Advertisement

Archive for Monday, October 26, 2009

Brownback, Roberts, Moran, Tiahrt cite hate crimes provision in voting against military funding bill

October 26, 2009

Advertisement

— Kansas’ U.S. senators and two Kansas House members seeking a Senate seat dislike hate crimes legislation so much that they voted against a bill funding the military for the next year.

U.S. Sens. Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts last week said they voted against the $680 billion defense bill because it included the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

The act expands hate crimes to include attacks based on a person’s gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

The measure, approved 68-29 in the Senate, had won approval in the House earlier this month, so it awaits President Barack Obama’s signature before becoming law.

Supporters hailed its passage as needed to deter crimes against gays, but both Roberts and Brownback, who is running for governor, criticized the measure.

“The defense bill should have been about supporting our troops in a bipartisan way instead of sneaking in a controversial provision and dividing the Senate unnecessarily,” Brownback said. “There are serious concerns about the judicial impact of federalizing hate crimes language that could be construed as too broad and are currently handled at the state and local level,” he added.

Roberts said: “The Democrats hijacked the defense bill, attaching unrelated judiciary committee provisions that they wanted to hide from public debate.”

Republican U.S. Reps. Todd Tiahrt of Goddard and Jerry Moran of Hays, who face each other for the Republican nomination to replace Brownback, voted against the bill too.

U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins, R-Kan., whose district includes west Lawrence, voted for the defense spending bill but said she opposed the hate crimes portion.

Comments

tbaker 4 years, 5 months ago

Welcome aboard Bernardo!

...juvenile antics, windbaggery and occasional intelligent debate on these forums.

LMAO!

0

ivalueamerica 4 years, 5 months ago

They want the right for gays to be beaten to death.

Failures to America.

0

Bernardo_de_la_Paz 4 years, 5 months ago

tony88 says… "blessedsap = invictus"

His trolling does seem familiar. You may be on to something. I sometimes wonder if some of our other spammers and trolls have alternate accounts so we don't reflexively ignore them.

Satirical, Do you think that hate crime protection for sexual orientation would potentially protect polygamists from similar crimes? I suppose that is dependent on the interpretation of the judge/prosecutor.

tbaker, The legislation you linked to sounds like it could be effective to prevent this sort of legislative abuse. The votes of our legislators should reflect the will of the people who elected them.

I've been a long time lurker somewhat addicted to the juvenile antics, windbaggery and occasional intelligent debate on these forums. I finally registered to join you yahoos, so help me God.

0

farfle 4 years, 5 months ago

There are also an estimated 6 to 8% of people who would like to see bestiality legalized.

0

tomatogrower 4 years, 5 months ago

If someone wants to have more than 1 spouse and all parties agree, and aren't forced into it, like some groups, then I don't see any problem. I think they must be nuts, but if they can deal with it, it's none of my business.

0

tomatogrower 4 years, 5 months ago

"davidsmom (Anonymous) says… Couldn't a lot of crimes be committed because the perpetrator hates someone or hates the behavior or what they did, etc? Where do you draw the line between this motivation and that motivation? And why is it any worse to commit a violent crime against a person because you don't like him for some reason and committing a violent crime against him for some other reason?"

If all people were prosecuted under the regular laws, then I would agree. However, there are times when someone has been beaten because of their race, ethnic background or sexual orientation, and nothing has been done. Also, hopefully in the distance past, they have been sent to trial and a jury has not convicted, because the are motivated by their bigotry. With hate-crime legislation, the federal government can step in and bring some justice. I know we would all like to believe that our legal system would treat the beating of a gay person the same as a straight person, but in reality, there is still a lot of bigotry out there. Some people who are suppose to uphold the law believe it's ok to beat someone who is gay.

0

tbaker 4 years, 5 months ago

The "One Subject at a Time Act of 2007" has been around a while. Why won't congress pass it?

http://www.downsizedc.org/page/osta_legislation

Combining diverse subjects with no necessary connection into one bill is an old political trick designed to secure the passage of several unrelated measures where few if any could succeed on their own merits. This is yet another (commonplace) example of congressional corruption.

