Hate Crimes: Should we have them?

143 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
Should we have a designation for 'hate crimes'? A crime is a crime. If a person of one race beats up another, the crime is assault. WHY they did it is irrelevant and should have no bearing on their punishment. There are no other crimes that we add extra weight to the punishment or the act because of the motive, so why race?
  • Profile picture of the author budshess
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1007638].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Killer Joe
      Originally Posted by budshess View Post

      A crime is a crime. What is next, punishment based on what kind of shoes you wear when committing a crime?
      No wonder there's no crime at U.S. airport security check points.

      That had me baffled up til now...

      KJ
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1007844].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jagged
    The press plays a large roll in naming them "hate crimes". Giving titles like that plastered across the headlines....
    sells more papers...
    sells more ad space on TV....
    gets a higher click-thru rate on the internet....

    To me...like others here...a crime is a crime is a crime....
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1007677].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Lawrh
      It's the political correctness disease. It isn't just race, it is becoming a crime to offend or be perceived as offending, anyone.
      Signature

      “Strategy without action is a day-dream; action without strategy is a nightmare.” – Old Japanese proverb -

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1007775].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Guess criminals just better start victimizing only people of their own race, nationality, sexual preference, and religion.

    Or maybe we could get prisons that aren't corporate institutions. Once you let a corporation at the laws - everything is about the money.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1008484].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    The WHOLE idea of "hate crimes" is RACIST and STUPID!

    BASICALLY, they say....

    1. Police, especially people that are not white or male are more important than others.
    2. Non whites or females come next.
    3. white males are a DISTANT THIRD!

    It is SO much easier and fairer to simply say.... Did they have intent, malice, and kill the person? They're GUILTY! If a white male kills a non white female, for say rape, GUILTY! If they are both male? GUILTY! If neither is white? GUILTY! If both are white? GUILTY!

    ONE set of punishments, etc... HECK, if it were an accident or without malice, WHO CARES if one was racist? It should be a lesser crime. Some people that may kill would NOT be racist, and some that wouldn't kill ARE!

    We should kil all the "supporters" of hat crimes, because THEY are all RACIST!!!!!!!!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1009029].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Ridiculous. Do you ever think before you type? There's nothing racist about a hate crimes laws or supporters. Making white males the victim here is just STUPID! Saying supporters of these laws should be killed is outrageous and moronic also.

      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      The WHOLE idea of "hate crimes" is RACIST and STUPID!

      BASICALLY, they say....

      1. Police, especially people that are not white or male are more important than others.
      2. Non whites or females come next.
      3. white males are a DISTANT THIRD!

      It is SO much easier and fairer to simply say.... Did they have intent, malice, and kill the person? They're GUILTY! If a white male kills a non white female, for say rape, GUILTY! If they are both male? GUILTY! If neither is white? GUILTY! If both are white? GUILTY!

      ONE set of punishments, etc... HECK, if it were an accident or without malice, WHO CARES if one was racist? It should be a lesser crime. Some people that may kill would NOT be racist, and some that wouldn't kill ARE!

      We should kil all the "supporters" of hat crimes, because THEY are all RACIST!!!!!!!!

      Steve
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1010234].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Ridiculous. Do you ever think before you type? There's nothing racist about a hate crimes laws or supporters. Making white males the victim here is just STUPID! Saying supporters of these laws should be killed is outrageous and moronic also.
        Yeah, I wanted to check that later. The idea of killing them is kind of "well it is good for the goose" type of thought.

        Isn't it racist to hold up one, or even several, race/s as superior to another? If not, then what exactly is the point? If it IS, then they ARE racist, by definition! Just like the idea that if 10 or so people happen to take a test and 2 are black, that at least ONE black must be able to pass! GIVE ME A BREAK! Saying that test was racist SIMPLY because most people passed and no blacks did is racist!

        Supreme Court rules for white firefighters in New Haven case, overturning Sotomayor's ruling - MassLive.com

        And the only ones not considered a "protected class" are white males. I didn't specify that, the supporters of the "hate crimes" did! Sorry!

        I don't know WHY it went off the air, but there was a series:

        http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0494185/

        If a person changes their apparent race group, they should NOT be treated differently, judged differently, or given different benefits! PERIOD!

        steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1010327].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          That isn't true Steve. Show me where the bill or any hate crimes law says that. I'm not sure where you are getting your info, but if it's from Pat Buchanon or Rush Blimpbaugh, then it's likely BS.

          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          And the only ones not considered a "protected class" are white males.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1010504].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            That isn't true Steve. Show me where the bill or any hate crimes law says that. I'm not sure where you are getting your info, but if it's from Pat Buchanon or Rush Blimpbaugh, then it's likely BS.
            Well playing the devils advocate here, have you ever heard of a single time that a caucasian got into an altercation with a minority and there not be racist undertones to the story but if the roles are reversed, its because the minority was just lashing out due to the pressure put on them by 'the man'.

            You're either equal, or your not. There shouldnt be special laws so that you can be 'more equal' than someone else. It doesnt matter what someone says during the act of kicking your ass, the point is that they assaulted you. WHY they assaulted you is totally irrelevant when it comes to a person being tried for their crimes.


            Justice is supposed to be blind..remember? That means blind to color as well.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1010530].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              The hate crimes laws should be equal. Like Teddy just pointed out, there is currently a case against some blacks. I do believe the why in a crime is relevant.

              Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

              You're either equal, or your not. There shouldnt be special laws so that you can be 'more equal' than someone else. It doesnt matter what someone says during the act of kicking your ass, the point is that they assaulted you. WHY they assaulted you is totally irrelevant when it comes to a person being tried for their crimes.


              Justice is supposed to be blind..remember? That means blind to color as well.
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1010571].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                The hate crimes laws should be equal. Like Teddy just pointed out, there is currently a case against some blacks. I do believe the why in a crime is relevant.
                So then why not make specialized drug crimes, robbery, theft.


                He stole money because he was hungry, so he gets a lighter sentence

                stealing would carry more weight in the sentencing phase if it is against an elderly woman as opposed to an elderly man

                thats dumb

                EVERYONE being treated EQUALLY by the law is the cornerstone of our laws. You start messing with that, you start messing with the foundation of the country.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1010638].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  I guess you don't think there should be a premeditated murder or manslaughter distinction either? Just one type of murder that covers all?

                  Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

                  So then why not make specialized drug crimes, robbery, theft.


                  He stole money because he was hungry, so he gets a lighter sentence

                  stealing would carry more weight in the sentencing phase if it is against an elderly woman as opposed to an elderly man

                  thats dumb

                  EVERYONE being treated EQUALLY by the law is the cornerstone of our laws. You start messing with that, you start messing with the foundation of the country.
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1010789].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    I guess you don't think there should be a premeditated murder or manslaughter distinction either? Just one type of murder that covers all?
                    Well honestly...does one make you more dead? If i killed you an it was premeditated, will you die more?

                    And spending time thinking up how you are going to kill someone isnt the same thing as screaming a racial slur at them when you do attack.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1010972].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                      I don't believe we should have hat crimes. One, it further highlights the differences between groups of people. Two, it's dangerous to judge the intent of another.

                      In the Wyoming case where the gay kid was murdered (sorry, forgot his name), one of the convicted admitted to killing the kid, but said he had nothing against gays and didn't kill the kid because he was gay. Yet, he was charged with a hate crime.

                      I tend to believe the murderer simply because he admitted to the killing. Why tell the truth about killing someone, then lie about whether he hated gays or not? Doesn't make sense. I'd guess in a WY prison, he'd be better off saying he hated gays.

                      Having said this, I do believe in judging certain crimes by whether they are done out of "need" or out of "greed".

                      For example, a homeless teen shoplifts some food from a grocery store because he's hungry. Another teen shoplifts a CD because he doesn't have the money to pay for it, (or doesn't want to pay for it).

                      Both are crimes and both should be punished. However, if I were judge, jury and executioner, the teen that shoplifted out of "need" would be given a far more leniant verdict than the teen that stole out of greed.
                      Signature
                      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1011119].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Killer Joe
                        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                        I don't believe we should have hat crimes. One, it further highlights the differences between groups of people. Two, it's dangerous to judge the intent of another.
                        I totally agree with this statement.

                        When I saw Aretha Franklin's hat at the inauguration I thought "What a crime!"

                        Boy, does that highlight the difference between my crowd and that over-the-top 'My hat's bigger than your hat' crowd she hangs out with. Our baseball caps may be a little shop-worn, but at least they fit on our heads.

                        I'm not sure what she was up to, so I won't speculate. You know what they say..."it's dangerous to judge the intent of another".

                        My hat's off to Kurt for taking this bold stand.

                        KJ
                        Signature
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1011229].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author psa777
                        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                        I don't believe we should have hat crimes. One, it further highlights the differences between groups of people. Two, it's dangerous to judge the intent of another
                        I have to go with Kurt on this. I think it just emphasizes perceived differences, which shouldn't be an issue in the first place (yes, I know, unfortunately, for many people they are, but that doesn't mean as a society we should play along). It is fine to look at the motivation for a crime in a court case, but what difference does it make to the victim if he/she got killed/assaulted/raped because of race/religion/sexual orientation or just because the perpetrator felt like it, was drunk and aggressive, wasn't breastfed as a baby or came from a bad neighborhood - the fact that he dared to violate another human being should be all that counts.
                        I believe that "hate crime laws" are yet another 'divide & conquer' scheme of the powers that are to keep us arguing, divided and overlooking the crap they are dishing out to us every day.
                        Having said all of this, I am glad that we still can have a discussion like this and have different viewpoints - let's all make sure it stays like that.

                        Cheers,
                        Peter
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1014682].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                      So what are you saying? There shouldn't be a premeditated, first degree, second degree, manslaughter charge? These laws have been around for decades. Are you against them also?

                      And yes, it actually is the same. When someone is accused of premeditated murder, it is taking a crime and looking into WHY they did it.

                      Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

                      Well honestly...does one make you more dead? If i killed you an it was premeditated, will you die more?

                      And spending time thinking up how you are going to kill someone isnt the same thing as screaming a racial slur at them when you do attack.
                      Signature
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1011859].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
                        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                        So what are you saying? There shouldn't be a premeditated, first degree, second degree, manslaughter charge? These laws have been around for decades. Are you against them also?

                        And yes, it actually is the same. When someone is accused of premeditated murder, it is taking a crime and looking into WHY they did it.
                        But hating someone doesnt mean you are planning their murder. Considering that all there needs for something to be a hate crime is to utter a racial slur during the assault, its kind of a stretch to compare that to a premeditated murder because of the type of hate that caused the aggression.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1011930].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                          Can you show me where it says in any of these laws that all you need to do is utter a racial slur during a crime? It isn't there. We are talking about real hate crimes here. Just as in real premeditated murder. You never answered my question: do you think all murder should be looked at the same?



                          Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

                          But hating someone doesnt mean you are planning their murder. Considering that all there needs for something to be a hate crime is to utter a racial slur during the assault, its kind of a stretch to compare that to a premeditated murder because of the type of hate that caused the aggression.
                          Signature
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1011965].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                            Can you show me where it says in any of these laws that all you need to do is utter a racial slur during a crime? It isn't there. We are talking about real hate crimes here. Just as in real premeditated murder. You never answered my question: do you think all murder should be looked at the same?
                            WHO CARES what "the law says"!?!?!?!?!? The law is NOT based on the law! Watch TV shows, take a law class, etc... Most is based on PRECEDENT! AND court cases HAVE been decided on heresay interpreted to be slurs! So it IS a part of the law, like it or not, codified or not.

                            Steve
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1012984].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                              Uhm, Stevie. We're talking about hate crimes laws. That's why we should care about what the law says.
                              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                              WHO CARES what "the law says!?
                              Steve
                              Signature
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1017581].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                Uhm, Stevie. We're talking about hate crimes laws. That's why we should care about what the law says.
                                MAYBE you should read the CONTEXT!!!!!!!!! I was simply saying that the LAW is not what has dictated the level of punishment, treatment, and persecution. It is the PRECEDENT! That was in response to what one had said about "show me where in the law a person could be prosecuted SOLELY by what they said.".

                                Steve
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1018946].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                  I did look at the context and you are wrong as usual.

                                  Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                                  MAYBE you should read the CONTEXT!!!!!!!!! I was simply saying that the LAW is not what has dictated the level of punishment, treatment, and persecution. It is the PRECEDENT! That was in response to what one had said about "show me where in the law a person could be prosecuted SOLELY by what they said.".

                                  Steve
                                  Signature
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1019042].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                    I did look at the context and you are wrong as usual.
                                    OK, what is your native language? Maybe I could find a decent translation you can understand!

                                    Quote:
                                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan
                                    Can you show me where it says in any of these laws that all you need to do is utter a racial slur during a crime? It isn't there. We are talking about real hate crimes here. Just as in real premeditated murder. You never answered my question: do you think all murder should be looked at the same?
                                    WHO CARES what "the law says"!?!?!?!?!? The law is NOT based on the law! Watch TV shows, take a law class, etc... Most is based on PRECEDENT! AND court cases HAVE been decided on heresay interpreted to be slurs! So it IS a part of the law, like it or not, codified or not.
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1019103].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                      It's not the language, it's your twisted logic that can't be understood. I'm not the only one who says this. I've seen many others say: "Steve, I don't know what the hell you are talking about". LOL.

                                      Saying "The law is NOT based on the law!" is wrong. Sure, precedent comes into play often, but it doesn't always and I would doubt that most court cases or sentencing, which is what we are talking about here, is based on precedent and that the law itself isn't of any concern.

                                      And, you should thank god they deleted the thread about race and hate because you looked even more silly than usual in that one. Unbelievable. :-)

                                      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                                      OK, what is your native language? Maybe I could find a decent translation you can understand!
                                      Signature
                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1019351].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
                            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                            Can you show me where it says in any of these laws that all you need to do is utter a racial slur during a crime? It isn't there. We are talking about real hate crimes here. Just as in real premeditated murder. You never answered my question: do you think all murder should be looked at the same?
                            If i'm not mistaken I remember reading about the very first time someone was charged with a hate crime, and it wasn't that long ago, and the entire reason was because during a black/white fight, the white guy dropped the n bomb.

                            Most of the time when you hear about a hate crime its someone just being called a name during a fight. Now the question pops up, how many times did that actually happen, and how many times did the police, the victim, or some random representative of that particular minority rights group went that one step farther just to add more punch (no pun intended) to the story.

                            I mean if i were a gay guy or a black guy and got beaten up for being gay or black, the average cops will look really interested and take down my information and maybe even send a cruiser around to look. But if i say they called me fag or ni**er during the beating thats completely different. Now its a hate crime the attack appears to be caused by racial bias just by that word being used during the act. Just the mention of a hate crime is going to draw the media like flies, civil rights groups..etc and then the police have no choice bot to devote real manpower and time to this...someone will be caught.

                            But its not quite the same for everyone...for instance
                            Ohio.com - Akron police investigate teen mob attack on family

                            Akron police say they aren't ready to call it a hate crime or a gang initiation.
                            But to Marty Marshall, his wife and two kids, it seems pretty clear.
                            It came after a family night of celebrating America and freedom with a fireworks show at Firestone Stadium. Marshall, his family and two friends were gathered outside a friend's home in South Akron.
                            Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted ''This is our world'' and ''This is a black world'' as they confronted Marshall and his family.
                            The Marshalls, who are white, say the crowd of teens who attacked them and two friends June 27 on Girard Street numbered close to 50. The teens were all black.



                            .........Akron police are investigating. Right now, the case is not being classified as a racial hate crime
                            now seriously..can you think of any way this crime could not be classified as a racial hate crime?
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1013227].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Michael Ellis
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                Like Teddy just pointed out, there is currently a case against some blacks.
                Yet, you will have to look long and hard to find it... If it were the other way around, it would be on every news channel with, of course, video of Al and Jessie marching in the streets.

                TeddyP - you must be getting a news feed that's beamed in from outer space. On earth, black on white hate crimes aren't front page stories.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1010802].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TeddyP
                  Originally Posted by Michael Ellis View Post

                  Yet, you will have to look long and hard to find it... If it were the other way around, it would be on every news channel with, of course, video of Al and Jessie marching in the streets.

                  TeddyP - you must be getting a news feed that's beamed in from outer space. On earth, black on white hate crimes aren't front page stories.
                  Then that is a problem with the media - not hate crime laws. I am not here defending the media.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1010839].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Michael Ellis
                    Originally Posted by TeddyP View Post

                    Then that is a problem with the media - not hate crime laws. I am not here defending the media.


                    You're right, that is a problem...a big problem, with the media.

                    Originally Posted by TeddyP View Post

                    just because the media doesn't spoon feed you stats on hate crimes against white males doesn't mean it doesn't happen.


                    No they don't spoon feed it to us, they totally ignore it, and you're right, it does happen.

                    And how does this apply to hate crimes? Think of the bigger picture...

                    If one group consistently sees another group commiting violent crimes against them, what happens? It fuels more hate crimes.

                    Now, the LAWS that are associated with these types of crimes exist in the same loop-sided system. They are eagerly applied to white on black crimes, but very often not used against black on white crimes, just like the media exposure of them.

                    Crimes are crimes.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1011392].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                      So if 5 white guys beat up and broom rape another white guy they get 5 years cause the victim was the same color as them.
                      The same 5 white guys do the same thing to a black guy and now it is a hate crime?
                      Now they get more time?
                      Didn't this hate crime crap come around at the same time as 'political correct'?
                      Hate crime is a slap in the face to every man, woman, and child of any color or sexual orientation or religion who has ever fought for equality.
                      Signature

                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1011458].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                        So if 5 white guys beat up and broom rape another white guy they get 5 years cause the victim was the same color as them.
                        The same 5 white guys do the same thing to a black guy and now it is a hate crime?
                        Now they get more time?
                        Didn't this hate crime crap come around at the same time as 'political correct'?
                        Hate crime is a slap in the face to every man, woman, and child of any color or sexual orientation or religion who has ever fought for equality.
                        That points back to my original statement. We have THREE levels of punishment. Frankly, I think there should only be ONE! I AGREE with Kurt(HEY, there is always a first time 8-) ) in that NEED should be given more compassion and a lighter sentence than GREED! Look at les miserables! Jean valjean SAVED people, HELPED people, he worked HARD and had a good spirit. He didn't deserve to be persecuted so much for stealing bread. If he had killed people, or done that for GREED, THEN I would feel his persecution was warranted.

                        WHO CARES what color the skin is!? I often get a double take when I say Martin Luther King said we should discriminate! He DID!!!!!!! Listen to his I have a dream speech! He said "PEOPLE SHOULD BE JUDGED not by the color of their skin but BY THE CONTENT OF THEIR CHARACTER"! So he ACTUALLY said that people SHOULD be discriminated against, but based on their CHARACTER and NOT creed, sex, or race.

                        Steve
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1011520].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TeddyP
                      If one group consistently sees another group commiting violent crimes against them, what happens? It fuels more hate crimes.

                      Now, the LAWS that are associated with these types of crimes exist in the same loop-sided system. They are eagerly applied to white on black crimes, but very often not used against black on white crimes, just like the media exposure of them.

                      Crimes are crimes.
                      Well one side isn't consistently seeing hate crimes against them in the media. I can't actually remember the last time I saw a hate crime story. Especially one where hate crime charges were actually laid. Regardless though even if you are seeing consistent reports of hate crimes...it doesn't translate into charges.

