« NEW DFL LEGISLATIVE TACTICS: THREATEN THE GOVERNOR | Home | MDE EXCLUSIVE: HATCH QUITS AG’S OFFICE IN DISGRACE, HOSTS FUNDRAISER FOR SWANSON AT HIS HOME »
TINKLENBERG WON’T RUN IN 2008; WARNS DEMOCRATS ABOUT TAKING BACHMANN “TOO LIGHTLY”
By Michael B. Brodkorb | May 7, 2007
"'The idea of taking her [Bachmann] too lightly would not serve Democratic candidates well. She has proven herself to be very organized, a very effective campaigner,' he said. 'When she beat Patty Wetterling, she was running against someone who had a lot more money than she did, a lot more name recognition than she did, and she was bucking a national tide.'" Source: St. Cloud Times, May 7, 2007 Click here for complete story.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 47 Comments »
47 Responses to “TINKLENBERG WON’T RUN IN 2008; WARNS DEMOCRATS ABOUT TAKING BACHMANN “TOO LIGHTLY””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 7th, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Well, Bachmann did have the advantage of running against a pathological liar bought and paid for by extremists.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Wetterling did have a problem being accurate…
May 7th, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Michele is an accurate reflection of the voters in 6th district. She fits. And she doesn’t change her positions to please the media.
She is not the nutbag the leftists made her out to be. The public saw through that media complicit ruse.
Michele Bachmann will be our representative in the 6th for as long as she chooses to be.
May 7th, 2007 at 2:01 PM
If the standard is now that Mrs Wetterling is a “pathological liar” and had a “problem being accurate”, I am curious about what words are left to describe some in the administration. Or some on this blog. (An accusation about Blois Olson comes to mind. Or an issue of being or not being on the Kennedy campaign. Or a picture proporting to show all in attendance at a Franken event. Or Bill Gates being a registered Democrat. And on and on.)
May 7th, 2007 at 2:19 PM
By next year, the Star-Tribune will be down to 9 employees. Probably 5 of then will be assigned to write hit pieces on Bachmann.
Like the changes. I see a hint of the NY Post in the formating.
May 7th, 2007 at 2:48 PM
I pity the voters in the 6th CD for voting in a Representative that is not looking out for them. All the votes before Bachmann was given a resounding NO. I checked out her voting record so far on Project Vote Smart.
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=54675
Michelle Bachmann Voted NO on these issues that afect the lives of people who live in Minnesota as well as the 6th CD…..
1)Pay-As-You-Go Bill (what the GOP used to be about)
2)Voted NO to allowing Medicare negotiate with the Drug Companies so that Seniors get lower Drug prices.
3) Voted NO to easing the financial burden of College Students by lowering interest rates.
4) Voted NO to assisiting Veterans for their care and to set up small businesses after their service was complete.
5) Voted NO to the Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act that would help fund local Police forces in ivestigating Hate Crimes.
6) Voted NO against the Tax Breaks for Small businesses regarding the Minimum Wage Bill, which ws supported by Chambers of Commerce across the country.
7) Voted NO to increasing the Minimum Wage.
9) Voted No to better funding Head Start to close the achievement gap that shows up later.
These are just a sample of the NO Votes of Michelle Bachmann. How does she fit in with the 6th CD?? She has yet to face her District to answer for her votes, respond to the emails sent to her, or explain her logic behind her votes in the media. Does Michelle Bachmann not have Veterans, Seniors on Medicare, low Wage earners, struggling College Students, or others living in her District?
She keeps this up, she will surely be out of office in November of 2008. Voters will soon see through her extreme Conservatism and vote her out.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Kathy,
She fits better than you realize. Just because you don’t share point of view of the majority in the 6th doesn’t mean it isn’t the view of the majority. I don’t think Bachman’s votes so far would surprise anybody who voter for her. She had a lot of press before and during the election
May 7th, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Seems voting “No” was the right answer on most every one of those answers Kathy. It was absolutely the right vote on #s 2 (forcing drug rationing for America’s seniors); 5 (creating second class victims (shouldn’t violent crime be punished as violent crime?) and criminalizing thought); 7 (incentives for unskilled workers); and 8 (more wealth re-distribution, sugar coated).
