Congress Drops Hate Crimes Bill

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: NYT/AP

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: December 6, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate has dropped its insistence that Congress pass legislation expanding hate crime laws to include attacks on gays, after it became clear the measure wouldn't pass the House, according to congressional aides.

House and Senate negotiators agreed on Thursday to drop the provision from a major defense policy bill. The legislation authorizes the military to spend some $150 billion in money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and provides detailed policy guidance on the Pentagon's multibillion weapons programs.

The exclusion of the hate-crimes provision pushed by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., is a blow to civil rights groups who say it is necessary to address a rise in crimes motivated by prejudice against a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.

The military bill is ''the last clear chance this year for Congress to make a meaningful effort to stop hate crime violence,'' said Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Congress-Hate-Crimes.html

[iconoclastic cat]

1. Do they want to be the lamest of the lame? nt

[xchrom]

2. ok then -- and this is the democratic party in charge?

:grr: -- all righty then -- i think i see.

[theHandpuppet]

12. Yep... same old shell game

I've become so disillusioned that I can't even find my indignation any longer.

:(

[xchrom]

25. i know how you feel. nt

[Chovexani]

52. Amen.

:cry:

[closeupready]

20. Exactly.

n/t

[humbled_opinion]

92. Not only that its the house that has a majority ....

and they won't pass it ... I think its time to start a third party.

[JackBeck]

3. Just another fine example of leadership failure from the Democrats.n/t

[flashl]

4. I had suspicions. They play us like fiddles.

[dbackjon]

5. Frickin wusses

[maddiejoan]

6. Oh joy!

As a two time victim of transgender-related bashing, I'm just very happy about this.

I know because of ENDA's sellout I have no right to work, but now I can be confident that I can bashed with impugnity while I'm out on the street begging!
(For those who say this is bad for all gays. You are right, but --it's worse for those who are visibly queer, this generally means those who transgress "gender-normal" appearance, which was why trans-insclusion in ENDA would have been important as well)

Really all I need now is the chance to wear a pink triangle on my jacket and my life will be complete.
They should just send me to a detention center already. I'd be safer and better fed.

[abmand]

26. ahh but there is a solution

its called harrasment or assault. wow laws on the books to deal with these sort of things....how interesting

[FreeState]

33. Harassment and assault are not hate crimes they are weapons sometimes used in a hate crime n/t

[abmand]

34. well if they arent harrassing, and not assaulting you

and just "hurting your feelings" well that just doesnt cut it for me. I still have a right to Hate in this country, i have a right to call a black person a nigger to their face. If i countinue to do it they have a right to charge me with harrasment. Seems pretty fair to me

[FreeState]

37. A hate crime is committed against a group by attacking one of its members

the intent is to send a message to a group of people.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FreeState]

40. You apparently dont want to get it so Im done trying n/t

[Chovexani]

53. Is there a reason you keep feeling the need to use that word?

Aside from the fact that your home is under a bridge?

[TheWatcher]

90. Well, his Bigotry is probably the only way he can get aroused.

[TheWatcher]

89. Delete.

Some idiocy should just be left alone.

[Newsjock]

7. So, tell me again ...

Why I, as a gay man, should support any candidate, regardless of party, who won't stand up for my basic decency as a human being?

[theHandpuppet]

13. They want our money

So they can buy the knife with which to stab us in the back.... AGAIN. Just remember this when you get another phone call asking for campaign money.

[queerart]

23. I'm Honestly Not Trying To Inflame Anyone Further......

But I think your rhetorical question is an important one for anyone paying attention to what is going on......

I won't speak ill of the Democrats as it's not allowed here, nor will I endorse a competing political party.... as that is also not allowed...

But there is "only one" political party that has true respect for the GLBT community...... and it's a color....

[zabet]

8. Epic fail.

Can someone PLEASE
donate a freakin'
spine to our Dems
in Congress!??!

[closeupready]

21. I agree. Sad that in 2007, Dems in the US Congress think passing anti-gay hate crimes laws is bold,

and not doable, but there you have it.

[2beToby]

9. I was trying to find a post on this...

thanks for putting it up.