The only thing politicians who don't like this practice can do is vote against these kinds of bills - and suffer the invective of short-sighted morons who either believe doing so is synonymous with not supporting something, or know all too well their ideas would never survive honest debate. Wise up liberals.

P.S. Republicans do exactly the same thing when they are in power - hence the need for the aforementioned legislation.

0

Satirical 4 years, 5 months ago

Bernardo_de_la_Paz… “When I ask if polygamists are the victim of criminal persecution, I refer to violent hate crimes directed at them by civilians for their lifestyle.”

While I agree that historically gays and lesbians have been discriminated against and violent crimes have been committed against them, the same it true for polygamists. Everything from LDS Mormons having their land seized and being driven from Nauvoo, Illinois; to treatment when Utah was admitted as a state and the U.S. Senate didn’t want to allow Utah’s senator a seat, to the U.S. Supreme Court case of Reynolds v. U.S.

Even recently FLDS Mormons (different than the LDS) had their compounded raided in Texas and hundreds of children taken from their parents all based on a single phone call which turned out to be a hoax. Surely there is a long history of not just individuals, but the government allowing and encouraging persecution against polygamists

I would argue the only reason why today there is likely less individual (or “civilian”) violent crimes directed at polygamists is because they tend to live in isolated regions to mitigate this very threat; whereas there are homosexuals everywhere and are more susceptible to violent crime.

Additionally, simply because one could argue gays and lesbians have more violent crimes directed at them doesn’t mean polygamist are also deserving of special protection. But not only do polygamist not get special protections afforded to other historically discriminated groups like gays, polygamist still have a bounty on their heads with the criminality of polygamy. At the very least polygamy could be decriminalized. Many of these people live in constant and very real fear that their children will be taken from them and their husband put in jail, simply because they choose to live a different lifestyle.


“If an individual has multiple concurrent long term relationships and never marries any of them, is he or she a polygamist?” - Bernardo

By definition no. Under most laws, they must be actually married to be considered a polygamist.

“When does it become polygamy? When does it become a crime?” - Bernardo

While I have never witnessed a bigamy prosecution, my suspicion is that they get a marriage license in two different states. However, the part I don’t understand, is that in states like Kansas the second marriage is void ab initio and therefore the law treats the second marriage of never having occurred; so how they can then charge someone with bigamy, I am not exactly sure.

“Just be sure this is a can of worms you want to open.” - Bernardo

Don’t worry, I have argued this plenty of times.

0

Bernardo_de_la_Paz 4 years, 5 months ago

AreUNorml (Anonymous) says…

"I”m sorry that you aren't fearful of losing your personal freedom a little bit at a time. but it's a very real threat when you have power hungry activists running your government."

Berny says...

I'm not sorry and I'm glad I'm not fearful. My personal freedoms are irrevocably self-evident, as are their limits. The government isn't taking them away no matter what they write on a piece of paper in Washington.

I'm not convinced that hate crime legislation is an attack on our freedom to 'hate.' It is simply provides additional sentencing guideline for crimes that are committed in order to intimidate and terrorize an entire group based on their race, religion, and now sexual orientation.

I understand those who are concerned that hate crime laws will be applied whenever a protected group is attacked, but that is up to the court system to enforce, and not the intent of the legislation as I see it.

0

Bernardo_de_la_Paz 4 years, 5 months ago

Satirical,

When I ask if polygamists are the victim of criminal persecution, I refer to violent hate crimes directed at them by civilians for their lifestyle. I understand that those who practice polygamy are criminally prosecuted in the good ole USA. Perhaps it was a poor word choice.

I also draw the distinction between polyamory and polygamy. If an individual has multiple concurrent long term relationships and never marries any of them, is he or she a polygamist? When does it become polygamy? When does it become a crime?

I realize you guys love this argument because the left is afraid to touch it for fear of defending the actions of polygamist pedos. Just be sure this is a can of worms you want to open.