I think she’s representing the 6th CD well.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Bummer for you Kathy you do not get to say much unless you live in the 6th. Just as I do not get to say much about Hakiem Ellison is his district.
Mr. Ellison is far more of an extremeist than Bachman.
May 7th, 2007 at 4:51 PM
This is what else Bachmann voted NO on…
HR 6: To reduce our Nation’s dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in alternative energy, and for other purposes.
H Con Res 99: Revising the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2007, establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2008, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2009 through 2012
Michelle Bachmann also Voted NO to HR1322 Small Business Lending Improvements Act of 2007 that strengthens the Small Business Administration’s loan programs and targets outreach toward veterans and rural areas. Especially noted in this bill were loan programs specifically for veterans wanting to start businesses and assisting small businesses in rural areas.
This rhetoric came from a representative that campaigned on the issues of lowering taxes for the middle class, supporting small businesses and assisting our veterans. Go look at her campaign site.
Bachmann refuses to answer emails or snail mail from Democrat and GOP constituents regarding bills. Her staff do not reply either. That is not being accountable to the people she works for.
If this is what you call serving the 6th CD well, chestnut, I suggest you clean off your rose colored glasses and take a good look at what voter base Michelle Bachmann is really catering to. It’s not the everyday people who want answers and accountability from their Representatives. She speaks only to those who support her neo conservative views.
May 7th, 2007 at 5:38 PM
kathy,
And how many of these bills made it into law? ZERO?!
Either Michele was right on all of them or we have a do nothing democratic congress. Most likely both.
God bless Michele!
May 7th, 2007 at 5:38 PM
kathy,
And how many of these bills made it into law? ZERO?!
Either Michele was right on all of them or we have a do nothing democratic congress. Most likely both.
God bless Michele!
May 7th, 2007 at 5:46 PM
To say Bachmann isnt an extremist is absurd. She is the biggest Christian conservative extremist in all of Congress.
Chestnut, forcing drug rationing for Seniors. I dont even know what to say that. That is most horrible thing I have ever heard on this blog which says a lot.
The Hate Crimes legislation does not create thought crimes, that is the Christian rights tell its gullible followers. The legislation protects the freedom of speech and such. In fact, you said it best by saying it deals with violent crime, NOT “thought crime”. We dont need thought crime, look at Don Imus and Anne Coulter, what great backlashes.
The 6th district is pretty conservative (I am a resident of it when I am not in school) but it is by no means as conservative as Bachmann is. A conservative Democrat can win this district.
Also, Bachmann also appears to be a pathological lair, partioning Iraq and Iran getting half of it? That may not make her pathological but its a step in the right direction.
The right DFL’er can give Bachmann a run for her money, all they have to do is show her voting record.
I mean who the hell honestly votes against funding Head Start programs.
Id say Ellison and Bachmann are pretty equal on extremist pages, Ellison’s district, however, makes it fitting, it had a 43% I believe voting advantage for Kerry while Bachmann’s district gave a 16% voting advantage to Bush. Clearly Republican but by no means deserving a wingbat like her.
May 7th, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Kathy:
Let’s look in to reasons why she may have voted no: How much pork? What does the bill do that it doesn’t say in a cute head note?
HR 6: Penalizes exploration and development of fossil fuels, including adding surcharges to recovery of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Perhaps because this bill would actually increase dependence on foreign oil by decreasing domestic production is the reason Bachmann voted no.
H Con Res 99: You lied. HR 99 has dick to do with budget limits. That bill actually was the first of Democrats stupid attempts to undermine our armed forces. That bill criticized the President Bush’s new Iraq strategy before it was even implemented. More than an ill-advised piece of legislation, it was non-binding. Democrats, apparently believe they work for the U.N.
