my post was about her comments calling the Sheppard case a hoax when there is so much evidence to the contrary.

Tax, if you read ST’s original post, you’d see there’s just as much evidence that the murder was not about homophobia, as Carlos also pointed out. So what’s your point – that someone’s feelings got hurt?

enlighten me on how this bill would criminalize what people think, examples please.

Take a look north of the border. Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant have already been dragged before government tribunals not because of anything they’ve done, but because of what they said – and the justification was so-called hate crimes legislation. And yes, it can happen here, especially with hysterical people like you who go off on an incoherent rant for reasons you still can’t completely explain.

As for the rest of your last remarks, go back and re-read Carlos’ last comment. He’s laid every one of your points to rest quite well.

And since you brought fascism into this thread, for reasons only you know, consider this: the “progressives” of the 1920s and 1930s were absolutely enchanted with Mussolini and Hitler right up until the latter invaded the Soviet Union. And why not? Look at some highlights of the fascist program in Italy or the Nazis in Germany: minimum wage laws, a progressive tax system, very strict separation of the church and state, free health care, vast spending on public education, support for abortion, strict gun control, anti-smoking campaigns, hatred for the free market, and strict racial quotas and speech codes in their universities.

Now, does that sound more like the average Christian patriot, or the average leftist today?

That doesn’t mean all your average liberals today are crazed lunatics looking to conquer the world. But it does mean that NC Cop hit the nail squarely on the head. You on the modern left have the same intellectual roots as the fascists of 80 years ago.

That “hate crimes” need to be “looked at differently” is to say that there is no need for law or laws, only that some privileged people should make arbitrary decisions on a case-by-case basis and that what is legal today may or may not be legal tomorrow, and what may be illegal today may be perfectly legal tomorrow. “Hate crimes” legislation is simply codifying what has not been tested by social convention and practice, all on the basis of making some groups “more equal than others.”

As far as certain groups being “terrorized”, tell me which group or groups have been “terrorized”, sir, on the basis of anything contained in the legislation? Even blacks in the days of Jim Crow were not “terrorized” except in specific (generally) KKK cases, and if not punished locally should very well have been pursued by the feds (both the crimes themselves and the ones appointed to solve them but didn’t). That would have led to “justice” without the sophistry of the left clouding the issues.

And finally, as far as christianity and fascism go, when the country was founded there was ample opportunity to create a theocracy. The founders chose not to, and out of respect for the founding principles no religious sect has tried it since. No such thing can be said about the religious fervor of the left in regards to their “solutions” to any “problem” that comes along.

Since when are you, Cohen, Schultz, Luna or anyone else so morally superior that you can impose your own idea of “justice” (which, to me, doesn’t appear just at all) on everyone else? Special pipeline to God, maybe?

And if you “read all stories from all sources right and left”, 1) how do you have time to do anything else, like blog, and 2) do you even pay attention to the logic of arguments given by the right on most subjects or the lack thereof given on nearly any subject by the left?

When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. – Sinclair Lewis

Apparently Sinclair was wrong. Fascism is coming to America wrapped in an expensive suit and carrying a teleprompter.

When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. – Sinclair Lewis

Stop using the snarky signature line. Lewis never said that.
LINK

As for your “debate my logic, please” appeal.

We will, once you provide some logic.

justice should be served equally

And it should. But if you believe that, then you would agree with Congresswoman Foxx and oppose any bill that serves justice differently depending on the race/sex/religion/sexual proclivities of the victim.

So which is it? Should justice be served equally, or do you favor hate crimes bills? There’s no way you can logically embrace both positions.

Then there’s this:

this is not about politics

Horse hockey. All so-called “hate crimes” bills are about politics. They are about setting up special voting blocs as entitled to special privileges that other people do not get, in return for which the privileged groups are supposed to vote for the party that passed them. Oh, and they’re also about criminalizing what you think. And if you don’t think that has strong political implications, your thinking is more muddled than your writing.

By the way, don’t go braying about name calling if you’re going to imply that patriots and Christians are fascist, as Lewis did.

And Severian’s point is well taken about the lack of writing ability. When you go off on a run-on, incoherent rant like that, you sound as clueless as Obama does without his teleprompter.

When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. – Sinclair Lewis

Simply another case of projection, Queenie.

But, hey now, Thought Crime laws are doubleplusgood! Doublethink and groupthink rule!

OK guys, now get back to your 2 minute hate.