For the record, I don't gives a flying rats rump if a dozen sentient gay dolphins want to get communally married to a toaster.

0

Stuart Evans 4 years, 5 months ago

Bernardo_de_la_Paz (Anonymous) says… AreUNorml, The slippery slope argument is getting pretty tired.


I"m sorry that you aren't fearful of losing your personal freedom a little bit at a time. but it's a very real threat when you have power hungry activists running your government.


Deathpenalty Liberal says..."I must've missed your objections when the Republicans did the exact same thing from 2000-2006."


I would say that you certainly did. I have no interest in this government (reps or dems) slipping things under the door at the last minute. This is the same as pork. It's in there to please a special interest group without the trouble of dealing with rebuttals. Don't make the assumption that I'm a conservative or liberal.

0

billbodiggens 4 years, 5 months ago

Roberts said: “The Democrats hijacked the defense bill, attaching unrelated judiciary committee provisions that they wanted to hide from public debate.”

Roberts himself is a master at hiding things in bills that are unrelated to the original thrust of the bill, just look at all of his earmarks. What a hypocrite!

0

mutualrespect37 4 years, 5 months ago

I believe the homeless deserve hate-crime protection, but probably the worst and most violently destructive form of hate is the totally ignorant prejudices that uneducated,backwoods people direct toward those they perceive as having physical or mental limitations. Pity is such a cruel version of kindness. The poets claim it starts wars--(The same imperialist-one-sided idea of "helping" so prevalent on the streets of Lawrence creates bitter conflicts on the global level) No one was born into this world to serve as an empty vessel to receive the mindless,fakely--kind unwanted advances of strangers just so these louts can feel all ignorantly superior and good about themselves. Behaving this way toward people you don't know is unforgivably invasive and a stinking power abuse. There exist privacy laws, and the people of Lawrence need to learn how to read these and to follow them.

0

Mel Briscoe 4 years, 5 months ago

brownstain, snoberts, moron, and tifart are my heroes.

0

Satirical 4 years, 5 months ago

Somedude20…. “It is believed that one does not choose their sexuality however people DO choose their religious faith or how religious or even if they want to be religious (freewill kid) “

So choosing religion is like choosing to get married then? (Also see my middle arguments at 2:09 p.m.)

0

deathpenaltyliberal 4 years, 5 months ago

"AreUNorml (Anonymous) says… I agree with these reps; nobody should be sneaking things into bills. Now the actual reason they voted against it will end up lost in the media, and will be spun to say that Republicans don't want to fund the troops. It's dirty pool. "

And in related news, the sky is blue and water is wet.

I must've missed your objections when the Republicans did the exact same thing from 2000-2006.

0

BlessedSap 4 years, 5 months ago

Yeah I did find it humorous but didn’t want to gloat. It is good argument that illustrates we are all bigoted even our GLAD zealots.

0

somedude20 4 years, 5 months ago

Bernardo_de_la_Paz (Anonymous) says… "You bring up an interesting point about equal protection for polygamists. Unfortunately, you've clearly shown yourself to be trolling for liberal outrage: “I believe it is a symptom of a wider anti-masculinity bias in liberal thought. ” Polygamy is no more illegal than gay marriage in most states. Practicing a polyamorous relationship is not illegal, until you get the marriage license. All people deserve equal protection under the law. Are polygamists being criminally persecuted and targeted for crimes because of who they are" somedude says: It is believed that one does not choose their sexuality however people DO choose their religious faith or how religious or even if they want to be religious (freewill kid)

0

Satirical 4 years, 5 months ago

BlessedSap…

Did you also find it hilariously ironic when porch_person stopped responding to you when he claimed that YOU aren’t interested in a rational debate?

I completely agree with your line of logic, that the argument supporting same-sex marriage and gays rights is the same for polygamy and group marriage (ignoring arbitrary numerical differences). In fact, I have challenged people on the LJWorld for years to make a logical non-arbitrary distinction between the two, but no one has been able to do so.

