If Mr. Moderate honestly believes that the guy that kills him for his wallet is somehow less evil than the guy that kills him for his choice of bedmates, then he is seriously whacked in the head.

Or maybe that’s moderate “We’ll allow you to express half your emotions”

At the same time, he believes that the government should control who you can ‘hate’ but somehow magically believes that they should not control who you ‘love’.

What a convenient and patronizing statement, Mr. Moderate. I suppose The Livewire is just being silly and paranoid with all of this “thought crimes” nonsense, right? It’s not like Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, and the rest of the victims of Canada’s “Human Rights” Commission have not been waging a war on that particular slippery slope for the last 2-3 years. The fact is that what an individual “thinks of someone” is very much at issue in a criminal case where the defendant is charged with a “hate crime” enhancement and it typically means that the issue of sentencing may be dramatically affected by evidence of the defendant’s personal views and opinions regarding the particular protected class to which the victim belongs. The government is dangerous enough having the power to adjudicate the traditional mental states of intent, knowledge, etc. which is why half of the Bill of Rights is devoted to protecting the individual in criminal matters. The narcissistic crusade that liberals have been engaged in to give the government power to adjudicate issues of a defendant’s mental state vis-a-vis the victim’s membership in some favored, politically-correct group is a stupid, fu*king idea and has done NOTHING to prevent crime against gays or any other minority. The idea that savage criminals will somehow restrain themselves from committing violent crimes motivated by bigotry because of the possibility of a harsher sentence is the absurd pinnacle of liberal delusion.

“Extending protections to include gays or eliminating them for other classes is intellectually honest. Leaving the existing ones in place and not extending them isn’t, as far as I am concerned.”

Mr. Moderate, I know that you think this (again) condescending argument sounds reasonable and fresh (and…wait for it…moderate!), but it’s actually been floating around since the morning after Matthew Shepherd’s murder. It was bullsh*t then and it’s bullsh*t now and you really need to get some new material. Back then, rational people who opposed hate crimes legislation in the misguided hysteria following Shepherd’s murder (and who were, naturally, condemned as horrible monsters because of it) opposed such laws because they meant handing tremendous power over to the government that was certain to be abused–all because it would make the supporters feel good about themselves regardless of the fact that it would do NOTHING to reduce crimes like Shepherd’s murder. One of the more annoying arguments in favor of hate crimes laws back then was strikingly similar to the red herring you have thrown out above. To wit, that it’s “intellectually dishonest” or (horror of horrors) “inconsistent” to oppose new hate crimes legislation because there have already been such laws on the books for decades, i.e., statutes prohibiting the lynching of blacks enacted at the tail-end of Jim Crow. The idiotic argument was essentially that one couldn’t oppose new hate crimes laws unless one also was committed to the repeal of any OTHER law resembling a hate crimes statute. This is basically how it went: “What are you going to do?! Go back and demand the REPEAL OF LAWS AGAINST LYNCHING BLACK PEOPLE?! So, what you’re saying is that you are in favor of black people being lynched, isn’t that right?!” (A typically hysterical, disingenuous, liberal argument.)

Consequently, your argument, purportedly driven by “intellectual honesty” is anything but. It’s nothing more than a conclusion that the solution to bad law is more bad law. It is, however, perfectly consistent with the impotent political philosophies to be expected from “moderates.”

I say WTF took so long in getting it done….That’s why I won’t vote GOP except for the moderate Republicans.

You make Big Brother proud, Mr. Moderate. Which thoughts will you outlaw next?

After all if you feel that the government can outlaw how you can think about someone, then surely they can control your choice of bed partners.

Pelosi has asked internationally-renowned tax expert and pillar of integrity, Charles Rangel, to “examine the possibility” and “report back to her” regarding a windfall profits tax on insurance companies as part of the Democrats’ “healthcare reform” package.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091008/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare_insurance

Of course, this is totally consistent with the Left’s concept of “promoting competition” in the health insurance marketplace. The “public option” has a fraction of the overhead costs and no profitability requirements, and any profits of private companies that liberals deem “excessive” will be confiscated and used to finance the “public option.” In other words, the liberals are completely in favor of free market “competition” provided there are safeguards in place to prevent something crazy or unacceptable like profits, lower prices, and consumer satisfaction.

These worthless, idiotic criminals are beyond parody.

How about hate crimes legislation getting signed into law in the next couple of weeks.

And did that pass on it’s own two feet or did it have to be attached to necessary spending bill?

How does the content of Obama’s speech compare to the speech Bush gave to the HRC? Perhaps his speech to a Log Cabin Meeting? Any gay group whatsoever?

Republicans dont divide the nation into victim groups. Thats what Democrats do.

How about hate crimes legislation getting signed into law in the next couple of weeks. The Republicans tried that how many times?

NEVER, thank God! Republicans dont believe in thought crimes, Democrats, INGSOC, Nazis, Fascists, Communists and other totalitarians do.

Lastly, when did Bush ever make a public statement saying that gay relationship should have equal rights to straight marriages

Never! Thank God! gay relationships and straight marriages do not have equal consequences for society and the law should not support the lie that they do.

Gay rights stagnated or regressed at the federal level for over a decade.

Horsehockey!

You have no idea what rights even are.

How about hate crimes legislation getting signed into law in the next couple of weeks. The Republicans tried that how many times?

What policy reviews did Bush do in his eight years to have the pentagon determine if and when DADT should be repealed? How many has Obama?

Lastly, when did Bush ever make a public statement saying that gay relationship should have equal rights to straight marriages in all but name only and have his party actually putting legislation on the table to do it?

Gay rights stagnated or regressed at the federal level for over a decade. They are moving forward in a way that will take time but is happening. That’s more than can be said for the open hostility towards these concepts projected by the Republican party during their tenure in power and right up through this very day.