HR 1332 (not HR 1322): That bill does NOT target veterans, but veterans certainly may have benefited. Bachmann joined 155 others in opposing the bill, which many saw as providing tax payer subsidies in an area of the economy that is already doing quite well. I thought you libs were against subsidizing businesses? Either way, a vote for or against this bill is justified. You have to be an egg head to get passionate about it.
In any case, yes, I say she’s serving the district quite well.
May 7th, 2007 at 6:59 PM
Andrew, apparently being horrified by accurate comments forces you into babbling nonsensical bullshit.
Rationing of medications and services is exactly what is happening at the VA thanks to its power to “negotiate”… if that’s the model for America’s seniors, thank goodness someone has the courage to vote nea.
Hate crimes legislation is feel-good fantasy land bologna. It does create a separate class of victims, and makes “thought” a crime. Acts of violence are acts of violence, regardless of who perpetrates them against who or why. Every crime is motivated by hate you ass.
You’re full of shit Andrew… this one is a howler, and I beg you to explain it: “The legislation protects the freedom of speech and such.” Wow, you invoked “and such…” that’s a powerful argument. Moron.
Your bologna “hate crimes” crap punishes the motive… the motive is the thought. The thought is the speech. You want to punish people for thinking differently than you do.
I say punish the crime. I think the 1st Amendment backs me up on that one. If you liberals want to get tough on crime, then support judges who sentence criminals.
May 7th, 2007 at 9:31 PM
Bachmann is a pathological liar. Eric Black rebuts her lies about his reporting on this statement by her:
http://www.startribune.com/blogs/bigquestion/?p=651
“Iran is the trouble maker, trying to tip over apple carts all over Baghdad right now because they want America to pull out. And do you know why? It’s because they’ve already decided that they’re going to partition Iraq.
And half of Iraq, the western, northern portion of Iraq, is going to be called…. the Iraq State of Islam, something like that. And I’m sorry, I don’t have the official name, but it’s meant to be the training ground for the terrorists. There’s already an agreement made.
They are going to get half of Iraq and that is going to be a terrorist safe haven zone where they can go ahead and bring about more terrorist attacks in the Middle East region and then to come against the United States because we are their avowed enemy.â€
EY: The reason Bachmann won is the mainstream media didn’t cover hear appearances and statements to her base. She says very different things when she is a guest on KKMS than when she talks to MPR or the Strib. She no longer talks to the strib.
Eric Black is known as a very fair reporter.
May 7th, 2007 at 11:47 PM
The fact tht none of these Bills have been signed into law does not mean that they will all get vetoed by Bush, whom Bachmann sees as doing no wrong.
The fact that Bachman voted against the very people and issues she campaigned on shows her to be disengenious. That is not looking out for the most vulnerable in her District nor servinf them well.
As for Pork, Congress is giving the President what he needs, not merely giving him what he wants. The Iraq Funding Bill contained monies not related to the war, but were essential none the less because people affected by Hurricane Katrina are still waiting for Federal help in Mississippi, Alabama, and parts of Louisiana. If that is what is called pork, so be it. At least thre money is being accounted for.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:08 AM
Kathy, you haven’t proved that. I took your bills apart point-by-point, particularly your lie about H.R. 1332.
Bachmann has stayed true to her campaign promises and her constituents. You’re normally intellectually honest about your comments. But in this case, you’re spinning like a 35 rpm record.
… speaking of intellectual honesty… tell me how Calif. spinach farmers and Georgia Peanut storage fit in to Katrina and in to an Iraq war supplemental.
Democrats couldn’t get that lump of crap passed in their own ranks without larding it up.
The cowards are too gutless to do the only thing they constitutionally can, which is to defund the war.
After that kathy, stop lying. I’m pretty disappointed actually.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:28 AM
… I hope she votes no to this stupid bill: H.R. 1595… to pay the residence of Guam “reparations” for the atrocities committed by the Imperial Japan.
To be clear, apparently, someone thinks America should pay for the criminal acts of other nations now… wtf?