0

Satirical 4 years, 5 months ago

Bernardo_de_la_Paz… “Polygamy is no more illegal than gay marriage in most states.”

Actually polygamy is illegal in all 50 states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy The difference between polygamy and same-sex marriage, is that polygamy is a crime in many states, whereas same-sex marriage simply isn't recognized one way or another.


“Are polygamists being criminally persecuted and targeted for crimes because of who they are?” - Bernado

(1) If gays and lesbians are naturally attacted to their own sex, which they can’t change, isn’t it also possible that polygamists are attracted to multiple partners, which they can’t change? Or is it okay as long as they have serial monogamy or just have affairs like the rest of the country?

(2) Gays and lesbians are not criminal persecuted. Same-sex marriage is simply not recognized under the laws of most states. There is a big difference.

“I think Satirical described the justification for hate crime legislation pretty well:” - Bernado

While there is understandable justification for hate crimes legislation, I think the legitimate problem for which many who oppose hate crime legislation is how it will be applied, i.e. whether it will apply whenever a crime is committed against someone of the protected group.

Also, while adding amendments onto bills is as old as the Republic, I think there comes a point where there is too much pork and/or controversial legislation attached and the only morally conscience vote is ‘NO’.

0

farfle 4 years, 5 months ago

"U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins, R-Kan., whose district includes west Lawrence, voted for the defense spending bill but said she opposed the hate crimes portion."

Worthless. I wish we had Nancy Boyda back. Is that hate speech?

0

farfle 4 years, 5 months ago

This "reporter" is pitiful. The LJW should get rid of him. Is that hate speech?

0

farfle 4 years, 5 months ago

This issue should have been front page news from its inception. It reveals how inimical the mainstream media is to the American people.

0

farfle 4 years, 5 months ago

If you want to see where this law is headed you don't have to look any further than Canada which has had similar legislation. Now they have commissions persecuting people for what they have stated on the internet.

0

farfle 4 years, 5 months ago

I'm not a big fan of Brownback but his amendment on this bill saved the day. It says that the speech in question has to actually result in something. This article is a very poor job of reporting.

0

Bernardo_de_la_Paz 4 years, 5 months ago

AreUNorml, The slippery slope argument is getting pretty tired.

I'm personally on the fence about hate crime legislation, but if it is in place then it should apply to all special interest groups: whites, blacks, gays, abortion providers, panhandlers, bankers, and real estate developers alike.

I think Satirical described the justification for hate crime legislation pretty well: "it is understandable and justified for the law to consider all the victims when determining a punishment. Usually the only person harmed in a crime is the victim (the emotional impact on family, etc. aside). However, sometimes a crime is committed not only to harm one person, but to send a message to an entire group, a message to terrorize to intimidate and to create fear."

0

farfle 4 years, 5 months ago

If you want to know where the hate is coming from just think back to Perez Hilton and what he did to Miss USA. This bill is a serious threat to our Constitutional rights.

0

Stuart Evans 4 years, 5 months ago

I believe we can all be charged with hate crimes if we continue on the path we're on right now. how far does it go? soon calling porch_person a buffoon will cause him major emotional damage and I'll be dragged off to the corporate prison machine for hurting feelings. slippery slope.

0

Bernardo_de_la_Paz 4 years, 5 months ago

BlessedSap,

You bring up an interesting point about equal protection for polygamists. Unfortunately, you've clearly shown yourself to be trolling for liberal outrage: "I believe it is a symptom of a wider anti-masculinity bias in liberal thought. "

Polygamy is no more illegal than gay marriage in most states. Practicing a polyamorous relationship is not illegal, until you get the marriage license.

All people deserve equal protection under the law. Are polygamists being criminally persecuted and targeted for crimes because of who they are?

0

Stuart Evans 4 years, 5 months ago

Monheim says: "..Were you upset when he had the govt wiretapping us? "


are you upset that the wiretapping hasn't stopped and that it's actually increased under the current administration?