                      You are wrong about how the laws are eagerly applied to whites and not blacks. In 1999 (most recent stats I could find) blacks were 1.5x more likely to be charged with a hate crime than white people. These are FBI stats.

                      As for crimes are crimes - no that isn't true. Killing someone can end up in any number of charges - there are degrees of murder, there are degrees of manslaughter and there is negligence resulting in death etc... The law constantly differentiates between degrees of crime. This is nothing new.

                      I also showed psychiatric evidence that shows that hate crimes are significantly more damaging than non-hate related crimes.

                      So if 5 white guys beat up and broom rape another white guy they get 5 years cause the victim was the same color as them.
                      The same 5 white guys do the same thing to a black guy and now it is a hate crime?
                      Now they get more time?
                      Didn't this hate crime crap come around at the same time as 'political correct'?
                      Hate crime is a slap in the face to every man, woman, and child of any color or sexual orientation or religion who has ever fought for equality.
                      This is complete oversimplification to try to justify your stance. No it is not a hate crime in your second scenario it is a hate crime IF they did it to the black man because he was black.

                      That is very different.

                      It is also not a slap in the face of every person who has fought for equality - that is nothing more than rhetoric. Everyone regardless of race/culture/sexuality is subject to hate crime charges.

                      I say Martin Luther King said we should discriminate! He DID!!!!!!! Listen to his I have a dream speech! He said "PEOPLE SHOULD BE JUDGED not by the color of their skin but BY THE CONTENT OF THEIR CHARACTER"! So he ACTUALLY said that people SHOULD be discriminated against, but based on their CHARACTER and NOT creed, sex, or race.
                      LOL Are you for real? I am kind of new here - so if you are a character who is just trying to get a rise out of me - good job.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1011585].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                        Originally Posted by TeddyP View Post

                        Well one side isn't consistently seeing hate crimes against them in the media. I can't actually remember the last time I saw a hate crime story. Especially one where hate crime charges were actually laid. Regardless though even if you are seeing consistent reports of hate crimes...it doesn't translate into charges.

                        You are wrong about how the laws are eagerly applied to whites and not blacks. In 1999 (most recent stats I could find) blacks were 1.5x more likely to be charged with a hate crime than white people. These are FBI stats.

                        As for crimes are crimes - no that isn't true. Killing someone can end up in any number of charges - there are degrees of murder, there are degrees of manslaughter and there is negligence resulting in death etc... The law constantly differentiates between degrees of crime. This is nothing new.

                        I also showed psychiatric evidence that shows that hate crimes are significantly more damaging than non-hate related crimes.

                        This is complete oversimplification to try to justify your stance. No it is not a hate crime in your second scenario it is a hate crime IF they did it to the black man because he was black.

                        That is very different.

                        It is also not a slap in the face of every person who has fought for equality - that is nothing more than rhetoric. Everyone regardless of race/culture/sexuality is subject to hate crime charges.

                        LOL Are you for real? I am kind of new here - so if you are a character who is just trying to get a rise out of me - good job.
                        1.5times? I DOUBT that! Maybe you mean CRIMES, and not HATE crimes! Yeah, MLKs statements might be funny to some.

                        Steve
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1011857].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Phnx
                Oh my, this is utterly surreal.

                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                The hate crimes laws should be equal. Like Teddy just pointed out, there is currently a case against some blacks. I do believe the why in a crime is relevant.
                Do you enjoy deluding yourself? You have previously made it quite clear that you don't actually believe in equality when it comes to "hate" and that you are prepared to let certain groups practice hate crimes. But then perhaps that's because it's not within your own borders.

                While you are patting yourself on the back at how tolerant you are, the real Left have a worldwide boycott in progress against a hate filled racist nation, similar to that which brought South Africa to account. Part of the battle is fighting faux American Lefties like you who support this racism and apartheid - and even genocide - with your taxes and your tacit approval. Without American support and funding this couldn't continue

                So to hear you talk about equality for racists and haters - the very premise I tried to make to you once - is just mindnumbing in it's self-deception.

                If you truly believe the shite you spout then put your money where your mouth is and join the boycott, otherwise you are a disgrace to the Left.

                If you still won't grasp that racism and hate are evil no matter who commits them, well this might light a fire under your ass....

                You know that nation whose monstrous behaviour you excuse, well they are implying that your Sainted Obama is an antisemite. His crime? He has dared to make overtures to those nasty Muslims to seek peace. So pissed are they that they are threatening sanctions against your nation (bet the mainstream haven't reported that eh?) and suggesting using Congress to weaken Obama so he'll see things their way. You give them $20 million a day and they have the brass balls to threaten you. LOL! Worse, they call your President the N word. Is that not a hate crime? Racist? Are you not outraged?

                BTW any Jewish peeps reading this, I suggest you take your head out of your ass sharpish and realise what is being done in your name. A certain other person who got hysterical when I made my argument re antisemitism actually made the same point re the false slur of 'racism' and illegal immigrants. :rolleyes: The slur is a nonsense designed to shut you up, and they've made everyone so afraid of being called nasty names, they do! But just as legitimate Hispanics are gonna be unfairly tarred because of the illegals, so the 'ordinary' Jewish person will bare the blame if he doesn't join the boycott. There is already a national Jewish Organization on board (not from the US obviously) and I expect more soon.

                America is soon going to be isolated in it's promotion and support of racist ideology unless it acts in it's OWN best interests. I doubt your two nations will be at the 2012 Olympics, but then the Moscow Olympics managed without you - though if there is any justice nobody else will turn up either, because of Brit collusion.

                This is a secular socialist Jewish blog (you dismissed testimony from religious Jews previously), documenting the growing boycotts. AIPAC are going to make damn sure Americans don't get wind of it becase you fund it all. Without you, they are impotent. Can't see how they can keep the lid on forever though.

                So if you are truly anti racist and 'hate', then bloody well act like it, and stop implying people are antisemite when they tell you something you don't like.

                Tony Greenstein's Blog: The Boycott Rolls on - Aipac Issues Warning

                Threatening sanctions and weakening Obama thru Congress:
                Wag The Dog-Israel Threatens Punishment Against the US The Ugly Truth

                Racism against your Prez:

                Racism and Hatred On Full Display

                and in case you doubt the written accounts, straight from the horses mouth.

                Signature
                In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

                Easy Weight Loss
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1011837].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  I imagine your whole life is surreal since you seem to be unable to grasp the simplest concepts. Good luck with your continued BS and assinine thoughts.

                  Originally Posted by Phnx View Post

                  Oh my, this is utterly surreal.
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1011875].message }}
                  • Agreed! and well said!

                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    I imagine your whole life is surreal since you seem to be unable to grasp the simplest concepts. Good luck with your continued BS and assinine thoughts.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1011899].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            That isn't true Steve. Show me where the bill or any hate crimes law says that. I'm not sure where you are getting your info, but if it's from Pat Buchanon or Rush Blimpbaugh, then it's likely BS.
            It speaks of "minorities" and women. That is all throughout. It predates anything I heard from rush or buchanon!
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1010761].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kurt
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            That isn't true Steve. Show me where the bill or any hate crimes law says that. I'm not sure where you are getting your info, but if it's from Pat Buchanon or Rush Blimpbaugh, then it's likely BS.
            Hi Tim,

            I'd never compare Pat Buchanan with Rush Limbaugh. Whether you agree with him or not, Buchanan has intellectual integrity. He really believes what he says and doesn't follow party lines, which is why he dropped out of the Rep. party.

            Limbaugh, on the other hand, says things simply to incite and mislead, and has no intellectual integrity, as he admitted to being a "water carrier" for the R party, and his hipocritical stance on illegal drug use. Funny how everyone turns "liberal", especially Rush, when they themselves stand before a judge.
            Signature
            Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
            Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1011139].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Hi Kurt

              Buchanan is a low life ass****e who always defends whites as if they have been a minority for 400 years. They guy is despicable. I don't believe he ever dropped out of the Repug party either.

              Here's a video from Rachel Maddow who interviewed him recently:




              Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

              Hi Tim,

              I'd never compare Pat Buchanan with Rush Limbaugh. Whether you agree with him or not, Buchanan has intellectual integrity. He really believes what he says and doesn't follow party lines, which is why he dropped out of the Rep. party.

              Limbaugh, on the other hand, says things simply to incite and mislead, and has no intellectual integrity, as he admitted to being a "water carrier" for the R party, and his hipocritical stance on illegal drug use. Funny how everyone turns "liberal", especially Rush, when they themselves stand before a judge.
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1011910].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Michael Ellis
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                Hi Kurt

                Buchanan is a low life ass****e who always defends whites as if they have been a minority for 400 years.
                My God, Tim... Who died and declared you the savior of white men?

                It really seems that you enjoy knocking white people. Really, how do you get up and look at yourself in the mirror every morning?

                Actually, I'm starting to think that you get up each morning and slap yourself in the face a few times for all the wrong that was done by people that had the same color skin as you.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1012090].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  Ridiculous. Just because I don't agree with someone like Buchanon you say I am someone who enjoys "knocking white people". I'm proud of my Irish heritage, but don't hold it to mean I am above any other race.

                  BTW. Your first sentence accuses me of being the savior of white men, but then you say I am knocking white people. There's a contradiction there.

                  Originally Posted by Michael Ellis View Post

                  My God, Tim... Who died and declared you the savior of white men?

                  It really seems that you enjoy knocking white people. Really, how do you get up and look at yourself in the mirror every morning?

                  Actually, I'm starting to think that you get up each morning and slap yourself in the face a few times for all the wrong that was done by people that had the same color skin as you.
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1012143].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Michael Ellis
                    Tim, come on, you know exactly what I mean.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1012150].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                      Umm. No I don't. Lets try to stay on topic. Between you and Phnx, I'm not sure who is more off topic. Both of you are polar opposites in the political realm.

                      Originally Posted by Michael Ellis View Post

                      Tim, come on, you know exactly what I mean.
                      Signature
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1012182].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Michael Ellis
                        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                        I'm proud of my Irish heritage, but don't hold it to mean I am above any other race.
                        Umm, who said you should?

                        You just tend to assume that someone with white skin that doesn't agree with you on these types of topics (or other minority related topics) is a racist -- especially, if they're in the "Repug" party. That's a very shallow view of other peoples' opinions.

                        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                        Umm. No I don't. Lets try to stay on topic. Between you and Phnx, I'm not sure who is more off topic. Both of you are polar opposites in the political realm.
                        And your attack on Pat and the "Repug" party was totally on topic, right? lol

                        Okay, Tim... I won't take over the thread.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1012232].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                          No. I don't think so Michael. I don't assume Michael Motely or you are racist and I dissagree with you both on this issue. You are jumping to conclusions that aren't warranted.

                          I went off on Pat because I think his views on this topic are very offensive.

                          OK, you got me on going off topic also. :-)

                          Cheers
                          Tim

                          Originally Posted by Michael Ellis View Post

                          You just tend to assume that someone with white skin that doesn't agree with you on these types of topics (or other minority related topics) is a racist -- especially, if they're in the "Repug" party. That's a very shallow view of other peoples' opinions.



                          And your attack on Pat and the "Repug" party was totally on topic, right? lol

                          Okay, Tim... I won't take over the thread.
                          Signature
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1012281].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Michael Ellis
                            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                            No. I don't think so Michael. I don't assume Michael Motely or you are racist and I dissagree with you both on this issue.
                            Well thank goodness. I can certainly say that I'm NOT racist.

                            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                            You are jumping to conclusions that aren't warranted.
                            If I was do so, I apologize. It was a late night.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1012923].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                Hi Kurt

                Buchanan is a low life ass****e who always defends whites as if they have been a minority for 400 years. They guy is despicable. I don't believe he ever dropped out of the Repug party either.

                Here's a video from Rachel Maddow who interviewed this prick recently:

                YouTube - Rachel Maddow exposes Pat Buchanan's blatent racism.
                Hey Tim,

                Because someone disagrees with you doesn't make a person a scumbag.

                As far as Buchanan not being part of the Rep. party, you forgot he ran as an independent in 92...This probably took enough conservative votes from Bush #1 that Clinton won the election.

                Buchanan was/is also anti Iraq war, supports legalizing drugs, a GM bailout, etc. I agree(d) with him on these issues and these platforms are hardly the Rep party line.

                And Buchanan is no more prejudice than Louis Farrakhan. I'm against any and all forms of prejudice, including reverse discrimination, which is just another word for prejudice. Are you as offended by Farrakhan as you are Buchanan?
                Signature
                Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1012277].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Jon Steel
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                Hi Kurt

                Buchanan is a low life ass****e who always defends whites as if they have been a minority for 400 years. They guy is despicable. I don't believe he ever dropped out of the Repug party either.

                Here's a video from Rachel Maddow who interviewed him recently:

                YouTube - Rachel Maddow exposes Pat Buchanan's blatent racism.
                great video...

                js
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1012621].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                  This is complete oversimplification to try to justify your stance. No it is not a hate crime in your second scenario it is a hate crime IF they did it to the black man because he was black.
                  So simple doesn't work for you?
                  You are sounding like a politician there Teddy.
                  I didn't try to justify my stance, I did justify my stance.
                  If a person commits a vile, heinous crime they should stand trial for that crime. What you politically correct people don't understand is it is just as vile and heinous no matter who it is committed against.
                  Signature

                  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                  Getting old ain't for sissy's
                  As you are I was, as I am you will be
                  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1012781].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TeddyP
    I think it is important to have hate crime legislation.

    If a person assaults a person of different culture he gets charged with normal assault anyways. It is only when the attack is motivated by disdain for the persons race or religion that it becomes hate crime.

    People who commit hate crimes already have a disdain and animosity towards a certain percentage of the population so there is an element of premeditation. While on the streets - this person is more likely to re-offend.

    Who is more dangerous - a group of guys who get drunk and get into a bar fight or a group of guys who stomp someone out because they are gay or black?

    The media definitely plays this card too much - but in the court it is up to the prosecution to prove a crime was hate motivated and they must prove it without a doubt. Seems fair to me.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1009401].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Wakunahum
      If someone I love is murdered, I want justice regardless if it's done due to racial reasons or not.

      A life is equal to another life.

      So I agree that a crime is a crime. If the public wants to make mention of it being racially motivated so as to make aware the problems of racism, that's ok.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1009503].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
        Originally Posted by Wakunahum View Post

        If someone I love is murdered, I want justice regardless if it's done due to racial reasons or not.

        A life is equal to another life.

        So I agree that a crime is a crime. If the public wants to make mention of it being racially motivated so as to make aware the problems of racism, that's ok.
        But with the legislation for hate crimes, its not just mentioning to make aware. When a crime is designated as a hate crime it carries stronger penalties.

        To me, it sounds like trying to legislate thought. You can't tell people they can't hate someone, or for what reasons.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1009648].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Wakunahum
          Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

          But with the legislation for hate crimes, its not just mentioning to make aware. When a crime is designated as a hate crime it carries stronger penalties.

          To me, it sounds like trying to legislate thought. You can't tell people they can't hate someone, or for what reasons.
          I'm agreeing with you. lol

          I'm saying the awareness of the ills of racism is fine not the stricter penalty.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1009744].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TeddyP
          Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

          You can't tell people they can't hate someone, or for what reasons.
          Agreed 100%!

          Thankfully though hate crime legislation doesn't target bigots. It targets people who are messed up enough to violently act out based on their hatreds and prejudices. That is dangerous and deserves to be handled with more severe punishment in my opinion.

          I do think it is a slippery slope. I think courts need to make sure the violent act that took place was indeed motivated by race/religion/sexuality and not just a random assault. But considering that hate crimes make up a miniscule percentage of assaults - they must be doing an ok job. Courts are well used to debating issues of motive anyways so it isn't something new to them.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1009849].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Wakunahum
            Originally Posted by TeddyP View Post

            Agreed 100%!

            Thankfully though hate crime legislation doesn't target bigots. It targets people who are messed up enough to violently act out based on their hatreds and prejudices. That is dangerous and deserves to be handled with more severe punishment in my opinion.

            I do think it is a slippery slope. I think courts need to make sure the violent act that took place was indeed motivated by race/religion/sexuality and not just a random assault. But considering that hate crimes make up a miniscule percentage of assaults - they must be doing an ok job. Courts are well used to debating issues of motive anyways so it isn't something new to them.
            Debating motive is a good point. I mean if one is affiliated with organizations that hate certain races and they are alleged to have hurt someone of another race these associations are certainly going to hurt them.

            Whether there are extra penalties or not for the racial motive, you are right that motives will always be considered in the courts.

            The only issue I think I kind of have with extra penalty for racism is trying to explain to the person who was randomly hurt that their attacker isn't taken quite as seriously as someone's attacker who did it for different reasons like racism. I sit here in my mind and wonder how I would explain to someone who was hurt that the person who hurt them will get out of jail sooner cause the attacker wasn't a racist.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1009917].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Well put Teddy. I think hate crime laws are justified.
      Originally Posted by TeddyP View Post

      I think it is important to have hate crime legislation.

      If a person assaults a person of different culture he gets charged with normal assault anyways. It is only when the attack is motivated by disdain for the persons race or religion that it becomes hate crime.

      People who commit hate crimes already have a disdain and animosity towards a certain percentage of the population so there is an element of premeditation. While on the streets - this person is more likely to re-offend.

      Who is more dangerous - a group of guys who get drunk and get into a bar fight or a group of guys who stomp someone out because they are gay or black?

      The media definitely plays this card too much - but in the court it is up to the prosecution to prove a crime was hate motivated and they must prove it without a doubt. Seems fair to me.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1009669].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TeddyP View Post

      I think it is important to have hate crime legislation.

      If a person assaults a person of different culture he gets charged with normal assault anyways. It is only when the attack is motivated by disdain for the persons race or religion that it becomes hate crime.

      People who commit hate crimes already have a disdain and animosity towards a certain percentage of the population so there is an element of premeditation. While on the streets - this person is more likely to re-offend.

      Who is more dangerous - a group of guys who get drunk and get into a bar fight or a group of guys who stomp someone out because they are gay or black?
      OBVIOUSLY, the DRUNK! The person hurting people because they are gay or black may only target SOME people. The drunk targets EVERYONE! What, you think because the drunk may get sober and ACT nice that they should be forgiven? BESIDES, someone that is sober should be more restrained!

      Originally Posted by TeddyP View Post

      The media definitely plays this card too much - but in the court it is up to the prosecution to prove a crime was hate motivated and they must prove it without a doubt. Seems fair to me.
      They don't have to prove it AT ALL! A claim from ONE person of something that COULD be considered derogatory, will brand it has a HATE CRIME! If I fell, ended up hurting a black and, when asked if I was ok, said half in jest "negatory", someone ELSE may THINK I said "the N word", and my accident may get me thrown in jail! That does NOT sound fair! If a black spoke of crackers, THAT would be ok! MAYBE he MEANT that as an insult!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1010135].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
    lol..ah ok, misread that.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1009756].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Seasoned - there is a lot of truth there. It is normal for humans to group with those of like beliefs or traits. Once we start making laws that actually illuminate those differences, we create further focus rather than resolving it. If we didn't make such a damned big thing about someone being gay, a lot of people wouldn't really think so much about them. I'm watching all the information that is tossed out when there is a black vs white crime and they seem to want to blame every bit on race while some of it has nothing to do with color.

    It's also true that you can't legislate a person's feelings. If someone hates muslims, they are going to hate them whether it's "legal" to do so or not. In matters such as the US situation with illegal immigration, which is predominantly being perpetrated by one race at the moment, it's causing a lot of hate for even the legal hispanic community now, insistance that we may not hate the illegals is causing a flame that is spreading and will cause more hate and no law is going to do anything but increase the rage. But then, there's a lot of reverse discrimanation going on under that one, too. Illegals are getting what the naturals who paid for the services in the first place can't. So toss in a hate crime and you have a big boiling pot.