May 8th, 2007 at 10:44 AM
Optimus, the US made payments for the victims of 9/11 and we helped rebuild Europe after WW II. This is nothing new. The Republicans proposed this bill in the last Congress but I’ll bet Ms Malkin doesn’t think that’s relevant.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:51 AM
Otter, it’s completely unprecedented. First, we bombed the hell out of Europe in WWII, so we probably owed it to them to help put it back together. Not to mention the fact that if we hadn’t, it would have all fallen under the Soviet Union. Something to do with helping your friends back on their feet.
The 9/11 payments are completely un-related, but sure as heck weren’t “reparations.”
This dumb bill is supposedly to pay for the raping and torture the Japanese did 60 years ago. I say let the Japanese pay reparations.
The bill is dumb no matter who proposed it.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Interesting reading of history that the United States is responsible for what happened to Europe during WW II. Most people think the Nazis brought that on, but you are entitled to your view.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:54 AM
Optimus’ reading isn’t that peculiar. It was allied bombs, after all, that left those craters, while driving the Nazi’s out.
Helping reconstruct isn’t such a novel or unique reading Otter… except to maybe a confused little rat like you.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:45 PM
You missed my point; I am for the US and wealthy nations giving the disadvantaged a hand when they need it. I just don’t think you can blame the US for what happened to Europe during WW II. We don’t blame an army medic for leaving a surgical scar when he removes a piece of shrapnel, and we shouldn’t blame the US for the carnage in Europe because we had to destroy the Nazis.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:10 PM
Ya know, Patty not going to DC is for the best. I think she is a great lady but has no political savvy at all. Most political questions outside the Dem talking points she was briefed on left her looking like a deer in the headlights. Her campaign was often painful to watch. She can do far more good as an activist for children then she could ever do in Washington.
Kathy, as I have posted here many times before, Libs don’t see secondary or tertiary effects of any action. Read the bill, not just the brief, and then think about what the effects will be other than what is immediately stated. Chestnut points it out quite eloquently. Price controls on meds sounds good until the rationing kicks in or the research stops. As I recall it also restricted choice.(?) The renewable energy bill is a huge joke that I could go on for pages about. The bill’s affect would be the opposite of the goal. Lowering interest rates to collage students will only raise tuition just like low home mortgage rates helped home prices skyrocket. The examples are almost infinite. Think to the next step! It’s simple if you try.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:19 PM
is a otter a liberal? surgical scars in reference to wartime collateral damage? jeezus…i don’t believe my ears.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Y’all are confusing apples and oranges in the drug benefit negotiation argument. R and D doesn’t have anything to do with it. Look at it this way: if a dairy farmer needs to get six dollars for the two gallons of milk he produces, he charges three dollars for each of them. He doesn’t charge five dollars for one and one dollar for the other. The pharmaceutical industry has structured prices in such a way that they are often sold for much cheaper in another country (where a single buyer has set the price) because the profit can be made up on the drugs sold in the US. By letting the government negotiate, the price structure will eventually become more even across the board; the drug companies will get more out of other markets abroad. Drug companies have an obligation to their stakeholders to make a profit, but it is asinine for the taxpayers to be expected to pay the bulk of it. Every single other part of the government negotiates with private companies to get a fair price, but in this instance it is banned. Walmart works very hard with it’s suppliers to get the best price it can, as does the purchasing manager in every private business. Why do the Republicans want to abort free-market principles?
May 8th, 2007 at 3:48 PM
Otter, where, other than in your comment did anyone blame the U.S. for what happened in Europe in WWII? You are a confused little rat.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:03 PM
On the other hand, the confused little rat aptly points out that research and development won’t be much impacted by Medicare drug negotiations… But the fact remains that drug rationing and elimination of choices will happen.
The pharmaceutical companies charge less in other countries because other socialist countries set the prices they can charge. 75 percent (or so) of the pharma innovation happens in the U.S., not those countries, because of that fact. The U.S. also has access to new drugs, typically, much sooner.
Price controls in the U.S. will only stifle innovation and limit choice to prescription drugs.
But while I’m here, I want to snipe the rest of your ignorant bullshit for what it is:
//The pharmaceutical industry has structured prices in such a way that they are often sold for much cheaper in another country (where a single buyer has set the price)//
So, who set the price? The pharma? Or the country? You are a confused little rat.