Considering everything was in vain, I wonder how the people who said we need to leave the T out of it are feeling now. When it comes to civil rights, everyone should defend the rights of everyone--or we'll all lose them one group at a time. Reminds me of "The Lion and the Bulls." *sigh*

[EFerrari]

10. What a disgrace. n/t

[Nite Owl]

11. They never fail

to fail!

They seem to think that once they have the WH and the Congress everything will be all ok but they don't understand that even if this happens the repuke minority will be nothing like them, they will fight and scream and make huge national issues over everything and once again the dems will get all scared and fail.

[rockybelt]

14. Every time I think

that they have disgusted the most they possibly could they prove me wrong.

God, I hate these bastards.

In the Third Reich gays were considered the enemy. I see some parallels here.

[McCamy Taylor]

15. Can Congress PLEASE pass a law mandating reporting of hate crimes including sex/gender related?

We do not even know how many occur each year. Some states, esp in the South report none while progressive states in the NE and California will laws mandating reporting will report thousands of hate crimes each year. In fact, it is likely that hate crimes are much more common in the South, but the fact that law enforcement, medical personnel, teachers, social workers in the South live in a community where there is peer pressure not to report, keeps these crimes secret--and keeps the problem hidden (except from the victims who live in fear). If reporting becomes mandatory, like child and elder abuse, with penalties for failure to report, those who want to report but kept quiet for fear of the contempt of their peers will now be able to say "I must obey the law" and the dark secrets of bigotry and violence in the South and America's heartland will become open knowledge. Then, it can be addressed by law enforcement and the criminal justice system and the public health system.

I am not even sure that adding new criminal code and penalties right now would make any difference in a society where law enforcement is allowed to look the other way and pretend that no hate crime has occurred. It is much more likely that racist cops and DOJ officials would use such laws to increase sentences for Latino and Black minorities convicted of economic crimes against Whites by claiming that there was some racial or sexual or gender motivation involved in their selection of target.

[abmand]

27. yeah

and those mandatory laws have shown to actually do nothing. They are unconstitutional in my mind.

[nealmhughes]

49. Yes, and a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Hate crime legislation calls for enhanced punishment,

not for a new statutory definition for existing criminal codes.

Hate crimes are especially heinous because they target an individual or group of individuals for their perceived inclusion in a target group. Therefore, a crime of opportunity or one of vengeance is not the same as a crime against a "signified other" merely for the perp's definition of the other as "other" and deserving of ad hoc ad hominim vengeance.

Designating a crime as a hate crime is no more unconstitutional than designating the same results of act(s) as "first degree murder" for one person and "manslaughter" for the next.

The state determines, tempered with the common law and the Constitutions of the US and the several states what is criminal. As long as the statute passes muster by the appealate courts, then it is constitutional and valid.

Your opinion, gentle reader, is that of one out of some 300 million other citizens.

[Rockholm]

16. Just great. Thanks for ab-so-lute-ly NOTHING,

Reid and Pelosi are really starting to get under my skin. Their leadership really sucks.

[superconnected]

17. Thanks Pelosi.

Figures.

[superconnected]

18. Can someone please tell me what Reid and Pelosi have accomplished?

Other than the bush agenda, that is.

[tom_paine]

68. Perry Logan has a lovely cut-n-paste that will prove your feelings are wrong

and also that your lying eyes are deceiving you.

:sarcasm:

However, I expect Perry to be along any minute to explain it all.

As a Jewish straight guy, among the prime targets the last time the Bushies did this (it was in Germany), I feel awful for the two groups who are mostlikely to be the New Jews in the Amerikan BushPutinist State, which are African-Americans and LGBT people.

Of course, any vocal opponents to Bushler, automatically rises to Enemy of the State status, no matter what race, creed, or sexuality will not protect someone from OHS goons in a decade or two.

So I guess I should also feel sorry for myself.

[closeupready]

19. What a disgrace our Congress is.

:mad: Worse, it's run by Democrats.

EDIT; Not "worse" BECAUSE it's run by Democrats, but that they failed to pass legislation, IN SPITE OF the fact that Congress is run by the party which claims to represent the interests of the GLBT community, among many other constituencies. Now we know that this is a lie.

[Rockholm]

22. JUST TRIED EMAILING....How PLEASANT

I just sent Pelosi an email. Well, if you are not a constituent, she doesn't want to hear from you. She suggest two places to submit emails. One website must be overloaded, because I can't access it. The other suggested place to send an email won't let me send it. Wrong address. Gee, Nancy...Scared of a little feedback?

