The Thought Police (new hate crimes law)...

"LifeSiteNews.com's writers and founders have come to understand that respect for life and family are endangered by an international conflict. That conflict is between radically opposed views of the worth and dignity of every human life and of family life and community. It has been caused by secularists attempting to eliminate Christian morality and natural law principles which are seen as the primary obstacles to implementing their new world order.

LifeSiteNews.com understands that abortion, euthanasia, cloning, homosexuality and all other moral, life and family issues are part of the international conflict affecting all nations, even at the most local levels. LifeSiteNews attempts to provide its readers with the most useful and up-to-date information on this conflict."

😕

are we getting clone troopers?

For the third time, there are other sites with the same information, and I believe there's a video of the debate online.

Find proof that the claims are invalid rather than attacking the source based on its views on morality.

And even...EVEN if one Democrat said "yes" in response to that, that does not change the reality that it's not true. And guess what? It's not even up to him. The Legislative branch makes laws, it doesn't enforce them. The Executive branch enforces the law. And I bet that if Bush even signs it, he'll issue a signing statement saying he's not going to enforce it anyway.

It doesn't say that, specifically, and I have read the bill. If, however, the proponents of the bill admit such a thing, then it can be assumed that, should such an event occur, the admissions accurately reflect events that would take place.

Law enforcement officials enforce the letter of the law, not what ONE proponent of the law says. Until you find another example, I'm afraid that you can only use the word "proponent" singularly.

Try again.

I wonder how many Democrats disagreed with what he said.

Wonder all you like, proof is required.

Okay. I'll say that no Democrats disagreed.

Now it's up to you to provide evidence that any did.

....No

You're the one who kept posting the one statement by a single Congressman as if it were a consensus opinion and now you're trying to get me to go fetch proof that the other 232 Democrats disagreed. Nice try.

Proving a negative, are we?

My apologies. I rescind my earlier comments. Apparently, the "TVC" has been accused of forging the transcripts. After reading it for myself, here is what is actually said:

Gohmert: ...if a minister preaches that sexual relations outside of marriage of a man and woman is wrong, and somebody within that congregation goes out and does an act of violence, and that person says that that minister counseled or induced him through the sermon to commit that act, are you saying under your amendment that in no way could that ever be introduced against the minister?

Mr. Davis: No.

I humbly retract my earlier statements and prepare a modest dish of crow.

However, the actual transcript highlights a feasible blame-shifting scenario that could cause problems--the preacher giving the sermon states only that homosexuality is wrong but can possibly be charged with incitement despite not having condoned any actions against homosexuals.

Mmmmm.....crow droolio

The question was a little poorly worded though, I had to read it a couple times to understand it.

Originally posted by FeceMan
However, the actual transcript highlights a feasible blame-shifting scenario that could cause problems--the preacher giving the sermon states only that homosexuality is wrong but can possibly be charged with incitement despite not having condoned any actions against homosexuals.

Originally posted by FeceMan
For the third time, there are other sites with the same information, and I believe there's a video of the debate online.

Find proof that the claims are invalid rather than attacking the source based on its views on morality.

This "video" you are talking about would be really good to support your argument. Could you post or link it?

Originally posted by Strangelove
Mmmmm.....crow droolio

The question was a little poorly worded though, I had to read it a couple times to understand it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
This "video" you are talking about would be really good to support your argument. Could you post or link it?

Originally posted by FeceMan
Nope, I FUBARed.

Aww hug

I could link to the PDF transcript, though.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I could link to the PDF transcript, though.

Hmm, well, do that then.

On another note in the thing you posted it just stated that one Democrat said that.

Yeah, it was "Mr. Davis," one of the main spokesmen for the bill.