Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on July 23, 2008, to establish a new “bias-motivated” criminal offense for a person who selects the target of a violent crime or property crime based on victim’s disability; gender; national origin or ancestry; race, color, or ethnicity; religion; sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression of gender; being a veteran; or a person’s or group’s association with one or more of these. Violations would be subject to up to two years in prison and a $5,000 fine if the underlying (“predicate”) crime is a misdemeanor, and up to 50 percent more than the sentence authorized for the predicate crime if it is a felony. A person could not be convicted of both the predicate crime and the “bias-motivated” crime (prosecutors would have to choose one or the other)

The vote was 81 in favor, 18 opposed and 11 not voting

(House Roll Call 889 at House Journal 85)

Click here to view bill details.

Representative Condino wants to reward criminals who target straight middle-aged Irish American men who are not handicapped (other than being straight middle-aged Irish American men who are not handicapped). The legislature has incentivized crimes against me. Criminals will be rewarded with lower sentences and reduced fines for targeting me. I thought that as a citizen of the United States of America, I was entitled to "equal protection" under the law or some such antiquated notion.

apply to bias against straight caucasian victims too?

"Bias Motivated". Straight caucasian males are not as worthy of the same protection. That's the way other civil rights legislation has worked.

A crime is a crime is a crime. Before all of the sentencing "guidelines", judges could use their own discression to slap the egregeous cases with big sentences. And it was better suited to punishing the actual crime than this hogwash. Why make more laws that will be twisted and abused?

What visionaries we have in Lansing. Enact laws that reward common street type criminals for their crimes against non-color, non-female, non-gay, non- handicapped, non-too young, non-too old citizens. Criminals who target these Non Citizens will receive reduced sentences and reduced fines for their enterprise. We used to have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights that gave Non Citizens “equal protection” but state legislators and congress have helped us forge a kinder and gentler nation by morphing these rights into "bias” based protection under the law with our "Living Constitution". However, this is really taking too long, let us cut to the chase and ship these Non Citizens back to where their ancestors came from and we will have the kinder and gentler nation of our dreams. The downside is that we will not have the fawning adulation of the European community that we so desperately need; these Non Persons will now be a problem for them.

Thank you for legislation that offers much needed protection. Signed, concerned mother

Now we can have open season on white, middle aged, heterosexual, God fearing productive folks. U.S.A --- R.I.P.

Good. Make sure to include politicians whose bias criminal acts include stealing my freedom, my liberty, my pursuit of happiness and my private property rights. Specifically any who ignore the U.S. and Michigan Constitutions with their criminally bias, discriminatory and unequal acts and laws. I want to be jury, judge and executioner for all guilty of this "bias".

There is no reason to provide special status to homosexuals. They are people, misguided, but people who are already protected by law. They need no extra protection.

 where in the constitution does it say that we can bestow SPECIAL CITIZENSHIP to certain groups and deny rights to other citizens?

motivation is only applicable to certain crimes, such as murder, and then only to prove that a murder has actually been committed. it should not be used to heighten penalties for lesser crimes. if the penalty for assault is not stringent enough, change that law, but change it for all people, not just certain handpicked people who have been VICTIMIZED BY THEIR OWN DECISIONS.

it should not matter to a court if the VICTIM is white, black, brown, purple or blue. sexual orientation doesn't add to or subtract from victimization, nor does age, or gender, or anything else. all are SUPPOSED TO BE EQUAL IN THE EYES OF THE LAW.

 This is a good law, and I am glad people had the wisdom to pass it.

When the crime of theft occurs, it is obviously unfortunate, but it is without a target, it is random and we must all be vigilant against these random acts of crime.  Vigilant against  ALL random crime, to the best of our ability to protect ourselves and our familys.

But....people are not targeted because they are white, or Irish, or fat or skinny or Itallian, or black anymore.

But people  ARE targeted for being who they are.  For just being born Gay.

They go to work, they take care of people in their familiys, they go to school and even to church.  And they ARE targeted just because they are Gay.

Its more than wrong, its Un-American, and I for one am glad that at least some in government are moving our country in the right direction, when so many (either by intentional deceit or accidental ignorance)  have done so much to hurt this country, especially in the last 8 years. 

Special status??  Extra protection??      I dont think you'd call them "special protections"  if YOU were the target of sick backward people who wanted to hurt you or your family member just cuz they went to fill up their gas tank.