0

Stuart Evans 4 years, 5 months ago

cowboy (Anonymous) says…

right wingers are all for the protections of the constitution except for gays , mexicans , blacks , women , pretty much anyone who is not a white bigot.


this comment should be pulled. it's generalizing and stereotyping. you have zero proof that any of what you said is true, and does nothing but incite added hatred towards white males in the assumption that we are all bigots.

0

Stuart Evans 4 years, 5 months ago

here's the deal. it's already illegal to beat someone up. and most likely if you're beating someone up, you probably hate them. what's the difference if you're calling them names while doing it? I agree with these reps; nobody should be sneaking things into bills. What do hate crimes have to do with military spending? This was an attempt to force Republicans to give something to Democrats in order to pass the funding of troops. Now the actual reason they voted against it will end up lost in the media, and will be spun to say that Republicans don't want to fund the troops. It's dirty pool.

0

JHOK32 4 years, 5 months ago

Obama was elected easily because there are millions of Americans who are NOT millionaires (which is the only group the Republican Party gives a damn about)!

0

BlessedSap 4 years, 5 months ago

As for the politics of this, it will backfire because the dems are playing politics with the lives of our military men and women.

0

Jimo 4 years, 5 months ago

To think that these clowns hate America so much that they'd vote to defund the troops while they're in the field of battle!

0

BlessedSap 4 years, 5 months ago

Sorry you feel that way porch.

0

Shane Garrett 4 years, 5 months ago

BlessedSap Not sure what a troll is but I did enjoy your line of logic.

0

porch_person 4 years, 5 months ago

BlessedSap,

I don't believe you're interested in rational debate. I think you're what some call "a troll".

Good day.

0

BlessedSap 4 years, 5 months ago

I find it interesting that many progressives/liberals try to tear down society’s moral ideals of human sexuality, including what used to be considered unnatural acts, but are repulsed by polygamy.

I believe it is a symptom of a wider anti-masculinity bias in liberal thought.

0

BlessedSap 4 years, 5 months ago

You are right that was a statement of fact, the bigotry was coming from Bozo. Shouldn’t we good liberals be outraged it is against the law? Homosexuality was at one point too. So was interracial marriage.

0

porch_person 4 years, 5 months ago

BlessedSap,

I can't speak for just_another_bozo_on_this_bus, but I'm not a polygamist and polygamy is illegal in the United States. No hypocrisy at all.

It's not "bigotry", it's the law.

0

BlessedSap 4 years, 5 months ago

Should polygamist be protected by hate crime legislation? After all, there is a well documented history of bias against them and violence motivated by general hatred of their lifestyle? Were are all my liberals at? Can I get a Hooray for human rights?

0

BlessedSap 4 years, 5 months ago

“Polygamist fundamentalist Christians are mostly pedophiles”

“Polygamy is illegal in the United States.”

There is the hypocritical bigotry I was trying to flush out. Thanks.

0

porch_person 4 years, 5 months ago

BlessedSap,

You do know that you're going to have to get the law to recognize the rights of polygamists first, don't you?

Polygamy is illegal in the United States.

You're welcome.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 5 months ago

"Until the gay community is ready to support the rights of polygamist fundamentalist Christians"

Polygamist fundamentalist Christians are mostly pedophiles, unlike the vast majority of gay people, so don't hold your breath, blessedsap (you know what happened to David Carradine.)

0

headdoctor 4 years, 5 months ago

Monheim, it does no good to ask Marion or any of the right wing wackos on here a question. They will never answer with an intelligent response. They just want to rant. Shewmon can't even figure out that he is the poster child for never voting for a Republican again, but they will keep it up.

0

BlessedSap 4 years, 5 months ago

Until the gay community is ready to support the rights of polygamist fundamentalist Christians they are just another special interest group not interested in civil rights.

0

monheim 4 years, 5 months ago

Marion, what exactly can we impeach Obama for at this point? Taking away your "freedoms"? What freedoms would those be? Were you upset when the previous President would have people arrested for wearing the wrong shirt or having the wrong sign? Were you upset when he had the govt wiretapping us? Were you upset when his administration was implementing torture policies in the CIA and military?