[Psephos]

62. Send her a letter by postal mail...far more effective n/t

[Javaman]

24. so since the congress has lost it's spine are they even still breathing? nt

[Ian David]

28. NGL Task Force condemns decision to remove hate crimes provisions from Defense authorization Bill

Cross-posted from GD:Politics forum
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3801808&mesg_id=3801808

[abmand]

29. well i know im going to get flamed but here goes

i think this is a good thing. besides from my belief that hate crime legislation is stupid and rediculous- plus discriminatory i think it in some way can be called a victory for the GLBT community (just hear me out before you start calling me an evil homophobe). It seems that when one group acquires special designations/status in the eyes of the law it encourages a backlash against that group. I find most of the problem society has with GLBT community is caused by this "flaunting" and "special recognition" (these are not good words to use but i am at a lack for better) pushed by the GLBT community...that does not only go for the GLBT community but for other minority community. I think that if this stuff stopped being pushed the GLBT community would find themselves in a less socially hostile environment. I think in the eyes of the law, all people should be considered equal in the eyes of the law.

As my sister who happens to be a bisexual says- i like girls and guys- so what. Im a heterosexual- so what, im a jew- so what. It shouldnt matter, but if we keep acting like those little things matter, we invite criticism based on them.

[queerart]

41. I'm With You......

I am so sick of dirty Queers going around flaunting their perverted lives in everyone's face......


They just push, and push, and push.....


... and finishing off the post with the "predictable usual placating pablum" "I Can't Be A Homophobe, As My Sister Munches Carpet Too"....


Does your sister really want her "personal sexual business" to be introduced on a public forum to make to you look better in making an argument for what you think......


You really are a piece of work...... and it seems that you are a bit "too aware" of our "secret Gay Agenda"..... Homosexuality runs in families you know.... that is fact.....


It appears that we may have a big ole closeted Homo on our hands.... come on out Sister, the water is fine.......

[maddiejoan]

42. You are quite wrong.

What happens is that every time the Government tells the people that a certain group is not protected it sends out a signal that
it's okay to assault, dismiss, fire, not hire, discriminate and/or kill that group.

Maybe you've never been face to face with a policeman who is taunting you, while you are the victim of a crime.
Maybe you've never been told by the authorities that it was "your own damned fault for being a sissie"

Or maybe you agree that it's okay.

[Chovexani]

54. LOL

Well my cockerspaniel is Jewish and thinks you're a troll that's full of shit. But thanks for playing. Your consolation prize is an all-expense paid vacation on the Fail Boat.



Bon voyage!

[Psephos]

58. Your post should be a hate crime

abmand, like everyone else, deserves basic civility even if he somehow fails to have opinions identical to yours.

The Jewish dog insult is especially low. But I really like how you use hate speech against someone who doesn't agree with your desire to enact hate crime law.

This entire thread is a study in irony. The only speech that needs protecting is speech we don't like.

[Brrrp]

66. Yeppers, you are basically right.

If someone breaks my jaw and calls me an asshole, he gets a year in jail. If he breaks my jaw and calls me a faggot, he gets two years in jail--but only if I really am a homosexual. Otherwise he just gets one year in jail. This makes no sense at all. A broken jaw is a broken jaw.

[Occulus]

82. You're the type that tells people like me that I can indeed get married

IF I marry a woman. Therefore, we're equal.

Right? RIGHT??


But aside from that, the part you and Phephos and Brrp seem to consistently not just "not get", not just "fail to understand", but intentionally refuse to understand with malice of forethought is that crimes against minority classes are intended to send a message to all members of that class.

Phephos: There are not two sides to this story. His POV is objectively and subjectively wrong. We don't have to tolerate it, and we don't have to be nice about it. Too many people have died over this exact issue to be nice, or tolerant, or understanding.

Brrp: yours was a stunningly milquetoast example of a broken jaw (and I can show you lots worse, on demand, probably with pictures of the results of beatings). You're exactly wrong: people who would break one person's jaw because they believe that person to be gay/Muslim/Mexican/black/Jewish are in fact intending to send a message to others in that group, namely "keep your head low and don't act like you, and you won't get hurt". They often hurl racially/ethnically/sexually slanted insults while doing so. That's what the extra punishment is meant to address: the specific intent of sending a message.