Misguided?   Yes, that is a word I would use to describe someone who would  protect the crime rather than the victim.

This law is a victory for decent Americans everywhere, and when the day comes when we as a society dont need it......well great,     but until then, there are to many people out there that are sick, bigoted, criminals,  some who even call themselves Christians that this law will help put away.      Far away,  where they belong.    In Jail.

 

 

crazycajun:

 VICTIMIZED BY THEIR OWN DECISIONS.----

 Like when a women wears a skirt thats too short, she deserved to be raped cuz she was "askin"  for it  ...right????   (And being Gay isnt a decision)  (If you think it is, why dont YOU  "decide"  to be gay for a day, and let us know how that works out fer ya!)

it should not matter to a court if the VICTIM is white, black, brown, purple or blue. sexual orientation doesn't add to or subtract from victimization, nor does age, or gender, or anything else. all are SUPPOSED TO BE EQUAL IN THE EYES OF THE LAW.----

  Correct,    unless you were assaulted or killed BECAUSE  you were...........white, black, brown, purple or blue or .......old or young or Gay or straight.    So your right,  it doesnt subtract from the vitimization. It adds to it.  Thats INTENT, thats Hate, thats Motive  and that is NOT random crime.

 

Your mentality is juvenille at best and down right sick/dangerous at worst.

 

So I take it that you think that either you or some judge is smart enough to decide that a crime was committed because of some degeneracy of the victim????

If a *** gets robbed the robber deserves a harshe penalty? You are twisted.

If you kill a guy cause he's a ***, then you need to go to jail for life or better yet fry in the chair, the same as if you kill a guy cause you want his car. You seem to want to make queers worth more than normal folks and that is screwy. Get a life and lets just punish crimes.

 

And another thing, folks aren't "born" gay. I know 3 or 4 that have switched teams a few times.

Michpatriot:

And another thing, folks aren't "born" gay. I know 3 or 4 that have switched teams a few times.

 

 Have you ??

If not, than have the courtesy to keep your ignorance to yourself and not proclaim it with the usual hubris of a know-it-all to the world.

We have (a few) elected republicans left that do that. It seems that is their  job.

Anonymous Citizen:

"Bias Motivated". Straight caucasian males are not as worthy of the same protection. That's the way other civil rights legislation has worked.

 

 

                   "Introduced in the House on July 23, 2008, to establish a new “bias-motivated” criminal offense for a person who selects the target of a violent crime or property crime based on victim’s disability; gender; national origin or ancestry; race, color, or ethnicity; religion; sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression of gender; being a veteran; or a person’s or group’s association with one or more of these."

 

  Read much ??

Hey everybody, back down a second and think this through. You've all been fooled into thinking that the activists and politicians on both sides of this issue are standing up for YOU, which cedes a lot of power and respect to them for accomplishing... nothing whatsoever.

Imagine that you're somebody who burns with rage against gay people. You know (or should know) that beating the crap out of anybody -- or killing them -- is going to net you a ton of time behind bars if you get caught. So, you've got to be super-screwed up in the head to go through with it anyway. Is knowing that you're going to go on some silly "double secret probation" going to change your mind and cool you off, or are you still so screwed up that you'll go through with it anyway?

Under either version of the law, you have identical motivations: Hurt somebody for no good reason and don't get caught.

People protected by this change? Zero. It's effectively putting a double dead-bolt on the door to a camping tent in a bad neighborhood.

Likewise, from the other side, puhleeze... This doesn't make straight people or the Irish or Martians or anybody else have fewer civil rights. It's not like the gay basher is going to change his mind and beat up straight blond Irish computer nerds instead. He wants to hurt gay people, he's going to do it. This law isn't going to stop him, and it isn't going to make him turn on you.

So what's the point? Well, certain activists on both sides of the issue get to claim credit with their "base" for fighting the "good" fight with the "other" side. Certain activist politicians on both sides get to do same. All of you are doing your part to validate their cynical game by screaming at each other on a thread like this.

This evades the central issue, which is actually catching violent criminals. Certainty of punishment, as opposed to mere severity, is an actual solution. But that takes some real work and hard decisions on the part of the lawmakers.

Much easier to just throw out crap like this and make all of you fight about it. Makes everyone feel better -- except the victims.

Instead, take it out on the politicians for doing nothing about crime of any kind and demanding (and getting) your adulation. You might even find that you all agree on something of actual substance.

Discuss.