    But the point is.......normal people don't run around beating and killing other people no matter what their differences are so hate crime laws are just taking time that could be used making more productive laws to stabilize society instead of further collapse it.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1010457].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      But the point is.......normal people don't run around beating and killing other people no matter what their differences are so hate crime laws are just taking time that could be used making more productive laws to stabilize society instead of further collapse it.
      YEP, but the crime is NOT the hate, etc... It is the violence, mistreatment, etc...

      Hey, many muslims are, with the current descriptions, WHITE. And THEY are primarily against OTHER whites, because they see many as "infidel christians". is ANYONE against muslims SIMPLY because they are muslim? I doubt it. It is more likely because they are seen as enemies.

      BTW disclaimer here! A lot of the religion does NOT seem bad, and I have known some muslims that were nice. I am certainly not saying they ALL deserve the bad rap.

      Wouldn't it make more sense to judge the CRIME, rather than some subjective idea about underlying feelings? BESIDES, there ARE a lot of blacks that absolutely HATE whites! Nobody EVER seems to say ANYTHING about them! Look at jerimiah wright! Obama looked up to him as a father and mentor, and was STILL forgiven! WOW!

      Jeremiah Wright - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      AND, speaking of conservatives, a conservative can't even TRUTHFULLY declare how a liberal votes! If they dare, they may get their tax emept status YANKED! Yet a liberal can LIE in a church, and NOTHING HAPPENS! Though what some of jeremiah said was true, it was couched in lies, and half truths. Obama AGREED until it affected his viability, but everyone just forgot about it.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1010561].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        YEP, but the crime is NOT the hate, etc... It is the violence, mistreatment, etc...

        Hey, many muslims are, with the current descriptions, WHITE. And THEY are primarily against OTHER whites, because they see many as "infidel christians". is ANYONE against muslims SIMPLY because they are muslim? I doubt it. It is more likely because they are seen as enemies.

        BTW disclaimer here! A lot of the religion does NOT seem bad, and I have known some muslims that were nice. I am certainly not saying they ALL deserve the bad rap.

        Wouldn't it make more sense to judge the CRIME, rather than some subjective idea about underlying feelings? BESIDES, there ARE a lot of blacks that absolutely HATE whites! Nobody EVER seems to say ANYTHING about them! Look at jerimiah wright! Obama looked up to him as a father and mentor, and was STILL forgiven! WOW!

        Jeremiah Wright - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        AND, speaking of conservatives, a conservative can't even TRUTHFULLY declare how a liberal votes! If they dare, they may get their tax emept status YANKED! Yet a liberal can LIE in a church, and NOTHING HAPPENS! Though what some of jeremiah said was true, it was couched in lies, and half truths. Obama AGREED until it affected his viability, but everyone just forgot about it.

        Steve
        Any rational U.S. person can not fault an older black man from blowing off some steam.

        Rational people understand that, and it was/is no big deal to them.

        The only people that had a big problem with Rev Wright were/are people who are looking for an excuse to accuse a black guy of racism and also somehow hurt Obama.

        TL
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1019412].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          Any rational U.S. person can not fault an older black man from blowing off some steam.

          Rational people understand that, and it was/is no big deal to them.

          The only people that had a big problem with Rev Wright were/are people who are looking for an excuse to accuse a black guy of racism and also somehow hurt Obama.

          TL
          rational definition | Dictionary.com

          He is WELCOME to blow off steam, ON HIS OWN TIME! HECK, the WORLD has gotten his steam! He had MORE than his ability to say it! He has NO right to force the American tax payer to PAY for his LOUSY rant, and DESERVED to go to jail!

          Actually, it WAS/IS a big deal! And what of GATES!? I guess you are saying it was no big deal for HIM either? Then why did you write this? If it WAS a big deal, I guess you agree he isn't being reasonable! In any event, he had his say!

          And Rev Wright WAS and IS a RACIST, and was a pastor at obamas church. He was a LONG TIME FRIEND of obama! One of obamas books carrys racist rants from Wright that are apparently MORE racist than those wright actually said, and it is named after wrights speech! If that is not enough, then I guess you feel david duke would make a FINE president! HECCK, how about HITLER!?!?!?(assuming he were alive)

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1019567].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            rational definition | Dictionary.com

            He is WELCOME to blow off steam, ON HIS OWN TIME! HECK, the WORLD has gotten his steam! He had MORE than his ability to say it! He has NO right to force the American tax payer to PAY for his LOUSY rant, and DESERVED to go to jail!

            Actually, it WAS/IS a big deal! And what of GATES!? I guess you are saying it was no big deal for HIM either? Then why did you write this? If it WAS a big deal, I guess you agree he isn't being reasonable! In any event, he had his say!

            And Rev Wright WAS and IS a RACIST, and was a pastor at obamas church. He was a LONG TIME FRIEND of obama! One of obamas books carrys racist rants from Wright that are apparently MORE racist than those wright actually said, and it is named after wrights speech! If that is not enough, then I guess you feel david duke would make a FINE president! HECCK, how about HITLER!?!?!?(assuming he were alive)

            Steve
            We all know the history of Obama & Wright and it still didn't matter to lots of people except as I mentioned above, because they understood where Wright was coming from - simply a old black guy blowing off steam.

            What's with the stuff about going to jail???

            About Gates...

            after the policeman had confirmation that it was where Gates lived, he should have simply left the premises - no matter what Gates said - as long as Gates wasn't threatening the officers' health.

            That stuff about disorderly conduct is a stretch - to say the least.

            Anyway...

            Let me guess...

            Obama's not really an American citizen right?

            Obama's secretly a racist even though he's half Caucasian, and was raised by his white grand parents?

            Obama's some kind of commie/socialist/pinko right?

            You watch a lot of Fox News right?

            You voted for one of the worst presidents in U.S. history twice right? (GB2)

            You even voted for Mccain in 2008 right?

            All The Best!!

            TL
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1019825].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              We all know the history of Obama & Wright and it still didn't matter to lots of people except as I mentioned above, because they understood where Wright was coming from - simply a old black guy blowing off steam.
              OK, FINE! BLOW OFF STEAM! But NOT in a public forum like that in a CHURCH? Tax exempt?

              SO, do you agree with the KKK rallies TOO? HEY, they are simply old white guys blowing off steam!

              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              What's with the stuff about going to jail???

              About Gates...

              after the policeman had confirmation that it was where Gates lived, he should have simply left the premises - no matter what Gates said - as long as Gates wasn't threatening the officers' health.
              Gee, I would probably have been treated WORSE!

              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              Obama's not really an American citizen right?
              It WILL be interesting to see wjhat happens with teh request to CODIFY what is already LAW is created! HEY, the LIBERALS have said MCCAIN wasn't a citizen! Why DOESN'T Obama present a REAL birth certificate? He CLAIMS it is so easy, why doesn't he. And it is interesting that Hawaii became a state only 2 years earlier, and even THAT could be debated. It was through a coup.

              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              Obama's secretly a racist even though he's half Caucasian, and was raised by his white grand parents?
              WHO ever said it was a secret?

              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              Obama's some kind of commie/socialist/pinko right?
              Ever watch the news lately? He wants to control the CENSUS! CAMPAIGNS! and is even talking about controlling VETTING!

              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              You watch a lot of Fox News right?
              Not all the time, and I watch a lot of liberal stuff ALSO! Just yesterday I watched some CNN IDIOTS that belittled palins claims and THEN confirmed them, IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH!

              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              You voted for one of the worst presidents in U.S. history twice right? (GB2)
              I didn't even vote for them, LOT YOU KNOW! (sarc)

              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              You even voted for Mccain in 2008 right?
              NOPE, I didn't even vote for him!
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1022449].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                OK, FINE! BLOW OFF STEAM! But NOT in a public forum like that in a CHURCH? Tax exempt?

                SO, do you agree with the KKK rallies TOO? HEY, they are simply old white guys blowing off steam!



                Gee, I would probably have been treated WORSE!



                It WILL be interesting to see wjhat happens with teh request to CODIFY what is already LAW is created! HEY, the LIBERALS have said MCCAIN wasn't a citizen! Why DOESN'T Obama present a REAL birth certificate? He CLAIMS it is so easy, why doesn't he. And it is interesting that Hawaii became a state only 2 years earlier, and even THAT could be debated. It was through a coup.



                WHO ever said it was a secret?



                Ever watch the news lately? He wants to control the CENSUS! CAMPAIGNS! and is even talking about controlling VETTING!



                Not all the time, and I watch a lot of liberal stuff ALSO! Just yesterday I watched some CNN IDIOTS that belittled palins claims and THEN confirmed them, IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH!



                I didn't even vote for them, LOT YOU KNOW! (sarc)



                NOPE, I didn't even vote for him!
                #1:

                If you're not an American, you can not speak with any authority regarding our social probs.

                You can comment an ask questions but you have no authority.


                If you were an American, you sound exactly like the type of person that would have voted for Bush twice and then Mccain in 2008.


                You would have voted for Bush in 2000 when there was no sane reason to change parties and philosophies/policies.


                And you would have voted for Mccain when there was every reason in the world to make a change away from the disaster of Bush2 administration as Mccain would have continued the major Bush policies.


                SO, do you agree with the KKK rallies TOO? HEY, they are simply old white guys blowing off steam!

                The KKK practiced terrorism on Black Americans from the end of slavery (1865) to the late 1960's. That's a well documented fact.

                There is simply no comparison to a Black guy blowing off steam and the KKK.

                If White Americans actually believed The President was a racist, they would not have voted for him.

                And no, they were not tricked etc.

                They simply understand the many complexities of American society.

                He did lose the total White vote by a margin of 55 to 45%.

                The reason for that was...

                80% of White Americans from the former Confederate states ( the south ) voted against him & change - 80 to 20%.

                70% of older White American voted against him & change - 70 to 30%.

                No surprise in the voting patterns with these two groups.

                If he would have been given a fair shake, The President would have easily captured at least 65% of the popular vote and won even more electoral votes and the rejection of the repug agenda would have been a lot clearer to everyone. Even you.


                Your Bither stuff...

                The President has already made the "official" Hawaiian birth cert available.

                99% of these people ( the Birthers ) are Euro-Americans that can not accept the fact that a non Euro-American is their President.

                They just won't let it go.

                That's too bad since they are going to have to live with it for 8 years.

                The coup you talk about happened in the late 1800's as Hawaii became a U.S. territory and then Hawaii became a state in 1950 something.

                BTW, even Ann Coulter has said the Birther issue is a non issue - that's Ann Coulter.

                CNN is hardly liberal - especially after 6pm.

                CNN = Middle of the road: ( must always play devils advocate to the point of sillyness )

                MSNBC = Liberal:

                Fox = Far right & fanning the flames of many idiotic positions such as the Birthers:

                Perhaps you don't understand the church's relationship with the federal government.

                Folks can and do say all sort of things from the pulpit.

                Your request for jail time is silly. Not in America.

                If you were American, you might also know about the quote of our 3rd President - Thomas Jefferson that went something like this...

                If God is a just god then I'm glad I won't be around when he exacts his justice for our sin of slavery.

                This is something he said after being President.

                The nation paid for it during the American Civil War with 600,00 dead and another 2 million wounded.

                Does he hate America also?

                Most of your political arguments have been quite silly but I suspect that you shall carry on.


                TL
                Signature

                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1023837].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                  #1:

                  If you're not an American, you can not speak with any authority regarding our social probs.

                  You can comment an ask questions but you have no authority.
                  So maybe you should be quiet then! I was born in the U.S., etc...

                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                  If you were an American, you sound exactly like the type of person that would have voted for Bush twice and then Mccain in 2008.
                  GEE, if you don't want people voting for bush, etc... SIMPLE! Have a DECENT candidate run!

                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                  You would have voted for Bush in 2000 when there was no sane reason to change parties and philosophies/policies.
                  WOW, two bushes at the same time?

                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                  And you would have voted for Mccain when there was every reason in the world to make a change away from the disaster of Bush2 administration as Mccain would have continued the major Bush policies.
                  I said DECADES ago that we do NOT WANT CHANGE! I said the SAME thing when Obama ran on "CHANGE"! OK, we GOT change! NO real stock, NO real bonds, FAKE mortgages, FAKE economy, and a higher deficit!

                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                  SO, do you agree with the KKK rallies TOO? HEY, they are simply old white guys blowing off steam!

                  The KKK practiced terrorism on Black Americans from the end of slavery (1865) to the late 1960's. That's a well documented fact.

                  There is simply no comparison to a Black guy blowing off steam and the KKK.
                  Actually, blacks have LIKEWISE hurt a lot of whites. There were simply fewer, etc.... AND, gates rants incite riots! TELL THE TRUTH!!!!!! There is NOTHING wrong with a KKK rally, other than it "inciting violence". That is EXACTLY the same as GATES garbage! And Gates was NOT profiled, etc... The police officer going there did NOT know he was black! Did you even hear the 911 tape and the discussion with crowley?

                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                  If White Americans actually believed The President was a racist, they would not have voted for him.

                  And no, they were not tricked etc.

                  They simply understand the many complexities of American society.
                  YEAH RIGHT, and our government is perfect, etc.... Some blacks voted for him ONLY because he was black, and some whites voted for him ONLY because he was democrat! Basically, they voted for him because they felt FORCED into voting for him.

                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                  He did lose the total White vote by a margin of 55 to 45%.

                  The reason for that was...

                  80% of White Americans from the former Confederate states ( the south ) voted against him & change - 80 to 20%.
                  so you ADMIT you are RACIST! And you just called yourself a HIPOCRITE! I mean WHY would you care about whites doing what you say we shouldn't care about blacks doing?!?!?!?

                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                  70% of older White American voted against him & change - 70 to 30%.

                  No surprise in the voting patterns with these two groups.

                  If he would have been given a fair shake, The President would have easily captured at least 65% of the popular vote and won even more electoral votes and the rejection of the repug agenda would have been a lot clearer to everyone. Even you.
                  That is BULL! I wouldn't care if he were a REPUBLICAN and WHITE! If he did what he did, I would have been against him to the SAME degree. And WE DON'T WANT CHANGE! Name ONE thing that he did that HELPED the situation!!!!!!! Even ONE! He is coming up on his 200th day, by any measure.


                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                  The President has already made the "official" Hawaiian birth cert available.
                  FUNNY, one of his SUPPORTERS was recently on a program and HE still showed the certificate that merely indicates that such a document may exist, but did NOT show the document. He LITERALLY said Obama couldn't be bothered with producing such a document!

                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                  99% of these people ( the Birthers ) are Euro-Americans that can not accept the fact that a non Euro-American is their President.
                  OK, that is a lie! It is NO WHERE NEAR 99%!

                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                  That's too bad since they are going to have to live with it for 8 years.
                  EIGHT YEARS!?!?!? At the rate he is going, he might not even last 4!

                  The coup you talk about happened in the late 1800's as Hawaii became a U.S. territory and then Hawaii became a state in 1950 something.

                  BTW, even Ann Coulter has said the Birther issue is a non issue - that's Ann Coulter.

                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                  CNN is hardly liberal - especially after 6pm.
                  Well, it was THEN! That was about 8PM.

                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                  CNN = Middle of the road: ( must always play devils advocate to the point of sillyness )

                  MSNBC = Liberal:

                  Fox = Far right & fanning the flames of many idiotic positions such as the Birthers:

                  Perhaps you don't understand the church's relationship with the federal government.

                  Folks can and do say all sort of things from the pulpit.

                  Your request for jail time is silly. Not in America.
                  Actually, the church talked about in the constitution IS the church, not some stupid *******ization simply CALLED the church. CONSERVATIVES know that going against even the church of satan could put them on a "slippery slope". So they tend to IGNORE such garbage. The LIBERALS don't care, and may shut conservative ones down. Pat robertson runs a simple relatively objective service, and was told he would have to LEAVE if he ran for president. It seems like Obama is STILL running the BIASED ACORN!

                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                  If you were American, you might also know about the quote of our 3rd President - Thomas Jefferson that went something like this...

                  If God is a just god then I'm glad I won't be around when he exacts his justice for our sin of slavery.

                  This is something he said after being President.

                  The nation paid for it during the American Civil War with 600,00 dead and another 2 million wounded.

                  Does he hate America also?
                  WOW, isn't he one of the ones that so many say was into slavery, etc....?

                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                  Most of your political arguments have been quite silly but I suspect that you shall carry on.
                  WOW, are you PSYCHIC, or did you merely look at this thread!? Did you look at this forum? My post count? Ask others? Take a simple obvious guess? I am PERPLEXED! Can someone here tell me how he figured this out? I mean I could think of DOZENS of ways that he might have, but HOW DID HE!?!?!?
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1024795].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                    Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                    So maybe you should be quiet then! I was born in the U.S., etc...



                    GEE, if you don't want people voting for bush, etc... SIMPLE! Have a DECENT candidate run!



                    WOW, two bushes at the same time?



                    I said DECADES ago that we do NOT WANT CHANGE! I said the SAME thing when Obama ran on "CHANGE"! OK, we GOT change! NO real stock, NO real bonds, FAKE mortgages, FAKE economy, and a higher deficit!



                    Actually, blacks have LIKEWISE hurt a lot of whites. There were simply fewer, etc.... AND, gates rants incite riots! TELL THE TRUTH!!!!!! There is NOTHING wrong with a KKK rally, other than it "inciting violence". That is EXACTLY the same as GATES garbage! And Gates was NOT profiled, etc... The police officer going there did NOT know he was black! Did you even hear the 911 tape and the discussion with crowley?



                    YEAH RIGHT, and our government is perfect, etc.... Some blacks voted for him ONLY because he was black, and some whites voted for him ONLY because he was democrat! Basically, they voted for him because they felt FORCED into voting for him.



                    so you ADMIT you are RACIST! And you just called yourself a HIPOCRITE! I mean WHY would you care about whites doing what you say we shouldn't care about blacks doing?!?!?!?



                    That is BULL! I wouldn't care if he were a REPUBLICAN and WHITE! If he did what he did, I would have been against him to the SAME degree. And WE DON'T WANT CHANGE! Name ONE thing that he did that HELPED the situation!!!!!!! Even ONE! He is coming up on his 200th day, by any measure.




                    FUNNY, one of his SUPPORTERS was recently on a program and HE still showed the certificate that merely indicates that such a document may exist, but did NOT show the document. He LITERALLY said Obama couldn't be bothered with producing such a document!



                    OK, that is a lie! It is NO WHERE NEAR 99%!



                    EIGHT YEARS!?!?!? At the rate he is going, he might not even last 4!

                    The coup you talk about happened in the late 1800's as Hawaii became a U.S. territory and then Hawaii became a state in 1950 something.

                    BTW, even Ann Coulter has said the Birther issue is a non issue - that's Ann Coulter.



                    Well, it was THEN! That was about 8PM.



                    Actually, the church talked about in the constitution IS the church, not some stupid *******ization simply CALLED the church. CONSERVATIVES know that going against even the church of satan could put them on a "slippery slope". So they tend to IGNORE such garbage. The LIBERALS don't care, and may shut conservative ones down. Pat robertson runs a simple relatively objective service, and was told he would have to LEAVE if he ran for president. It seems like Obama is STILL running the BIASED ACORN!