Hate crime laws send a message back: don't hurt people because they are gay/Muslim/Mexican/black/Jewish, and you won't face a stiffer punishment.

[Ian David]

30. This bill would also have protected straight people from attacks by mobs of angry gay people...

upset about being stripped of their rights.

Now, I'm not saying that gay people should go around straight-bashing...

[abmand]

31. but we are already protected

like any other group from this sort of thing- because its illegal- its called assault, harrasment, attempted murder

[Ian David]

32. Whatever. I'm tired of arguing with people like you about it. n/t

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maven]

45. Gay-bashing is now a form of "speech" to protect?

WTF are you talking about?

[Ian David]

50. That's not what it's about. And it makes me sick. n/t

[ruggerson]

55. It would be "dispicable" (sic) if YOU taught at an academic institution

especially if you taught English.

[Chovexani]

56. Psst, you know that key right below the enter key?

It wants to know why you hate it so much. :(

[ck4829]

61. This bill is NOT about speech

It's about violent actions, I really don't want someone out on the streets who bases his or her criminal activities on the color of their potential victim's skin, their beliefs, or who they love.

[FreeState]

35. Those are weapons used not hate crimes n/t

[abmand]

38. well if you are saying

that a hate crime is holding a feeling of hatred towards a group and vocalizing it---then im dead set against any hate crime legislation. sorry, i dont agree with censorship of free speech and ideas as long as they dont incite violence, which there just so happens to be a law against. Love the legal system

[maddiejoan]

43. I guess what you don't understand is this:

Hate crimes must be legislated as different, because Hate crimes are serial in nature.

A person who commits a hate crime WILL commit that hate crime again and again and again.
Because that criminal never runs out of potential victims

[Maven]

46. A hate crime is intended to, and does, cause damage to an entire community of people.

Frankly, it's akin to a terrorist act.

We recognize terrorism as a separate crime than just murder, because we recognize that the criminal intent was to harm a greater number of people than just the immediate victims.

Same premise here, although some lowlifes will still defend acts meant to instill fear into a minority as simple crimes with no effect beyond the harm done to the immediate target.

[maddiejoan]

47. exactly so

very well put.

[Ignis]

48. That's a great analogy, HK.

Why don't our elected representatives seem to understand this?

The weight of a death from terrorism is not the same as the weight of a single, random, isolated murder. This, they understand. Why is it so difficult to see the same parallel in a hate crime?

Of course, there's an answer to this question, sadly: "Religious" voters.

[Occulus]

83. B-b-b-but! They're not TRUE (insert religion here)!

So here's a new response to that fallacy: There are enough "not true (insert religion here)" to affect vote results, and there are enough of them to keep those results in place. See Michigan's anti-gay marriage amendment, among others.

I'd say they bloody well ARE "true (insert religion here)", everyone who says otherwise is a fucking apologist asshole who ought to know better, and the "truly good (insert religion here) (deity/saviorlike)" we hear from here on DU are the extreme minority.

Flame away, but I'm tired of the apologies from the religious. Either DO something about your own, actively and decisively, or get the fuck out of the way, sit down, and shut up. Your complacency equates to your complicity- DO something. Stop their sermons. Confiscate their collection plates and hold them in escrow. Publish their registers publicly. INTERFERE WITH THEIR OPERATIONS. Just DO something.

I'm sick of hearing words, because the people we're up against see those words as names, not sticks and stones.

[JBoy]

57. I think you need to do some reading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

Learn what the adults are talking about.

[Ian David]

65. Enjoy your tombstone? n/t

[Maven]

44. I can't even believe this is my party. In 2007.

Fuck these wimps.

[rodeodance]

51. so sad

[HuffleClaw]

59. cowards, the lot of 'em

and sickening, how they STILL continue to support bush's war

[xchrom]

60. kick

[twiceshy]

63. Hate crime = "Thought Crime" = 1984 by Orwell

What happened to equal protection under the law. If someone punches me in the mouth they should be charged with assault and battery, what they were thinking at the time is not really germane to the crime. Also as a white-male, aka "the devil", I know these laws will never apply to situations where I was the victim. Hate crime is a wedge that will destroy the freedom of speech.