 

 

 

 well said, well reasoned, but here's why it WON'T WORK.

1. MOST if not ALL politicians start out as lawyers.

2. lawyers make their money, not on PROSECUTING criminals, but from DEFENDING criminals. thus...

3. the lawyers with the most money get to spend the most on getting elected.

4. once elected, their allegiance is NOT with those that VOTED for them, but those that PAID for those votes, THE CRIMINALS.

now, as you have so ably stated, this bill attempts to sell SECURITY, which is just a feeling, rather than JUSTICE.

now, if we could only elect those that READ AND HEED the constitution, we'd all be MUCH BETTER OFF.

dear trueblue.

i know many gays and lesbians, and not ONE of them was BORN THAT WAY. in each and every case, it was a clearly conscious decision, sometimes worked out over years of stress and struggle, but you cannot show me ONE five year old who is, at that point, decidely (or provably) gay or ***.

i DO invite you to try, though, it could be fun.

gender choice is a reaction to hormones, it's all about what get's that particular person's juices flowing. it's NOT about psychology, physiology, or anything else. it's simply a statement of sexual attraction.

people who don't follow the 'norm' are looked down upon, even scorned. look what the ancients did to them. made them an abonimation before the eyes of the lord.

even this doesn't entitle them to 'special' status. if it does, then the entire theory of equality under the law is a sham and a lie.

now, as soon as you make committing a crime against ONE person more or less serious than committing a crime against ANY OTHER PERSON, then  you have elevated that ONE person HIGHER than EVERY OTHER PERSON. you don't seem to see this, as EVERYBODY thinks they are SPECIAL, not EQUAL.

 

Kudos for the above post by BeautifulDayForFootball.  It hits the nail perfectly on the head regarding this legislation and the myriad other bills like it that get introduced every session.

 

Here’s the guts of that post to read, digest, memorize, copy and keep on file:

 

BeautifulDayforFootball:

 

Hey everybody, back down a second and think this through. You've all been fooled into thinking that the activists and politicians on both sides of this issue are standing up for YOU, which cedes a lot of power and respect to them for accomplishing... nothing whatsoever.

...

So what's the point? Well, certain activists on both sides of the issue get to claim credit with their "base" for fighting the "good" fight with the "other" side. Certain activist politicians on both sides get to do same. All of you are doing your part to validate their cynical game by screaming at each other on a thread like this.

... 

Said another way, bills like this one are all but meaningless in reality and serve no constructive public purpose.  Many chase problems that really do not exist.  Thus, they change, or more to the point, improve nothing.  Occasionally they do real harm if they become law.  In all cases the debate over them serves to divide and polarize the public, distracting us from issues of genuine, broad-based public importance and keeping us from finding the common ground that makes for sound public policy.

Something to remember as we enter a new year and watch our Legislature convene for a new session. 

 

crazycajun:

 well said, well reasoned, but here's why it WON'T WORK.

1. MOST if not ALL politicians start out as lawyers.

2. lawyers make their money, not on PROSECUTING criminals, but from DEFENDING criminals. thus...

3. the lawyers with the most money get to spend the most on getting elected.

4. once elected, their allegiance is NOT with those that VOTED for them, but those that PAID for those votes, THE CRIMINALS.

now, as you have so ably stated, this bill attempts to sell SECURITY, which is just a feeling, rather than JUSTICE.

now, if we could only elect those that READ AND HEED the constitution, we'd all be MUCH BETTER OFF.

 

Crazycajun:

First, awesome handle.

Second, I don't disagree at all with points 1-4, except that it is not a complete listing. Politicians need votes to stay elected and they are very sensitive to a lot of screaming and yelling from the people back home. Just a dozen sincere calls and letters one way or another will get their attention.

It's not so much electing new ones who will "reed and heed." Even assuming that you could get a majority of these mythical new ones elected with your vision of respect for the constitution -- a HUGE assumption, for all the reasons you list -- then they'll still be subject to the whims of squeaky wheels. If you don't like what they're doing, then people like you probably are not squeaking enough.

crazycajun:

dear trueblue.i know many gays and lesbians, and not ONE of them was BORN THAT WAY. in each and every case, it was a clearly conscious decision, sometimes worked out over years of stress and struggle, but you cannot show me ONE five year old who is, at that point, decidely (or provably) gay or ***.i DO invite you to try, though, it could be fun.

 

You are wrong plain and simple, and if you ask them the will tell you the same.

