http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:4:./temp/~c111yTjG4c::

this is the bill you are talking about right? The one that is about hate crimes, and nothing at all about the examples you put forward?

/me goes to look for said peoples statements about how they intend for the law to do things that are not written into the law...

"Flint why should we not disbelieve your sources?"

its not a matter of disbelieving his sources; its a matter of discarding them in debate, just because you arent familiar with them. in debate, dont discredit them just so you can win the debate.

"You are a religious fundamentalist, and a disbeliever of evolution and man made global warming. You disbelive most science just the way you see fit wink"

where do you get that he's a religious fundamentalist? i've been in these forums a long time, and never seen any indication that he was. and there are many reputable people that dont beleive in global warming, and he has prevented plenty of sources, where there is at least reasonable doubt of it.

FLint do you have a specific example to back up your theoretical sentencing? just one will do.

No, thought not. Without even one example you're just theorising.

We all know how accurate your theories are.

> Einstein wrote:

> Dude the law is supposed to be special, not special ed. You do not make laws and say 'well the juries wont convict when they should not'.

Lets put a law up saying you can kill Democrats at will so long as a jury convicts them of being democrats if you believe that crap.

the US like most countries has tons of old laws on the books that are still laws.

like a man hast to walk in front of a car with a red flag if the driver is a woman.

nobody would prosecute and nobody would convict.

by the way i couldn't find any of flints supposed statements from people talking about this new bill...

I looked up his democrat who spoke about it and couldn't find anything on her website...

So given that the bill itself says nothing at all like flints examples I am going to have to call him an idiot....

if he can provide links and/or sources i can check to back up his statements about this new bill that would be dandy and i would read them and judge for myself...

I looked at the final version and I think they cleaned the stuff out that drew Flint's attention

What it says now is, if Simon Cowell were hosting a special American idol in the British embassy or Puerto Rico, and I disrupted international commerce by assaulting him, based on a belief that my violence would injure a member of the gay community, then Simon could ask the FBI to join the manhunt. That's the second part.

The first part says if I teabag Justinian in his dorm, his campus can ask the Atty General for $$$ to handle the cost of prosecuting the sex crime, and within 6 months the Atty Gen must decide to give them $100,000 extra to track me down, if his school used the ACLU or other nonprofit (sure) to write the petition.

And if his school says they need manpower the atty gen would be authorized to send 1000s of agents and planes and snipers to stop the Phantom Nutsack. But priority must be given to teabaggers who strike in multiple states.

Interestingly enough the bill stipulates the Atty General and not the Dept of Homeland Security. Which means the coast guard will not lend search teams to prevent boob grabbing in colleges and indian reservations. Still they did authorize a whopping $10 million over two years and a jurisdiction can get up to $100k a year so that is like 50 assgrabbers a year that will have to deal with G-men.

Unless they run back to Mexico. Cause, yknow, the federal govt doesn't have money for a secure border.

At a PC I bet I could find alcee hastings saying that froth, she is a kook

So I read the first post about 4 times. Where can I see this bill?:p