[Snarkturian Clone]

69. A

men.

[fascisthunter]

73. Explain How a Hate Crime is a Thought Crime

go for it.

Also, tell me why you feel you are "the devil" because you are white? Do you feel like a victim?

I'm "white" and I don't. So why do you? Paranoia, or insecure?

[pipoman]

75. "Hate crime" is thought crime by definition

until the advent of "hate crime" crimes were punished based on the crime committed. Hate crime legislation adds punishment based on what the convicted was thinking at the time of the crime. There is no other way to describe what "hate crime" legislation is.

Further to do this does effect equal protection in that 2 identical crimes are committed across town from each other the first, a black woman is raped by a black man, the second a black woman is raped by a white man. The the same language is used by both perps during the coarse of the crime such as name calling etc. Two days later both perps are arrested and quickly convicted in the same judge's courtroom using DNA evidence. The black perp gets a 10 year sentence and is out in 3 to go seek revenge against his victim. The white perp who was also convicted of a "hate crime" gets 30 years with no parole based on what he was thinking or what he said at the time of the criminal act.

Support "hate crime" legislation if you want but it is undeniably "thought policing".

[fascisthunter]

76. Sorry, but an action to attack a minority physically is a physical action

with intent to harm a larger group of people is not just a thought. That's an action with a motive to terrorize a larger group.

Skin heads attacking gays and other minorities is not just a thought crime. That's watering down the significance of the intent of that crime itself. You know it too. With your line of thinking, every crime starts out with a thought, right? Such as killing a person, and punishing them for killing a person to police people's thoughts of people "killing people" in general.

I really do believe people against hate crimes legislation are bigots who want to excuse hate crimes toward minorities committed by hate groups such as skin heads and the KKK.

Notice the "As a white male, "the devil" comment? That poster above infers that somehow this legislation is to attack or persecute white males in general. For that poster it's about him being a victim for being a WHITE MALE. Very interesting.

I'm a white male and I know it doesn't target all white males for not all white males want to attack minorities, but he does.

PS - I wasn't talking to you to begin with. If he can't defend his own comment and you need to, well, you know the rest. Bye.

[pipoman]

78. I know you weren't talking to me

but he commented several days ago and likely will not return. I certainly am not defending his thought. Only stating that considering hate crime anything but thought policing is wrong. Intent throughout legal history has had only one place, determining criminal intent (required to prosecute crime). Beyond determining criminal intent, intent is immaterial in the prosecution of crime. Intent=thought. Actions are punishable, thought isn't, nor should it be IMO. As for the KKK the same could be said for the Black Panthers, the Teamsters, The Nation of Islam, other Muslim groups etc. etc. It is a dangerous and slippery road to begin prosecuting based on thought or belief regardless of the effect of that thought or belief on anyone else.

[pipoman]

79. I would add that there are crimes which pertain to crime

based on group action like inciting, conspiracy, some of the organized crime statutes, etc. Hate crime legislation is rarely (if ever) used against groups only individuals.

[Dave From Canada]

74. You're exactly right. "Hate crime" legislation is thought police. Murder is murder, whether it's

because of race, greed, revenge, or even terra.

[fascisthunter]

77. Racists Target Minorities to Terrorize Minorities in General

You know it, and I know it.

[ohio2007]

80. Not in Baltimore

"We were saying the whole time to the driver, 'You need to help us, call the police,'" Green told 11 News reporter Kerry Cavanaugh. "He said, 'I can't. I'll get in trouble.'"

Roth said the driver closed the door and drove away, even though the attack continued once they got off the bus.

"We could've been left on the side of the road, dead," Rothe said.

MTA officials said the driver of the bus is currently not operating a vehicle while the incident is being investigated.

MTA officials said they're not currently classifying the incident as a hate crime. They said they're simply calling it a common assault.


http://www.wbaltv.com/news/14843952/detail.html

[pipoman]

81. Until they are prosecuted and jailed for their actions

The same is true for animal rights activists, they target meaters to terrorize other meaters, abortion rights people are terrorized by anti-choice activists, gangs terrorize neighborhoods, organized crime terrorize local business people with protection rackets, the list goes on into infinity. Crime must be prosecuted, those who commit crime should be punished. Thinking about crime should not be punished, believing my cause is worthy of criminal acts should not be punished, what I'm thinking when I commit criminal acts should not be punished. If bad intentions can be punished, should good intentions be rewarded with less punishment? If I kill a fur apparel designer thus saving animals should I get a lighter sentence than if I am a fur apparel designer who kills an animal rights activist? Both are acting on presumed hatred for the other.

