Hate crimes draw attention of authorities
Aviator
Bill when they read this, and the usual "emotionalism" blurb
Hate crimes draw attention of authorities
By Deborah Sullivan, Daily News
A new LAPD policy targets hate crimes by increasing accountability and
joining with community groups to prevent prejudice from erupting into crime.
"It makes supervisors responsible for follow-up; it centralizes the
reporting within the LAPD," said Detective Tom King, Supervisor of the
Criminal Conspiracy Section. "It also formally encourages the divisions to
work very closely with local community groups."
The policy, which took effect this month, is the result of collaboration
between police and a task force of community groups, the city attorney,
district attorney and U.S. attorney.
"The emphasis was really that LAPD doesn't work in a vacuum," said Tamar
Galatzan, an attorney for the Anti-Defamation League who served on the task
force.
"They realized that the only way to successfully fight hate crime was to
work closely with community groups for prevention, and to work with other
law enforcement -- FBI, ATF -- to keep everyone in the loop to make sure
that if there's a prosecution, it's the strongest one possible."
Hate crimes target victims because of their actual or perceived race,
nationality, religion, gender, disability or sexual orientation.
The number of hate crimes citywide rose from 438 in 1994 to a peak of 571 in
1996, police statistics report. The number is projected to reach 516 this
year.
While the majority of victims are targeted because of their race, those
crimes have tapered off slightly, but hate crimes based on religion or
sexual orientation are on the rise.
Efforts to combat hate crimes have been complicated by a confusing array of
rules, scattered in numerous documents -- including a manual for a police
office that no longer exists -- King said.
The new policy defines responsibility at each level of command and sets time
lines for rapid action.
Under the new policy, an officer responding to a hate offense notifies both
the watch commander, who orders an immediate investigation, and the
detective headquarters, which reports the incident to the chief.
In addition, the detective captain in each area must assign one detective to
coordinate all hate crime investigations and compile a monthly summary of
hate offenses.
The monthly reports should improve the hate crimes record-keeping system,
which showed a clerical error rate of 50 percent and required elaborate
cross-checking to ensure accuracy, King said.
To ensure the success of the new measures, the department is introducing
intensive training sessions on handling hate crimes.
The policy also defines a category of "hate incidents" -- noncriminal acts
motivated by hate or prejudice against a certain group of people. This
includes epithets, distribution of hate literature or posting of hate
material, even on one's own property.
While this requires police to track noncriminal activity, the department
said the practice is legal and provides hints to future criminal acts.
UCLA constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh agreed.
"It makes perfect sense for the police to follow up on what someone is
saying legally and see if he acts on it illegally," Volokh said. "But as a
matter of prudence and public control over the police, it might make sense
for people to monitor what the police are doing with this."
King said that by reporting noncriminal hate incidents, police can alert
community groups when tensions rise and help devise ways to diffuse them.
"What's good about the policy is that it calls for accountability and
responsibility within the LAPD at a very high level," said Carla Arranaga,
the deputy district attorney in charge of hate crimes suppression. "And it
calls for developing a response to hate crimes that goes a long way beyond
prosecution, and goes a long way toward hate crime prevention."
Copyright © 1998 Daily News Los Angeles
Greg Taylor
>And Avi sees nothing wrong with the police keeping
>track of non-crime related thoughts/speech. Even
>when constrained to ones own property.
Sounds about as bad as taking down the license plate number of someone
who seems to be casing a bank (not a crime).
When certain behavior tends to result in crime. Why shouldn't it be
monitored?
----------------------
Greg Taylor
http://members.tripod.com/nomorehate/welcome-f.htm
Miguel O'Pastel
the Feds are not monitoring your movement, you don't have one.
M
Greg Taylor wrote in message +ADw-7iiflu+ACQ-mn7+ACQ-1+AEA-bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net+AD4-...
+AHw-Bill wrote ...
+AHw-
+AHwAPg-And Avi sees nothing wrong with the police keeping
+AHwAPg-track of non-crime related thoughts/speech. Even
+AHwAPg-when constrained to ones own property.
+AHw-
+AHw-Sounds about as bad as taking down the license plate number of someone
+AHw-who seems to be casing a bank (not a crime).
+AHw-
+AHw-When certain behavior tends to result in crime. Why shouldn't it be
+AHw-monitored?
+AHw-----------------------
+AHw-Greg Taylor
+AHw-http://members.tripod.com/nomorehate/welcome-f.htm
+AHw-
+AHw-
Jafo
>Bill wrote ...
>>And Avi sees nothing wrong with the police keeping
>>track of non-crime related thoughts/speech. Even
>>when constrained to ones own property.
>Sounds about as bad as taking down the license plate number of someone
>who seems to be casing a bank (not a crime).
>
>When certain behavior tends to result in crime. Why shouldn't it be
>monitored?
Hmmm. I see your point. Maybe we should establish some, er,
"re-education facilities" to, ahh, show these poor unfortunates the
error of their ways and indoctri-, that is, lead them along the proper
path.
--
~ Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo/
The Pervert
> The policy also defines a category of "hate incidents" -- noncriminal acts
> motivated by hate or prejudice against a certain group of people. This
> includes epithets, distribution of hate literature or posting of hate
> material, even on one's own property.
> While this requires police to track noncriminal activity, the department
> said the practice is legal and provides hints to future criminal acts.
So Miguel's repeated non-criminal prejudice toward anglos, white people
in general, or anybody who dares earn a measure of success would be
considered a "hate incident" that should be tracked? Surely his
epithets are motivated by a demonstrated prejudice and hate. Should his
advocating criminal activity (stealing SUV's belonging to white people)
be monitored and reported, said advocay hinting at future criminal acts?
But nobody in their right mind really listens to Miguel (except to throw
his racism back at him), so a more relevant question might be about the
prejudicial statements made by non-white so-called civil rights
"leaders." I refer specifically to people such as Danny Bakewell,
Councilperson Rita and Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Earl Ofari
Hutchinson, Chip Murray and Leo Turrell who join the likes of the usual
skinheads and white racists like ipm, Crusader, David Duke et al.
And let us not forget Councilperson Mike Hernandez who likes to foment
ethnic unrest in the hispanic community... when he's not doing cocaine.
Oh, I'm sorry. He's all clean and sober now. I forgot. And anybody
who knows anything about dopers knows how easy it is to kick drug use,
especially in just a few week and on the first try.
> "It makes perfect sense for the police to follow up on what someone is
> saying legally and see if he acts on it illegally," Volokh said. "But as a
> matter of prudence and public control over the police, it might make sense
> for people to monitor what the police are doing with this."
> King said that by reporting noncriminal hate incidents, police can alert
> community groups when tensions rise and help devise ways to diffuse them.
One wonders how tensions are to be diffused when it is in the
self-interest of the leaders of the hate incidents and tensions to
perpetuate them to a willing constituency.
Aviator
Jafo <jafo@_cheetah.net> wrote in message
news:3764d9c5...@news1.cheetah.net...
Why?? They are free to say and think what they like. If a dope dealer yells
"I sell drugs!!", would it not be the responsibility of law enforcement to
monitor him for criminal activity?? I also never heard you complain about
authorities monitoring licence plates at the border
Maybe you're opposed to crime prevention as well
Aviator
The Pervert <perv...@spambad.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:374D25...@spambad.yahoo.com...
> Aviator wrote:
>
> > The policy also defines a category of "hate incidents" -- noncriminal
acts
> > motivated by hate or prejudice against a certain group of people. This
> > includes epithets, distribution of hate literature or posting of hate
> > material, even on one's own property.
>
> > While this requires police to track noncriminal activity, the department
> > said the practice is legal and provides hints to future criminal acts.
>
> So Miguel's repeated non-criminal prejudice toward anglos, white people
> in general, or anybody who dares earn a measure of success would be
> considered a "hate incident" that should be tracked? Surely his
> epithets are motivated by a demonstrated prejudice and hate. Should his
> advocating criminal activity (stealing SUV's belonging to white people)
> be monitored and reported, said advocay hinting at future criminal acts?
The border patrol monitors licence plates at the border. Police monitor
known criminals who have done their time. they also monitor "suspects",
often innocent people. So whats the big deal??
>
> But nobody in their right mind really listens to Miguel (except to throw
> his racism back at him), so a more relevant question might be about the
> prejudicial statements made by non-white so-called civil rights
> "leaders." I refer specifically to people such as Danny Bakewell,
> Councilperson Rita and Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Earl Ofari
> Hutchinson, Chip Murray and Leo Turrell who join the likes of the usual
> skinheads and white racists like ipm, Crusader, David Duke et al.
Racism from any quarter is unacceptable
>
> And let us not forget Councilperson Mike Hernandez who likes to foment
> ethnic unrest in the hispanic community... when he's not doing cocaine.