                    WOW, isn't he one of the ones that so many say was into slavery, etc....?



                    WOW, are you PSYCHIC, or did you merely look at this thread!? Did you look at this forum? My post count? Ask others? Take a simple obvious guess? I am PERPLEXED! Can someone here tell me how he figured this out? I mean I could think of DOZENS of ways that he might have, but HOW DID HE!?!?!?
                    Sir...

                    The reason I thought you might not be an American was that your points were so out there that perhaps you were a foreigner trying to yank our chains etc.

                    - You have a large post count and that's great but IMHO they have nothing to do with this conversation we're having right now.

                    - I stand by my statements on the Birthers.

                    What's next? The President is an extraterrestrial??

                    - How on earth could The President become president if he were not an American?

                    I'm blown away by the possibilities of the Clintons and especially the repubs allowing this to happen.

                    If it were true, the Clintons would have screamed it on the roof tops - during the primaries...

                    ... and if the repubs discovered it after the primaries, ( or knew about it beforehand ) they would have simply waited for perhaps a couple of weeks before the general election and sprung the news and then won the election.

                    - About the vote counts in the south and by older White Americans...

                    I just commented on their voting pattern and how if you exclude the votes of these 2 groups...

                    ... the President gave Mccain and the republican model a very sound thrashing and the only reason the final general election pop vote was only 54-46% was because of their overwhelming votes against the Prez.

                    - Blacks are going to vote dem 90% of the time. That's a well known fact.

                    Yes there was that 6% of Blacks that simply voted for a member of their own group as...

                    ...I'm sure the Irish & Catholics did in overwhelming numbers for Kennedy in 1960 as he was both Irish & Catholic. ( it was a historic first on both accounts )


                    - You and the rest of the Birthers are going to have to live with this president for 8 years.

                    The country is not going to go repub after only 4 years away from perhaps the worst admin in U.S. history - which was repub.

                    You wrote...

                    Actually, the church talked about in the constitution IS the church, not some stupid *******ization simply CALLED the church. CONSERVATIVES know that going against even the church of satan could put them on a "slippery slope". So they tend to IGNORE such garbage. The LIBERALS don't care, and may shut conservative ones down. Pat robertson runs a simple relatively objective service, and was told he would have to LEAVE if he ran for president. It seems like Obama is STILL running the BIASED ACORN!


                    If you are saying liberals will/may/would shut down Conservative churches - that's quite silly.

                    If Mr. Robertson want the presidency, there are always political considerations.

                    Yes Acorn is an democratic voter registration tool - so what? They were not paid with taxpayer dollars from The Presidents' campaign war chest.

                    You wrote...

                    Actually, blacks have LIKEWISE hurt a lot of whites. There were simply fewer, etc.... AND, gates rants incite riots! TELL THE TRUTH!!!!!! There is NOTHING wrong with a KKK rally, other than it "inciting violence". That is EXACTLY the same as GATES garbage! And Gates was NOT profiled, etc... The police officer going there did NOT know he was black! Did you even hear the 911 tape and the discussion with crowley?


                    Likewise????

                    10-20k people lynched?

                    Whole towns burnt to the ground?

                    "Terrorizing" children & women for almost a century? ( yes the word is quite appropriate )

                    Lynching people still in U.S. Army uniform?

                    I'm not silly enough to say that Blacks have done nothing to Whites but to compare Gates or the Rev Wright to the once organized for terrorism, KKK is beyond silliness.

                    They (the KKK) did their job and ran lots of Black people out of the south and 1/3 of the land in Miss, Ala, & Georgia was legally owned by Blacks at the turn of the century - just 35 years after slavery.

                    I'm quite sure genocide would have happened but the powers that be made it clear to the Klan leadership that ...

                    ... you can do whatever you want to Blacks but you can not kill them all. Just have fun and terrorize them.


                    Why??

                    They were needed to work and to also put standby labor pressure on working/poor Whites.


                    I'm not silly enough to say that Blacks have done nothing to Whites but to compare Gates or the Rev Wright to the once organized for terrorism, KKK is beyond silliness.

                    Is 1 and 1 now 3??


                    You also wrote...

                    so you ADMIT you are RACIST! And you just called yourself a HIPOCRITE! I mean WHY would you care about whites doing what you say we shouldn't care about blacks doing?!?!?!?


                    Who said I cared?

                    I just commented on the voting patterns of older whites and the good people of the former confederate states.


                    What on Earth are you talking about??

                    ----- I'm not a racist and I really don't care if you are or not.

                    Let wrap this up...

                    Unless you're independently wealthy most of your political arguments are on the wrong side of history, basic logic, are quite silly and leads to only making it much harder for the average Joe to prosper in this country.

                    If you are independently wealthy then your financial well being is not truly threatened by any of the politics of this nation.


                    You can respond if you want to, but I've grown tired dealing with of your brilliant logic.



                    This thread is over for me and it's been a blast.

                    I don't care what else is said, I'm done.

                    All The Best! ( and I do mean that )

                    TL
                    Signature

                    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1025270].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      Sir...

                      The reason I thought you might not be an American was that your points were so out there that perhaps you were a foreigner trying to yank our chains etc.
                      Say what you will, but that STILL doesn't make it true!

                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      - You have a large post count and that's great but IMHO they have nothing to do with this conversation we're having right now.
                      I referred to history ONLY! CONTENT, not quantity.

                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      - I stand by my statements on the Birthers.
                      OK, like I said in my first answer in this post!

                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      What's next? The President is an extraterrestrial??
                      WHO KNOWS? Some stuff makes NO sense, so what is another crazy statement!?

                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      - How on earth could The President become president if he were not an American?
                      They LIE all the time, brake the oath, etc... And you ask how?

                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      I'm blown away by the possibilities of the Clintons and especially the repubs allowing this to happen.

                      If it were true, the Clintons would have screamed it on the roof tops - during the primaries...
                      NAW, they were too busy saying MCCAIN wasn't a citizen ONLY because he was born over foreign land. International treaty says it is the U.S., but STILL they said FOREIGN!

                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      ... and if the repubs discovered it after the primaries, ( or knew about it beforehand ) they would have simply waited for perhaps a couple of weeks before the general election and sprung the news and then won the election.
                      It would have made no difference. Others did it and it made no difference. Look at hillary with her claiming she RISKED HER LIFE UNDER FIRE! It was FILMED! People were THERE! She was safer than I generally am day to day!

                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      - Blacks are going to vote dem 90% of the time. That's a well known fact.
                      LIKE I SAID! AND, if the candidate is black, they will vote nearly 100% of that 90%!

                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      Yes there was that 6% of Blacks that simply voted for a member of their own group as...

                      ...I'm sure the Irish & Catholics did in overwhelming numbers for Kennedy in 1960 as he was both Irish & Catholic. ( it was a historic first on both accounts )
                      Did YOU know that kennedy almost LOST!?!?!? AND, did you know, that it is UNHEARD OF for a catholic to win!?!?!? As for irish, that isn't that unusual.

                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      - You and the rest of the Birthers are going to have to live with this president for 8 years.
                      Don't bet on it!

                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      The country is not going to go repub after only 4 years away from perhaps the worst admin in U.S. history - which was repub.
                      Don't bet on it. Obama has done a LOT of bad in his first 200 days. Whether misusing airforce one, acting arrogant to foreign nations, taking credit for what he didn't do, wasting resources, etc.... He has done more than most presidents have done in TWO TERMS!

                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      If you are saying liberals will/may/would shut down Conservative churches - that's quite silly.
                      They HAVE threatened, etc...

                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      If Mr. Robertson want the presidency, there are always political considerations.
                      Why just conservatives?

                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      Yes Acorn is an democrat voter registration tool - so what? They were not paid with taxpayer dollars from The Presidents' campaign war chest.
                      I wish you would get your grammar straight! And OF COURSE NOT! They were just paid with taxpayer dollars!

                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      You wrote...

                      Actually, blacks have LIKEWISE hurt a lot of whites. There were simply fewer, etc.... AND, gates rants incite riots! TELL THE TRUTH!!!!!! There is NOTHING wrong with a KKK rally, other than it "inciting violence". That is EXACTLY the same as GATES garbage! And Gates was NOT profiled, etc... The police officer going there did NOT know he was black! Did you even hear the 911 tape and the discussion with crowley?


                      Likewise????
                      YEP!

                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      10-20k people lynched?
                      Are people keeping count? HEY, I lived in the LA area around the rodney king incident! Don't go telling ME what did/didn't happen. I got to see some of it PERSONALLY!!!!!!

                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      Whole towns burnt to the ground?
                      Sometimes! Luckily, ironically enough, it is often "black on black". THEN they say people are racist for not rebuilding stores! CRAZY!

                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      "Terrorizing" children & women for almost a century? ( yes the word is quite appropriate )
                      YEP!

                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      Lynching people still in U.S. Army uniform?
                      Frankly, uniforms don't matter.

                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      I'm not silly enough to say that Blacks have done nothing to Whites but to compare Gates or the Rev Wright to the once organized for terrorism, KKK is beyond silliness.
                      The KKK is basically just a GANG! GRANTED, they try to nationalize, have a number of members, and sometimes WHOLE CITIES have conspired. They ARE just a gang though. Some blacks HAVE done the same. They just haven't been as able to be as blatent for as long. And I am certainly NOT saying that I agree with ANYTHING the KKK does. I am not, and never have been, a member, and don't even know anyone that I know can claim they were or do.

                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      They (the KKK) did their job and ran lots of Black people out of the south and 1/3 of the land in Miss, Ala, & Georgia was legally owned by Blacks at the turn of the century - just 35 years after slavery.

                      I'm quite sure genocide would have happened but the powers that be made it clear to the Klan leadership that ...

                      ... you can do whatever you want to Blacks but you can not kill them all. Just have fun and terrorize them.
                      OK, are you black or what? Some considered blacks to be nothing. THEY wouldn't have cared. The others figured they were people or property, and wouldn't have sanctioned even terror.


                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      They were needed to work and to also put standby labor pressure on working/poor Whites.
                      MOST KKK members where low class and uneducated. I doubt they wanted the blacks to be used to put pressure on them.


                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      This thread is over for me and it's been a blast.

                      I don't care what else is said, I'm done.

                      All The Best! ( and I do mean that )

                      TL

                      HEY GREAT! Glad to hear it! BYE! 8-)
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1025447].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TeddyP
    They don't have to prove it AT ALL! A claim from ONE person of something that COULD be considered derogatory, will brand it has a HATE CRIME! If I fell, ended up hurting a black and, when asked if I was ok, said half in jest "negatory", someone ELSE may THINK I said "the N word", and my accident may get me thrown in jail!
    Actually in North America you are innocent until proven guilty. The onus of proving a crime was hate motivated lies purely with the prosecution and they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Your anecdotal evidence is not based in facts at all. You invented a pretty unlikely scenario that probably rarely happens - if ever to support you argument.

    You are also bringing up stuff like Firefigher quotas etc... which have no bearing at all in this discussion.

    Isn't it racist to hold up one, or even several, race/s as superior to another? If not, then what exactly is the point? If it IS, then they ARE racist, by definition!
    I apologize but I am not sure what this has to do with anything. Hate crime laws aren't purely based on race and aren't just used against white people. If anyone of any race commits a crime that is motivated because of race/religion/sexuality and the prosecution can prove that - then hate crime laws can be used.

    Just a week ago a black male from NJ was charged with a hate crime for killing a transgendered woman. 3 black teens from Portland are currently up on charges of a hate crime for robbing a white woman on a train.

    In North America you should be comfortable to be any race, any religion and any sexuality you choose. If people have such a problem with that (no matter what race they are) that they feel the need to lash out violently - then they are a danger to society and should face strict penalties.

    And again people keep bringing up you can't legislate a persons feelings - well this law isn't doing that at all. It is legislating that if your beliefs lead you to violently attack someone - then you will face stiff penalties.

    Not sure how anyone can have a problem with that.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1010548].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TeddyP View Post

      Actually in North America you are innocent until proven guilty. The onus of proving a crime was hate motivated lies purely with the prosecution and they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

      Your anecdotal evidence is not based in facts at all. You invented a pretty unlikely scenario that probably rarely happens - if ever to support you argument.

      You are also bringing up stuff like Firefigher quotas etc... which have no bearing at all in this discussion.

      I apologize but I am not sure what this has to do with anything. Hate crime laws aren't purely based on race and aren't just used against white people. If anyone of any race commits a crime that is motivated because of race/religion/sexuality and the prosecution can prove that - then hate crime laws can be used.
      It isn't that unlikely at all. Granted, *I* might not say negatory, but I HAVE been accused of saying derogatory things even when I never said ANYTHING. And it wasn't about quotas! They threw out a test because they thought it was biased, because 2 blacks scored low.

      Blacks HAVE said BAD things about whites, and WEREN'T charged. Heck, look at reginald denny!

      Originally Posted by TeddyP View Post

      Just a week ago a black male from NJ was charged with a hate crime for killing a transgendered woman. 3 black teens from Portland are currently up on charges of a hate crime for robbing a white woman on a train.
      TRANSGENDERED? WOMAN? Ok, why are you trying to SUPPORT my side!?

      Originally Posted by TeddyP View Post

      In North America you should be comfortable to be any race, any religion and any sexuality you choose. If people have such a problem with that (no matter what race they are) that they feel the need to lash out violently - then they are a danger to society and should face strict penalties.
      YEP! I STILL remember the rodney king bit where the city had a CURFEW! I broke the law because a friend wanted pizza. MAN, I didn't know what would be worse. Being attacked, or thrown in jail!

      Originally Posted by TeddyP View Post

      And again people keep bringing up you can't legislate a persons feelings - well this law isn't doing that at all. It is legislating that if your beliefs lead you to violently attack someone - then you will face stiff penalties.

      Not sure how anyone can have a problem with that.
      INNOCENT people are jailed ALL THE TIME! This just makes it worse.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1010780].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TeddyP
    Ehhh judges routinely hand out tougher sentences for acts like you described.

    And in the case of hate crimes everyone is being treated equally. If ANYONE attacks ANYONE based on ANY religion/race/sexuality it can be a hate crime. That is completely equal.

    EDIT: And Steve I have no idea what you are talking about anymore - at least in regards to hate crimes.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1010746].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TeddyP
    Steve I am no going to respond to anything about fire fighters tests or whatever else is beyond the topic...but for some of your other points

    It isn't that unlikely at all. Granted, *I* might not say negatory, but I HAVE been accused of saying derogatory things even when I never said ANYTHING
    It is a very unlikely scenario that you explained. If it isn't, please show me an example of a real life instance where a white man fell down, accidentally hurt a black man, said nothing derogatory but was thought to, so he got thrown in jail for a hate crime. I don't mind discussing issues like this at all - but I am hardly going to try and argue against your make believe scenarios.

    TRANSGENDERED? WOMAN? Ok, why are you trying to SUPPORT my side!?
    You were going on about race - those examples show that the race of the aggressor isn't limited to whites. To appease you though - in early July in Valley Stream 15 black men jumped a white man - and authorities are treating the investigation as a hate crime. just because the media doesn't spoon feed you stats on hate crimes against white males doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

    As for your points about innocent people being arrested and rodney king - again I have no idea what that has to do with this argument.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1010838].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TeddyP View Post

      You were going on about race - those examples show that the race of the aggressor isn't limited to whites. To appease you though - in early July in Valley Stream 15 black men jumped a white man - and authorities are treating the investigation as a hate crime. just because the media doesn't spoon feed you stats on hate crimes against white males doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
      Actually, for protected, I said minority or female. That IS the way it is! I have heard of a LOT of cases where blacks attacked whites, and it WASN'T considered a hate crime.

      Originally Posted by TeddyP View Post

      As for your points about innocent people being arrested and rodney king - again I have no idea what that has to do with this argument.
      Just showing how some blacks can be.

      HECK, I was once stopped for NO reason by a police officer after about 1AM, and he played mind games with me, claimed I seemed suspicious, and told me he almost SHOT me! My father has had SIMILAR treatment by a police officer. BOTH policemen, my father, and myself are WHITE! My father and I were NICE!

      Well, a policeman got a report of a break in. AGAIN, he was WHITE. The jerk that he met was belligerent, etc... and accused the police officer of being a racist ASAP! HEY, I would have been JUST as upset but would have shown more respect, as I did that morning at 1AM! He was ARRESTED!

      Gates vs. Crowley | csmonitor.com

      He DESERVED IT! NOT because he was black, but because HE was a racist and thus belligerent and disturbing the peace! I am APPALED at the audacity of that jerk. He is actually parlaying it into an anecdote for the talkshow circuit and "classes"!

      I bet I wouldn't have gotten so far if I did that with a BLACK police officer. BTW that policeman that stopped me let me go without even a ticket. MAYBE he just wondered what I was doing there. I may never know.

      BTW I would say about 50% of the police I have met ended up seeming nice, and 50% seemed like bullies. Still, you won't catch ME jumping down their throats. I don't care if they are male, female, black, white, etc....

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1011487].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TeddyP
    I personally think it is lazy not to consider intent. Just because it is hard to prove there was a certain intent - doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Of course we should only convict in instances where the intent has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

    One more reason hate crimes legislation need to exist is that some people who are so blinded by their hate towards a race/religion/sexuality actually might not think there is anything wrong with violence committed in the name of their belief.

    According to the American Psychological Association:

    Most hate crimes are carried out by otherwise law-abiding young people who see little wrong with their actions. Alcohol and drugs sometimes help fuel these crimes, but the main determinant appears to be personal prejudice, a situation that colors people's judgment, blinding the aggressors to the immorality of what they are doing.
    Hopefully the existence of these laws will send a clear message that this is NOT OK.

    ANOTHER fact no one has touched on is that a hate crime is different than a normal crime perpetuated on someone.

    That is why there has to be legislation for it. A normal assault is not as damaging as one delivered due to race/religion/sexuality.

    A University of California study found that:

    lesbian and gay survivors of hate crimes during the past 5 years showed more signs of psychological distress - including depression, stress, and anger - than did lesbian and gay survivors of comparable non-bias-motivated crimes in the same time period.
    and

    Crime-related psychological problems dropped substantially among survivors of non-bias crimes within approximately two years after the crime. Hate crime victims, however, continued to have higher levels of depression, stress, and anger for as long as 5 years after their victimization occurred.
    I don't think anyone would argue that the crime should fit the punishment. In the case of hate crimes they damage the victim more - so the aggressor should face stiffer penalties.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1011358].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Phnx
    Pitiful Tim, really pitiful

    What a fine advertisment for the American Left. Seems the Left is more like the Right over there.

    You don't believe what you preach at all. A 'hate crime' bill is just a method for people like you to attempt to control people and how they think. Not equality against 'hate' at all.

    Good luck with that.
    Signature
    In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

    Easy Weight Loss
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1011907].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Why do you continue to think I'm some big defender of Israels' policy towards Palestinians? I'm not. I am against how the Palestinians are treated.

      I only jumped on you before, and wasn't the only one, because you were defending being antisemitic. You even encouraged it. Then you denyed saying that which was a lie.

      I am for peace in the middle east. If that means some boycots to put pressure on Israel, then fine. I'm not anti Israel though and don't make statements like you telling all Jews to get their head out of their asses! I'm not for the destruction of Israel and anyone who is is anti peace. I also am left leaning, but am not on the far, far left as you apparently are.

      BTW, I hope to be among the Palestinians before the end of this year and perhaps do some volunteer work until 2011. What are you doing besides posting on a forum?