You dont "chose" to be gay or straight anymore than you chose to be born black or white.

There is no discussion here.

 

Oh but there is a "discussion" here. It's not like being born black or white, it's more like the choice to be a crook or a worker. Heck, using your argument why would anybody choose to be a crook what with all the jail and getting shot at. Maybe they are born that way. I can show you lots of folks that got bored in our anything goes culture and either went to the dark side totally or dabble in homsexualism and walk on both sides of the track. You are wrong just like Mr. Cajun told you

You are off on point #1Cajun ...Most DEMOCRAT politicians start out as lawyers. Keep up the good work.

Michpatriot:

You are off on point #1Cajun ...Most DEMOCRAT politicians start out as lawyers. Keep up the good work.

 

I think this is a bit overstated.

Michigan's Republican Senate Majority Leader is Mike Bishop -- a lawyer. The GOP House Minority Leader (starting tomorrow morning) will be Kevin Elsenheimer -- a lawyer. Sen. Bruce Patterson, Sen. Alan Cropsey and Rep. Tory Rocca are just a few of the other Republican lawyers in the Michigan legislature that I can think of off hand. There are others I could name if I looked into it more.

Former Republican Gov. John Engler is another famous example.

I'd bet it's a toss-up regarding which party has more lawyers serving in elected.

 

Michpatriot:

Oh but there is a "discussion" here.

 

No, its you that are wrong, whether or not you know the truth or not is irrelavent. The world is moving forward and the passage of this law is not only proof of that, but it shows that people like you and your evil ideas will be left on the junk pile of history. As it should be.

Good day. 

 

 

TrueBlue:

No, its you that are wrong, whether or not you know the truth or not is irrelavent. The world is moving forward and the passage of this law is not only proof of that, but it shows that people like you and your evil ideas will be left on the junk pile of history. As it should be.

Oh, how cynical!  

The truth always is relevant.  However, it often goes either unrecognized or ignored, for many reasons.  And truth does not belong exclusively to any stripe along the political spectrum. 

And, in reference to truth, this bill did not pass into law.  It was passed by the Michigan House of Reps, but died in committee in the Senate when the Legislature adjourned its 2007-08 session last year (2008).

Let's make a resolution to start the New Year.  Let's resolve to deal in facts and truth from here on out, so we can have honest discussion of issues raised by proposed legislation.

 

TrueBlue:

crazycajun:

dear trueblue.i know many gays and lesbians, and not ONE of them was BORN THAT WAY. in each and every case, it was a clearly conscious decision, sometimes worked out over years of stress and struggle, but you cannot show me ONE five year old who is, at that point, decidely (or provably) gay or ***.i DO invite you to try, though, it could be fun.

 

You are wrong plain and simple, and if you ask them the will tell you the same.

You dont "chose" to be gay or straight anymore than you chose to be born black or white.

There is no discussion here.

you are right, trueblue, there IS NO DISCUSSION HERE. not for our lack of trying. how is it that you consistantly end up on the wrong end of each and every arguement, then have to rely on your abrasive personality to save the day for you? you lack the skills or the information to keep a rational discussion going, you rely on 'WHAT YOU THINK YOU KNOW' rather than 'WHAT IS THE TRUTH'. for instance, name me one person who, at five years old, was provably gay. you can't, can you?, of course you can't. it isn't possible.

not one of the people that i know who is  homosexual admits to being 'born that way'. they all WILL admit, however, to having a time when they 'DECIDED NOT TO FOLLOW THE NORMAL PATH', sexually and otherwise. it's not a small decision, or one they take lightly. there ARE sodomy laws, here and in louisiana, and they ARE enforced. now, if you think that a 'normal' separation is nasty, try being involved in one where one of the parties is claiming to be forcibly sodomized by the other, and is offering plenty of PROOF.

yes, it's just like 'normal' people, who claim they have been raped when they haven't.

now, what proof do you offer that homosexuals are 'BORN THAT WAY'?  so far, you haven't offered any, other than that you say so. i'm sure that there are numerous studies that CLAIM that homosexuals are 'BORN THAT WAY' for various political purposes, usually left leaning, just as there are numerous studies that claim that they are not. i have chosen to ask my friends 'WHAT IS WHAT' as opposed to allowing politics get in the way. to a person, they cannot say that they were 'BORN THAT WAY' and wish that people would stop saying that.

i'm pretty sure you haven't spoken to a single homosexual about this issue, if you had, you would have been given information that didn't match the liberal drivel.

the democrats were in charge of everything, (both houses, the governor's mansion, both federal houses, and the white house, not to mention the courts) for almost forty years. why didn't THEY change things while they were in power before?

i'll bet you won't answer THAT question either... will you?

