Do Not Buy a GM car with OnStar...Why?

[MonsterMark]

No offense but how often in your lives has the government come to your and help you in a prison cell for months on end? Enough already it was a public election and he won by a landslide.

Another O...baaaaama supporter waiting to be sheared.

You lose your freedom drip by drip.
Put your head back in the sand, it is much safer and you won't have to deal with any bible-thumpers that way.

 

[fossten]

No offense but how often in your lives has the government come to your and help you in a prison cell for months on end? Enough already it was a public election and he won by a landslide.

I'll admit he is a little too far left but on the other hand we have the party who follows the bible for guidance and hates homosexuals like they aren't people.

Which party is that? Citation please.

 

[hrmwrm]

That's not what people believe.

well, when it's fact, come back and talk about it. otherwise it's paranoid bunk.
there's talk about blah, blah, blah. better get back on the meds.

 

[Joeys Lincoln]

Which party is that? Citation please.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-1057&sort=party The Republican Party there's the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 voting record now notice that after your sort by party how many Republicans 175 out of 201 voted against or didn't vote at all protecting homosexuals from discrimination that's 87 percent against. The Democrats were a bit more supportive 33 out of 235 voted nay or didn't vote. That's 14 percent.

I'll bring evidence to any claim I make, it's a joy of actually doing research. I don't just say things because it sounds plausible, I site official government voting records.

Also John McCain supported Proposition 8 by the way. Had a false fact here edited it out.

Don't think I'm biased I've read John McCain and Barack Obama's book so I'm not ignorant.

And the statement I'm here to be sheared no offense but it won't happen.

Edit next time someone says something off the wall facts would also help http://www.govtrack.us/ contains voting records on any bill.

 

[Calabrio]

Not supporting additional federal protection or protected status is not the same as "hates homosexuals like they aren't people."

I oppose "hate crime" laws, particularly federal ones. Does that mean I hate everyone but white Christian males?

 

[MAC1]

That's not what people believe. That's a straw man argument, in fact.

But there are scenarios where in the future 'certain' types of people who are 'of interest' to the government may be monitored. You know, 'terrorists' who carry copies of the Constitution in their pockets. Right wing extremists and such. The fact that the fed has that capability should concern people.

The government already has the ability to monitor people, phone calls, etc. The only thing OnStar might do is to make monitoring the comings and goings of people easier because of GPS tracking ability. As far as monitoring phone calls, that's easy whether it's through OnStar, a land line or cell phone.

Also, there is such a thing called the Exclusionary Rule in law whereby evidence that has been unlawfully obtained can be thrown out of court. So, if the government says it has a bunch of alleged evidence for some alleged wrongdoing which was obtained without a search warrant, then such evidence can be thrown out of court. I would become concerned if the courts allow a departure from 4th Amendment principles of reasonable search and seizure.

If the issue is simply that the government has easy means to monitor citizens, then I'm not too concerned. After all, if you're not doing anything wrong, then you don't have anything to worry about--That is, as long as a person is still innocent until proven guilty and constitutional principles of due process of law are still the law of the land. Otherwise, we live in a very dangerous world where our enemies are many and law enforcement needs the necessary tools and means to protect citizens.

 

[MonsterMark]

That is, as long as a person is still innocent until proven guilty and constitutional principles of due process of law are still the law of the land.

We got a guy in the Oval Office who is not Constitutionally qualified to hold the office and nobody gives a crap, so counting on the Constitution to uphold our principles is a joke.

The Constitution is a worthless piece of paper.

 

[shagdrum]

as long as a person is still innocent until proven guilty and constitutional principles of due process of law are still the law of the land.

Unfortunately, we have people in power actively circumventing the Rule of Law and trampling on the Constitution all to gain the power to enact their ideological agenda through collectivist means. Liberty is being sacrificed in the name of Tyranny.

 

[foxpaws]

The Constitution is a worthless piece of paper.

???

 

[Joeys Lincoln]

Not supporting additional federal protection or protected status is not the same as "hates homosexuals like they aren't people."

I oppose "hate crime" laws, particularly federal ones. Does that mean I hate everyone but white Christian males?

This isn't about hate crimes it's about ensuring equal job opportunities for everyone. I never said I agreed with it but if women and minorities already have protection why exclude homosexuals?

We got a guy in the Oval Office who is not Constitutionally qualified to hold the office and nobody gives a crap, so counting on the Constitution to uphold our principles is a joke.

From a major reliable news source can you please send me a link where that is stated? Surely there would be protests from Republicans across the nation if this was the case.

Unfortunately, we have people in power actively circumventing the Rule of Law and trampling on the Constitution all to gain the power to enact their ideological agenda through collectivist means. Liberty is being sacrificed in the name of Tyranny.

The patriot act? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20999950/

 

[Calabrio]

This isn't about hate crimes it's about ensuring equal job opportunities for everyone. I never said I agreed with it but if women and minorities already have protection why exclude homosexuals?

No, what you did was say that Republicans "hate homosexuals like they aren't people" and used their opposition to the expansion of hate crime legislation to support the claim.

 

[Joeys Lincoln]

No, what you did was say that Republicans "hate homosexuals like they aren't people" and used their opposition to the expansion of hate crime legislation to support the claim.

So they just like them less then women and minorities in the workplace then? Both of which are people and have equal job protection.