Oh no wait, the torture doesn't count right? Because that's just a bunch of durka-durka speaking brown people far away who hate America....I forgot about that part.

0

BlessedSap 4 years, 5 months ago

Ding, ding, ding we have a moron. ^^^

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 5 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

rbwaa 4 years, 5 months ago

Roberts said: “The Democrats hijacked the defense bill, attaching unrelated judiciary committee provisions that they wanted to hide from public debate.”

How hypocritical. Like republicans have never done this.

0

headdoctor 4 years, 5 months ago

cowboy (Anonymous) says… right wingers are all for the protections of the constitution except for gays , mexicans , blacks , women , pretty much anyone who is not a white bigot.


Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner.

0

headdoctor 4 years, 5 months ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) says… Your idol wil not serve a second term and the Good People of The United States of America will be set “FREE” !


This isn't a case of close but no cigar. This is a case of you are not even close so you don't even get to sniff the cigar.

Obama is not my idol, chosen one, or messiah. I was never sure that Obama/Biden was the best for office but I knew McCain/Palin wasn't. As far as one term only it is very possible that the new so called Republicans has smoked way to many lotus leaves and assume that Fox News can pull their fat out of the fire so all they have to do is set on their butt and wait to take over.

Depending on which list you look at there are 30 to 50 possible 2012 candidates for the Republican party. I can assure you at the moment that none are capable of getting enough votes across the board to win. Republicans were furious with Bill Clinton and they couldn't knock him out of a second term. What makes you think Obama wont make it for another?

It seems to be far to much entertainment to go after Obama but I am thinking if you are serious about change, you and other Republicans should be paying a lot more attention to who is in Congress than who is in the Oval Office. Personally I don't see a lot of difference between the two parties. They are mostly in it for themselves and could care less about the Country except for when it comes to votes.

0

newmedia 4 years, 5 months ago

I wonder how Larry Johnson of the Chiefs would have voted....mm,mm,mm

0

cowboy 4 years, 5 months ago

right wingers are all for the protections of the constitution except for gays , mexicans , blacks , women , pretty much anyone who is not a white bigot.

0

beobachter 4 years, 5 months ago

And the right wingers will continue to vote for these "brilliant" politicians. No wonder Kansas has such a great reputation.

0

davidsmom 4 years, 5 months ago

Couldn't a lot of crimes be committed because the perpetrator hates someone or hates the behavior or what they did, etc? Where do you draw the line between this motivation and that motivation? And why is it any worse to commit a violent crime against a person because you don't like him for some reason and committing a violent crime against him for some other reason? I am with our Kansas legislators on this one. A divisive provision should not have been attached to a military funding bill. I am completely with our Kansas legislators on this one.

0

Marion Lynn 4 years, 5 months ago

"headdoctor (Anonymous) says…

Marion hasn't figured out how law making works."

Marion writes:

Sorry, Charlie!

We accept only the finest tuna!

I know exactly how the people of this nation get screwed by congress every day that it is in session.

If you want to call it "lawmaking", you go right ahead.

Your idol wil not serve a second term and the Good People of The United States of America will be set "FREE" !

And I guarrantee you that those same Good People will never allow themselves to be so enslaved again!

The next election will be the Emanicipation Proclamation for all of the American People!

0

Gareth 4 years, 5 months ago

Read up on Marion Lynn, our resident spammer, here:

http://tinyurl.com/LynnSpam

0

Hoots 4 years, 5 months ago

Oh, how the HELL does everything have to do with GAYS??? They don't give a Rats about you being Gay, strait, black, white, or purple. They care about the big trip they just got from CHASE BANK. They don't care you are gay...I can guarantee you that. Now go take a shot of vodka and rethink that dream if they even give one of the smallest thoughts to you. They probably couldn't even find Lawrence Kansas on a map right now.

