Originally Posted By jonvn "I think flag burning should not be ootlawed." No, it shouldn't. It's the very thing that the first ammendment was created for.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Beaumandy, for the record, could we just get you to endorse the above statement as regards hate crimes? Yeah, the statement in which it convincingly points out that political rulings and legal precedents are completely incorrect given their conflict with the common sense of the people. I'll use this in the future when you bring up legal rulings vs. the will of moonbat people in regards to gay marriage and the sanctity of legal rulings." And so, beyond conclusively, if there is such a thing, the Inspector weighs in and magnificently illustrates the hypocrisy inherent in beau and all the little beau henchmen of the world. When it comes to stem cells, despite the "will of the people", and a Republican Congress for that matter, Bush did the right thing injecting his religious views and vetoing that bill. But then beau cites the "will of the people" as it relates to gay marriage and to hell with court decisions. And here now, despite the "will of the people" AND court decisions, beau finds that hate crime laws are too harsh on bigots and homophobes and defy his convoluted sense of logic. If there ever was an irrlevant moonbat, it's beau.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder And more to the point, it leaves one with no alternative but to conclude that beau too is a bigot and a homophobe. It has been pointed out to him literally dozens of times in this thread that simply being a bigot isn't against the law. Against human decency yes, but not the law. It is when a person ACTS OUT directly because of that bigotry that makes it a hate crime. If not for that hatred, no crime would have been committed. No murder, no assault, no act of vandalism. Hence, the hate crime. But notice his responses always stop short and never address acting out. He harrumphs about how hate crimes make being a bigot against the law and stops there. He's either incapable of understanding that or a bigot.
Originally Posted By jonvn He is either incapable of understanding, or simply uninterested in discussion and simply wants to spout off and cause trouble.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And more to the point, it leaves one with no alternative but to conclude that beau too is a bigot and a homophobe.> I don't conclude that. I think he's just wrong on this issue. I also think it's possible to attack his position on this issue without attacking him.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I also think it's possible to attack his position on this issue without attacking him." Perhaps it would be easier to do that if he didn't engage in constant name calling, such as calling people who don't agree with him "pansies," or labeling them as one thing or another. People generally get treated with the respect they give out to others.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Perhaps it would be easier to do that if he didn't engage in constant name calling, such as calling people who don't agree with him "pansies," or labeling them as one thing or another.> Perhaps, but I rarely see Beaumandy attacking others individually and personally, like others often do to him. When he has, it's almost always been in response to direct personal attacks on him.
Originally Posted By Shooba >>Perhaps, but I rarely see Beaumandy attacking others individually and personally, like others often do to him. When he has, it's almost always been in response to direct personal attacks on him.<< Utter nonsense.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I rarely see Beaumandy attacking others individually" I see it as a constant. Unprovoked constant personal attacks.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Beaumandy post #15 < I agree with you Barboy about " hate crimes ". A crime is a crime. Trying to guess the motive and putting the word " hate " on it is something so stupid we can only guess what group of people came up with this idea.>
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Perhaps, but I rarely see Beaumandy attacking others individually and personally, like others often do to him. When he has, it's almost always been in response to direct personal attacks on him." Couple of things. Doug, there's no doubt the guy brings out the worst in people. And so as others have pointed out, he gets as good as he gives. When he starts out with lib this, lib that, moonbat, pansies (the one from this thread), wackos, insulting people's professions, ad nauseum, then yeah, he'll be labelled as a bigot and a homophobe in this thread, because as you can tell, he's been given plenty of chances and persists on his plan of attack. It isn't as if he hasn't been given an opportunity to revise his postings here. In my post, if it is perceived as an attack on him I can't do anything about that, but that wasn't the intent. Rather, as I said, I'm simply drawing a conclusion based upon his myriad of posts here in this thread and his massive accumulation of similar diatribes elsewhere. Second, considering he never berates and attacks you, it would be nice of once ina while you'd chime in earlier than post 283 to say he's wrong. We'll never know, but it could have saved a lot of angst here.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I read and post when I have time, and a debate about hate crime is just not interesting to me. It's kind of like immigration, I can see merits on both sides of the debate. Since there were plenty of people countering Beaumandy, it made little sense for me to jump into the fray while it was simply a debate about that.
Originally Posted By DAR Here's just a crazy thought for some of you. Instead of responding to Beau's attacks with attacks of your own, just be the better person and don't stoop to his level.
Originally Posted By Shooba Usually don't, but when his response to the murder of an innocent individual is to gleefully claim he won a bet, then darn right I'm going to have at him. Any decent human being would be appalled by his attitude.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Here's just a crazy thought for some of you. Instead of responding to Beau's attacks with attacks of your own, just be the better person and don't stoop to his level> Where's the fun in that?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA And hey, if the folks in the middle east would just stop responding to all that negativity that al-queda and Hizbollah and The Taliban spew out -- we'd have peace. Or am I over simplifying?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Here's just a crazy thought for some of you. Instead of responding to Beau's attacks with attacks of your own, just be the better person and don't stoop to his level." When we get to his level we'll let you know. Right now, we're nowhere near that low.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<"I think flag burning should not be ootlawed." No, it shouldn't. It's the very thing that the first ammendment was created for.>> Burning a flag is no more 'speech' than burning a cross in a black family's yard is 'speech'. I think the courts have gone a little overboard when it comes to defining 'speech'.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA So burning the American Flag should be outlawed? As a form of protest?