> Oh, I'm sorry. He's all clean and sober now. I forgot. And anybody
> who knows anything about dopers knows how easy it is to kick drug use,
> especially in just a few week and on the first try.
>
> > "It makes perfect sense for the police to follow up on what someone is
> > saying legally and see if he acts on it illegally," Volokh said. "But as
a
> > matter of prudence and public control over the police, it might make
sense
> > for people to monitor what the police are doing with this."
>
> > King said that by reporting noncriminal hate incidents, police can alert
> > community groups when tensions rise and help devise ways to diffuse
them.
>
> One wonders how tensions are to be diffused when it is in the
> self-interest of the leaders of the hate incidents and tensions to
> perpetuate them to a willing constituency.
Then they should just wait for the riots, right??
Jafo
>They sure monitored the civil rights movement. It is to be expected.
>If the Feds are not monitoring your movement, you don't have one.
So, do you think that we should have live video cameras in our homes,
a la "1984"? That would seem to be in keeping with your concept of
government, wouldn't it?
Jafo
>Aviator wrote:
>> The policy also defines a category of "hate incidents" -- noncriminal acts
>> motivated by hate or prejudice against a certain group of people. This
>> includes epithets, distribution of hate literature or posting of hate
>> material, even on one's own property.
>
>> While this requires police to track noncriminal activity, the department
>> said the practice is legal and provides hints to future criminal acts.
>So Miguel's repeated non-criminal prejudice toward anglos, white people
>in general, or anybody who dares earn a measure of success would be
>considered a "hate incident" that should be tracked? Surely his
>epithets are motivated by a demonstrated prejudice and hate. Should his
>advocating criminal activity (stealing SUV's belonging to white people)
>be monitored and reported, said advocay hinting at future criminal acts?
If logic were his guide, Avi would have no choice but to agree, as
he's the one who has frequently accused Des of stealing car parts.
Miguel, it seems, would prefer to eschew such pettiness in favor of
taking the whole damned car. :)
<snipped>
>One wonders how tensions are to be diffused when it is in the
>self-interest of the leaders of the hate incidents and tensions to
>perpetuate them to a willing constituency.
Diffusing them is not in the best interest of the leaders of the
ethnic grievance industry. They'd have to go out and find honest
work.
--
~ Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo/
"Publicly inconsolable about the fact that racism continues, these
activists seem privately terrified that it has abated."
-Dinesh D'Souza, The End of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial
Society (New York: The Free Press, 1995), p. 554.
Jafo
>Jafo <jafo@_cheetah.net> wrote...
>> Greg Taylor wrote:
>> >When certain behavior tends to result in crime. Why shouldn't it be
>> >monitored?
>> Hmmm. I see your point. Maybe we should establish some, er,
>> "re-education facilities" to, ahh, show these poor unfortunates the
>> error of their ways and indoctri-, that is, lead them along the proper
>> path.
>Why?? They are free to say and think what they like. If a dope dealer yells
>"I sell drugs!!", would it not be the responsibility of law enforcement to
>monitor him for criminal activity?? I also never heard you complain about
>authorities monitoring licence plates at the border
>
>Maybe you're opposed to crime prevention as well
No, but if I called you a "limey asshole" in public, I could
reasonably expect to duck a punch in the nose, but you'd probably
attempt to haul me to court for hurting your feelings for expressing
a Hate Thought by engaging in Hate Speech.
Come to think of it, as the truth has always been considered
an absolute defence, maybe I should go for that court date after
all... <g>
Joseph Canale
> On Wed, 26 May 1999 22:38:14 -0700, Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
>
> >They sure monitored the civil rights movement. It is to be expected.
> >If the Feds are not monitoring your movement, you don't have one.
>
> So, do you think that we should have live video cameras in our homes,
> a la "1984"? That would seem to be in keeping with your concept of
> government, wouldn't it?
Don't worry, it's coming. We already have police cameras in parks and on
the streets here in NYC.
Joe
Michael Ejercito
<S...@tter.com> wrote:
> Needless to say, one can expect the usual hysterical response from Jafo and
> Bill when they read this, and the usual "emotionalism" blurb
>
> Hate crimes draw attention of authorities
>
> By Deborah Sullivan, Daily News
>
>
Just like I said,Aviator,we do not need redundant laws,only enforcement
of existing laws.
Michael
CSULB College Republicans
For Truth,Justice,Freedom,and the American Way
Miguel O'Pastel
M
Jafo wrote in message <377a6d9f...@news1.cheetah.net>...
Miguel O'Pastel
powerless to do anything about it. You can try racist terrorism, but it
won't work. There are lots of good white people around, You are not one of
them.
M
The Pervert wrote in message
<374D25...@spambad.yahoo.com>...
|Aviator wrote:
|
|> The policy also defines a category of "hate incidents" -- noncriminal
acts
|> motivated by hate or prejudice against a certain group of people. This
|> includes epithets, distribution of hate literature or posting of hate
|> material, even on one's own property.
|
|> While this requires police to track noncriminal activity, the department
|> said the practice is legal and provides hints to future criminal acts.
|
|So Miguel's repeated non-criminal prejudice toward anglos, white people
|in general, or anybody who dares earn a measure of success would be
|considered a "hate incident" that should be tracked? Surely his
|epithets are motivated by a demonstrated prejudice and hate. Should his
|advocating criminal activity (stealing SUV's belonging to white people)
|be monitored and reported, said advocay hinting at future criminal acts?
|
|But nobody in their right mind really listens to Miguel (except to throw
|his racism back at him), so a more relevant question might be about the
|prejudicial statements made by non-white so-called civil rights
|"leaders." I refer specifically to people such as Danny Bakewell,
|Councilperson Rita and Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Earl Ofari
|Hutchinson, Chip Murray and Leo Turrell who join the likes of the usual
|skinheads and white racists like ipm, Crusader, David Duke et al.
|
|And let us not forget Councilperson Mike Hernandez who likes to foment
|ethnic unrest in the hispanic community... when he's not doing cocaine.
|Oh, I'm sorry. He's all clean and sober now. I forgot. And anybody
|who knows anything about dopers knows how easy it is to kick drug use,
|especially in just a few week and on the first try.
|
|> "It makes perfect sense for the police to follow up on what someone is
|> saying legally and see if he acts on it illegally," Volokh said. "But as
a
|> matter of prudence and public control over the police, it might make
sense
|> for people to monitor what the police are doing with this."
|
|> King said that by reporting noncriminal hate incidents, police can alert
|> community groups when tensions rise and help devise ways to diffuse them.
|
Miguel O'Pastel
nothing of value to society each day.
M
Jafo wrote in message <375b5e64...@news1.cheetah.net>...
|On Wed, 26 May 1999 22:38:14 -0700, Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
|
|>They sure monitored the civil rights movement. It is to be expected.
|>If the Feds are not monitoring your movement, you don't have one.
|
|So, do you think that we should have live video cameras in our homes,
|a la "1984"? That would seem to be in keeping with your concept of
|government, wouldn't it?
|
Aviator
> On Wed, 26 May 1999 22:38:14 -0700, Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
>
> >They sure monitored the civil rights movement. It is to be expected.
> >If the Feds are not monitoring your movement, you don't have one.
>
> So, do you think that we should have live video cameras in our homes,
> a la "1984"? That would seem to be in keeping with your concept of
> government, wouldn't it?
You really resort to ridiculous arguments, don't you?? Police monitor gangs,
habitual criminals, known drug dealers, but I don't hear you bitching about
that. Clothing stores monitor there customers to limit shoplifting, but you
dont whine about that
Aviator
> On Thu, 27 May 1999 06:11:58 -0700, Aviator wrote:
>
> >Jafo <jafo@_cheetah.net> wrote...
> >> Greg Taylor wrote:
> >> >When certain behavior tends to result in crime. Why shouldn't it be
> >> >monitored?
>
> >> Hmmm. I see your point. Maybe we should establish some, er,
> >> "re-education facilities" to, ahh, show these poor unfortunates the
> >> error of their ways and indoctri-, that is, lead them along the proper
> >> path.
>
> >Why?? They are free to say and think what they like. If a dope dealer
yells
> >"I sell drugs!!", would it not be the responsibility of law enforcement
to
> >monitor him for criminal activity?? I also never heard you complain about
> >authorities monitoring licence plates at the border
> >
> >Maybe you're opposed to crime prevention as well
>
> No, but if I called you a "limey asshole" in public, I could
> reasonably expect to duck a punch in the nose, but you'd probably
> attempt to haul me to court for hurting your feelings for expressing
> a Hate Thought by engaging in Hate Speech.