They don't feel as though they deserve equal protection, because of a dislike, hatred, or just plain ignorance on their part.

While women and minorities, who are people, have been given this right.

What I said pretty much stands unless you can come up with another reason to deny these people a right that has been given to other people.

YouTube - Rep. Gohmert gives another ignorant rant, attacks DADT, Hate Crimes bill genius by the way

 

[Calabrio]

What I said pretty much stands unless you can come up with another reason to deny these people a right that has been given to other people.

It doesn't work that way.
You can't just make an outlandish claim without anything to support it, and then claim it's my responsibility to prove it 'untrue.'

First, you can actually also oppose any federal "protection" or rules regarding minorities and still not be hateful towards any group. You simply don't think the federal government should be involved in such a thing.

But are you saying that personal sexual identification or sexual activity the same as race or gender?

That being a heterosexual man who likes to dress like a woman is really no different than being a black man? That bill specifically addresses "actual or perceived sexual orientations."

But I can play your game too.
Why do you hate small business owners?[/quote] Why else would you support bills like these that give the federal government more involvement in the day to day operations of small business and expose them to greater threats of lawsuits from opportunists and professional "victims?"

Prove to me that you don't hate small Mom & Pop business in middle America.

 

[shagdrum]

They don't feel as though they deserve equal protection, because of a dislike, hatred, or just plain ignorance on their part.

While women and minorities, who are people, have been given this right.

Would it be problematic for you if they opposed all hate crime legislation?

Also, hate crime legislation is not the same as equal protection under the law.

 

[Joeys Lincoln]

It doesn't work that way.
You can't just make an outlandish claim without anything to support it, and then claim it's my responsibility to prove it 'untrue.'

First, you can actually also oppose any federal "protection" or rules regarding minorities and still not be hateful towards any group. You simply don't think the federal government should be involved in such a thing.

They have already given the rights to others, that argument would be valid had the other acts not passed.

But are you saying that personal sexual identification or sexual activity the same as race or gender?

In a way they have been discriminated against in the past, the same as women, minorities, and people with birth defects have been discriminated against.

That being a heterosexual man who likes to dress like a woman is really no different than being a black man? That bill specifically addresses "actual or perceived sexual orientations."

They are different as of this moment the black man has any equal opportunity as any other person in the United States, they are protected. I had not preconceived cross dressers as part of the equation because jobs are allowed to enforce dress codes.

But I can play your game too.
Why do you hate small business owners?

Why else would you support bills like these that give the federal government more involvement in the day to day operations of small business and expose them to greater threats of lawsuits from opportunists and professional "victims?" [/QUOTE]

Perhaps I'm ignorant but where does it specifically say the government will now be allowing or doing any of that in your article?

Prove to me that you don't hate small Mom & Pop business in middle America.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/05/news/economy/obama_stimulus/index.htm?postversion=2009010505 well if you skip to the small business part Obama would increase the amount of expenses small businesses can write off to $250,000 in 2009 and 2010, up from $125,000 currently. They can do more business this way, it would temporarily free up more capital.

 

[shagdrum]

They have already given the rights to others, that argument would be valid had the other acts not passed.

What "rights" are you talking about?

They are different as of this moment the black man has any equal opportunity as any other person in the United States, they are protected. I had not preconceived cross dressers as part of the equation because jobs are allowed to enforce dress codes.

Again, "hate crime laws" are not the same as "equal protection". A black man and a gay man are both equally protected under the law.

 

[Joeys Lincoln]

What "rights" are you talking about?

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin

So everyone is protected against employment discrimination, except if you are a homosexual.

Again, "hate crime laws" are not the same as "equal protection". A black man and a gay man are both equally protected under the law.

The black man is also protected from being turned away from a job because of his race, where as a homosexual can be. Once again they are both people where one is protected and one isn't.

 

[shagdrum]

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin

So everyone is protected against employment discrimination, except if you are a homosexual.

Again, what rights are involved here?

You apparently don't understand what a "right" is and is not. The two big characteristics of a right are that it is a restriction on the government and it applies to all citizens. So, if you are claiming something is a right, then any and every citizen has claim to it. To claim that certain citizens have a right and certain citizens don't is an oxymoron. If one citizen doesn't have the right then no citizen has the right.

Besides, the law equally applies to everyone in this instance. A gay black man and a straight black man are both equally protected against employment discrimination on the basis of "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." You seem to be distorting the law and assuming that it protects against any type of discrimination which it does not.

The civil rights act was NEVER intended to protect against ANY and ALL employment discrimination. Only a protection of the specific instances listed in the law.

The black man is also protected from being turned away from a job because of his race, where as a homosexual can be. Once again they are both people where one is protected and one isn't.

You don't seem to know what equal protection under the law is and is not. It is spelled out pretty clearly in the 14th Amendment, "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". It is a prevention against arbitrary application of the law.

What you are citing is not an arbitrary application of law, but simply an example of one law, as written and equally applied protecting one group but not another that you think should be protected. So it is not an issue of equal protection under the law but of a lack of protection under the law, in your view.

You need to view the law as it was written and not as you wish it should be applied.

 

[fossten]

???

He's channeling Obama and the Democrats.

 

[lincolnx2]

Maybe I should buy that STS-V I been looking at, if the Government is listening, I can think of a few things to do for their entertainment, you can be jailed for video taping! Can you be jailed for audio recordings?