DeMint Speaks Against Hate Crimes Legislation

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) speaks on the Senate floor about his opposition to a hate crimes amendment being added to the defense authorization bill (H.R. 2647). (Oct. 22, 2009)

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• jim
• demint
• hate
• crimes
• amendment
• opposition

[types10000]

@PrisonerNumber9653

"Well, you've made it clear you have no intention of honest debate"

- i addressed each and every one of your claims point by point.

- all i ask is that you do the same.

My hypothetical that compared gays to computer programmers was made solely to demonstrate you are incapable of providing a definition of 'hate crime' that is not vague enough to apply to virtually every social group.

[types10000]

@PrisonerNumber9653

"Lie. The reasons HAVE been given, repeatedly"

- each 'reason' you provided had a logical flaw in it which i easily identified. you dont get to claim they are reasons if they've been demonstrated to be incorrect.

"It's bigotry at it's worst to call protecting the rights of all people equally" - that isnt what's is happening, you are attempting to afford special rites in specific cases and failing to provide a logical justification.

[PrisonerNumber9653]

Well, you've made it clear you have no intention of honest debate, you want to ignore the reasons these laws are necessary and judge, and cook up phony reasons to oppose them. The sick bigotry of comparing these crimes to "computer programmers" shows this is a waste of time.

[PrisonerNumber9653]

@types10000 Lie. The reasons HAVE been given, repeatedly. NO reason to OPPOSE them has been given.

It's bigotry at it's worst to call protecting the rights of all people equally "illogical".

Computer programmers? What a vile, bigoted comparison. People CHOOSE to be computer programmers, and there is literally NOBODY threatening them, NO Judges or cops refusing to pursue those who attack them out of hate for computer programmers.

[types10000]

@PrisonerNumber9653

"You truly have no clue about the nature of this country"

- says the man who advocates laws which he can neither define nor justify.

if violence committed against gays (motivated by the fact they are gay) is a hate crime then so too is violence committed against computer programmers (motivated by the fact they are computer programmers)

if your argument is 'well not a allot of people are doing that to computer programmers' then specify how many. Reductio ad absurdum.

[types10000]

@PrisonerNumber9653

"And STILL one thing remains--not a SINGLE remotely justified reason to NOT have hate crimes laws. NOBODY"S showed how anyone is harmed by them. "

- incorrect, what remains is the fact you have been unable to provide logical justifications for introducing hate crime legislation.

- The fact it's so illogical has been demonstrated by your continued failure to define it in such a way that it wouldnt apply to virtually EVERY group eg. the rich, computer programmers .etc

[types10000]

@PrisonerNumber9653

2).

"and CERTAINLY is not a pattern of such violence being NOT investigated or prosecuted"

- as i already pointed out this is a complete non-sequitar (logical fallacy) because the increasing the punishment does not have any impact on the fact the crimes are not going through due process to begin with.

[types10000]

@PrisonerNumber9653

1).

"Bullshit, it is EXACTLY what makes them different"

- care to provide an argument for that? or perhaps address my argument or something other than stating your opinion.

"there is also NOT a pattern of violence against the wealthy..."

- which is completely irrelevant, unless of-course your trying to say 'lots of people have to do it for it to become a hate crime' which i find childish and hilarious.

[PrisonerNumber9653]

@types10000 You truly have no clue about the nature of this country if you think there's no problem with a pattern of violence against minorities causing a threat to ALL. Equal protection under the law isn't some vague liberal pipedream, it's constitutional law.

It's horseshit to call the threat "inference". It's not feelings, it's not inference, the threat is REAL, and to do nothing about it isn't just immoral, it's against the law.

[PrisonerNumber9653]

@types10000 Bullshit. It's not "feelings", it's REALITY. They ARE threatened.

Where the hell is "Richbashing" going on??