I somehow doubt that spewing hatred will lose it's protection under the
constitution, but culpability for resulting violence and mayhem isn't. It
isn't what you say that will get you nailed, but the result of the
provocation or incitement. As much as you disapprove, incitement and
provocation ARE aggravating circumstances, and contribute to a lengthier
stay in a grey bar motel
> Come to think of it, as the truth has always been considered
> an absolute defence, maybe I should go for that court date after
> all... <g>
Why?? For me laughing at you??
8)
rrcrumb
reasonably expect to duck a punch in the nose, but you'd probably"
Does the phrase *limey asshole* constitute hate speech even if it's true?
This is about pussys crying home to mommy to butt into their playground
argument.
des
Jafo <jafo@_cheetah.net> wrote in message
news:377a6d9f...@news1.cheetah.net...
> On Thu, 27 May 1999 06:11:58 -0700, Aviator wrote:
>
> >Jafo <jafo@_cheetah.net> wrote...
> >> Greg Taylor wrote:
> >> >When certain behavior tends to result in crime. Why shouldn't it be
> >> >monitored?
>
> >> Hmmm. I see your point. Maybe we should establish some, er,
> >> "re-education facilities" to, ahh, show these poor unfortunates the
> >> error of their ways and indoctri-, that is, lead them along the proper
> >> path.
>
> >Why?? They are free to say and think what they like. If a dope dealer
yells
> >"I sell drugs!!", would it not be the responsibility of law enforcement
to
> >monitor him for criminal activity?? I also never heard you complain about
> >authorities monitoring licence plates at the border
> >
> >Maybe you're opposed to crime prevention as well
>
> No, but if I called you a "limey asshole" in public, I could
> reasonably expect to duck a punch in the nose, but you'd probably
> attempt to haul me to court for hurting your feelings for expressing
> a Hate Thought by engaging in Hate Speech.
>
> Come to think of it, as the truth has always been considered
> an absolute defence, maybe I should go for that court date after
> all... <g>
>
Greg Taylor
>Greg Taylor wrote:
>>Bill wrote ...
>>>And Avi sees nothing wrong with the police keeping
>>>track of non-crime related thoughts/speech. Even
>>>when constrained to ones own property.
>
>>Sounds about as bad as taking down the license plate
>>number of someone who seems to be casing a bank
>>(not a crime).
>>
>>When certain behavior tends to result in crime. Why
>>shouldn't it be monitored?
>
>Hmmm. I see your point. Maybe we should establish
>some, er, "re-education facilities" to, ahh, show these
>poor unfortunates the error of their ways and indoctri-,
>that is, lead them along the proper path.
You know better than that, Jafo. If no crime is committed, no
additional action is required.
Do you remember a gentleman by the name of Asahara Shoko? He was the
guy who released serin gas in a Japanese subway. If he had outspoken
followers (not illegal) here in Los Angeles who, all of a sudden
started riding the subway (not illegal), would you object to the
police or FBI keeping tabs on him?
What if another man purchased a large quantity of sodium nitrate (not
illegal) and rented a Ryder truck (not illegal)? Should he be
monitored or should law enforcement mind their own business?
Aviator
> On Thu, 27 May 1999 11:02:21 GMT, The Pervert wrote:
>
> >> The policy also defines a category of "hate incidents" -- noncriminal
acts
> >> motivated by hate or prejudice against a certain group of people. This
> >> includes epithets, distribution of hate literature or posting of hate
> >> material, even on one's own property.
> >
> >> While this requires police to track noncriminal activity, the
department
> >> said the practice is legal and provides hints to future criminal acts.
>
> >So Miguel's repeated non-criminal prejudice toward anglos, white people
> >in general, or anybody who dares earn a measure of success would be
> >considered a "hate incident" that should be tracked? Surely his
> >epithets are motivated by a demonstrated prejudice and hate. Should his
> >advocating criminal activity (stealing SUV's belonging to white people)
> >be monitored and reported, said advocay hinting at future criminal acts?
>
> he's the one who has frequently accused Des of stealing car parts.
Maybe we are all being monitored already. This is after all, a public forum.
See Greg Taylors website for Dan's admission to stealing car parts and then
gleefully stating, " You snooze, you lose!!" (As I remember it, his spelling
was crappy as well)
> Miguel, it seems, would prefer to eschew such pettiness in favor of
> taking the whole damned car. :)
>
> <snipped>
>
> >One wonders how tensions are to be diffused when it is in the
> >self-interest of the leaders of the hate incidents and tensions to
> >perpetuate them to a willing constituency.
>
> Diffusing them is not in the best interest of the leaders of the
> ethnic grievance industry. They'd have to go out and find honest
> work.
>
> --
> ~ Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo/
>
Miguel O'Pastel
drug dealers and hookers to monitor anyone for potential hate crimes.
M
Greg Taylor wrote in message <7il17r$sgp$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
Aviator
rrcrumb <zen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:oEk33.5891$5Z5...@news2.mia...
> "No, but if I called you a "limey asshole" in public, I could
> reasonably expect to duck a punch in the nose, but you'd probably"
>
>
>
>
> Does the phrase *limey asshole* constitute hate speech even if it's true?
> This is about pussys crying home to mommy to butt into their playground
>
you do that to your friends too??
>
> des
> > On Thu, 27 May 1999 06:11:58 -0700, Aviator wrote:
> >
> > >Jafo <jafo@_cheetah.net> wrote...
> > >> Greg Taylor wrote:
> > >> >monitored?
> >
> > >> Hmmm. I see your point. Maybe we should establish some, er,
> > >> "re-education facilities" to, ahh, show these poor unfortunates the
> > >> error of their ways and indoctri-, that is, lead them along the
proper
> > >> path.
> >
> yells
> > >"I sell drugs!!", would it not be the responsibility of law enforcement
> to
> > >monitor him for criminal activity?? I also never heard you complain
about
> > >authorities monitoring licence plates at the border
> > >
> > >Maybe you're opposed to crime prevention as well
> >
> > No, but if I called you a "limey asshole" in public, I could
> > reasonably expect to duck a punch in the nose, but you'd probably
> > attempt to haul me to court for hurting your feelings for expressing
> > a Hate Thought by engaging in Hate Speech.
> >
> > Come to think of it, as the truth has always been considered
> > an absolute defence, maybe I should go for that court date after
> > all... <g>
> >
Aviator
Michael Ejercito <meje...@csulb.edu> wrote in message
news:mejercit-270...@134.139.52.17...
> In article <7ihmkp$8f7$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Aviator"
> <S...@tter.com> wrote:
>
> > Needless to say, one can expect the usual hysterical response from Jafo
and
> > Bill when they read this, and the usual "emotionalism" blurb
> >
> > Hate crimes draw attention of authorities
> >
> > By Deborah Sullivan, Daily News
> >
> >
> Just like I said,Aviator,we do not need redundant laws,only enforcement
> of existing laws.
Redundant eh?? Jafo and Bill have been challenged to show what law protects
a fella from Imperial Beach from being intimidated and terrorised to the
point where he was forced to uproot and move to a different area, after he
shot two skinhead intruders who attacked him.
Maybe you will have better luck. Bill and Jafo have been tap dancing around
the issue, and to date failed to respond with this supposed law.
Aviator
Miguel O'Pastel <heresl...@you.kid> wrote in message
news:OHyau$Gq#GA.180@cpmsnbbsa03...
> Nevertheless, the days of white rule are coming to an end and you are
> powerless to do anything about it. You can try racist terrorism, but it
> won't work. There are lots of good white people around, You are not one
of
> them.
> M
"White rule"?? I dont think so Mike. That would imply that a racist
government was in place. I would think the reason that there are so many
whites in government might just have something to do with the fact that the
largest portion of the population is whites, at around 223 million, followed
by blacks at around 38 million and then the rest.
>
>
> The Pervert wrote in message
>
> <374D25...@spambad.yahoo.com>...
> |Aviator wrote:
> |
> |> The policy also defines a category of "hate incidents" -- noncriminal
> acts
> |> motivated by hate or prejudice against a certain group of people. This
> |> includes epithets, distribution of hate literature or posting of hate
> |> material, even on one's own property.
> |
> |> While this requires police to track noncriminal activity, the
department
> |> said the practice is legal and provides hints to future criminal acts.
> |
> |So Miguel's repeated non-criminal prejudice toward anglos, white people
> |in general, or anybody who dares earn a measure of success would be
> |considered a "hate incident" that should be tracked? Surely his
> |epithets are motivated by a demonstrated prejudice and hate. Should his
> |advocating criminal activity (stealing SUV's belonging to white people)
> |be monitored and reported, said advocay hinting at future criminal acts?
> |
> |But nobody in their right mind really listens to Miguel (except to throw
> |his racism back at him), so a more relevant question might be about the
> |prejudicial statements made by non-white so-called civil rights
> |"leaders." I refer specifically to people such as Danny Bakewell,
> |Councilperson Rita and Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Earl Ofari
> |Hutchinson, Chip Murray and Leo Turrell who join the likes of the usual
> |skinheads and white racists like ipm, Crusader, David Duke et al.
