Do you like how the Obama administration is going?

Deltamatic · Post by **Deltamatic** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 17:47

I sure don't. First there was the pork explosion labeled a stimulus package, then there was the practical nationalization of General Motors, then there was a needless and unconstitutional hate crimes bill that despite over seven hundred fifty thousand letters in protest got slipped through as an amendment to a defense spending bill of all things, and now there's this whole mess about how they're trying to nationalize healthcare too. (More stuff for less money with the government in charge? Of course that would work!)

Galaxieretter · Post by **Galaxieretter** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 21:12

I like how they game millions, free, away to GM and it went bankrupt.

The "nationalization" of GM isn't that bad. In fact I was happy when it happened. By god, the government already gave them more money than what the company is worth.

That just means GM will be manufacturing war machines for the military at a discounted rate for *quite* a while.

I just can't get over the fact that there is no money left like 2 months after the money was given... and there is no trace of where it went. The IRS will have a hell of a time figuring out where those billions are right now. HA!

I have no idea what you are talking about with the whole "hate crimes" thing.
Obama has no idea what he's doing. But what does he care? He's the president.

Post by **Ceilick** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 21:24

I haven't been keeping up with politics since the election. From the snippets I've read, including here, while not the whole story is enough to tell me "I don't want to know".

Didn't vote for him and don't plan on voting for him next election.

Deltamatic · Post by **Deltamatic** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 22:11

Galaxieretter wrote:I have no idea what you are talking about with the whole "hate crimes" thing.

Something that can add extra years to your sentence if you committed a crime against someone else based on "sexual orientation", which Dems refused to define thus including categories like pedophiles. It requires the courts to figure out what you were thinking at the time you committed the crime (did party A rob party B because of party B's "sexual orientation", or just because party A robs random people?), thus making some thoughts criminal. Besides that, it treats those people as a specially protected class of citizen, elevated above the others. Who cares if party A robbed somebody who happened to have different tastes? Party A still robbed party B, so party A should get the normal sentence for robbing somebody.

VikingBoyBilly · Post by **VikingBoyBilly** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 22:15

As far as I know he's trying too hard to get America "back on track" when it's obviously in a permanent recession, and not making enough effort of making a more sustainable economy and saving the environment. But it's not like we'd be any better off with Mccain or more of the Bush Administration...

Galaxieretter · Post by **Galaxieretter** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 22:31

Deltamatic wrote:It requires the courts to figure out what you were thinking at the time you committed the crime (did party A rob party B because of party B's "sexual orientation", or just because party A robs random people?), thus making some thoughts criminal.

That's illegal.

What is the name of this legislation; I require further reading. Your description sounds... influenced.

Deltamatic · Post by **Deltamatic** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 23:01

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s909/text

That's the original bill, which was added later as an amendment to the spending bill. I'd have to track down the spending bill itself to get you the amendment, in case it's been modified from its original form.

And yes, it is illegal.

Genius314 · Post by **Genius314** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:01

Deltamatic wrote:And yes, it is illegal.

Technically, it can't be against the law. It IS the law.

Just sayin'.

Deltamatic · Post by **Deltamatic** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:14

However, in circumstances where certain laws are placed above other laws (the Constitution, for example), laws can be illegal if they are lower than the higher laws and contradict the higher laws.

lemm · Post by **lemm** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:28

Well he hasn't campaigned to shut down the federal reserve or the CIA, so whatever he does is largely irrelevant.

Galaxieretter · Post by **Galaxieretter** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 7:28

So technically, what laws does this bill / law break?

It's easy, don't do a crime where hate is your motivation.
If you DO rob someone, don't rob them because they are gay. Actually I think this bill has more to do with violence issues.

If you knock the teeth out of someone, don't do it because they are gay.

It's not illegal to have the thought of hate to another. It's illegal to act violently against someone else DUE TO the lack of control of your hate. Evidentially that's a no-no.
As in, the KKK can rally and hate all they want. Enacting militaristically on their beliefs isn't allowed.

I am completely indifferent to this idea because I don't hate people on 'race' or 'sexual orientation' or religion or what have you.

Deltamatic · Post by **Deltamatic** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 20:29

The motivation shouldn't matter. It's only the crime that should matter. Why would I care if somebody murdered somebody else because that person wanted the other guy's money, or because that person had a bad day and wanted to de-stress via killing somebody, or because that person hated people with ankle-length hair and that person had ankle-length hair? The murderer should get the normal punishment murderers get, not an added penalty because he hates people with ankle-length hair.

I don't hate people based on what category they're in, either. But when a law is enacted that says "if you were thinking this when you were committing a crime, then you get an added punishment", then that law makes certain thoughts [coupled with certain actions, yes, but it's the foot in the proverbial door] illegal and punishable by law, things are scary. It isn't that part of it which is unconstitutional, though. The creation of an extra-special protected class of citizen is.

Galaxieretter · Post by **Galaxieretter** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 3:40

Deltamatic wrote:The creation of an extra-special protected class of citizen is.

You mean everyone? As that's who this law applies to...

I guess you have a point there though.

EDIT:
This popped to mind as well...

It's not illegal to think about killing someone. To enact upon that thought though, if successful or not, is illegal. Assaulting someone but not actually killing someone with the intent to kill someone is illegal. It's up to the courts to find out the intent of the action.

It's called attempted murder.

Deltamatic · Post by **Deltamatic** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:41

Yes, it's up to the courts to find out the intent of the action--that's only a logical step in proving the guilty party guilty. But the sentence shouldn't vary depending on that intent.

Toomuchsparetime · Post by **Toomuchsparetime** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 17:52

What if you committed a crime against somebody because they were gay, but it was a crime of LOVE not HATE (eg, trespassing on their property because you were stalking them).

:

Public Commander Keen Forum

Do you like how the Obama administration is going?

Obama administration: how's it doing its job?

Do you like how the Obama administration is going?