 

 

 

 dear trueblue.

what is the BIAS for turning in your current "SIGNIFICANT OTHER" for rape? it happens all the time, you would think that michigan was the rape capital of the world. women get tired of their "CURRENT SIGNIFICANT OTHER" and make moves towards procuring a "NEW SIGNIFICANT OTHER" before the first one is gone and done with.

what motivates people to lie, instead of standing up to what is the truth?

i suggest prosecuting those liars for "bias motivated crime" and sentencing them to the maximum sentence possible, perhaps that will stop them from doing it again.

but then again... lying about being victimized is NOT a bias motivated crime if it doesn't involve a left wing SPECIAL INTERESTGROUP.

“for instance, name me one person who, at five years old, was provably gay. you can't, can you?, of course you can't. it isn't possible.”

 

Name me one person who, at five years old was provably heterosexual.  You can’t, can you?  Of course you can’t.  It isn’t possible.

 

I would suggest to you, further, that it borders on perversion to run around actively assigning sexuality to five year olds. 

 

While there may be a societal presumption of heterosexuality in children at young ages, professionals who work with children will tell you that from time to time they come across surprisingly young kids who definitely appear to be “conflicted” in respect to their own sexuality, as demonstrated by their clothing choices and other behaviors.  They also will tell you that such “conflicted” children can come from what society would call a “normal” home with a perfectly female mommy and a perfectly male daddy, happily married, and siblings apparently oriented to the sexuality of the bodies they occupy. 

 

“there ARE sodomy laws, here and in louisiana, and they ARE enforced.”

 

All sodomy laws in the US are unconstitutional and unenforceable when applied to non-commercial consenting adults in private.  This results from the US Supreme Court decision in Lawrence & Garner v State of Texas, 2003.

 

“now, what proof do you offer that homosexuals are 'BORN THAT WAY'?  so far, you haven't offered any, other than that you say so.”

 

Fixation on the question of whether or not homosexuals are “born that way” misses the real mark and distorts the discussion.  The actual assertion that has been made here is, “You don’t "chose" to be gay or straight anymore than you chose to be born black or white.”

 

Focus on the first part of that sentence – the matter of choice – rather than distorting the discussion by focusing on the second, which only illustrates something that we all should be able to agree is not a matter of choice.

 

The factual truth, for others who may be interested is this: 

 

A majority of scientists who have studied the question now agree that sexual orientation (including homosexuality and bisexuality) is the result of a combination of factors, including environmental, emotional, hormonal, and biological.  With many factors that can contribute to a person's sexual orientation, the factors may differ from one individual to another.  

 

Further, those same scientists agree that homosexuality and bisexuality are not caused by the way a child was reared by parents, or by having a sexual experience with someone of the same sex when the person was young.  Being homosexual or bisexual does not mean the person is mentally ill or abnormal in some way, although homosexuals may encounter social problems arising from prejudicial attitudes or misinformation.

 

Two things that seem to be clear among the majority of scientists is that, first, homosexuality is, indeed, a sexual orientation.  The term, “sexual orientation” refers to an individual’s emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction to other persons of a particular gender (male or female).  It has the nature of what as a lay person I would call a “compulsion.”  Second, his or her sexual orientation is not chosen by the individual, any more than other compulsions are chosen. 

 

The fact that some homosexuals refrain from acting out their homosexuality is no proof that the orientation is “optional,” any more than the fact that some heterosexuals refrain from doing their thing is proof that heterosexuality is “optional.”  It only means that some people choose to not act out on their compulsions.

 

Naturally, there are some vocal dissenters from the majority opinion among scientists.  No doubt we will see their views cited here as time goes on. 

 

“the democrats were in charge of everything, (both houses, the governor's mansion, both federal houses, and the white house, not to mention the courts) for almost forty years. why didn't THEY change things while they were in power before?”

 

That question is simply irrelevant to the current issue, which is whether this legislation should or should not have become law.  It is a distraction to be gnored if any fruitful discussion is to take place.

 

Personally, I am glad to see that this bill died in a Senate committee.  It really should not have become law because it is not needed to prosecute or punish or deter the crimes it supposedly addresses.  