> |
> |And let us not forget Councilperson Mike Hernandez who likes to foment
> |ethnic unrest in the hispanic community... when he's not doing cocaine.
> |Oh, I'm sorry. He's all clean and sober now. I forgot. And anybody
> |who knows anything about dopers knows how easy it is to kick drug use,
> |especially in just a few week and on the first try.
> |
> |> "It makes perfect sense for the police to follow up on what someone is
> |> saying legally and see if he acts on it illegally," Volokh said. "But
as
> a
> |> matter of prudence and public control over the police, it might make
> sense
> |> for people to monitor what the police are doing with this."
> |
> |> King said that by reporting noncriminal hate incidents, police can
alert
> |> community groups when tensions rise and help devise ways to diffuse
them.
> |
Miguel O'Pastel
M
Aviator wrote in message <7il5av$pb2$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Miguel O'Pastel
prosecuted for terrorist threat. But yelling epithets at people and
throwing things on there lawn, etc. are not usually prosecutable. When
they are, they are misdemeanor fines.
M
Aviator wrote in message <7il5mg$q0i$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Aviator
Bill <wmcc...@206.165.6.201> wrote in message
news:7iktjf$kpn$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com...
> In article <7iiflu$mn7$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> Greg Taylor <gre...@nospam.att.net> posted, then thought about:
>
> >Bill wrote ...
> >
> >>And Avi sees nothing wrong with the police keeping
> >>track of non-crime related thoughts/speech. Even
> >>when constrained to ones own property.
> >
> >who seems to be casing a bank (not a crime).
> >
> >monitored?
>
> is reason enough to be monitored by the government?
No, idiot. what he is saying is that police monitor gangs, and the border
patrol monitors licence plate at the border. Funny we dont hear you whining
about that. I suppose it depends on which face you are wearing
>
> --
> According to Kentucky state law, every person must take a bath at least
> once a year.
Aviator
> In article <7ike72$7l$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> Aviator <S...@tter.com> posted, then thought about:
> >> On Wed, 26 May 1999 22:38:14 -0700, Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
> >>
> >> >They sure monitored the civil rights movement. It is to be expected.
> >> >If the Feds are not monitoring your movement, you don't have one.
> >>
> >> So, do you think that we should have live video cameras in our homes,
> >> a la "1984"? That would seem to be in keeping with your concept of
> >> government, wouldn't it?
> >
> >You really resort to ridiculous arguments, don't you?? Police monitor
gangs,
> >habitual criminals, known drug dealers, but I don't hear you bitching
about
> >that. Clothing stores monitor there customers to limit shoplifting, but
you
> >dont whine about that
>
> At home.
No Bill. once more you have failed abysmally to understand what the the
discussion is REALLY about. As I have said before and I will say it again,
you have absolutely no ability to understant what is written
"The policy also defines a category of "hate incidents" -- noncriminal acts
motivated by hate or prejudice against a certain group of people. This
includes epithets, distribution of hate literature or posting of hate
material, even on one's own property.
While this requires police to track noncriminal activity, the department
said the practice is legal and provides hints to future criminal acts"
Try again, and if you dont understand, ask jafo to explain what it means
>
> Maybe someone is watching your posts. And sees your posts regarding poor
> whites. And interprets them other than you intended - something easy to
> do as one rally can't tell you don't mean your remarks to appear racist.
>
> So the police will now monitor you.
Great. I dont have a problem. Bill, you really need to understand that any
prosecutor who reads my comments about white trash, is not going to take it
out of context, as you do, in order to paint me as a racist. My lawyer would
have him for breakfast. My posts are clearly opposed to hate crimes and
racism, and I challenge you to find ONE post of mine showing racism or
promoting hate
>
>
> --
> There is no substitute for good manners, except, perhaps, fast
> reflexes.
rrcrumb
Bill <wmcc...@206.165.6.207> wrote in message
news:7ileih$p9l$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com
>While this requires police to track noncriminal activity, the department
>said the practice is legal and provides hints to future criminal acts"
It is quite simply the policing of thoughts. Someone does not think
"correctly"; and dares to voice these incorrect thoughts in some fashion.
Or maybe they just decide to support someone else's right to free speech.
And they get to be observed by the police just like a suspected drug
dealer. On the chance a crime may be committed. I know, its not that you
are Orwellian. Its that you don't think things through before endorsing
them.
BTW, aren't you the one who said "hate speech" would not become illegal?
********* Good point.Emotionalism is Aviator's stock in trade.You will find
little consistency in what he has to say.Just one big stew dumped out
onto the Usenet with a healthy regurgitation of liberal nostrums.
des
*******************************************************************
>> Maybe someone is watching your posts. And sees your posts regarding poor
>> whites. And interprets them other than you intended - something easy to
>> do as one rally can't tell you don't mean your remarks to appear racist.
>>
>> So the police will now monitor you.
>
>Great. I dont have a problem.
Becuase you don't mind being monitored for expressing your thoughts, you
feel that nobody else should. Mighty white of you.
Jafo
>Or lets hit closer to home. According to the Justice Department, the most
>likely cause of death in young black males will be another black male.
>Maybe we should watch this group on the chance it will prevent another
>black from being killed.
Gasp. Even if it did save lives, that would be racist!
... as opposed to monitoring certain white hate groups, which is only
good sense... :-|
The problem with Avi's concept is that once you limit freedom for
one group, you'll eventually limit it for all groups depending upon
who's in power at the time. As with most emotionally-based movements,
its enforcement will end up being subjective.
Jafo
>Bill wrote...
>> But we are talking about the monitoring of people for saying bad things.
>> At home.
>No Bill. once more you have failed abysmally to understand what the the
>discussion is REALLY about. As I have said before and I will say it again,
>you have absolutely no ability to understant what is written
The irony. :)
>"The policy also defines a category of "hate incidents" -- noncriminal acts
>motivated by hate or prejudice against a certain group of people. This
>includes epithets, distribution of hate literature or posting of hate
>material, even on one's own property.
>
>While this requires police to track noncriminal activity, the department
>said the practice is legal and provides hints to future criminal acts"
>
>Try again, and if you dont understand, ask jafo to explain what it means
Hell no, not me! The expression "limey asshole" might creep out and
I'd risk Avi having me arrested and charged with hate speech. I'm not
touchin' this one.
>> Maybe someone is watching your posts. And sees your posts regarding poor
>> whites. And interprets them other than you intended - something easy to
>> do as one rally can't tell you don't mean your remarks to appear racist.
>>
>> So the police will now monitor you.
>Great. I dont have a problem.
How sad. A civilization like ours cannot be taken over from the
outside. But the prevalence of attitudes like this show that it's
on the verge of collapsing from within.
>Bill, you really need to understand that any prosecutor who reads my
>comments about white trash, is not going to take it out of context,
>as you do, in order to paint me as a racist.
He might well do so.
>My lawyer would have him for breakfast. My posts are clearly opposed
>to hate crimes and racism, and I challenge you to find ONE post of
>mine showing racism or promoting hate
You have a lot of faith in our legal system, don't you? It wouldn't
be the first time that right was judged to be wrong, or black was
judged to be white.
Jafo
>Maybe we are all being monitored already. This is after all, a
>public forum.
Well, there's always the Dejanews database. Here's something I read
once and thought enough of to save...
The information superhighway was established for
the unauthorized archiving of all personal information
to aid in the development of an extensive data base
that contains the profiles of every citizen on "usenet".
This is done daily without warning or permission and
it will be used against you at any time.
Maybe true, maybe mere paranoia, but it's certainly possible. And
quite easily so, too, from the technical perspective. Something to
think about.
Jafo
>Jafo <jafo@_cheetah.net> wrote...
>> Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
>> >They sure monitored the civil rights movement. It is to be
>> >expected. If the Feds are not monitoring your movement, you
>> >don't have one.
>> So, do you think that we should have live video cameras in our
>> homes, a la "1984"? That would seem to be in keeping with your
>> concept of government, wouldn't it?
>You really resort to ridiculous arguments, don't you?? Police
>monitor gangs, habitual criminals, known drug dealers, but I don't
>hear you bitching about that. Clothing stores monitor there
>customers to limit shoplifting, but you dont whine about that
But unpleasant talk between individuals? You don't see just a
bit of a difference there, eh? Now who's resorting to ridiculous
examples? I'd prefer not to have my every word monitored by
government apparatchiks, but it seems that you believe otherwise.
The Pervert
>
> Nevertheless, the days of white rule are coming to an end and you are
> powerless to do anything about it. You can try racist terrorism, but it
> won't work. There are lots of good white people around, You are not one of
> them.
