I'm sure we could find as many hypocritical laws made by republicans as there are democrats. ^.^

"I didn't see it and accidentally ran into it and banged it against the wall" ^.^ Don't put things where they don't belong.

flint....i don't know what you were trying to accomplish with this post but it obviously failed. Politicians make laws, not jut one party.

Lizon your a fool.

Right now the Democrats hold the House, the Senate, the Courts, and the Whitehouse.

They can pass what they want, and are.

Excepting the guy who left, and 2 other Rino's who I am hoping leave soon, the Republicans have said NO to all the exceptional crap the Democrats are doing.

I fight Republicans when they make crap for laws.

You seem to refuse to do that for your Messiah's party though.

Instead you take an argument and twist it on it's head, instead of showing outrage when appropriate, you say oh well.

I forget the argument style you are using name, but I am sure Chris can name it, or a few others.

Honestly just replace Pedophiles with Republicans in some democrat forum and watch the raving anger, ism's with Conservative, and something else with Libertarian. They will call for the execution of the Democrats trying to make us a protected status.

As usual Flint doesn't know what he's talking about.

He obviously has no clue what the term "hate crime" means in the legal American sense. In none of the situations he put forward, would those acts be considered "hate crimes".

Also, I skimmed through the bill. I saw no mention of said "philias", only sexual orientation and gender identity, which are very different things from say frotteurism.

Honestly Flint, educate yourself. Don't look like an idiot.

Who cares what they say? What does case law say about sexual orientation? What does the dictionary say? What's the common understanding of the word? That's what the courts should look at when trying to determine what "sexual orientation" means (providing the legislators don't provide their own definition...I didn't see one).

If the court decides "sexual orientation" includes people with paraphilias, then the court has done something wrong. But don't blame the legislators for that. The Bill, in and of itself, is fine.

That doesn't change the fact though that in neither of those cases, was your situation a "hate crime".

Actually, in the video you posted Einstien, it does state the legal definition of sexual preference, and states that all such activities must be consentual. A corpse or being flashed violates that part of the definition, and as such, is not protected undet the new bill. Same goes for the pet.

For the purposes of this post, I shall assume "sexual orientation" includes paraphilias.

You don't get to prosecute me at all. The state decides whether to prosecute me, not you. You can only sue me in tort. So you run into problem #1. The state will likely not prosecute me for a hate crime, though they may prosecute me for assaulting you.

That being said, the state would fail if they claimed it was a hate crime...because it 's not. I attacked you because you were interfering with my property. I was defending my property. No court of sound mind is going to look at that and say "hate crime"

If they do...again, your problem is with the courts, not the legislators.

"Honestly Flint, educate yourself. Don't look like an idiot."

Too late.

Flint is "ignorant" because he knows what Congress said it meant when it voted for the bill.  Clearly since the Supreme Court will ask online gamers what they want, instead of reading statements by members of congress as they voted, flint is insane.

That's not true at all. A lot of Republicans would still disagree with you. And Moderates. And anyone else who doesn't fit on that axis.

What you really meant to say was:

"The day everyone on Earth agrees with me about everything will be the day that there is world peace."