 

 

 

 you are asking us to believe that every homosexual is "born that way". on what do you base this?

this "bias" problem is a made up thing, unless you can prove to us that it is a "FROM BIRTH" issue. now, if it IS a "FROM BIRTH" issue, it cannot be helped, and thus, the person is TRULY A VICTIM. it's tough to convince us that there is anything like a GAY GENE.

on the other hand, if it's a CHOICE....

you are asking us to make ONE citizen over ANOTHER citizen.

 No there is no discussion with your MONTHS of demonstrated ignorance.

 

The simple fact that this law was EVEN proposed is evidence of moving in the right direction.

Furthermore, it would seem that you are convicted in the court of "public opinion"....yet again.

 

Enough!  

I want special so called rights also. How about you get a much harsher penalty for attacking me cause of your inane hatred of good conservative values? A crime is a crime regardless of who it is commited by or on. Funny how you talk in circles and never show any proof of this "born homosexual" nonsense. Seems you think that just because you say something often enough that it is true...Hmmm, where have I heard that idea before?

Michpatriot:

I want special so called rights also. How about you get a much harsher penalty for attacking me cause of your inane hatred of good conservative values? A crime is a crime regardless of who it is commited by or on. Funny how you talk in circles and never show any proof of this "born homosexual" nonsense. Seems you think that just because you say something often enough that it is true...Hmmm, where have I heard that idea before?

 

 Ha !!  GOOD  "Conservative" values ???   what are those??   Being a traitor to your country.

Lets not even go there.  I welcome the day the LAST of the ignorant, evil, bankrupt, "conservative" ideology is FINALLY and totally dismantled as the inept and evil system it is.

This US ARMY veteran knows EXACTLY what good "conservative" values are, and the sooner they are on the junk pile of history the better!! 

Better for the world and the USA.

"Better DEAD than RED"  has a WHOLE new meaning in 2009 but very much STILL True !

 dear trueblue.

you been dippin in the nerve gas again? if you love europe and it's socialist ways, buy yourself a ticket. if you think this country is anane and inept, please feel free to move.

it's amazing that our auto industry is feeding one of the largest communist countries, even while it's failing here.

it's amazing that our companies form the major part of several foreign economies (take brazil, for example, g.m. almost owns all of brazil outright.)

it's also amazing that you seem so dearly in love with a system that has not survived anywhere intact. russia is no more, china is on it's way to downfall with the intervention of the automobile, and even north korea and vietnam are tumbling under the weight of bluejeans and ipods.

your beloved system won't even work here, as, after a few years of "living la vida leftist" the electorate gets a little tired of the empty promises and sooner than later elects another republican.

come on, where is that list of people who swear they were BORN HOMOSEXUAL? probably right next to that list of those who have it listed on their death certificates that SECOND HAND SMOKE was the cause of death.

TrueBlue:

 No there is no discussion with your MONTHS of demonstrated ignorance.

<in other words, trueblue lost this arguement>

 

The simple fact that this law was EVEN proposed is evidence of moving in the right direction.

<NO, it's proof this state is moving in the LEFT direction, AGAIN. >

 

Furthermore, it would seem that you are convicted in the court of "public opinion"....yet again.

<i wouldn't be too sure about that. the 'score' is TWO TO ONE AGAINST YOU. in case you haven't counted. so much for conviction in the court of public opinion. by the way where are those facts you so loosely ignore?>

 

Enough!   <i'm sure you've had enough, but i have not yet begun to fight.>

 

 

crazycajun:

TrueBlue:

 No there is no discussion with your MONTHS of demonstrated ignorance.

<in other words, trueblue lost this arguement>

 

The simple fact that this law was EVEN proposed is evidence of moving in the right direction.

<NO, it's proof this state is moving in the LEFT direction, AGAIN. >

 

Furthermore, it would seem that you are convicted in the court of "public opinion"....yet again.

<i wouldn't be too sure about that. the 'score' is TWO TO ONE AGAINST YOU. in case you haven't counted. so much for conviction in the court of public opinion. by the way where are those facts you so loosely ignore?>

 

Enough!   <i'm sure you've had enough, but i have not yet begun to fight.>

 

 

 

Your bravery at least out weights your intelligence.  You do not "fight"  because in the area of intellectual discussion you are unarmed.

Your positions on every issue you have commented on have been wrong except one. And that must have been sheer luck.

Your lack of education and knowledge of politics, economics, health care and even city planning is self-evident.