> M
You have stated in your anthem that "The union makes us strong." You
may feel powerless on your own, but I don't.
One of the many differences between us is that I believe that I am
responsible my own strength and destiny.
You accuse me of racist terrorism yet cannot supply even one shred of
evidence to support that. Not one. You cannot cite one thing I have
ever written in here to support your charge. Thus it is reasonable to
conclude that you blatantly and demonstrably lie with malice.
Your own words of bigotry and hypocricy make clear your position far
better than anything I can ever say.
hc23hc
>
> One of the many differences between us is that I believe that I am
> responsible my own strength and destiny.
> better than anything I can ever say.
Not much confidence in your own words, Perv.
Maybe you need a refill on that strength and destiny after all.
.
.
.
Joseph Canale
> Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
> > Nevertheless, the days of white rule are coming to an end and you are
> > powerless to do anything about it. You can try racist terrorism, but it
> > won't work. There are lots of good white people around, You are not one of
> > them.
> You have stated in your anthem that "The union makes us strong." You
> may feel powerless on your own, but I don't.
>
> One of the many differences between us is that I believe that I am
> responsible my own strength and destiny.
But with a little help from Uncle Sam now and then.
Joe
Greg Taylor
>See Greg Taylors website for Dan's admission to stealing
>car parts and then gleefully stating, " You snooze, you lose!!"
>(As I remember it, his spelling was crappy as well)
http://members.tripod.com/nomorehate/des-f.htm
.....select the ".....thief" link.....
--
Willwork4food
...hummmmm, you will think about that the next time funding for NPR, PBS or
"the arts..." comes up in congress, wont you....
Will...
Willwork4food
...hummmm, is that why MeTooCow doe the x=no archive thing on her
posts???
I really should restart "its" own little file at Deja.....
Will...
Miguel O'Pastel
M
The Pervert wrote in message <374ECD...@spambad.yahoo.com>...
|Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
|>
|> Nevertheless, the days of white rule are coming to an end and you are
|> powerless to do anything about it. You can try racist terrorism, but it
|> won't work. There are lots of good white people around, You are not one
of
|> them.
|> M
|
|
|You have stated in your anthem that "The union makes us strong." You
|may feel powerless on your own, but I don't.
|
|One of the many differences between us is that I believe that I am
|responsible my own strength and destiny.
|
|You accuse me of racist terrorism yet cannot supply even one shred of
|evidence to support that. Not one. You cannot cite one thing I have
|ever written in here to support your charge. Thus it is reasonable to
|conclude that you blatantly and demonstrably lie with malice.
|
Jafo
>Jafo wrote:
>> The problem with Avi's concept is that once you limit freedom for
>> one group, you'll eventually limit it for all groups depending upon
>> who's in power at the time. As with most emotionally-based movements,
>> its enforcement will end up being subjective.
>...hummmmm, you will think about that the next time funding for NPR,
>PBS or "the arts..." comes up in congress, wont you....
Government has no business funding "the arts..." Art will sink or
swim, based on its own merit. If people like it, they'll support
it; if not, the artist will have to find other work. If PBS can't
raise enough money from corporate sponsorship, then let 'em run ads
like A&E.
HM
----------
In article <7ii8od$f9$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com>, wmcc...@206.165.6.206 (Bill) wrote:
>In article <7ihmkp$8f7$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>Aviator <S...@tter.com> posted, then thought about:
>>The policy also defines a category of "hate incidents" -- noncriminal acts
>>motivated by hate or prejudice against a certain group of people. This
>>includes epithets, distribution of hate literature or posting of hate
>>material, even on one's own property.
>And Avi sees nothing wrong with the police keeping track of non-crime
>related thoughts/speech. Even when constrained to ones own property.
Unfortunately, the right to express ones views is a right that all too
many of us in the USA take for granted.
In many so-called "free" countries people are fined and imprisoned for
crimes that involved nothing more than the expression of opinions that
the government dissapproves of.
Avi is simply one of those that seems to consider the Constitution old,
outdated, and would rather have a government nanny to protect him from
opinions he disagrees with.
"Hate material" can be anything any government official doesn't like. Literiture
calling Gov. Davis to task for his sabotage of Prop. 187 could of course be
considered "racist" by a Mexican chief of police. So could literature calling
for the elimination of affirmative action.
The article in the Daily News does provide some information as to who is a major
player in the fight against freedom of speech....
>>"The emphasis was really that LAPD doesn't work in a vacuum," said Tamar
>>Galatzan, an attorney for the Anti-Defamation League who served on the task
>force.
The ADL, as well as other Jewish organizations has been working for years to
pass laws that eliminate the right of free speech in the US, as they have been
sucessful in doing in Canada, and many European nations.
The ADL is the unregistered agent of a foreign government-namely Israel. Its
functions include not only propaganda, but espionage.
It was just a few years ago, when some of its offices in California were raided
by the FBI, and found to have files stolen from the SF police department. It
was also revealed that the ADL had been involved in an illegal espionage operation
against individuals and organizations of any political affiliation imaginable..Arabs,
peace groups, anti-aparthied and black organizations...anyone that they suspected
might even think of anything less than %100 support of Israel. It was quite ironic
that those investigated were those that had considered the ADL to be their friend.
While the case was dropped in a shamful plea bargain, there are some legal actions
that are still pending.
Ironic- this is the organization that calls the tune police officials must dance to.
Here's where to find some more information about the ADL:
http://www.natvan.com/american-dissident-voices/adv052993.html
http://www.natvan.com/american-dissident-voices/adv060593.html
Regards,
HM
Western Imperative Network
http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm
Wake Up or Die
http://www.wakeupordie.com
Politically Incorrect
http://www.sound.net/~fenix/PI-index.html
Stormfront
http://www.stormfront.org
Yggdrasil's Library
http://www.ddc.net/ygg
Miguel O'Pastel
As it is, we only have the very slow revolution of chronic crime.
M
Angelmoon wrote in message +ADw-7inegh+ACQ-d6h+ACQ-1+AEA-fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net+AD4-...
+AHw-x-no-archive:yes
+AHw-
+AHw-The Pervert wrote in message +ADw-374ECD51.871+AEA-spambad.yahoo.com+AD4-...
+AHwAPg-
+AHwAPg-
+AHwAPg-You have stated in your anthem that +ACI-The union makes us strong.+ACI- You
+AHwAPg-may feel powerless on your own, but I don't.
+AHwAPg-
+AHwAPg-One of the many differences between us is that I believe that I am
+AHwAPg-responsible my own strength and destiny.
+AHwAPg-
+AHwAPg-You accuse me of racist terrorism yet cannot supply even one shred of
+AHwAPg-evidence to support that. Not one. You cannot cite one thing I have
+AHwAPg-ever written in here to support your charge. Thus it is reasonable to
+AHwAPg-conclude that you blatantly and demonstrably lie with malice.
+AHwAPg-
+AHwAPg-Your own words of bigotry and hypocricy make clear your position far
+AHwAPg-better than anything I can ever say.
+AHw-
+AHw-Well written.
+AHw-
+AHw-Those who seek to have power over others keep them enslaved in welfare,
+AHw-affirmative action, etc. I have seen too many of +ACI-minority+ACI- status do it
on
+AHw-their own to believe they are so stupid, weak, etc. that they need the
+AHw-welfare, affirmative action, etc. Those who rely on it instead of their
own
+AHw-gifts, their own strengths are the slaves to those who purchased them with
+AHw-taxpayer money. Such a terrible waste of human potential.
+AHw-
+AHw-
+AHw-
The Pervert
people are incapable of personal initiative or just too damned lazy to
do thing something on their own?
Society owes you nothing. Otherwise what do you owe society?
The Pervert
Constitution now?
Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
>
> It is called "fighting words and is not protected speech"
> M
>
> Jafo wrote in message <377a6d9f...@news1.cheetah.net>...
> |On Thu, 27 May 1999 06:11:58 -0700, Aviator wrote:
> |
> |>Jafo <jafo@_cheetah.net> wrote...
> |>> Greg Taylor wrote:
> |>> >When certain behavior tends to result in crime. Why shouldn't it be
> |>> >monitored?
> |
> |>> Hmmm. I see your point. Maybe we should establish some, er,
> |>> "re-education facilities" to, ahh, show these poor unfortunates the
> |>> error of their ways and indoctri-, that is, lead them along the proper
> |>> path.
> |
> |>Why?? They are free to say and think what they like. If a dope dealer
> yells
> |>"I sell drugs!!", would it not be the responsibility of law enforcement to
> |>monitor him for criminal activity?? I also never heard you complain about
> |>authorities monitoring licence plates at the border
> |>
> |>Maybe you're opposed to crime prevention as well
> |
> |No, but if I called you a "limey asshole" in public, I could
> |reasonably expect to duck a punch in the nose, but you'd probably
> |attempt to haul me to court for hurting your feelings for expressing
> |a Hate Thought by engaging in Hate Speech.