//By letting the government negotiate, the price structure will eventually become more even across the board; the drug companies will get more out of other markets abroad.//
Are you really saying that other countries will now let Pharma charge higher prices? Are you that confused, you little rat?
//Drug companies have an obligation to their stakeholders to make a profit, but it is asinine for the taxpayers to be expected to pay the bulk of it.//
Taxpayers don’t pay the bulk of it. Consumers do, you confused little rat.
Critics of your approach point to the VA model, where drug rationing limits the choices for patients and negatively impacts healthcare.
Wal-Mart has negotiated pretty low prices… ON GENERICS… they do not offer lower prices on new drugs.
//Why do the Republicans want to abort free-market principles?//
So, which is it otter, are you for government forced price controls? Or are you for free market principles where the manufacturer charges the price that the market will pay for its goods?
You’re so confused you don’t even know the difference… you little rat.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:05 PM
… and without the incentive to make a good profit, who will bother to risk investments in new drug treatments and development…
So we’ve come full circle… it will impact R&D.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:09 PM
“Every single other part of the government negotiates with private companies to get a fair price.†Like $700 toilet seats, $300 hammers, $50 ashtrays…Yep, can’t wait for those negotiations.
Wal-Mart, Target, Walgreens are all great examples of bulk buying and free market and should be greatly encouraged and embraced by Republicans. So how can the government take over be considered free market? I mean, ferchrisake Otter, isn’t that the exact OPPOSITE of free market?
May 8th, 2007 at 4:43 PM
Using your market dominance (as a comsumer) to negotiate will get lower prices. When WalMart needs a product they don’t accept whatever the vendor says as their buying price. If you buy one car or one two by four you pay a retail price for it. If you buy every car that comes off the assembly line for a week or a lumberyard full of two by fours you get a better price. The prescription drug program is an enormous consumer of product and in any industry in any part of the economy the purchaser takes advantage of the economies of scale. But the Republicans have banned that, made it illegal to get a better price on drugs so that seniors and taxpayers will pay less.
You brought up inovation. Where a drug company makes the bulk of its profit has nothing to do with it. Innovations and improvements flow back and forth across borders (as long as the FDA or foreign equivalent has okayed them). Most of the need for HIV/AIDS drugs is in Africa, but we don’t need to do our innovation there. Once a drug is developed it can go anywhere.
When the Government buys drugs at the VA, weapons systems, logistical help, roads, water treatment plants, etc, etc, they look at bids and go through price comparison; its not price-fixing, and they aren’t destroying innovation.
And yes I do think that drug companies will get more from foreign health systems eventually.
And Optimus Prime said that we bombed the hell out of Europe. He didn’t say anything about the Axis.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:49 PM
That’s an interesting take on reality rat. Not grounded in much fact or substance though.
Further, i would suggest you lay off the prescription narcotics.
I guess you’re not all that confused… just very, very ignorant and stupid.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:56 PM
Andrew,
Your argument about prescription drug prices is just ridiculous. What will happen is that drug companies will ration just like they do in the VA where not all drugs are available to people.
Thanks to President Bush and the Republicans, seniors already are paying less for drugs. To negotiate prices (ie. tell drug companies what they can charge) is just plain socialism and it’s not necessary.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:09 PM
Bachmann has the guts to stand by her conservative principles. That’s why she won. I just hope other Republicans learn from her example before it’s too late.
May 9th, 2007 at 10:29 AM
If having government purchasers not negotiate with suppliers is such a great idea, then I guess you’d argue that we should spread that philosophy to all parts of government. When the teachers union wants more, give them whatever they want. It costs $5000 a week to pick up my garbage? So be it. Another $100,000 to plow my cul-de-sac? Alright. Sheesh! I thought you all were the party that wanted to run government like a business.
Hey Chestnut, thank you for the critique, but can you think of some new names to call me? You’re bit is getting tired and you need to freshen it up a bit. And are you still looking for the link where it says Bill Gates is a registered Democrat?