      Regarding the video: there's dumb ass people everywhere. Most Israelis think differently.

      Don't make this any more a political thread than it already is.



      Originally Posted by Phnx View Post

      Pitiful Tim, really pitiful

      What a fine advertisment for the American Left. Seems the Left is more like the Right over there.

      You don't believe what you preach at all. A 'hate crime' bill is just a method for people like you to attempt to control people and how they think. Not equality against 'hate' at all.

      Good luck with that.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1019394].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Frankly, I think the palestinians got a bad shake ALSO! If I were king say 12+ years ago, I would have just cut Israel off. NO MORE AID! Heck, they got a LOT of aid from the US. For their size and resources, they may have gotten more aid than any other country EVER got from the US.

        So why the difference NOW? Because the muslims attacked, etc.... Discontinuing Israeli aid at this point would be seen as capitulation, and would make them PRAISE osama. Ironic, but true. Who knows? Osama may actually be RESPONSIBLE for helping out Israel!

        Steve

        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Why do you continue to think I'm some big defender of Israels' policy towards Palestinians? I'm not. I am against how the Palestinians are treated.

        I only jumped on you before, and wasn't the only one, because you were defending being antisemitic. You even encouraged it. Then you denyed saying that which was a lie.

        I am for peace in the middle east. If that means some boycots to put pressure on Israel, then fine. I'm not anti Israel though and don't make statements like you telling all Jews to get their head out of their asses! I'm not for the destruction of Israel and anyone who is is anti peace. I also am left leaning, but am not on the far, far left as you apparently are.

        BTW, I hope to be among the Palestinians before the end of this year and perhaps do some volunteer work until 2011. What are you doing besides posting on a forum?

        Regarding the video: there's dumb ass people everywhere. Most Israelis think differently.

        Don't make this any more a political thread than it already is.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1019589].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Phnx
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Why do you continue to think I'm some big defender of Israels' policy towards Palestinians? I'm not. I am against how the Palestinians are treated.
        Oh perhaps because you continually use the ADL as your reference point for antiracism. ADL are one of the biggest racist organizations going and they are thugs to boot. Their job is to smear anyone who remotely criticizes Israel or Jews - though they are not above formenting antisemitism if it suits their purpose. Gits even tried to smear the survivors of the USS Liberty. They are liars and thugs passing themselves off as reasonable men. Their more "active" counterpart the JDL recently trashed a Paris bookstore because they had the temerity to host a Palestinian speaker. They are banned in the US because well...it's hard to get the money from people if they can see you are naught but racist thugs. And without your money they are impotent.

        I only jumped on you before, and wasn't the only one, because you were defending being antisemitic. You even encouraged it. Then you denyed saying that which was a lie.
        Just like those who campaign against illegal immigrants have to contend with erroneous slurs of "racism" by those who either don't understand the word (most campaigners have nothing against Hispanics, they certainly don't hate them, it's the illegals they are concerned with no matter where they come from), or use it in a manner designed to cow people into silence, same thing happen with "antisemitism". That's it. If we become afraid of speaking against injustice because we are afraid of being called nasty names we may as well throw in the towel.

        I am for peace in the middle east. If that means some boycots to put pressure on Israel, then fine. I'm not anti Israel though and don't make statements like you telling all Jews to get their head out of their asses! I'm not for the destruction of Israel and anyone who is is anti peace. I also am left leaning, but am not on the far, far left as you apparently are.
        Oh there is more than a boycott going on Tim, and it's gone far beyond putting a bit of pressure on them. I wasn't bullshitting when I said Israel (and perhaps the USA) would not be at the Olympics. A call for a BDS went out in 2005 and it takes time to consider it as it's a very serious thing. Only been done 3 times - against the Nazi Olympics, which wasn't too successful, against Apartheid South Africa - took a while but it played a significant part in breaking them - and now Israel. This is not a political thing. They will be essentially shunned by the world. Nobody can buy from them, invest with them, no cultural exchanges, sporting or academic links. Zip. Nada. They cease to exist to the rest of the world. Anyone who deals with them also suffers by association. Almost a collective walking out of the room, if you like.

        The "Yes Men" (both Jewish) pulled their film from the Jerusalem film Festival, here's their letter explaining why they had no choice. The more this gathers pace, the more you'll see of this type of stand and pop concerts will be held etc. Remember the old "Free Nelson Mandela" gigs? Hell, people will protest just to seem 'right on' even if they haven't a clue what it's about.

        Each area of the boycott is defined clearly, so you can see why they don't do it lightly. It seems to be the dockers who kick things off...it was the Danes who did it for South Africa by refusing to unload their ships and they went from port to port unable to unload. This time the South African dockers were first to refuse the unloading of an Israeli vessel. Kinda poetic.

        www.bdsmovement.net explains the why and the how.

        The reason I tell jews to take their head out of their ass is because the "ordinary" Jew ends up getting the blame for the "Master Race" bullshit the Zionists are indulging in. They need to speak out and be visible, because lets face it "Joe Public" ain't the brightest tools in the box and they cannot differentiate between ordinary Jews and those who have hijacked their religion for racist purposes. Thankfully the National Independant Jewish Voices of Canada have joined the boycott and as they have many "chapters" in that country that's a huge help. Most of the World Jewry councils are more rightwing - and yes, racist. Problem is they claim to speak for all Jews so the Jewish groups in Canada are doing fabulous work. The Zionists are out in force there though - the Canadian Union Of Postal Workers are also calling for BDS and they are being accused of...can you guess?

        I'm just thrilled Naomi Klein is onboard. She rocks!

        BTW, I hope to be among the Palestinians before the end of this year and perhaps do some volunteer work until 2011. What are you doing besides posting on a forum?
        Well good luck with that Tim. Kind of envy you as I'd be there like a shot if I could. No I'm not far left but I'm seemingly becoming more activist which ticks me off. Thought I'd left that drama behind in my youth.

        You are unlikely to get in though. It is, as they say, a concentration camp, and even if you are not intending to go to Gaza itself you'll go only where the Israelis permit. Did you not read Cynthia McKinneys letter from an Israeli jail - it was all over the net. Who else could kidnap a humanitarian vessel in international waters and get away with it? If that had been Iran we'd have been in WW3 now. Israel believes it can get away with anything it likes - because until now, we've allowed it.

        Regarding the video: there's dumb ass people everywhere. Most Israelis think differently.
        Tim, I'll try and be gentle here because I know you genuinely believe that. I did once (and lets be honest, if those were white boys they'd have - rightly - been pillioried for their behaviour, drunk or not. Because they are of a certain group, people make excuses.) It seems inconceivable that such as they could think like that so we'll brush it off as some abherrant behaviour. Those guys were Americans (dual citizens), but I doubt they'd be arrested on their return even though threatening a President is illegal.

        You might be interested in the filmaker who made it (Jewish - I find it necessary to add that to head off any suspicion it was some troublemaker goading them). The Huffington Post wouldn't publish it - the first time he'd been censored. He gives a good insight into the paranoia and endemic racism that's now rampant in Israel. (That's more worrisome than Iran btw - these guys are sitting on an estimated 200 nukes. You don't want the 4th largest military in the world batshit crazy with Old Testament bloodlust. )

        What would you think if people in the USA started demanding a "Whites Only" State? Bit like Hitlers intended Ayran Nation yes? You'll let others live amongst you but they can't have full rights without the correct racial purity. A Jewish State is exactly the same thing, and if you read the speech given at Israel Apartheid Week below you'll see why the Afrikaans admired the Israeli model so much. It went much much farther than S.A. ever dared, and they've gotten away with it for over 60 years.

        The Israeli Jews fighting against it are like the anti-apartheid whites in South Africa...they know they'll suffer with a boycott but it must be done. They want it too. Those poor *******s are beaten and thrown in jail. The refuseniks who won't join the army also suffer greatly. There are many of them, but they are very much the minority.

        The Knesset are in the process of passing a law to ban commemoration of The Nakba, the Palestinian Holocaust, with the threat of 3 years in prison. Now imagine if we decided to outlaw commemoration of the Jewish Holocaust. How would Israel react? Exactly.

        Read this speech from Israeli Apartheid Week and then this one (on the Best Seller List in Israel for 19 weeks) and see if you still think the same. There can never be peace unless those issues are addressed. Could anyone bar a racist supremacist want that monstrosity to stay as it is? We know why the religious would want it, but as you'll understand from that latter link, the religious are just pawns in Imperialist games.

        Don't make this any more a political thread than it already is.
        Tim, criticism of Israel has never ever been about politics. It's about the most virulent form of racism since the Nazis were around - indeed many Jews, Israeli or otherwise, have called it like it is. It has to stop if people really care about racism. A people are being coldly exterminated and the World sits by. (Does the fact that Gaza sits on huge gas reserves have anything to do with this I wonder?)

        The people have decided to act on their own (European Court Of Human Rights has just said it's illegal to boycott the Israelis as it's a "hate crime". LOLOL. Won't make any difference. You may be proud to know the Irish Trade Unions are onboard.) Hampshire College has become the first academic establishment in the USA to divest of Israeli investments, just as it was the first to divest of South African. Yay them!

        This issue is the very epitome of "hate crime". It is the Zionists who have convinced people - including many ordinary Jews - that they were merely a politicized form of Judaism which has obscured the truth for so long.

        Question is, once they are isolated, what will happen with you guys? If you are still financing them, then the world will refuse to deal with you. I doubt that Governments will have the bottle, but this is a peoples movement so it'll likely have an economic impact on you guys as well.

        No matter where you are on the political spectrum this is something anyone who believes in antiracism should become involved with. Even if you are religious - especially if you are religious! This is a hate crime that encompasses all others, and we collude unless we stop it. For obvious reasons I consider it vital that Jews get involved. There are plenty so far, but the more the better. Interestingly, the Presbyterian and Lutheran churches in the US have come on board. (I don't believe they'll ever get the Evangelists though. Wonder if they know many Palestinians are actually Christian? :rolleyes
        Signature
        In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

        Easy Weight Loss
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1019916].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TeddyP
    So simple doesn't work for you?
    You are sounding like a politician there Teddy.
    I didn't try to justify my stance, I did justify my stance.
    If a person commits a vile, heinous crime they should stand trial for that crime. What you politically correct people don't understand is it is just as vile and heinous no matter who it is committed against.
    Yes and if a person commits an EVEN MORE heinous crime they should stand trial for that crime.

    And now I'm a "politically correct" person? What exactly do you know about me? I am in support of this one issue. I have said nothing but facts and my opinion on THIS issue. Even though this thread is full of people talking about god knows what and making ridiculous assumptions.

    But obviously me supporting one issue you disagree with is enough for you to make you label me "politically correct". Well thought out theory there.

    Also hate crimes aren't about who the crime is committed against. It is about why the crime was committed...which is nothing new to law. I said that already but you must have missed that.

    But hating someone doesnt mean you are planning their murder. Considering that all there needs for something to be a hate crime is to utter a racial slur during the assault,
    Again not true. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the prejudice was the motive for the crime.

    1.5times? I DOUBT that! Maybe you mean CRIMES, and not HATE crimes! Yeah, MLKs statements might be funny to some.
    Oh YOU doubt it? - oh in that case it must not be true. I mean obviously we should trust your hunch and not the FBIs stats.

    The fact of the matter is the people in this thread against the laws - don't have a grasp of the laws.

    They say: "Oh if you utter a slur while assaulting someone you get convicted of a hate crime"
    Reality: No the prosecution has to prove your crime was motivated by your prejudice - which is no easy task.

    They Say: "Hate laws are a slap in the face to equality "
    Reality: Hate laws are completely equal - everyone is protected by them and everyone is subject to them

    They Say:
    "Oh Black guys never get charged with hate crimes"
    Reality: Black men were 1.5x more likely to get charged for hate crimes than a white man in 1999.

    They Say: "a crime is a crime"
    Reality: Courts constantly judge crimes based on level of ferocity, premeditation and scope. There are degrees of many laws for this reason. Judges constantly sentence people based on the heartlessness of their attacks and have a certain level of give or take when sentencing.

    Hate crimes are also significantly more damaging to victims. Hate crimes are also more likely to be repeated. Hate crimes are also attacks on an entire community - that are often designed to instill terror on a large amount of people.

    In this case a crime is not a crime.

    If people want to continue debating left vs right wing...or make ludicrous claims about MLK...or continually launch ad-hominem attacks on people - I say start a new thread.

    I personally find the debate fun and haven't made any snap judgements of anyone debating - of course can't say the reverse is true
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1013086].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      I see Buchanen as pathetic because he does believe what he says. Limbaugh is a bad joke - he panders with the aim of getting as much attention for himself as possible.

      When I think of hate crimes I think of Matthew Shephard who was killed because he was gay. But then - does it matter why he was killed? Does it matter why he was targeted? There are no shades of dead. Why try to establish shades of guilt for killing?

      For less violent crimes - such as theft - I agree there may be circumstances such as dire need that might be considered. But then you go into the area of deciding what constitutes dire need. In New England a man was robbing banks and declared it was because his business failed and he had to support his family. Yet the family was living a very exclusive lifestyle - his need was to maintain that status.

      The more complex the layers added to what constitutes a crime, the more complex the prosecution and defense and the more sensational the media coverage. "He committed murder because......" is a bit like micro-management. "He committed murder." should be enough, shouldn't it?

      kay
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
      what it is instead of what you think it should be.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1013159].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TeddyP
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        When I think of hate crimes I think of Matthew Shephard who was killed because he was gay. But then - does it matter why he was killed? Does it matter why he was targeted? There are no shades of dead. Why try to establish shades of guilt for killing?
        Valid point - I believe in hate crime legislation because when Matthew Sheppard died - the crime didn't. It sent a horrible message to other gay people that this could happen to them just because they are gay. Not because they were in the wrong place at the wrong moment, not because they pissed someone off, not because they had an affair...but simply because they are gay. That is one reason why hate crimes are so heinous - it is an attack on a community not just the victim.

        Also not all hate crimes end in death - assaults that were born out of prejudice are significantly more psychologically disturbing to victims. So in my opinion they should be treated more strictly than normal assaults.

        If you punch someone in the face...you get a different charge than if you club someone over the head with a pipe. Why? Because what you did was more dangerous and damaging. Just because the damage of a hate crime doesn't show itself in cuts and bruises doesn't mean it is not more destructive.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1013219].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TeddyP View Post

      Yes and if a person commits an EVEN MORE heinous crime they should stand trial for that crime.

      And now I'm a "politically correct" person? What exactly do you know about me? I am in support of this one issue. I have said nothing but facts and my opinion on THIS issue. Even though this thread is full of people talking about god knows what and making ridiculous assumptions.
      "politically correct"? Your statements here make that clear! Too bad correct is just part of a name!

      Originally Posted by TeddyP View Post

      But obviously me supporting one issue you disagree with is enough for you to make you label me "politically correct". Well thought out theory there.

      Also hate crimes aren't about who the crime is committed against. It is about why the crime was committed...which is nothing new to law. I said that already but you must have missed that.
      WRONG! And I am talking about US law. I would never claim to know canadian law!

      Originally Posted by TeddyP View Post

      Again not true. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the prejudice was the motive for the crime.
      WRONG

      Originally Posted by TeddyP View Post

      Oh YOU doubt it? - oh in that case it must not be true. I mean obviously we should trust your hunch and not the FBIs stats.
      PROVE IT! They claim on the latest studies(2007) that 3 times as many are WHITE!

      Offenders- Hate Crime Statistics, 2007


      Originally Posted by TeddyP View Post

      The fact of the matter is the people in this thread against the laws - don't have a grasp of the laws.
      WRONG!


      Originally Posted by TeddyP View Post

      They say: "Oh if you utter a slur while assaulting someone you get convicted of a hate crime"
      Reality: No the prosecution has to prove your crime was motivated by your prejudice - which is no easy task.
      WRONG!


      Originally Posted by TeddyP View Post

      Hate crimes are also significantly more damaging to victims. Hate crimes are also more likely to be repeated. Hate crimes are also attacks on an entire community - that are often designed to instill terror on a large amount of people.
      WRONG!

      Originally Posted by TeddyP View Post

      If people want to continue debating left vs right wing...or make ludicrous claims about MLK...or continually launch ad-hominem attacks on people - I say start a new thread.
      Name ONE "claim" I made about MLK that is NOT true! I only know ONE I made, so I will list it!

      +"I have a dream" +mlk - Google Search

      FIRST SITE!

      American Rhetoric: Martin Luther King, Jr. - I Have a Dream

      quote]
      I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
      [/quote]

      So hey, I was RIGHT!

      Originally Posted by TeddyP View Post

      I personally find the debate fun and haven't made any snap judgements of anyone debating - of course can't say the reverse is true
      Your whole message quoted here calls you a LIAR here!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1013284].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
      Originally Posted by TeddyP View Post

      They say: "Oh if you utter a slur while assaulting someone you get convicted of a hate crime"
      Reality: No the prosecution has to prove your crime was motivated by your prejudice - which is no easy task.
      If you are spitting racial slurs as you are assaulting someone, that pretty much proves your motive

      They Say: "Hate laws are a slap in the face to equality "
      Reality: Hate laws are completely equal - everyone is protected by them and everyone is subject to them
      in theory. in reality i can't say as i've ever heard of any minority attacking a white or even another minority, and being charged with a hate crime. They may exist, but you surely dont see them plastered all over the news when they happen.
      They Say: "Oh Black guys never get charged with hate crimes"
      Reality: Black men were 1.5x more likely to get charged for hate crimes than a white man in 1999.
      Offenders: Of the 7,330 known offenders, 58.6 percent were white and 20.6 percent were black.
      FBI — Hate Crimes - Press Room - Headline Archives 11-19-07
      They Say: "a crime is a crime"
      Reality: Courts constantly judge crimes based on level of ferocity, premeditation and scope. There are degrees of many laws for this reason. Judges constantly sentence people based on the heartlessness of their attacks and have a certain level of give or take when sentencing.
      A harsher penalty will not change the outcome for the victim. Though it will probably increase the bias for the convicted, probably making them even more biased toward whatever group they attacked

      the more you base things on someone's race, the more things will be based on someone's race. Saying that we need to look past race, but enacting laws that revolve around race is pretty stupid.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1021485].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1013173].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
    Man charged with Provincetown hate crime | CapeCodOnline.com

    As far as the police know, this guy didnt even say anything anti gay before or during the fight. But afterwards when the cops were taking away he started screaming anti-gay slurs and THAT turned his crime into a hate crime. So you dont even have to spit out a slur before or during that assault.


    And you dont even have to say anything for it to be a hate crime, you dont even have to assault someone. All you have to do is display a noose, and that in itself has been considered a hate crime
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1013425].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

      Man charged with Provincetown hate crime | CapeCodOnline.com

      As far as the police know, this guy didnt even say anything anti gay before or during the fight. But afterwards when the cops were taking away he started screaming anti-gay slurs and THAT turned his crime into a hate crime. So you dont even have to spit out a slur before or during that assault.


      And you dont even have to say anything for it to be a hate crime, you dont even have to assault someone. All you have to do is display a noose, and that in itself has been considered a hate crime
      And SOME people develop an association AFTER a totally unrelated crime. WHO KNOWS? Maybe he didn't even know the guy was homosexual until AFTER the attack. And HECK, BLACKS have used terms BLACKS would consider defamatory. Whites have done the same with whites! Homosexuals have done the same with homosexuals, etc.... Doesn't just THAT mean that speech doesn't mean that much? Just last night, on Hank Hill, bobby said hank was "all bark"(spoke big, but didn't act). The guy claiming to HELP bobby basically called the family a bunch of idiot child abusers, and said they were all "red neck". The whole show basically shows how the argument that speech means much is LUDICROUS! And nooses have been used on/by a LOT of whites!