> |
> |Come to think of it, as the truth has always been considered
> |an absolute defence, maybe I should go for that court date after
> |all... <g>
> |
Miguel O'Pastel
M
The Pervert wrote in message <37505F...@spambad.yahoo.com>...
Miguel O'Pastel
education either.
M
The Pervert wrote in message <375060...@spambad.yahoo.com>...
Jafo
>I agree. Society should provide good-paying jobs or a guaranteed income.
>As it is, we only have the very slow revolution of chronic crime.
"Society" doesn't provide jobs. Employers provide jobs. A "society"
can only provide a framework in which employers and their jobs can
exist.
The Pervert
answer.
Why should people work at all? If they want that which the fruit of
their labors brings (money (which buys those things they want), and
employee benefits for those who are employees and get such things as
health insurance, retirement fund contributions, etc.), they work.
Who determines who owes whom what? Certainly not I. However, if I want
to buy something like a car, or a house, or even a pair of sneakers, the
marketplace sets the price. If I have not worked hard enough or smart
enough to have earned enough to pay for what I want, I don't get to have
it. I may not get to have it at all, or I may have to finance it and
pay extra for the consideration of not paying the entire price all at
once (i.e., interest or finance charges), or I might choose to get
something less than what I originally wanted. Maybe a smaller house, or
a car that is not quite as big, fast, or as luxurious as I might
optimally want. So, if a person wants stuff, he or she works for it.
If they don't want to work, they don't get to have as much stuff.
Simple.
Thus, now that I have answered your questions (with no loading of the
answers), I re-submit my questions. What do you owe society? And why
(do you believe) must society provide you with anything like a job, or a
particular level of income?
Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
>
> Why should people work at all. Who determines who owes whom what? You?
> M
> The Pervert wrote in message <37505F...@spambad.yahoo.com>...
> |Why must society always provide everything? Are you suggesting that
> |people are incapable of personal initiative or just too damned lazy to
> |do thing something on their own?
> |
> |Society owes you nothing. Otherwise what do you owe society?
> |
> |
> |Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
> |>
> |> I agree. Society should provide good-paying jobs or a guaranteed income.
> |> As it is, we only have the very slow revolution of chronic crime.
Aviator
> In article <7il5vi$qk3$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> >> In article <7iiflu$mn7$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> >> Greg Taylor <gre...@nospam.att.net> posted, then thought about:
> >>
> >> >Bill wrote ...
> >> >
> >> >>track of non-crime related thoughts/speech. Even
> >> >>when constrained to ones own property.
> >> >
> >> >who seems to be casing a bank (not a crime).
> >> >
> >> >monitored?
> >>
them
> >> is reason enough to be monitored by the government?
> >
> >No, idiot.
>
> shit colored?
>
> Get the fucking point. It is unpopular these days to say something like
> "Blacks are inferior". It isn't nice, it isn't polite, and it isn't
> correct. But many people feel that it is true. Most of them don't go out
> and commit racially motivated crimes.
Here is the point, you moron. Read what you wrote:
"And Avi sees nothing wrong with the police keeping track of non-crime
related thoughts/speech. Even
when constrained to ones own property"
Firstly, I have never said this. You resort to Rogers tactic of creating
lies when you run out of facts, and manipulating and misrepresenting someone
elses comments to show them up in a false light.
You also delete comments I have made, in order to cover up the fact that you
are making a total fool of yourself. The following is my comment which didnt
suit your purpose, so you simply removed it.
"No, idiot. what he is saying is that police monitor gangs, and the border
patrol monitors licence plate at the border. Funny we dont hear you whining
about that. I suppose it depends on which face you are wearing"
It doesnt fit in with your lie "Avi sees nothing wrong with the police
keeping track of non-crime related thoughts/speech", so you simply remove it
That is a total misrepresentation of my comment. It seems that you cannot
accept you are wrong, so you resort to the underhanded and dirty tactics
used by the racist scum in this newsgroup
>
> Or lets hit closer to home. According to the Justice Department, the most
> likely cause of death in young black males will be another black male.
> Maybe we should watch this group on the chance it will prevent another
> black from being killed.
You would be dumb enough to do something like that. Law enforcement agencies
are monitoring groups KNOWN for violent criminal activity. They always have
done. I suppose you would prefer that law enforcement ignore groups with a
high incidence of arrests for violent crimes?? Like gangs, for instance.
> >patrol monitors licence plate at the border. Funny we dont hear you
whining
> >about that. I suppose it depends on which face you are wearing
> >>
> >> --
> >> According to Kentucky state law, every person must take a bath at least
> >> once a year.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> H. L. Mencken suffers from the hallucination that he is H. L.
> Mencken -- there is no cure for a disease of that magnitude.
> -- Maxwell Bodenheim
Aviator
> On 28 May 1999 06:58:24 GMT, Bill wrote:
>
most
> >likely cause of death in young black males will be another black male.
> >Maybe we should watch this group on the chance it will prevent another
> >black from being killed.
>
>
> ... as opposed to monitoring certain white hate groups, which is only
> good sense... :-|
>
> one group, you'll eventually limit it for all groups depending upon
> who's in power at the time. As with most emotionally-based movements,
> its enforcement will end up being subjective.
The monitoring of these groups is based on their rising criminal activity ,
and not their politics. If you have proof to the contrary, we would all be
interested to see it.
Aviator
HM <hmur...@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:asT33.253$ld.1...@news.inreach.com...
>
> ----------
> In article <7ii8od$f9$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com>, wmcc...@206.165.6.206
(Bill) wrote:
>
>
acts
> >>motivated by hate or prejudice against a certain group of people. This
> >>includes epithets, distribution of hate literature or posting of hate
> >>material, even on one's own property.
>
> >related thoughts/speech. Even when constrained to ones own property.
>
> many of us in the USA take for granted.
>
> In many so-called "free" countries people are fined and imprisoned for
> crimes that involved nothing more than the expression of opinions that
> the government dissapproves of.
>
> Avi is simply one of those that seems to consider the Constitution old,
> outdated, and would rather have a government nanny to protect him from
> opinions he disagrees with.
Nope. You can spew as much supremism and sepratism as you want, but when you
attempt to force the will of a pathetic gang of cowards on a group YOU do
not approve of, expect to be held accountable
Aviator
HM <hmur...@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:asT33.253$ld.1...@news.inreach.com...
>
> ----------
> In article <7ii8od$f9$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com>, wmcc...@206.165.6.206
(Bill) wrote:
>
>
> >In article <7ihmkp$8f7$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> >Aviator <S...@tter.com> posted, then thought about:
>
> >>The policy also defines a category of "hate incidents" -- noncriminal
acts
> >>motivated by hate or prejudice against a certain group of people. This
> >>includes epithets, distribution of hate literature or posting of hate
> >>material, even on one's own property.
>
> >And Avi sees nothing wrong with the police keeping track of non-crime
> >related thoughts/speech. Even when constrained to ones own property.
>
> Unfortunately, the right to express ones views is a right that all too
> many of us in the USA take for granted.
>
> In many so-called "free" countries people are fined and imprisoned for
> crimes that involved nothing more than the expression of opinions that
> the government dissapproves of.
>
> Avi is simply one of those that seems to consider the Constitution old,
> outdated, and would rather have a government nanny to protect him from
> opinions he disagrees with.
>
Care to post a mainstream source, and not the usual racist sites WIN uses as
a reference?? And please do not insult us by quoting the media. After all,
Roger has soundly impeached the "JewsMedia" as unreliable, distorted and
manipulated.
You wouldn't want to be shown up as hypocrites again, now would you???
Aviator
> In article <7il6o8$s6q$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> >> In article <7ike72$7l$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> >> >> On Wed, 26 May 1999 22:38:14 -0700, Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >They sure monitored the civil rights movement. It is to be
expected.
> >> >> >If the Feds are not monitoring your movement, you don't have one.
> >> >>
> >> >> So, do you think that we should have live video cameras in our
homes,
> >> >> a la "1984"? That would seem to be in keeping with your concept of
> >> >> government, wouldn't it?
> >> >
> >> >You really resort to ridiculous arguments, don't you?? Police monitor
> >gangs,
> >> >habitual criminals, known drug dealers, but I don't hear you bitching
> >about
> >> >that. Clothing stores monitor there customers to limit shoplifting,
but
> >you
> >> >dont whine about that
> >>
things.
> >> At home.
> >
> >No Bill. once more you have failed abysmally to understand what the the
> >discussion is REALLY about. As I have said before and I will say it
again,
> >you have absolutely no ability to understant what is written
> >
acts
> >motivated by hate or prejudice against a certain group of people. This
> >includes epithets, distribution of hate literature or posting of hate
> >material, even on one's own property.