0

Hoots 4 years, 5 months ago

If they don't like it then why don't they do something about rolling bills into bills and spending into bills that have nothing to do with spending. Typical D.C. BS. They could change it if they truly wanted to represent us. Folks you are just fly over country once they get elected.

0

headdoctor 4 years, 5 months ago

Marion hasn't figured out how law making works. Congress set this up. All Obama needs to do is sign it or not.

Talking about who should be in office, None of these should be. Brownback, Roberts, Moran, Tiahrt and Jenkins. I don't care that Jenkins voted for it. She is just as bad as the others.

0

porch_person 4 years, 5 months ago

Out of curiosity, Marion,....

Impeach President Obama for what crime? This is twice I've asked you this question.

(laughter)

0

headdoctor 4 years, 5 months ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) says… What a bunch of pigs to tie thought control legislation to anything which concerns our valiant warriors. Impeach Barack Hussein Obama now.


For what? Doing his job. Issues get slipped into other actions all the time. Why is this different? I know. It is because the racists, race baiters, and haters are getting their chain jerked. This just shows what our Kansas fools stand for.

0

bc 4 years, 5 months ago

As you did with the article, you automatically conclude that because someone is against HOW legislature is passed, they are gay haters. That is not the case.

Nothing i've posted is hateful in any manner. Please don't take it that way.

0

dontcallmedan 4 years, 5 months ago

Once again, if you had a buck for every one of Marion's comments on this site, you would have $18, 408.

0

Marion Lynn 4 years, 5 months ago

What a bunch of pigs to tie thought control legislation to anything which concerns our valiant warriors.

Impeach Barack Hussein Obama now.

0

mickeyrat 4 years, 5 months ago

I should have attached a sarcasm meter to my 10:02, mach58; the "freedoms" issue is a red herring.

0

mach58 4 years, 5 months ago

Freedoms? Are you serious? This has nothing to do with free speech. Right now, if someone is attack because they are gay, and the local authorities refuse to prosecute, the perps walk free. This new law allows federal authorities to step in and prosecute.

Is your hatred for gays so strong that you would deny them their rights? How very Christ-like of you.

0

mickeyrat 4 years, 5 months ago

Maybe now would be a good time to compile a list of all the freedoms the Obama administration has taken away.

0

bc 4 years, 5 months ago

Did anyone read the article? Sounds like a legitimate reason to oppose a bill. It'll be funny when you're all scratching your heads wondering where you freedoms (i.e. speech) went.

0

tomatogrower 4 years, 5 months ago

Fred Phelps has more influence in Kansas than we thought. Scary.

0

ComradeRedRooster 4 years, 5 months ago

It appears from my monitor that the hate is coming from the pro-gay folks on this issue. Dividing society instead of educating, name calling instead of dialogue, fear instead of trust. Not a good way to gain acceptance.

0

George_Braziller 4 years, 5 months ago

Uhhh, Sammy, I wouldn't call 68-29 "dividing the Senate." Obviously there was plenty of support.

" “The defense bill should have been about supporting our troops in a bipartisan way instead of sneaking in a controversial provision and dividing the Senate unnecessarily,” said Brownback. "

0

Mike Blur 4 years, 5 months ago

Wow, the far-right's hatred of gays runs so deep, they are unwilling to fund the military. That is really scary.

Of course Jenkins voted in favor of the bill; she is the one most likely to lose her seat in the next election.

0

dontcallmedan 4 years, 5 months ago

I'm sure Senator Brownback vigorously discussed the hate crimes provision with his fellow roomates, the johns of C-Street.

0

porch_person 4 years, 5 months ago

Worst case scenario for Brownback / Moran / Tiahrt / Roberts.

Voting against funding the troops and hate crimes. Completely in character and completely wrong.

0

yourworstnightmare 4 years, 5 months ago

All that will remain of this story is a blurb that democrats can use on the campaign trail:

"Brownback/Moran/Tiahrt/Roberts voted against funding the troops."

0

ksjayhawk74 4 years, 5 months ago

Brownback, Roberts, Moran & Tiahrt, fighting for Kansans' right to beat up gays.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.