      ALSO, back to precedents! One PRECEDENT that basically created a bunch of laws is miranda v. arizona. Was that fighter "mirandized" properly?

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1013534].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TeddyP
    1st off you guys are aware that charges and convictions are two different things right? In the USA and Canada people are innocent until proven guilty - so being charged with a hate crime doew not equal committing a hate crime or being convicted of a hate crime. I would say uttering a racist slur is probable cause to look into if it was hate motivated act or not. Then they can figure out in court if it was or not...like everything people get charged for.

    Seasoned - thank you for the updated stats - the ones I were using were from 1999 as I repeated 2 or more times.

    Your stats, thankfully more recent, also back up my claims that hate crimes protect and are brought against everyone. In 2007 alone there were 871 hate crimes classified as anti-white. All major religions were also covered. As well as all sexualities - yes even heterosexual.

    So thanks for the stats.

    Just a heads up you typing wrong in all caps with an exclamation mark doesn't make it so.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1013839].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
      Originally Posted by TeddyP View Post

      1st off you guys are aware that charges and convictions are two different things right? In the USA and Canada people are innocent until proven guilty - so being charged with a hate crime doew not equal committing a hate crime or being convicted of a hate crime. I would say uttering a racist slur is probable cause to look into if it was hate motivated act or not. Then they can figure out in court if it was or not...like everything people get charged for.
      Yeah, tell ya what, you go get charged for something like say, a race crime, or rape, get your name spread across your local newspaper with ' rapist' or 'racist' attatched to it. Next, go out for a job interview locally, let me know how that works out for you.

      People can say 'innocent until proven guilty', but let me point out that you get put into jail when you are arrested, before you go to court to decide your innocence or guilt. Why put someone innocent behind bars. And b, when you are guilty everyone in the world will know about it in the media. If you are found innocent, there will be a passing mention of it on pag 25 next to the obituaries

      And for a crime to be deemed a hate crime all that needs to be proven is racial bias. Using a racial slur is that proof. A white and a black guy could get into a fight and fit he white guy is wearing a shirt that says i hate n***ers, you would probably have a tough time as a defense lawyer to keep that from being a hate crime by the time you get to court.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1013913].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TeddyP
    Again not here to debate the media - totally different topic. Just because the media brands people rapists or racists before due process - doesn't mean we should have hate crime laws. You even used rape in your example - now I am sure you would find it ludicrous to suggest getting rid of rape laws because the media runs with it, or police charge people with it erroneously.

    If there is an assault or violent crime - you will get put into jail whether or not it was a hate crime. Again this has nothing to do specifically with hate crime laws. I don't want to see anyone innocent in jail, but I don't suggest we get rid of all laws to avoid that.

    As for your definition of hate crime, and many other peoples in this thread...

    A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.
    That is the FBI terminology for a hate crime. Key word in all of that - motivated. It says nothing about being a racist and committing a crime - it is all about the motivation for committing the crime.

    The prosecution has to prove the crime was motivated by the bias, not just that the bias existed.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1014340].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
      Originally Posted by TeddyP View Post

      Again not here to debate the media - totally different topic. Just because the media brands people rapists or racists before due process - doesn't mean we should have hate crime laws. You even used rape in your example - now I am sure you would find it ludicrous to suggest getting rid of rape laws because the media runs with it, or police charge people with it erroneously.
      Of course that would be silly. But should the punishment for rape be different for a guy that rapes a blonde as opposed to a guy that rapes a brunette?

      If there is an assault or violent crime - you will get put into jail whether or not it was a hate crime. Again this has nothing to do specifically with hate crime laws. I don't want to see anyone innocent in jail, but I don't suggest we get rid of all laws to avoid that.

      As for your definition of hate crime, and many other peoples in this thread...

      That is the FBI terminology for a hate crime. Key word in all of that - motivated. It says nothing about being a racist and committing a crime - it is all about the motivation for committing the crime.

      The prosecution has to prove the crime was motivated by the bias, not just that the bias existed.
      I dont think anyone who is guilty should get out of paying their due. Nor do i think we should put innocents in jail. But a crime is a crime. We hand out punishment based on the crime, not the motive.

      And all the prosectution has to do is present a witness or even the victim saying that the accused was screaming racial slurs and that will be the bias that fueled the motivation for the crime in any jury's eyes.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1014366].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TeddyP
        Of course that would be silly. But should the punishment for rape be different for a guy that rapes a blonde as opposed to a guy that rapes a brunette?
        :confused: A hate crime isn't about who you attack it is about why you attack them. I have said that over and over again, and the FBI quote backs that up.

        If you rape a woman because she is jewish - then yes you should face a stiffer fine. For the reasons that have been stated in this thread already.

        But a crime is a crime. We hand out punishment based on the crime, not the motive.

        And all the prosectution has to do is present a witness or even the victim saying that the accused was screaming racial slurs and that will be the bias that fueled the motivation for the crime in any jury's eyes.
        The old crime is a crime argument - I mean just because you guys bring it up over and over again doesn't make it true.

        I have pointed this out before but I will break down 2 main reasons why the crime is a crime statement is not a valid argument:

        1. Motive IS judged by the courts quite often. Motive can go a long way in differentiating between degrees of murder charges.

        2. In this case motive needs to be proven because if it is - the crime is more heinous and damaging. The reason motive doesn't have to be proven in other types of cases is because it doesn't usually matter. When it comes to a hate crime it does matter, because if the crime was motivated by prejudice:
        • The victim will suffer far worse psychological damage
        • The attack on one person is an attack on that community that creates terror and fear in a large amount of people at once
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1014596].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
          Originally Posted by TeddyP View Post

          :confused: A hate crime isn't about who you attack it is about why you attack them. I have said that over and over again, and the FBI quote backs that up.

          If you rape a woman because she is jewish - then yes you should face a stiffer fine. For the reasons that have been stated in this thread already.




          The old crime is a crime argument - I mean just because you guys bring it up over and over again doesn't make it true.

          I have pointed this out before but I will break down 2 main reasons why the crime is a crime statement is not a valid argument:

          1. Motive IS judged by the courts quite often. Motive can go a long way in differentiating between degrees of murder charges.

          2. In this case motive needs to be proven because if it is - the crime is more heinous and damaging. The reason motive doesn't have to be proven in other types of cases is because it doesn't usually matter. When it comes to a hate crime it does matter, because if the crime was motivated by prejudice:
          • The victim will suffer far worse psychological damage
          • The attack on one person is an attack on that community that creates terror and fear in a large amount of people at once
          The rape doesnt hurt more if its for race reasons, the smack across the face doesnt sting more, the knife in the gut doesnt cut deepers, the bullet doesnt kill you more.

          Crime is crime and telling someone 'you will be punished more beacuse you were thinking this during your crime is legislating thought.

          and likewise, you saying that it DOES make a difference doesnt make it so either
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1014602].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

            The rape doesnt hurt more if its for race reasons, the smack across the face doesnt sting more, the knife in the gut doesnt cut deepers, the bullet doesnt kill you more.

            Crime is crime and telling someone 'you will be punished more beacuse you were thinking this during your crime is legislating thought.

            and likewise, you saying that it DOES make a difference doesnt make it so either
            Well Mike I know if I was a women I'd feel a lot worse if I got raped and found out it was because the rapist hated me, as opposed to them just being a sick, disturbed human being:rolleyes:
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1014617].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author myob
              In the US at least, a hate crime is not necessarily even a physical attack or assault to be considered to be a crime. It includes verbal harassment or intimidation towards specific protected classes such as a person's race, color, religion, national origin, perceived gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability. For example, a hate speech or the display of intimdidating symbols such as a noose towards federally protected classes is considered a crime. And, yes I think these laws are necessary because of widespread gratuitous hatred and prejudice.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1014654].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                Originally Posted by myob View Post

                In the US at least, a hate crime is not necessarily even a physical attack or assault to be considered to be a crime. It includes verbal harassment or intimidation towards specific protected classes such as a person's race, color, religion, national origin, perceived gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability. For example, a hate speech or the display of intimdidating symbols such as a noose towards federally protected classes is considered a crime. And, yes I think these laws are necessary because of widespread gratuitous hatred and prejudice.
                Yep, and that is where the real problems start. Some sectors are now so protected that they are actually causing a lot of problems and no one is willing to stop them because they don't feel like being dragged into court on discrimination charges. We have hispanic neighbors over here that party until all hours - marriochie (sp) music full blast at 2 am, people drunk and screaming, little kids running around screaming in the middle of it all, drunk parents throwing all their trash over the fence into neighbors yards, and the police just shrug and say they can't do anything about it - noise laws, private nuscience laws seem to only apply if you can't charge someone for discrimination - or hate motivated prosecution. At jobs everyone has to do more to cover the slacker because if anyone complains, "they are just prejudiced" and can actually be written up for it or lose their jobs completely when all they were doing is trying to get a fair workload and make their co-workers do their own jobs.

                That type of protection isn't going to alleviate prejudice. It just causes censorship and a reverse priviledged group. As long as one group is protected to the point that it causes reverse discrimination we are going to have hate crimes - and now it has even led to many restrictions in our freedoms of speech - and once they retract part of your right to say what you feel, no matter how disgusting, they can take anything else from your right of speech that they want to. The precident has been set.

                As long as people are pointing out differences so blatantly and protecting a group until they feel like they are above any of the laws, people will focus on differences and there will be hate crimes.

                Make a freaking crime a crime and leave it the hell alone. You can figure that any time someone beats the snot out of you that they don't like you and are beyond what would be considered sane - whether it's your color or your attitude that motivated the nut is a moot point beyond that -- unless you have an agenda of usurping more personal rights from a population, that is.
                Signature

                Sal
                When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                Beyond the Path

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1016968].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author myob
                  Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                  ... That type of protection isn't going to alleviate prejudice. It just causes censorship and a reverse priviledged group. As long as one group is protected to the point that it causes reverse discrimination we are going to have hate crimes - and now it has even led to many restrictions in our freedoms of speech - and once they retract part of your right to say what you feel, no matter how disgusting, they can take anything else from your right of speech that they want to. The precident has been set.

                  As long as people are pointing out differences so blatantly and protecting a group until they feel like they are above any of the laws, people will focus on differences and there will be hate crimes.

                  Make a freaking crime a crime and leave it the hell alone. You can figure that any time someone beats the snot out of you that they don't like you and are beyond what would be considered sane - whether it's your color or your attitude that motivated the nut is a moot point beyond that -- unless you have an agenda of usurping more personal rights from a population, that is.
                  Nothing is going to alleviate prejudice. There will always be hate crimes, because there will always be prejudice. It is human nature, and needs to be controlled by law just as does our many other often brutish behaviors. Racial hatred for example, of itself is not a crime, but when someone acts upon that hatred to the infringement of others' rights, then it does become a hate crime. That is why we have hate crime laws; prejudice dictates that we are not equal despite all the platitudes of equality, unity and the singing of kumbaya.

                  I live in a mixed neighborhood and have several close friends who were victims of blatant hate crimes. Most of it is as simple as a black or latino buying a new car or painting their house, and someone vandalizes it and spray painting with racial slurs. Racially mixed couples get attacked (verbally and sometimes physically). Gays get assaulted for nothing more than because of their lifestyle. And in the corporate world even in this day and age of so-called "non-prejudical" equal opportunity, healthy white heterosexual males enjoy more opportunity and privilege far beyond anyone in the "protected" classes.

                  In a complex yet undeniable unconscious subtleness, there is ingrained in us that somehow the white race is privileged or perhaps superior. And there are also individuals, regions, and groups with this belief as a fully conscious, activist core of hatred. Whites cannot truly empathize with this because we are hardly ever exposed to the kind of prejudice and hatred of which many others are exposed to everyday. So when you see real victims of hate crimes as I have, the reasonable mind would ask, "How can someone even call themselves part of humanity and yet be so full of such unprovoked hatred and brutality?"

                  Beating the snot out of someone just because you don't like them is a whole lot different than beating them up because of race or sexual preference. If you don't understand that, you are too white and too sheltered. You really need to get out more. Hate crimes are rampant all across the country, and they do far more psycological damage to our society and divide people more than the physical act or brutality itself. Those who whine and complain about "reverse discrimination" have only a small taste of what it's really like.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1018067].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TeddyP
    For people saying "what difference does it make if it is hate based? A smack still stings the same...etc etc etc"

    For the people who keep bringing up this point over and over again - have you read the entire thread? Just curious, because if you did you would see that isn't the case.

    People who suffer hate crimes suffer significantly more psychological damage AND the damage lasts significantly longer. That is not hard to comprehend and it makes perfect sense.

    It is also an attack on an entire community- because it instills fear and terror on an entire segment of the population.

    I mean the only defense you could have to that is that you don't care or believe in psychological damage. Thankfully the courts do.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1016734].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by TeddyP View Post

      For people saying "what difference does it make if it is hate based? A smack still stings the same...etc etc etc"

      For the people who keep bringing up this point over and over again - have you read the entire thread? Just curious, because if you did you would see that isn't the case.

      People who suffer hate crimes suffer significantly more psychological damage AND the damage lasts significantly longer. That is not hard to comprehend and it makes perfect sense.

      It is also an attack on an entire community- because it instills fear and terror on an entire segment of the population.

      I mean the only defense you could have to that is that you don't care or believe in psychological damage. Thankfully the courts do.
      Here's the problem I have with that.
      If someone commits a crime against someone based on race, etc. at least the victim and community knows the reason for the crime.
      If someone else commits the same crime against someone for no reason other then they are a sick individual, then that leaves the victim to always wonder 'why them'. It also tells the community that anyone of them could have been the victim and that there are people out there that will commit a crime for no conceivable reason which puts the whole community at risk, not just a segment of the community.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1016773].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author psa777
      Originally Posted by TeddyP View Post

      For people saying "what difference does it make if it is hate based? A smack still stings the same...etc etc etc"
      Originally Posted by TeddyP View Post


      For the people who keep bringing up this point over and over again - have you read the entire thread? Just curious, because if you did you would see that isn't the case.
      Yes, Teddy, I have read the entire thread and I still believe that hate crime laws divide society even more and no, I can't follow your argument that by reading the entire thread I would have to see that there is a difference for the victim.

      People who suffer hate crimes suffer significantly more psychological damage AND the damage lasts significantly longer.


      I challenge this argument. How do you measure the level of psychological damage? That surely is a very individual response, which depends more on your internal make up than the motive of the perpetrator? That also applies to the length of the damage. I know people who have recovered from horrific life trauma and are today probably even stronger for it and others in their 50s are still seeing a therapist 3 times per week because their budgie was eaten by the neighbor's cat when they were little.

      That is not hard to comprehend and it makes perfect sense.


      Well it is hard for me to comprehend and it does not make sense to me.

      It is also an attack on an entire community- because it instills fear and terror on an entire segment of the population.


      Random acts of violence affect not only an entire segment of the population, but everybody.

      I mean the only defense you could have to that is that you don't care or believe in psychological damage. Thankfully the courts do.


      Yes, Teddy, I do believe that psychological damage is real and I do believe that I care, but I also believe that "hate crime laws" separate people even further instead of emphasizing that we are all equal!

      Cheers,
      Peter
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1017953].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TeddyP
    I can't follow your argument that by reading the entire thread I would have to see that there is a difference for the victim.

    I challenge this argument. How do you measure the level of psychological damage? That surely is a very individual response, which depends more on your internal make up than the motive of the perpetrator? That also applies to the length of the damage. I know people who have recovered from horrific life trauma and are today probably even stronger for it and others in their 50s are still seeing a therapist 3 times per week because their budgie was eaten by the neighbor's cat when they were little.
    Well I posted evidence from University of California studies that showed the psychological damage is different:

    Gay and Lesbian survivors of hate crimes showed more signs of psychological distress (stress, fear, depression, anger) than their counterparts who suffered similar non biased motivated attacks.

    The study also showed that in general non bias crime related psychological damage dropped substantially after 2 years while the damage from hate crimes often lasted as long as 5 years.

    This shows a pretty disturbing trend. I am surprised you missed this in the thread. And apparently everyone did because no one responded with a defense to it.

    As for your other argument - that hate crimes just seperate people even further (even though everyone is protected and subject to them). I respond with the fact - that we can't talk about equality until people are free to live without threat of being attacked because of their lifestyle/race/religion.

    That is what these laws were created for - to help foster equality. I hope someday they aren't needed either - but when you have thousands of hate crimes per year still - it shows that we aren't there yet.

    Random acts of violence affect not only an entire segment of the population, but everybody.
    You are the second person to bring this up - and it is an interesting point.

    I would say that first of the majority of the assault (and related) charges out there are not random. Also EVERYONE knows that there is a chance of a random attack - in the case of hate crimes - these communities have to worry about the random attacks AND bias based ones. That is why hate crimes are more heinous they are used to instill EXTRA fear upon an entire community.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1018815].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
    I look at it this way.

    If a crime is treated differently because of what I was thinking when I committed it, you're not just prosecuting crime - you're prosecuting thought.

    I find that to be a very, very disturbing precedent.
    Signature
    "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1019023].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
    I have never been so ashamed of "Warriors" as I am now. There is so much freaking garbage in this one thread alone that it makes the whole forum stink.

    Take your antisemitic racist hatred somewhere else. It's not welcome here.

    Period.
    Signature

    "Ich bin en fuego!"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1019934].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Phnx
    Wow, are you calling the National Independant Jewish Voices Of Canada antisemite? Half the worlds Trade Unions? Student bodies? Academics? Jewish activists?

    Okaaay. Supporter of South African apartheid were you Michael?

    Now do you see the problem, Tim?
    Signature
    In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

    Easy Weight Loss
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1019961].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
      Originally Posted by Phnx View Post

      Wow, are you calling the National Independant Jewish Voices Of Canada antisemite? Half the worlds Trade Unions? Student bodies? Academics? Jewish activists?

      Okaaay. Supporter of South African apartheid were you Michael?

      Now do you see the problem, Tim?
      Really? Half? That number is so made up it's not even funny. Show me a list of ALL the world's trade unions, then show me how half of them say what you claim.

      Besides, I could care less what they say. I don't make decisons based on what others think, but you are welcome to do so.

      Personally, I'd rather be an open-minded independent thinker than a parrot for a bunch of racist whack jobs.
      Signature

      "Ich bin en fuego!"
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1020105].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Phnx
        Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

        Really? Half? That number is so made up it's not even funny. Show me a list of ALL the world's trade unions, then show me how half of them say what you claim.
        Dear god, is that the level of your rebuttal?

        Besides, I could care less what they say. I don't make decisons based on what others think, but you are welcome to do so.
        You don't think at all Michael.

        Personally, I'd rather be an open-minded independent thinker than a parrot for a bunch of racist whack jobs.
        Not too bright are ya fella? Calling Jewish organizations racist whackjobs for fighting racism carried out in their name? Real smart. :rolleyes:

        The BDS movement is an official movement (albeit a peoples and 'labor' movement) and it's thanks to them that South African apartheid was ended. Try clicking a damn link next time.
        Global BDS Movement

        Hope you don't sell anything to people outside the USA. In the not to distant future you may find they avoid buying from you because the boycott extends to those who aid and abet - as the French firm Veolia just found out. It was unable to get European contracts because of it's links with the Jerusalem Railway so had to drop them. If they can't replace the contracts they'll no doubt cut jobs. Motorola is currently being hit.