>
> current societal values, and using ones own property in a legal fashion.
That is your simple mind wrestling with what has actually been written,
>
> >While this requires police to track noncriminal activity, the department
> >said the practice is legal and provides hints to future criminal acts"
>
> It is quite simply the policing of thoughts. Someone does not think
> "correctly"; and dares to voice these incorrect thoughts in some fashion.
> Or maybe they just decide to support someone else's right to free speech.
Please explain how monitoring street gangs or racists abridges their right
to free speech?? Is there an article or amendment in the constitution that
prevents the police from monitoring ANY group?? Crime prevention is their
JOB!!
>
> And they get to be observed by the police just like a suspected drug
> dealer. On the chance a crime may be committed. I know, its not that you
> are Orwellian. Its that you don't think things through before endorsing
> them.
Why?? Because I disagree with you?? Now you are getting into the same mode
that jafo gets into when he accuses anyone who disagrees with him of
knee-jerk emotionalism
>
> BTW, aren't you the one who said "hate speech" would not become illegal?
It shouldn't. I dont deny anyones right to free speech and expression
>
> >> Maybe someone is watching your posts. And sees your posts regarding
poor
> >> whites. And interprets them other than you intended - something easy
to
> >> do as one rally can't tell you don't mean your remarks to appear
racist.
> >>
> >> So the police will now monitor you.
> >
> >Great. I dont have a problem.
>
> Becuase you don't mind being monitored for expressing your thoughts, you
> feel that nobody else should. Mighty white of you.
Think about what you just said, Bill. Think hard. If you have the freedom to
write, say or express what you like, and excercise that right, people will
hear what you say, and read what you write. It becomes public. You can be
monitored whether you like it or not. The only way you can avoid being
monitored, is to shut up, and trash your computer. If there is bad intent in
what you say, the police will obviously be interested . This is nothing new
>
> >Bill, you really need to understand that any
> >prosecutor who reads my comments about white trash, is not going to take
it
> >out of context, as you do, in order to paint me as a racist. My lawyer
would
> >have him for breakfast. My posts are clearly opposed to hate crimes and
> >racism, and I challenge you to find ONE post of mine showing racism or
> >promoting hate
>
> You just don't get it, do you? Nobody knows that you are white.
Bullshit. I have made it clear on numerous occasions that I am white. Dan
knows I am white. Roger knows I am white. If I had resorted to Dans
stupidity of portraying myself as black AND white, you might have had a
valid point
They
> only know you post what would otherwise be considered racist remarks.
Bullshit again. Roger has the nasty habit of using insulting and derogatory
remarks about blacks, and I hand it back to him on a plate. Insulting
moronic bigots of my own race, doesn't make me a racist
> Would Eddie Murphy or Richard Pryor have been condemned as racists if they
> only did radio?
Most people would ascertain the race of a radio jock before calling them a
racist. But then others simply jump to conclusions
> --
> Once, adv.:
> Enough.
> -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Aviator
rrcrumb <zen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6hu33.6160$nh4...@news1.mia...
> >said the practice is legal and provides hints to future criminal acts"
>
> It is quite simply the policing of thoughts. Someone does not think
> "correctly"; and dares to voice these incorrect thoughts in some fashion.
> Or maybe they just decide to support someone else's right to free speech.
>
> dealer. On the chance a crime may be committed. I know, its not that you
> are Orwellian. Its that you don't think things through before endorsing
> them.
>
>
Stealing Jafos lines now?? Can't scrape up an original thought, Danny boy??
Oh well, it's better than stealing car parts!!
You will find
> little consistency in what he has to say.Just one big stew dumped out
> onto the Usenet with a healthy regurgitation of liberal nostrums.
Dan, you should try using your brain to think. Plagiarism is not very
ethical
>
>
> des
>
>
> *******************************************************************
>
>
> >> Maybe someone is watching your posts. And sees your posts regarding
poor
> >> whites. And interprets them other than you intended - something easy
to
> >> do as one rally can't tell you don't mean your remarks to appear
racist.
> >>
> >> So the police will now monitor you.
> >
> >Great. I dont have a problem.
>
> Becuase you don't mind being monitored for expressing your thoughts, you
> feel that nobody else should. Mighty white of you.
>
Jafo
Aviator wrote:
>rrcrumb <zen...@yahoo.com> wrote...
>> Bill <wmcc...@206.165.6.207> wrote
>>> It is quite simply the policing of thoughts. Someone does not think
>>> "correctly"; and dares to voice these incorrect thoughts in some fashion.
>>> Or maybe they just decide to support someone else's right to free speech.
>>>
>>> And they get to be observed by the police just like a suspected drug
>>> dealer. On the chance a crime may be committed. I know, its not that you
>>> are Orwellian. Its that you don't think things through before endorsing
>>> them.
>>>
>>> BTW, aren't you the one who said "hate speech" would not become illegal?
>> ********* Good point.Emotionalism is Aviator's stock in trade.
>Stealing Jafos lines now?? Can't scrape up an original thought, Danny boy??
>Oh well, it's better than stealing car parts!!
>
>> You will find little consistency in what he has to say.Just one big
>> stew dumped out onto the Usenet with a healthy regurgitation of liberal
>> nostrums.
>Dan, you should try using your brain to think. Plagiarism is not very
>ethical
It isn't plagiarism; one can hardly copyright an observation simply
because one may have been the first to state it.
Jafo
>Bill wrote
>> Would Eddie Murphy or Richard Pryor have been condemned as racists if they
>> only did radio?
>Most people would ascertain the race of a radio jock before calling them a
>racist.
No they wouldn't; objective people would listen to their words and
make their judgement based upon those words. You've just proven yet
again that you prefer to judge by the "From" line in any media.
>But then others simply jump to conclusions
The irony.
Miguel O'Pastel
Why should some people not have to work and still get money from stocks or
interest, while others must work just to avoid starvation? And spare me the
free market propaganda. We know the game is rigged and there has not been a
free market since feudalism. By the way, under feudalism, the serfs worked
about 20 hours a week. Then by force of arms they were enslaved by others
and told they had to work more to get what they already had before. That
was sort of the roots of capitalism.
M
The Pervert wrote in message <3750CE...@spambad.yahoo.com>...
The Pervert
>
> And why should people work if they work and still can not buy these things?
Because if they want ANYTHING, they're going to have to pay for it. If
they don't work, they don't earn the means to pay for any of the things
they want and need. I work, yet cannot afford a six bedroom house in
Bel Air. So I don't HAVE a house in Bel Air, but I have a one bedroom
apartment on the beach. (Are you with me so far?) I work, yet cannot
afford a 1999 Mercedes Benz. So I don't HAVE a 1999 Mercedes Benz or
1999 anything. I do have, and can afford, a 1988 Mercury Tracer. So
why do I still work? Many reasons, primary of which is I occasionally
like to eat (in that you mention starving below). Food costs money. I
don't eat at Spago (or wherever the trendoid place of the month is) but
I can afford CoCo's or Black Angus. My older-than-1999 non-Mercedes car
still requires fuel if I intend for it to get me from point A to point
B. Fuel costs money. Since I can't (yet) afford the top-of-the-line in
everything, I work to get whatever level of necessities and/or toys that
I CAN afford by the fruits of my labors. If I don't work, I won't be
able to afford a damned thing. Anyway, I prefer to not be a chronic
parasite on society and derive great personal satisfaction (and an
acceptable level of income) from my work.
The argument has been raised about people who have several children to
support. Gov. Jesse Venture said to a single unmarried mother of three
in Minn., "I didn't force you to be a single mother." Logic suggests
that if a couple (or a single) cannot afford to raise six children, they
should not have six children. That just seems incredibly obvious to
me. When I was young and stupid (read: married), I was not financially
able to properly take care of any children. Wanna take a wild guess at
how many children I have?
> Why should some people not have to work and still get money from stocks or
> interest, while others must work just to avoid starvation? And spare me the
> free market propaganda. We know the game is rigged... (the rest snipped)
A free and open economy allows for individual initiative and success for
those who work harder or (more likely) work smarter understanding that
there are no guarantees of anything. If you think about it, even a
labor union collective bargaining agreement is a function of the free
market economy system as presently constructed. That being the case, do
you really want to get rid of a market economy?
If you are suggesting that not everything in life is completely fair,
you'll get no argument from me (for once). Yes, some people do earn
interest and profits on stock transactions. Not me, but some people.
And your point is? Did not most of these people work for the money they
invested? Did not most of these same people (or often times their
parents) sacrifice in order to obtain the necessary education and/or
skills necessary for the high-paying jobs that provided the money that
they invested/risked?
I like our free market system. People have fought and died for it.