You are merely tiresome.  There is no point in playing "tic-tac-toe"  with you.   Its boring.  Its just that you dont see it because you lack either inteligence , education, or both.

Your presence on this blog is a hinderance to any real discussion.   In kindness I will simple tell you that you make a fool out of your screen name every time you post.  

So maybe even your so called bravery is in question as you hide like a coward behind your annonimity.

In words you and your kind might understand.....get lost.

 

TrueBlue:

crazycajun:

TrueBlue:

 No there is no discussion with your MONTHS of demonstrated ignorance.

<in other words, trueblue lost this arguement>

 

The simple fact that this law was EVEN proposed is evidence of moving in the right direction.

<NO, it's proof this state is moving in the LEFT direction, AGAIN. >

 

Furthermore, it would seem that you are convicted in the court of "public opinion"....yet again.

<i wouldn't be too sure about that. the 'score' is TWO TO ONE AGAINST YOU. in case you haven't counted. so much for conviction in the court of public opinion. by the way where are those facts you so loosely ignore?>

 

Enough!   <i'm sure you've had enough, but i have not yet begun to fight.>

 

 

 

Your bravery at least out weights your intelligence.

<pity yours does not. you have neither bravery nor intelligence.>

  You do not "fight"  because in the area of intellectual discussion you are unarmed.

<such wit... i'm skewered to the soul... oh, the ignominity... oh the blessed scurge... oh the scalding tongue...>

Your positions on every issue you have commented on have been wrong except one. And that must have been sheer luck.

<this coming from the guy who is PROVABLY WRONG on every issue he has commented on? i'm truly hurt now...>

Your lack of education and knowledge of politics, economics, health care and even city planning is self-evident.

<your lack of couth shines like a beacon over these desolate plains, illuminating even the most gormless with the light of your stupidity.>

You are merely tiresome.

<no, you are just tired of losing to me.>

  There is no point in playing "tic-tac-toe"  with you.

<as you keep on losing.>

   Its boring.

<no, it's quite entertaining to whup you at every turn, then to taunt you to finally back up your inanities with facts, which you never do.> 

  Its just that you dont see it because you lack either inteligence , education, or both.

<nope, wrong again, i don't see it because i'm too busy laughing uproariously at you.>

Your presence on this blog is a hinderance to any real discussion.

<funny, we haven't had a REAL discussion with you yet. i'm still waiting for that to happen, any time you are ready...>

   In kindness I will simple tell you that you make a fool out of your screen name every time you post.  

<please READ YOUR LAST SENTENCE, then read it again, then have someone who knows how to spell SIMPLY proof-read it for you.>

So maybe even your so called bravery is in question as you hide like a coward behind your annonimity.

what anonymity are you talking about? i list a sign on name, and an email address. you may contact me at any time, i welcome it. but you won't. i'm quite sure of it. those of your ilk lack the stones to back up their rhetoric with anything else other than more rhetoric.>

In words you and your kind might understand.....get lost.

<nah... don't think so. i've been on this site for years, you've only been on this site for a few weeks. in other words, IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE YOU SAY SO.

have a nice day, dipweed.

 

 

 

Once again bluey, you talk in circles, ignore facts and generally sound like just another ignorant liberal.

You public schooling/indoctrination shows through everytime you open your pie hole. By the way, most veterans would give you a very quick education. You need to step away from the kool aid and open your eyes to facts, they are wonderful things and when using them in an argument you can't lose.

If you are under 30 and not a liberal, you have no heart. If you are over 30 and not a conservative you have no brain.-W. Churchill

 by the way, trueblue.

which army did you serve in?

the UNITED STATES ARMY has rules against those who would overthrow the government being enlisted.

you must also have taken an oath to protect and defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. how did you swallow those words with a straight face?

now, i'll admit that exposure to some of the larger capitals of europe would tend to have you believing that they know better, but look a little closer. each and every town you visited was an ARMY town, supported almost totally by the presence of millions of american soldiers pumping money into their economies.

without that, what you saw would still look as if it were 1946.

we fought for them, then we rebuilt them. we paid for it several times over, and now they scorn us.

well, you may join them if you wish, this is still a free country, after all. but you are also welcome to leave us for them, if they are so superior to us.

i'm sure it's a tough decision to give up your cushy union job to go to a place that is only slightly more leftist than detroit, but i'm sure it's a sacrifice you'll have to make someday.

bon voyage.