        BDS means if you support racism then there is a price to pay. To the rest of the world YOU become the racist whackjobs.
        Signature
        In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

        Easy Weight Loss
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1020145].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jasonbird
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1019972].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Harosy
      You would think in todays day and age we would be past hate crimes
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1026725].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author myob
        Originally Posted by Harosy View Post

        You would think in todays day and age we would be past hate crimes
        Not even close. Hate crime trends are increasing, and there is stronger hate-crime legislation being proposed by Attorney General Eric Holder.
        Attorney General Holder urges stronger hate-crime legislation

        Hate crime statistics are compiled by the FBI. In the nearly twenty years since the 1990 enactment of the Hate Crime Statistics Act, the number of hate crimes reported has risen consistently overall to its current level of more than 7,600 annually -- that's nearly one every hour of every day.

        The number of hate groups has also risen by more than 50 percent since 1990, from 602 to 926. Growth is mainly attributed to fears about nonwhite immigration, but Obama's election and the downward economy also were factors by early this year. White supremacist activity has spiked after Barack Obama's election victory in November.

        --African-Americans remain by far the most frequent victims of hate crimes. Of the 7,624 hate crime incidents reported nationwide in 2007, the most recent year available, 34 percent were perpetrated against African-Americans.

        --In the five years from 2003-2007, the number of hate crimes reported against Hispanics increased nearly 40 percent, from 426 in 2003 to 595 in 2007. Of all hate crimes reported in the United States in 2007, 7.8 percent were committed against Hispanics.

        --In 2007, there were 969 reported hate crimes committed against Jews, constituting 12.7 percent of all hate crimes reported and 69 percent of religious bias hate crimes reported.

        --Following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 2001, the number of hate crimes directed against Arab-Americans, Muslims and Sikhs escalated dramatically. In 2001, those groups were victimized in nearly 5 percent of the total number of hate crimes reported that year, 481 out of 9,730. While the number of reported hate crimes against the groups declined from the peak of 2001, it remains substantially above pre-2001 levels.

        --Reported hate crimes committed against individuals because of their sexual orientation increased in 2007 to 1,265, the highest level in five years. Of all hate crimes reported in 2007, the proportion committed against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals rose to 16.6 percent, also the highest level in five years.
        Hate Crime Statistics Compiled by the FBI 2007
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1039940].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
    I wasn't refering to those organizations as racist whack jobs.

    Does anybody else really think I don't think.

    Obviously you are immune to independent thinking. That was my point. I can think for myself. Therefore it doesn't matter if 99.999999999% of the world's population had an idea I considered wrong or detestable - it wouldn't change my mind.

    That's really just a long way of telling you to...

    All the best,
    Michael
    Signature

    "Ich bin en fuego!"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1020394].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Phnx
      Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

      I wasn't refering to those organizations as racist whack jobs.

      Does anybody else really think I don't think.

      Obviously you are immune to independent thinking. That was my point. I can think for myself. Therefore it doesn't matter if 99.999999999% of the world's population had an idea I considered wrong or detestable - it wouldn't change my mind.

      That's really just a long way of telling you to...

      All the best,
      Michael
      You have no point Michael. Not one intelligent rebuttal - I can prove my points, you resort to shrieking antisemite like an unthinkling drone.

      I've watched you in numerous threads jump in with halfassed opinions only to be forced to slink back later and apologise when it's become clear you misunderstood the OP or didn't read it properly in the first place. It's quite amusing watching you keep switching sides. As is the number of times you resort to namecalling and insults and then when you get called on it you blame others for calling you names when they never have.

      But then in your little 99.999999999% world you are the only "ethical marketer" in existence, which is what the 'The' implies. I wonder if you realise how insulting that is to other genuine marketers. A 'An' may have been more humble.

      Whatever, regardless of people like you decent people have had enough of State sanctioned "hate crimes" propped up by Colonial interests and religious delusions, and it will be stopped. International Law applies to everyone equally. It doesn't matter who you are, if you behave like a monster you will be accountable. No exceptions.

      Fortunately there are many Americans who don't think like you, but they are gonna have an uphill battle piercing the conditioned responses in minds like yours; they seem to be rife in the US

      (Tim, now do you understand why people shouldn't be afraid of namecalling? If everyone shutup when some ignoramous threw out a conditioned response, nothing would ever change. That was my original point on a thread far far away. )
      Signature
      In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

      Easy Weight Loss
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1021194].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
        One question: Why are you so filled with hate?
        Signature

        "Ich bin en fuego!"
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1021631].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Phnx
          Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

          One question: Why are you so filled with hate?
          Against whom? :rolleyes:

          Well Michael let's see. You first showed your "independant" mind many moons ago when Sal and I were discussing an article re the Nazi's banning smoking. You leapt in shrieking like a banshee "how dare we compare the current administration with Nazis's yada yada" and how you could never believe a word I said again. In spite of Sal and I pointing out to you that the article was in the British Medical Journal and written by a Doctor using historical documents, and that the Nazis didn't start out how they ended up, you were having none of it. You rebutted with no facts merely opinion - virtually ending with a "I don't believe it just because".

          Now 999999.99% of us lesser mortals get our info from books, journalists, newspapers, the net, even MSM, and people we know who have firsthand experience of something. Our opinion is formed by that. Even schoolchildren have to be provided with information because their brains don't work like yours where it miraculously produces the "Truth" in a vacuum.

          Most people will come across contrary evidence to what they previously believed, at some point. If their brain is worth anything they will evaluate that new information and research it. Some people cannot of course and simply refuse to look at anything outside of what they "believe" from the first input. The rest of us evaluate the new stuff and choose to believe it or not. Sometimes it comes at great cost to change one's belief about something, but the alternative is to live a lie.

          How wonderful that as well as being the only Ethical Marketer you are also blessed with the only brain that provides it's own information source.

          Now, you came in and started throwing antisemite slurs around. That is not a surprise. When it's pointed out Jewish activists are prominant in this movement against hate and racism you then produce a lame "oh I didn't mean them".

          So then, it's perfectly reasonable in your mind for Jewish activists to fight against racism committed by those who claim to be working in their name, but when someone who is not Jewish supports the same thing it mysteriously becomes racism and antisemitism? Because one doesn't belong to the group perpetrating the "hate crime" they have no right to protest too without being a racist whackjob?

          Okee Dokee.

          (You do know Jimmy Carter has recently made similar points? Guess he's a racist whackjob too. The world will be full of us soon. :rolleyes: )
          Signature
          In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

          Easy Weight Loss
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1021730].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
            Originally Posted by Phnx View Post

            Against whom? :rolleyes:

            Well Michael let's see. You first showed your "independant" mind many moons ago when Sal and I were discussing an article re the Nazi's banning smoking. You leapt in shrieking like a banshee "how dare we compare the current administration with Nazis's yada yada" and how you could never believe a word I said again. In spite of Sal and I pointing out to you that the article was in the British Medical Journal and written by a Doctor using historical documents, and that the Nazis didn't start out how they ended up, you were having none of it. You rebutted with no facts merely opinion - virtually ending with a "I don't believe it just because".
            Yes, Nazi is a power-packed word, and often used as a way of shutting down an intelligent discussion. I'm sure it comes as no surprise to you, but I am anti-smoking. However, I also think people have the right to smoke...as long as no one else has to breathe in the second hand smoke.

            Now 999999.99% of us lesser mortals get our info from books, journalists, newspapers, the net, even MSM, and people we know who have firsthand experience of something. Our opinion is formed by that. Even schoolchildren have to be provided with information because their brains don't work like yours where it miraculously produces the "Truth" in a vacuum.
            999999% WOW! That's a lot! Yes, I'm an avid reader and get my information from many different sources. But, I also consider the validitiy of the source, and what their potential bias is. Again, no surprise that you are resorting to PERSONAL attacks through your implications. However, you are mostly correct about how we form our opinions. The only element you left out is that they are also formed by our first hand experiences. But, yes, basically everything we come in contact with shades our opinios, no argument there.

            Most people will come across contrary evidence to what they previously believed, at some point. If their brain is worth anything they will evaluate that new information and research it. Some people cannot of course and simply refuse to look at anything outside of what they "believe" from the first input. The rest of us evaluate the new stuff and choose to believe it or not. Sometimes it comes at great cost to change one's belief about something, but the alternative is to live a lie.
            See my post above. Just wanted point out that your attacks against me are now contradicting themselves. First you say I change my mind too much, then you say I don't change it all. But there you go again, implying my brain isn't worth anything. Do yourself a favor, look up the term ad hominem and see why it doesn't work. (Maybe that's true in BOTH our cases). Would YOU change your mind about Israel if new evidence came to light? Evidence that contradicts everythng you now believe - could you change your mind? Yes, that's hypothetical, but could you do it?

            How wonderful that as well as being the only Ethical Marketer you are also blessed with the only brain that provides it's own information source.
            I never said I was the only ethical marketer, but you sure found an odd tangent for your argument. Your brain is an information source (based on your firsthand experiences, for example), as is mine.

            Now, you came in and started throwing antisemite slurs around. That is not a surprise. When it's pointed out Jewish activists are prominant in this movement against hate and racism you then produce a lame "oh I didn't mean them".
            No, it was mainly pointed at a specific remark in regards to Jews and how "they" should remove their heads from their backsides. That's all.

            So then, it's perfectly reasonable in your mind for Jewish activists to fight against racism committed by those who claim to be working in their name, but when someone who is not Jewish supports the same thing it mysteriously becomes racism and antisemitism? Because one doesn't belong to the group perpetrating the "hate crime" they have no right to protest too without being a racist whackjob?
            That's not what I said, but there is nothing I can do to stop your name calling or putting words in my mouth. FYI, racist whackjobs exist, whether you want to admit it or not.

            Okee Dokee.
            Indeed.

            (You do know Jimmy Carter has recently made similar points? Guess he's a racist whackjob too. The world will be full of us soon. :rolleyes: )
            You said it, not me.

            All the best,
            Michael
            Signature

            "Ich bin en fuego!"
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1021863].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Phnx
              Been a busy boy haven't you. (sorry to the others at the way it's gone, I'll try and ease out)


              999999% WOW! That's a lot! Yes, I'm an avid reader and get my information from many different sources. But, I also consider the validitiy of the source, and what their potential bias is. Again, no surprise that you are resorting to PERSONAL attacks through your implications. However, you are mostly correct about how we form our opinions. The only element you left out is that they are also formed by our first hand experiences. But, yes, basically everything we come in contact with shades our opinios, no argument there.
              Ah, you attack first directly, and I respond it's by "implication".

              >>See my post above. Just wanted point out that your attacks against me are now contradicting themselves. First you say I change my mind too much, then you say I don't change it all. But there you go again, implying my brain isn't worth anything. Do yourself a favor, look up the term ad hominem and see why it doesn't work. (Maybe that's true in BOTH our cases). <<

              Dude, you are freaking me out. Disagreeing with you ain't "attacking" you. You do change your mind, but it's usually because you've jumped in without reading the OP first.

              >>Would YOU change your mind about Israel if new evidence came to light? Evidence that contradicts everythng you now believe - could you change your mind? Yes, that's hypothetical, but could you do it?<<

              If you actually read any of my posts instead of jumping to conclusions you would know that until about 2 years ago I was one of Israels biggest cheerleaders. It took a long time for me to believe the accumulating evidence and even now it's painful understanding the enormity of the lie. That what I believed was so, was not.

              Whenever I make these antiracist posts re Zionists and Israel, I make it quite clear of my previous position (and Gaza has made many former friends abandon them - some things cannot be justified). It is one of the most sensitive topics out there, especially in the USA because of who is involved.

              >>I never said I was the only ethical marketer, but you sure found an odd tangent for your argument. <<

              Well this was because you were implying you alone knew the truth - without any evidence to the contrary. Smacked of a big ego. The tagline could be seen in the same manner. An 'An' might have been better.

              >>No, it was mainly pointed at a specific remark in regards to Jews and how "they" should remove their heads from their backsides. That's all.<<

              I addressed that in a post to Tim. Yes, it was harsh, but not antisemite. A careful reading of my posts will show that. This is a dangerous thing for them, because we all know real antisemites are just itching for an excuse to justify violence. They need to wake up to what is being done in their name, for safety's sake. Many are, but not nearly enough yet, which is why it was so important a national Jewish group got involved (Canadians are really at the forefront)

              'K I'm done.
              Signature
              In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

              Easy Weight Loss
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1022184].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Killer Joe
    Originally Posted by livewellfinancial View Post

    I hate crime so much..
    Quit crapping on this thread. There's enough horse manure in this thread already to fill a stable (no offense to any of the real posters ).

    I know we all hang around here to see your sig file, but give it a break. Three times is three times too many.



    And now back to our regularly scheduled program...

    KJ
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1020492].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
    you've been waiting all night for michael to wake up and post a reply havent you.

    and went through a LOT of coffee it seems
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1021749].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Phnx
    Darling, I'm on the other side of the pond and it's late afternoon for me. I take a break in between work and Vinnies workshop, so I might as well respond while my browser windows are open.
    Signature
    In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

    Easy Weight Loss
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1021792].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
    Originally Posted by Phnx View Post

    You have no point Michael. Not one intelligent rebuttal - I can prove my points, you resort to shrieking antisemite like an unthinkling drone.
    You say you can prove your points, which implies that you have not yet done so. If that was the case you would say, "I have proven my points".

    I've watched you in numerous threads jump in with halfassed opinions only to be forced to slink back later and apologise when it's become clear you misunderstood the OP or didn't read it properly in the first place. It's quite amusing watching you keep switching sides. As is the number of times you resort to namecalling and insults and then when you get called on it you blame others for calling you names when they never have.
    First of all, opinions are all the same - only opinions. You can say mine are half-a$$ed, that's your opinion. I don't "slink back". Let me ask you this: Wouldn't it be foolish to NOT change my mind once my understanding has changed? It's called being open-minded, you should try it some time. It's a great way to learn from others and increase general knowledge. It sur beats being a demagogue. In other words, it's not about being on a side, it's about allowing oneself to look at things objectively. Being stubborn in light of new evidence is idiotic, in my opnion. Please point out other examples where I called other names or insulted them in OTHER threads. Seriously, I would like to know so I can see if your charge is accurate.

    But then in your little 99.999999999% world you are the only "ethical marketer" in existence, which is what the 'The' implies. I wonder if you realise how insulting that is to other genuine marketers. A 'An' may have been more humble.
    I used the figure of 99.999999999% on purpose, as it goes to the billionths place. The point I was making there was that even billions of people thought sometihng I disagreed with, it wouldn't make me agree. That's being an independent thinker. It was made in reference to your point about half the world's trade unions. So what if 4, 5 or 6 billion people support it - it doesn't mean that I have to, or even that they are right. Sorry if my tagline insults you. I do my best to be etihcal, and I don't know of anybody else who uses that tagline. It took me a while to come up with it, but I'm not trying to imply that I'm the ONLY person on the planet who's ethical. But, there you go again with the vehement personal attacks. Hey, anything to avoid the real issue, right? I agree that "an" would display more humility. Perhaps I could leave the article off completely and just use "Ethical Marketer".

    Whatever, regardless of people like you decent people have had enough of State sanctioned "hate crimes" propped up by Colonial interests and religious delusions, and it will be stopped. International Law applies to everyone equally. It doesn't matter who you are, if you behave like a monster you will be accountable. No exceptions.
    So the implication here is that I am an indecent person? There you go again. Apparently international law does not apply to everyone equally, and I assume you are not so naive as to think anything different. In theory, it SHOULD apply equally, but anyone can see it doesn't. Unfortunately, not all monsters are held accountable.

    Fortunately there are many Americans who don't think like you, but they are gonna have an uphill battle piercing the conditioned responses in minds like yours; they seem to be rife in the US
    Conditioned response? LOL. Why can't you accept the fact that critics of BDS just may have thought things through. Your tactic of saying "only unthinking people disagree" is a common one. It basically says anyone who disagrees is stupid. Sorry, but that's not the case. However, people who use that tactic ARE victims of not thinking for themselves, and THEY are the ones who act like "unthinkling drones".

    (Tim, now do you understand why people shouldn't be afraid of namecalling? If everyone shutup when some ignoramous threw out a conditioned response, nothing would ever change. That was my original point on a thread far far away. )
    And, there you go again. Now I'm an ignoramus? Funny. For the proofreaders out there...kind of ironic, isn't it?

    All the best,
    Michael
    Signature

    "Ich bin en fuego!"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1021801].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Phnx
      Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

      You say you can prove your points, which implies that you have not yet done so. If that was the case you would say, "I have proven my points".
      :rolleyes: I backed up my opinions with credible sources. I was very careful to leave links from Jewish sources just to head off kneejerk reactions from people like you.

      >>Wouldn't it be foolish to NOT change my mind once my understanding has changed? It's called being open-minded, you should try it some time. It's a great way to learn from others and increase general knowledge. <<

      Well bingo! But you appear not to have changed your mind about anything.

      So what was your opinion before, and in the light of the current information - especially from Jewish sources - what is it NOW? The BDS call has been around since 2005 though, and yes I find it inconceivable that anyone can be accepting of apartheid and disagree with the only means left to end it. I'm funny like that.

      >>Please point out other examples where I called other names or insulted them in OTHER threads. Seriously, I would like to know so I can see if your charge is accurate. <<

      Micheal you do it in nearly every thread when you disagree with something. Any of the 'conspiracy' ideas you immediately throw slurs around. When anyone gets testy with you, then you play the injured victim, but you are always the first to throw slurs. Most of those threads have gone now, but I'll make a note to let you know next time you do it.

      >>It was made in reference to your point about half the world's trade unions. So what if 4, 5 or 6 billion people support it - it doesn't mean that I have to, or even that they are right. <<

      That was a manner of speaking. Would it have been better if I said a quarter, or a third? As the numbers are ramping up soon it will be all of the worlds Trade Unions. Labour movements tend to offer solidarity with each other, and as it was the Palestinian labour movements and academics who first made the call in 2005, they will heed it. Don't you remember South Africa? Any Trade Union that didn't is likely to be thrown out of the movement. Unions don't go for that ya know.

      As for being right, I will again link you to Ronnie Krasils address: here He was the only Jewish member of South Africas last Government and knows what he is talking about.

      If you don't think he is right then you've got to ask yourself why you are justifying that. The World can't. Do you disagree with the BDS movement because you have some other idea to make them stop? Let's hear it. Didn't work for SA though, and Israel has currently ignored all international condemnation, UN Resolutions etc, and it's now culminated in Gaza. Or do you disagree with BDS because you agree with Palestinian Apartheid? Did you also support South African Apartheid?

      >>Sorry if my tagline insults you. I do my best to be etihcal, and I don't know of anybody else who uses that tagline. It took me a while to come up with it, but I'm not trying to imply that I'm the ONLY person on the planet who's ethical. But, there you go again with the vehement personal attacks. <<

      You consider that a vehement personal attack?? I was merely pointing out the obvious - your tag implies you think you are the only marketer who is ethical. Hardly an attack, vehement or otherwise.

      >>Hey, anything to avoid the real issue, right? I agree that "an" would display more humility. Perhaps I could leave the article off completely and just use "Ethical Marketer".<<

      How on earth you can say I've avoided the issue when I've supplied necessary links to show why I and others have changed our position. Nowhere have you given your opinion, backed up or otherwise. You have not responded to any points beyond "I don't agree".