Millions the world over either want to, or have come to this country for
it and the other freedoms associated with it. You, it would seem, don't
like what these millions of people risk their lives for. That is your
prerogative. It's not perfect, nor is it completely rigged. But the
only thing I know of in the universe that IS perfect and balanced is a
mathmatical equation, and even that can sometimes be manipulated.
Aviator
> In article <7il5mg$q0i$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,> >Michael Ejercito <meje...@csulb.edu> wrote in message
> >news:mejercit-270...@134.139.52.17...> >> <S...@tter.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Needless to say, one can expect the usual hysterical response from
Jafo
> >and
> >> > Bill when they read this, and the usual "emotionalism" blurb
> >> >
> >> > Hate crimes draw attention of authorities
> >> >
> >> > By Deborah Sullivan, Daily News
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Just like I said,Aviator,we do not need redundant laws,only
enforcement
> >> of existing laws.
> >
> >Redundant eh?? Jafo and Bill have been challenged to show what law
protects
> >a fella from Imperial Beach from being intimidated and terrorised to the
> >point where he was forced to uproot and move to a different area, after
he
> >shot two skinhead intruders who attacked him.
>
> And you have been challenged to prove your claims that he was intimidated
> after the initial crime. But that would require effort on your part.
> BTW, would you likely stay in an area where people break into your house -
> and you get arrested for defending your home/family/freinds?
Here is my proof. Where is yours???
***Extract from article in the Union Tribune, dated 05/27/99***
http://www.uniontribune.com/news
"Lacsina said that since the shootings he, his family and friends have been
threatened repeatedly.
One trial witness, Jake Strebler, was beaten so badly after he testified
that he was hospitalized. Lacsina said Strebler fled the state, fearing for
his life. Sheriff's officials acknowledged that Strebler was hospitalized
after a beating, but said he never reported to authorities who attacked him.
After Lacsina bailed out of jail earlier this month while awaiting trial, he
returned to a shambles in his rented home. Surfboards were destroyed, his
boat was hacked up with an ax, windows were shot out, and a fire had been
set inside the home, he said.
"I'd like to know why these guys aren't being arrested," Lacsina said. "How
come they're still out there?"
Sheriff's Lt. Ron Van Raaphorst confirmed yesterday that a report of
malicious mischief was taken about the damage."
>
> >Maybe you will have better luck. Bill and Jafo have been tap dancing
around
> >the issue, and to date failed to respond with this supposed law.
>
> And you've bene compleately ducking the issue of exactly what terroristic
> activities have occurred.
Posted above
Now, lets see if you can provide the us with the legislation that protects
Lacsina from this intimidation and terrorization
Once more, all we can expect from you is obfuscation instead of something of
substance
Talk is cheap, Money buys the whisky
>
>
> --
> Playing an unamplified electric guitar is like strumming on a picnic
> table.
> -- Dave Barry, "The Snake"
Aviator
> On Thu, 27 May 1999 21:45:15 -0700, Aviator wrote:
>
> >Bill wrote...
> >> But we are talking about the monitoring of people for saying bad
things.
> >> At home.
>
> >No Bill. once more you have failed abysmally to understand what the the
> >discussion is REALLY about. As I have said before and I will say it
again,
> >you have absolutely no ability to understant what is written
>
>
> >"The policy also defines a category of "hate incidents" -- noncriminal
acts
> >motivated by hate or prejudice against a certain group of people. This
> >includes epithets, distribution of hate literature or posting of hate
> >material, even on one's own property.
> >
> >said the practice is legal and provides hints to future criminal acts"
> >
>
> Hell no, not me! The expression "limey asshole" might creep out and
> I'd risk Avi having me arrested and charged with hate speech. I'm not
> touchin' this one.
>
> >> Maybe someone is watching your posts. And sees your posts regarding
poor
> >> whites. And interprets them other than you intended - something easy
to
> >> do as one rally can't tell you don't mean your remarks to appear
racist.
> >>
> >> So the police will now monitor you.
>
> >Great. I dont have a problem.
>
> outside. But the prevalence of attitudes like this show that it's
> on the verge of collapsing from within.
>
> >Bill, you really need to understand that any prosecutor who reads my
> >comments about white trash, is not going to take it out of context,
> >as you do, in order to paint me as a racist.
>
>
> >My lawyer would have him for breakfast. My posts are clearly opposed
> >to hate crimes and racism, and I challenge you to find ONE post of
> >mine showing racism or promoting hate
>
> be the first time that right was judged to be wrong, or black was
> judged to be white.
Define "right"
Define "wrong"
8)
Aviator
> >> >They sure monitored the civil rights movement. It is to be
> >> >expected. If the Feds are not monitoring your movement, you
> >> >don't have one.
>
> >> So, do you think that we should have live video cameras in our
> >> homes, a la "1984"? That would seem to be in keeping with your
> >> concept of government, wouldn't it?
>
> >You really resort to ridiculous arguments, don't you?? Police
> >monitor gangs, habitual criminals, known drug dealers, but I don't
> >hear you bitching about that. Clothing stores monitor there
> >customers to limit shoplifting, but you dont whine about that
>
> bit of a difference there, eh? Now who's resorting to ridiculous
> examples? I'd prefer not to have my every word monitored by
> government apparatchiks, but it seems that you believe otherwise.
When you post your thoughts and opinions in a public forum, they are open to
scrutiny by anyone. You blew your right to privacy in that regard.
Jafo
>Jafo wrote...
>> You have a lot of faith in our legal system, don't you? It wouldn't
>> be the first time that right was judged to be wrong, or black was
>> judged to be white.
>Define "right"
>
>Define "wrong"
>
>8)
Exactly. If justice occurs, it's often an accident.
Willwork4food
> On Fri, 28 May 1999 16:07:03 -0700, Willwork4food wrote:
>
> >Jafo wrote:
> >> The problem with Avi's concept is that once you limit freedom for
> >> one group, you'll eventually limit it for all groups depending upon
> >> who's in power at the time. As with most emotionally-based movements,
> >> its enforcement will end up being subjective.
>
> >...hummmmm, you will think about that the next time funding for NPR,
> >PBS or "the arts..." comes up in congress, wont you....
>
> Government has no business funding "the arts..." Art will sink or
> swim, based on its own merit. If people like it, they'll support
> it; if not, the artist will have to find other work. If PBS can't
> raise enough money from corporate sponsorship, then let 'em run ads
> like A&E.
...are you offering that as an example???? are you saying that because your
contingent of the body politic happens to be in power now...???? so they can
withdraw funding because that is their subjective decision....??? well, I
guess that's ok, given that the elections are almost here...
Will...
Jafo
>Gaff wrote:
>> Government has no business funding "the arts..." Art will sink or
>> swim, based on its own merit. If people like it, they'll support
>> it; if not, the artist will have to find other work. If PBS can't
>> raise enough money from corporate sponsorship, then let 'em run
>> ads like A&E.
>...are you offering that as an example???? are you saying that
>because your contingent of the body politic happens to be in power
>now...???? so they can withdraw funding because that is their
>subjective decision....??? well, I guess that's ok, given that
>the elections are almost here...
And if the elections go your way, we'll return to the halcyon days
of free money and high taxes brought to you by the nanny state. Of
course, the required military buildup to support the sort of
altruistic wars that we'll be involved in will bring this talk of
budget surplus to a screaming halt, but hey, what the hell, eh?
BTW, 'food, just why *should* the government (i.e.; the people)
support the arts?
Willwork4food
> On Sat, 29 May 1999 10:50:00 -0700, Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
>
> >I agree. Society should provide good-paying jobs or a guaranteed income.
> >As it is, we only have the very slow revolution of chronic crime.
>
> "Society" doesn't provide jobs. Employers provide jobs. A "society"
> can only provide a framework in which employers and their jobs can
> exist.
...so, are you saying that in Mexico, that the cause of the poor economy is
that the employeers have failed to provide jobs, and not that the society is a
failed one?????
Will...
Jafo
>Jafo wrote:
>> Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
>> >I agree. Society should provide good-paying jobs or a guaranteed income.
>> >As it is, we only have the very slow revolution of chronic crime.
>> "Society" doesn't provide jobs. Employers provide jobs. A "society"
>> can only provide a framework in which employers and their jobs can
>> exist.
>...so, are you saying that in Mexico, that the cause of the poor economy is
>that the employeers have failed to provide jobs, and not that the society is a
>failed one?????
"A 'society' can only provide a framework in which employers and their
jobs can exist." Mexico's doesn't. Never has.
hc23hc
>
> Aviator wrote:
>
> >Dan, you should try using your brain to think. Plagiarism is not very
> >ethical
>
> It isn't plagiarism; one can hardly copyright an observation simply
> because one may have been the first to state it.
Plagiarism is misrepresenting others' ideas, copyrighted
or not, as one's own. You should know that, Jafo. Really.
.
.
.