I feel for all victims of crime. I consider myself a civil libertarian and hate crime legislation is contrary to that position IMO.

[Occulus]

86. Again: hate crimes target groups, not individuals

The crime against the individual is a message to the group. I can provide countless examples.

Fortunately, I don't have to waste my time. Try Google, and search for the term ""hate crime" +gay" without the outermost quote marks.

Crucifying a "fag" on a fence in a field isn't a message to "fags" everywhere? And the sending of that "message" shouldn't be punished further?

It's a terrorist act, to be honest. It's exactly that sort of mentality. Only in these cases, it's for real, unlike "Islamofascists". Why are you defending that mentality?

[pipoman]

88. I don't completely disagree with you

There are several problems with this type of legislation. As you said, you can provide several examples. There is no way you could provide them all because there are an infinite number of crime possibilities when the crime is made to terrorize a group who are engaged in law abiding acts which the perp and others dislike, so the list of such crimes could go on beyond the ability to list them all. As for gay crime, I feel for the victims in the same way I feel for the victims of any crime. While I believe the Phelps clan are disgusting pigs, none of them have been prosecuted for the things they say, think or do, so why should what they say be prosecuted after they commit a heinous (or not) criminal act? I don't disagree with the concept of "upward departure" (or downward for that matter) on sentencing guidelines which may be determined by a judge and or jury on a case by case basis based on mitigating or compounding circumstances. I just oppose the idea of a persons thought being prosecutable. I am not defending any mentality, I just oppose any action which intentionally or unintentionally curtails free speech or expression regardless of the offensiveness of that speech or expression. Again "hate crime" is a relatively new concept which I believe is thought prosecution. I believe in tough penalties for violent crime and offenders, in fact I am usually screamed at here on DU by those who believe in rehabilitation over punishment, hospitalization over hard time, and the "a criminal is only a criminal because of lack of opportunity" crowd.

We may have to agree to disagree but I would hope you can at least see the point I am making and acknowledge there MAY be something valid there?

[Occulus]

84. You DARE to talk about equal protection?

Okay then, Sherlock, riddle me this: two states now allow homosexuals to marry other homosexuals. The "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution requires that all states recognize contracts made in another state. As an example of this, your adoption in AR is valid in CA, as is your driver's license, and your marriage license.

Given that, why are marriages between homosexuals in VT or MA not valid by state Constitutional amendment in some cases in the other 48 states?

Hate crime laws are in place BECAUSE these minorities are not socially OR legally equal to others. Period.

Get it through your skull. Reread my post until you do.

[leaninglib]

64. Do we really want to the law to place a higher value on crimes

committed against specific groups of people? I didn't think so.

Do we really want to criminalize thought? I didn't think so.

[superduperfarleft]

70. Good thing that isn't at all what hate crime laws do.

And given the racial disparity in capital murder cases, for starters, I'd say that hate crime laws would fix a justice system that already does place a higher value on crimes committed against certain groups of people.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tomg]

67. But, But ,But Dana Perino said

''State and local law enforcement agencies are effectively using their laws to the full extent they can.''

:sarcasm:

[Orsino]

71. "Fair game."

Once again, Teh Gayz are sold out.

[Harper_is_Bush]

85. I'm getting a little tired of all the bitching and moaning here...

..without any context.

Far to many posters engage in knee-jerk negative reactions here. I don't feel like it's fair to DU'ers, because it strives to create this "the Dem congress is baaaaad!" mentality without ANY sober explanations or insight or thinking.

[humbled_opinion]

93. Are you serious?

We have a Democratic controlled Congress and they haven't done anything... They bow down to Bush... Ok you tell me ...

What exactly have the Democratic Controlled Congress that will soon be in session for a whole year accomplished? I remember when the Democrats called the Republican Congress a do nothing Congress well isn't that Ironic...

[orleans]

87. fucking wimp bastards. why don't they all shrivel up and crawl away. n/t

[TheWatcher]

91. They do every day.