      >>Apparently international law does not apply to everyone equally, and I assume you are not so naive as to think anything different. In theory, it SHOULD apply equally, but anyone can see it doesn't. Unfortunately, not all monsters are held accountable. <<

      Oh well, we won't bother trying to make them accountable then. Let them just get worse and worse and do what they want. Apparently they can even kidnap your citizens - a former Congresswoman at that - and nothing can be done? A foreign power kidnaps your citizens in international water and you won't raise a peep of protest? Same applies with National Hate Laws. Why bother enforcing them? With that attitude South Africa would still be a racist hellhole and Nelson Mandela still in prison. Actually he'd probably be dead but you get my drift.

      >>Conditioned response? LOL. Why can't you accept the fact that critics of BDS just may have thought things through. <<

      Could have fooled me. You never gave any critique, you merely screeched that I was a racist whackjob and to take it elsewhere. Hey the thread was about hate crimes, and I was under the delusion some of you might give a shit.

      Conditioned response is the kneejerk unthinking response screeching "racist" or "antisemite". Not one indication of where, nor any rebuttal of the points, just the slur. Same thing occurs to those who fight illegal immigration, where it is implied the mere airing of the subject is driven by inherent racism. That is a often a conditioned response, or more disturbingly a means to shut you up.

      >>And, there you go again. Now I'm an ignoramus? Funny. For the proofreaders out there...kind of ironic, isn't it? <<

      Well now you mention it, you've brought nothing to the table expect dragged it into ad hominems, so I don't think I'm going out on a limb saying you probably are ignorant of the subject.

      I'm English and we use superflous 'u's which I sometimes omit for American readers. So I put one back where it doesn't belong. Very lame.
      Signature
      In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

      Easy Weight Loss
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1022094].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
    I'm English and we use superflous 'u's which I sometimes omit for American readers. So I put one back where it doesn't belong. Very lame.
    Actually it was a superflous 'o'.

    See, that's a perfect example of how I'm going to "slink back" and change my mind based on new evidence.

    And, I have no problem apologizing in this case. No problem at all.

    I didn't know that about proper English. I knew about the 'u' in colour and and honor, but was not aware of adding an 'o' to some words ending in 'us'.

    I love words, and enjoy learning about them.

    On this side of the pond, a word ending in '-ous' usually signifies the adjectivorial form. I simply didn't know about english English using '-us' to siginify the adjectivorial form.

    Thank you for bringing it to my intention. I apologize for pointing out what I thought was a mistake. I was the one who got it wrong on that one. For THAT I can accept the label of ignoramous.

    All the best,
    Michael
    Signature

    "Ich bin en fuego!"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1022148].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Phnx
      Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

      Actually it was a superflous 'o'.
      LOL you're right. I'm tired and cranky and avoiding work.

      Stop being nice, it makes me feel bad for being snippy.
      Signature
      In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

      Easy Weight Loss
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1022212].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
        Originally Posted by Phnx View Post

        LOL you're right. I'm tired and cranky and avoiding work.

        Stop being nice, it makes me feel bad for being snippy.
        LOL.

        I'm telling you, I'm actually a really nice guy. Really.

        No need to worry about being snippy, I was too.

        We may not agree on the issue, but that's okay. You'll notice I'm not backing down or waffling or whatever you want to call it. However, I'm trying to be more civil in my tone.

        I still think the OT brings out some of the worst in people, and that's something I never like to see. Life is too short for me to act like a _____ (feel free to fill in the blank with the word of your choice).



        All the best,
        Michael
        Signature

        "Ich bin en fuego!"
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1022254].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
    Hi Phx,

    Again, you make a good point. I was lumping "attacks" and "disagreement" together. They are not the same thing.

    I did see you say two different things. First you say I change my mind too much, then you say I don't change it all. Just confused me is all.

    Another thing, plese do point out any future posts you come across where I resort to name calling. Believe it or not, it's really not my style.

    It's reassuring to know that you have changed your thinking on the issue over the years. Of course the possibility exists it could swing the other way at some point. I'm not saying it should, just saying that I believe it's possible.

    There are many things I have changed my mind on as well, and not because my brain operates in a vacuum.

    The tagline is just a tagline. It really isn't meant to imply I'm the only one that's ethical. More like I'm the only one with that tagline. Sorry it got you so riled up and that I was giving everyone else a bad name because of it.

    However, after giving it some thought...I will keep it as is, but with the potential of dropping the 'The' at some point if it makes sense to do so.

    I don't see how I was implying I was the only one who knew the truth. I think you were reading way too much into my comments. Another note, I've never been accused of having a small ego.

    All the best,
    Michael
    Signature

    "Ich bin en fuego!"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1022233].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Phnx
      Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post


      I did see you say two different things. First you say I change my mind too much, then you say I don't change it all. Just confused me is all.
      Yeah, I suppose this is the problem with electronic communication. The first, I meant when you seem to have rushed impulsively into a thread and then when others have disagreed you say something like "you make a good point" and perhaps you go and reread the OP (I'm guessing obviously) as you then seem to become more in line with the others. You do admit when you are wrong, but I see it often as you having to do that because of the initial impulsiveness which caused you to misread the initial premise. If that makes sense.

      Another thing, plese do point out any future posts you come across where I resort to name calling. Believe it or not, it's really not my style.
      Okay.

      It's reassuring to know that you have changed your thinking on the issue over the years. Of course the possibility exists it could swing the other way at some point. I'm not saying it should, just saying that I believe it's possible.
      I've changed it on virtually everything Michael, and my "belief systems" are now on shifting sand. It's not a position I enjoy as I no longer have the certainty of youth. I once believed in man-made global warming, overcarrying and the need for depopulation (that was a tough one to give up), that the West were the "White Hats" etc. Israel was really hard to let go of, the "ideal" had been with me since my teens - wanted to live on a kibbutz at one point. Even today I feel slightly uncomfortable when I post about it, which I know is down to conditioning re "antisemistism". Which is why I tried to make the point in another thread that nobody should be excused from crime and must be held to the same standard. Obviously I didn't do it well enough because only a few seemed to get it.

      I wish with all my heart it was "white guys" doing it because we are all conditioned with the "colonial guilt" and in the case of South Africa it was easy. White guys doing a very bad thing to black guys. Few disputed the neccessity of action. With this 'group' it is far far harder, and you start from a defensive position of having to show you aren't antisemite. I shamelessly hide being Jewish skirts and breathe a deep sigh of relief when I can quote such people.

      The really sad thing is I realised the other day just how race hate is fermented against different groups in order to suit certain Colonial interests. It was that best seller in Israel (been at the top for 19 weeks and just been translated into English. I must get it when it's published over here) Just a small paragraph relating to the 19th century and for me, it was the missing piece of a puzzle. I knew about the Khazars thanks to Arthur Koestler, (himself Khazarian Jew), but I had no idea what they'd done with the Diaspora and it was a little lightbulb going off.

      There is a fabulous marketing lesson in all this, not to mention the most marvellous demonstration of how our world is 'shaped' for us. Unfortunately I can't go there as it's too 'sensitive', which sucks.

      From the point of 'national' type "hate laws" I would lean to the side that we already have laws which cover it. Killing and injury is wrong, period. The 'why' shouldn't give a harsher sentence if it's say 10 years for murder. 12 years if you kill a gay? 13 for a black man...where does it end? As Kurt said you are then looking at judging thought and it's a very dangerous slope. It's divisive and is often misused. I'm pretty certain that it would be used against those who have legitimate grievances against Mexican illegals. They do that over here when people complain. As I said before, they are already using the "hate crime" cover to try and stop the BDS against Israel.

      The tagline is just a tagline. It really isn't meant to imply I'm the only one that's ethical. More like I'm the only one with that tagline. Sorry it got you so riled up and that I was giving everyone else a bad name because of it.
      I know. I was just being snotty.

      I don't see how I was implying I was the only one who knew the truth. I think you were reading way too much into my comments. Another note, I've never been accused of having a small ego.
      It was merely because you offered no evidence, or even said why you disagreed. That made it appear you didn't need to because you already knew. Obviously how I perceived your comment and how you intended were two different things.

      Nothing wrong with a big ego.
      Signature
      In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

      Easy Weight Loss
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1022530].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Oh come on you two, get a room!
    I think I liked it better when you were at each others throat.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1022556].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
    seriously. im getting that weird itchy feeling like when a really old woman winks, wiggles her tongue and shows you how fast she can get her dentures out.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1022574].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Phnx
    *roars with laughter*

    You two are so mean.

    LOL Motley, that was gross.
    Signature
    In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

    Easy Weight Loss
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1022660].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
    No worries...we're still disagreeing, just in a way that drives you all (more) nuts!



    ~Michael
    Signature

    "Ich bin en fuego!"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1022735].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author John Willer
    I'm pretty sure some comedian took up this topic.

    Think it was Carlos Mencia

    If you kill someone wasn't it because of hate?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1025485].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Trader54
      Originally Posted by John Willer View Post


      If you kill someone wasn't it because of hate?
      That makes it to simple.

      Then what could the liberals rally around?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1025544].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Not necessarily. There's many other reasons.
      Originally Posted by John Willer View Post

      If you kill someone wasn't it because of hate?
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1025744].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Not necessarily. There's many other reasons.
        Name 5, and I betcha hate is still at the root of all of them.
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1026341].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Pleasure, greed, self defense, fighting for your country, gang related. I don't think any of these have hate as the root.

          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          Name 5, and I betcha hate is still at the root of all of them.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1026426].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            Pleasure, greed, self defense, fighting for your country, gang related. I don't think any of these have hate as the root.
            I'll give you pleasure.
            Greed, you hate the person who has what you want.
            Self defense, you hate the person who is trying to harm or kill you or you hate what they are doing to you, if you didn't it would be called sado-masochism.
            Fighting for your country, we'll throw that one out as it has no relationship to what this thread is about.
            Gang related, if you don't think hate is involved then you have never been in a real gang. The club I used to be in almost 40 years ago was in a shoot on sight war with 2 rival clubs. It wasn't because we liked them.
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1026482].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              People can kill for greed without even knowing anything about the person they kill. Example: robbing a bank and shooting someone who gets in the way. Do they hate them?

              I don't see how self defense has hate involved. It could, but mostly you are just trying to keep the person who is attacking you from harming you.

              I've never been in a gang, but have seen gang members talk about killing someone just to show they are tough, to prove themselves or to even move up in the gang ranks. The gang wars involve hate.

              Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

              I'll give you pleasure.
              Greed, you hate the person who has what you want.
              Self defense, you hate the person who is trying to harm or kill you or you hate what they are doing to you, if you didn't it would be called sado-masochism.
              Fighting for your country, we'll throw that one out as it has no relationship to what this thread is about.
              Gang related, if you don't think hate is involved then you have never been in a real gang. The club I used to be in almost 40 years ago was in a shoot on sight war with 2 rival clubs. It wasn't because we liked them.
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1026533].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                People can kill for greed without even knowing anything about the person they kill. Example: robbing a bank and shooting someone who gets in the way. Do they hate them?

                I don't see how self defense has hate involved. It could, but mostly you are just trying to keep the person who is attacking you from harming you.

                I've never been in a gang, but have seen gang members talk about killing someone just to show they are tough, to prove themselves or to even move up in the gang ranks. The gang wars involve hate.
                I will say that self defense would be more out of fear then hate, after I re-thought that one.
                I've never been in a gang, but have seen gang members talk about killing someone just to show they are tough, to prove themselves or to even move up in the gang ranks.
                Right and the person they are talking about killing isn't someone they like.
                If it's a random killing it shows the gang member to be cold, as in deranged
                If it's not random it's against a rival who they hate.
                Tim the point is if you kill someone and you aren't simply deranged then you have to hate or be in extreme fear for your life for at least the moment you commit the murder. It's about the only way you can justify to yourself why you did it.
                I added extreme fear for your life because that's the only other reason I can think of to kill, if you are half way sane to begin with.
                Signature

                Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                Getting old ain't for sissy's
                As you are I was, as I am you will be
                You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1026577].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kurt
              Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

              I'll give you pleasure.
              Greed, you hate the person who has what you want.
              Self defense, you hate the person who is trying to harm or kill you or you hate what they are doing to you, if you didn't it would be called sado-masochism.
              Fighting for your country, we'll throw that one out as it has no relationship to what this thread is about.
              Gang related, if you don't think hate is involved then you have never been in a real gang. The club I used to be in almost 40 years ago was in a shoot on sight war with 2 rival clubs. It wasn't because we liked them.
              Mercy - Love , such as Dr Kevorkian or a spouse ending someone's life to end their suffering. This would be the opposite of hating someone.

              Serial Killers - Many of them actually admire their victims. Others have no emotions at all.

              Gang related - Could be an initiation, where a person has to kill someone at random to be promoted or admitted. And there are other random killings.

              Mental Illness - Didn't know what they were doing or were delusional.

              Drugs/alcohol - Didn't know what they were doing/regret their mistake. Vehicular homicide is just one example.

              Bad Temper/rage - What is it, 50% of all murders are done by someone the person knows?

              Accidental

              By the way, Carlos Mencia was just making a joke.
              Signature
              Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
              Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1026611].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                Mercy - Love , such as Dr Kevorkian or a spouse ending someone's life to end their suffering. This would be the opposite of hating someone.
                When my wife was dieing from cancer I wanted to end her suffering because I loved her. But I sure did hate the disease she had that made me feel like that.

                Serial Killers - Many of them actually admire their victims. Others have no emotions at all.Which would place them in the deranged category, unless you think serial killing is normal behavior.

                Gang related - Could be an initiation, where a person has to kill someone at random to be promoted or admitted. And there are other random killings.
                Which you would either have to be deranged to do or for the moment before you commit the murder you have to pull up either hate or fear to get the job done.
                Mental Illness - Didn't know what they were doing or were delusional.
                Deranged
                Drugs/alcohol - Didn't know what they were doing/regret their mistake. Vehicular homicide is just one example.
                Derangement caused by the drugs or alcohol
                Bad Temper/rage - What is it, 50% of all murders are done by someone the person knows?
                Hate, or do the think the person in the rage is having happy thoughts about the person they are about to kill.
                Accidental
                Accidental isn't a reason to kill someone, it's an accident.
                By the way, Carlos Mencia was just making a joke.
                Kurt, Carlos is a comedian, making jokes is what he does.
                I did just think of a type of killing that wouldn't have hate or fear at it's roots.
                An assassin kills for money, no hate or fear involved.
                Signature

                Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                Getting old ain't for sissy's
                As you are I was, as I am you will be
                You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1026647].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                  Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                  Kurt, Carlos is a comedian, making jokes is what he does.
                  Exactly my point. However, you used it to make another point and is the basis for your challenge.

                  I would never kill any loved one because I hated a disease, only becuase I loved them enough to pay the consequences to put them out of their misery.

                  Following this logic, you should be kllling everyone that has terminal cancer, since it is your claimed motivation for killing. Do you have thoughts of killing every terminal cancer patient? Yes or no?


                  Here's your challenge to Tim:
                  Name 5, and I betcha hate is still at the root of all of them.
                  And for "normal behavior", I don't see where that fits in to your challenge. Not to mention, most people don't consider any killing of other people as "normal".

                  By using the word "derangement" over and over, you actually proved my points, as it isn't hate, which is your claim.

                  I win.


                  Mercy - Love , such as Dr Kevorkian or a spouse ending someone's life to end their suffering. This would be the opposite of hating someone.
                  When my wife was dieing from cancer I wanted to end her suffering because I loved her. But I sure did hate the disease she had that made me feel like that.

                  Serial Killers - Many of them actually admire their victims. Others have no emotions at all.Which would place them in the deranged category, unless you think serial killing is normal behavior.

                  Gang related - Could be an initiation, where a person has to kill someone at random to be promoted or admitted. And there are other random killings.
                  Which you would either have to be deranged to do or for the moment before you commit the murder you have to pull up either hate or fear to get the job done.
                  Mental Illness - Didn't know what they were doing or were delusional.
                  Deranged
                  Drugs/alcohol - Didn't know what they were doing/regret their mistake. Vehicular homicide is just one example.
                  Derangement caused by the drugs or alcohol
                  Bad Temper/rage - What is it, 50% of all murders are done by someone the person knows?
                  Hate, or do the think the person in the rage is having happy thoughts about the person they are about to kill.
                  Accidental
                  Accidental isn't a reason to kill someone, it's an accident.
                  By the way, Carlos Mencia was just making a joke.
                  Signature
                  Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                  Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1026724].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                    Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                    Exactly my point. However, you used it to make another point and is the basis for your challenge.

                    I would never kill any loved one because I hated a disease, only becuase I loved them enough to pay the consequences to put them out of their misery.

                    Following this logic, you should be kllling everyone that has terminal cancer, since it is your claimed motivation for killing. Do you have thoughts of killing every terminal cancer patient? Yes or no?


                    Here's your challenge to Tim:


                    And for "normal behavior", I don't see where that fits in to your challenge. Not to mention, most people don't consider any killing of other people as "normal".

                    By using the word "derangement" over and over, you actually proved my points, as it isn't hate, which is your claim.

                    I win.


                    Mercy - Love , such as Dr Kevorkian or a spouse ending someone's life to end their suffering. This would be the opposite of hating someone.
                    When my wife was dieing from cancer I wanted to end her suffering because I loved her. But I sure did hate the disease she had that made me feel like that.

                    Serial Killers - Many of them actually admire their victims. Others have no emotions at all.Which would place them in the deranged category, unless you think serial killing is normal behavior.

                    Gang related - Could be an initiation, where a person has to kill someone at random to be promoted or admitted. And there are other random killings.
                    Which you would either have to be deranged to do or for the moment before you commit the murder you have to pull up either hate or fear to get the job done.
                    Mental Illness - Didn't know what they were doing or were delusional.
                    Deranged
                    Drugs/alcohol - Didn't know what they were doing/regret their mistake. Vehicular homicide is just one example.
                    Derangement caused by the drugs or alcohol
                    Bad Temper/rage - What is it, 50% of all murders are done by someone the person knows?
                    Hate, or do the think the person in the rage is having happy thoughts about the person they are about to kill.
                    Accidental
                    Accidental isn't a reason to kill someone, it's an accident.
                    By the way, Carlos Mencia was just making a joke.
                    Kurt I think you missed my point.
                    I'll admit I have changed it a little, but the point was hate is the root of killing.
                    Now I since did change it to include fear and felt that it was about normal people.
                    The reason I used deranged a lot is because if you can kill without fear or hate as the reason and just kill because you want to, you're not normal you're deranged.

                    You really didn't understand what I said about my last wife and cancer.
                    Have you ever seen anyone in a drug induced coma?
                    It's not a pretty sight.
                    It's really not a pretty sight when it is the person you love and have been witnessing it for over a month.
                    Even just thinking about ending the life of the person you love is a hard thing to do even when you know they are suffering and will never open their eyes again. All you are doing at that time is waiting for them to die.
                    If you don't think you would hate the disease that has put you and your loved one in that place, you're a cold mofo.
                    Do I want to kill everyone with cancer? Not even close.
                    Do I want to see cancer killed in my life time? Oh hell ya I do.

                    As far as you winning, well if that's what it takes to make your day, ok you won.
                    Signature

                    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                    Getting old ain't for sissy's
                    As you are I was, as I am you will be
                    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1026781].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
    can
    you two
    get
    a room
    already?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1025487].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Tim scores on that one Thom!
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1026441].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dorim
    We have hate crime laws for the same reason we have the "fighting words doctrine."
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1036568].message }}

Trending Topics