May 9th, 2007 at 11:08 AM
Naaa, calling otter a confused little rat never gets tiring. It’s also appropriate, because it’s true.
I think otter, in the process, you’ve actually come across an interesting question… whether you know it or not… which is this… why is government buying drugs at all?
Turns out, it doesn’t. The government does not have “drug purchasers” as you put it. What is spun as “negotiation” is in fact “price controls”…
… which leads us back to the fact that price controls stifle innovation and result in the rationing of services. Don’t believe me? Ask someone who lived through the U.S.S.R. what it’s like to stand in line for bread.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:14 PM
The government (taxpayers) is buying the drugs. Seniors pay a co-pay, but the government has accepted the price the drug companies set.
For example:
Michelin sell tires to the military for the humvees. There is a price the military pays for them, and that has been negotiated. Michelin is not going out of business. That’s a fact. Call Norm Coleman’s office and ask them if you don’t believe me.
Think about the way you make purchases everyday. You compare quality and cost and look for the best value. To accept a supplier’s price without any negotiation is not a free market principle.
May 9th, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Taxpayers fund the government. The are not actually the government otter. Man, you are a confused little rat.
You like to compare apples to watermelons, don’t you? The equipping the military for national defense is a legitimate government role and responsibility. Purchasing tires as part of that national defense role is appropriate.
Purchasing tires for me, however, isn’t. Same with drugs.
You’re advocating price-fixing. To the extent that there is any negotiation, the manufacturer’s will likely just say “no” I won’t sell to you for that price…
Which is exactly what happens to the VA… the VA has to ration drugs, and why the VA cannot offer most drugs to those in its care.
May 9th, 2007 at 1:56 PM
Call any Sen or Reps office and ask them if the government negotiates lower prices. If you believe the government should never aid individuals that your point of view but it doesn’t change economics.
And the problem with the Soviets wasn’t that they set limits on prices and innovations in bread, it’s that they geared all of their resources to a military beauracracy.
May 9th, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Otter, you haven’t the faintest clue to the economics or any other principle to this argument.
You’ve only demonstrated the accuracy of my assertion that you are a confused little rat.
May 9th, 2007 at 6:33 PM
Chestnut-you’re the one who doesn’t have the faintest clue. Why don’t you drop the Chest and just go for Nut…you are another UGLY AMERICAN…Warren Buffet is going to support the DEMS in ’08. Now let’s see you Swift Boat him to pieces…
May 9th, 2007 at 6:43 PM
Pretty sure every American is “ugly” to a turd like you MNBlueStategal1.
Warren Buffet always supported Democrats. That’s nothing new. How come only billionaires who want to buy influence support Democrats?
By “Swift Boat,” I assume you mean to present the truth about someone’s record, no matter how inconvenient.
Nice of you to chime in though…
May 9th, 2007 at 8:28 PM
This will help you understand Chestnut. You’re welcome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating
May 9th, 2007 at 8:54 PM
I am just going to comment on Chestnut and the Hate Crime Legislation.
It by no means makes it illegal for thought crime. It punishes people who are homphobic and act violently on it. I can kind of see your point and it is almost valid, you can murder a person just for fun but if you are homophobic and you do it because of that, then you are getting penalized due to this hate for gays.
But the problem is, you can still think anything you want, you can say it openly that you hate gay people. What the law does is making it greater offense is if you act on these convictions of homophobia, not for merely thinking them. Call me a fag, whatever, beat me up for being one, then you are no longer only committing a thought crime but also a hate crime.
Furthermore, I fully believe that crimes that are motivated by stupid, baseless hate should be punished more. It severely drags down our society as a whole and makes us look childish, bigotted, unaccepting and so forth. We are the United States and we are STILL a somewhat racist, sexist, homophobic population and that is disgusting.
James Dobson worries that now Christians who intrepret the Bible his way wont be able to be homophobic. Lies, they can be as homophobic as can be, it isnt any skin off my knees. They will just get a large penalty for acting on homophobic attitudes in a violent way. If they would just act like Jesus would and love everyone, then they shouldnt have a problem with this new legislation now should they.
