because he’s gay!” I’d say they’re right. BOTH knifers need to be locked up for a long time. The punishment should have been for what they did, not what was in their head when they did it. And the punishment should be severe, instead of the slap that it is.

28. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 4 months ago

    In my analogy I tried to come up with a criminal who wouldn’t be viewed with quite the abhorrence applied to a pedophile.

    I would guess that there are cases of suspected pedophiles being subjected to mob justice or the like, otherwise there would have been no thought of including them in this law.

    Again, I think it best if the judgment and punishment is done through a court of law.

    Regarding your statement “The punishment should have been for what they did, not what was in their head when they did it”, well, that’s not how our judicial system works. If you accidentally kill someone with your car, you can be convicted of vehicular manslaughter. But if you killed him by hitting him with your car after a month of planning, then it could be first degree murder. The two crimes are, of course, viewed very differently, and the distinction is based on “what was in their head”.

29. 

    churchillwasright said, 4 months ago

    Another bad analogy. If you truly kill someone accidently with a car, you won’t be charged with manslaugher. If the underlying reason for the accident was being drunk (or talking on a cel phone), there can be an argument it wasn’t accidental.

    The second case is premeditated first degree murder. Apples and oranges.

    My point again is whether you plow your can purposely into someone because of the color of their baseball cap or the color of their skin, the punishment should be the same– severe and equal.

30. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 4 months ago

    I was trying to keep it simple, Church. But the point remains…what was “in their head” matters.

    You do make a compelling point, though, about the punishment. But do you not see a problem with someone, or a group, going out and just looking for a victim based on that victim’s race/sexual orientation/etc? Shouldn’t that sort of mindset be discouraged?

31. 

    churchillwasright said, 4 months ago

    Of course it should be discouraged. It should all be discouraged.

    If I get killed tonight going out for a carton of milk, it doesn’t really matter if it was because of the color of my shirt or the color of my skin, or because I had $20 in my pocket or $2000, now does it?

    The life of the guy with $2k in his pocket wasn’t worth more than mine (I’d be lucky if I had the $20); the life of the black guy wasn’t worth more than mine either.

    Again, I work overnight news, and what’s going on out there is not pretty! There ARE people out there who would just as soon kill you as look at you. WAY more than I thought there were before I took this job. They don’t care what color you are, and don’t ask your sexual preference.

    I’m not trying to make this a race thing, BTW. It’s just easier to wrap your head around it that way when talking about hate crime legislation.

    Obviously you can tell I’m white. Now if I go into a “dangerous neighborhood”, which I often do, and I get killed while some gang is trying to take away my TV camera, should the perpetrators have additional charges brought against them because I was a minority in their hood? Of course not!

    In my examples above, the perps should get the death penalty (OK, life if you’re so inclined). Life + 20 (for the extra hate crime) is an oxymoron!

    Swift, severe punishment is the only detriment a society can have.

    Sorry to go on so long… this job is getting to me…

32. 

    churchillwasright said, 4 months ago

    I hate to second post, but…

    One more thing… anybody with an IQ so low, so much hate in their heart, or so much booze in their system, isn’t going to be thinking about the additional “hate crime” charges that are going to be brought against them anyway. So while the legislation may “feel good”, it won’t really act as a deterrent.

    And besides, the court system in this country is so screwed up, perps usually plead to a lesser crime, and charges get merged into one, so justice never really gets served anyway. Only in the most heinous crimes would it ever get prosecuted that way.

    Again, sorry to go on so long. Gotta go now to listen to the police scanners for “shots fired” in my beautiful, tropical paradise.

    (Boy I need another job, this is turning me into such a cynic…)

33. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 4 months ago

    Again, you make compelling, logical arguments, Church, and I salute you for that.

    But I still can’t help but think that the problem must exist, a problem that there are those who would seek out victims based on their characteristics, otherwise such legislation would never have been proposed.

    Perhaps that’s me being naive, because I have no experience in such matters (and it sounds like you do), but would Matthew Shepard still be alive today if he hadn’t been gay? Even today, long after his death, we have far-right fundie christians like Fred Phelps applauding the act, and encouraging the same.

    And since he was killed simply for being gay, is any harm done for adding additional penalties for that sort of motive?

34. 

    churchillwasright said, 4 months ago

    I know you’re heart’s in the right place, but the question you should ask isn’t ‘would Shepard be alive today if he wasn’t gay?” but “would Shepard have still been killed if there were additional hate crime penalties?” Unfortunately, I’ve come to the conclusion the answer is “yes”.

    It’s just more “feel good” legislation that politicians can point to and say “look at me, I’ve done something about the situation”.

    Politicians (and much of the public) don’t generally think things all the way through, or think about unintended consequences. For example, we now have kids getting suspended from school for drawing pictures of a gun, in the name of a Zero Violence Policy. Or searching school lockers for drugs without probable cause, in the name of a Zero Drug Policy (after all, “if it saves one child’s life…”).

    I was thinking of writing more about how politicians from both sides of the isle are opportunistic weasels, but I’ve gone on long enough, and I think you get my point.

    But thanks for playing!

35. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 4 months ago

    You might be right about the effectiveness of these sort of laws, but I still don’t see they do any harm (other than making law libraries slightly larger).