I also particularly like that when it comes to federal things, the Hate Crime legislation allows the Federal government to intervene and investigate when a group of people are being attacked while doing a federally protected activity.
People who are against Hate Crime Legislation are just bigots and need some excuse to bitch about how “gays are getting more special rights.”
May 10th, 2007 at 8:30 AM
Thanks otter, I’m sure it’s an interesting read. But most of the allegations were substantiated by overwhelming evidence. And none have been discredited.
So, if by “Swift Boat” you mean “to disclose the truth with facts”, then yes, let the Swift Boating continue.
Andrew, that’s quite a tangled web of rationalization you weave. It doesn’t hold water though. The Constitution calls for equal protection under the law, thus we subscribe sentences for the crime, not the motive.
As you’ve aptly described, so-called “hate crimes” are intended to punish motive. “It punishes people who are homophobic…” Homophobia is an irrational fear. But to criminalize homophobia is as misguided and immoral as the phobia its self.
Motive is a product of thought. Proponents of “hate crimes†legislation use empty rhetoric such as “to stop homophobia†in order to bait emotion and justify the criminalization of certain ways of thinking. And that is a very, very slippery slope. In fact, sentencing motive will do nothing to quell said motive. If a few years in prison for committing a violent crime aren’t enough to deter the perpetrator, then a couple more for thinking the wrong thing won’t either.
In fact, sending people to prison based on their motives is most akin to sending them to a new age “re-education†facility… Castro defines hate crimes as anything opposing him. What’s next?
“Hate crime” rhetoric teaches that certain classes of people are worth more or less than others. Its a manifestation of the same stupidity that motivates certain people to “hate” certain others in the first place.
If fact, violent crime is violent crime; and all violent crime is motivated by hate, regardless of who commits it. “Hate crimes†laws create a second-class of violent crime, where all violent crime should be equally offensive. This serves nobody, except for the desire of overbearing politicians and emotionally stunted individuals to say they’ve done something.
By supporting “hate crimes” legislation, you’re saying that less offensive for black man to kill a black man, than it is for a white man to kill a black man… Or worse, that it’s even less offensive for a black man to kill a white man. … in fact, it should be equally offensive for anyone to kill anyone else. Period.
“… you can still think anything you want, you can say it openly that you hate gay people….”
No, actually you can’t. First, because you’ve empowered government to coerce individuals that “think the wrong things;†and second, because “hate crimes” are defined so broadly that words are a form of violence — harassment. “Hate crimes” are also defined so broadly that most everything is considered one, so long as the perpetrator or the victim are demographically diverse.
Yes, I used the word diverse. Because what your striving for is a homogeneous world order of people who agree with you. … and apparently, your world order is one that has no room for Christians who believe that homosexuality is immoral and wrong. And if they say so in public, they will be sent to “re-education†prison.
I fully believe that all crimes should be punished for their offensive nature, regardless of why someone committed it.
You can think what you want about America Andrew, but this country is no worse on intolerance than any other… In fact, compared to many, we are superior in fighting intolerance. … The first Amendment guarantees individuals to look as “childish, bigoted, unaccepting, racist, sexist, homophobic…†as they want. That’s actually the beauty of the First Amendment, it empowers individuals to reject the stupidity on display before them.
But the liberal hate-crimes agenda is more about control than anything else. But maybe we should make it a hate crime to harass those of us who love our country, we’re a minority it seems these days.
In a way, I find it ironic that you favor throwing Christians in jail in the name of tolerance. I find that to be about the most bigoted statement I’ve ever heard.
But you’re full of anti-Christian bigotry, aren’t you Andrew… yes, let the hate flow through you…
May 10th, 2007 at 8:37 AM
Andrew,
Hate crime legislation is thought crime legislation. It is even in the name of the bill. Hate is a state of mind, violence is an action sometimes cause by hate.
You can find different reasons for doing something worse than others but if you have to prove what a person was thinking when they did it you are criminalizing thought.