Hate crimes legislation is a slippery slope
Leroy N. Soetoro
Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a person
because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse, say, than
murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear ended your car?
President Barack Obama recently signed into law the Hate Crimes
Prevention Act. Well, actually he passed the 2010 National Defense
Authorization Act, slipped onto it was the hate crimes legislation.
Now, before getting into what's wrong with the law, let's talk about
what's right: Its goals are absolutely dead on. Society should protect
people who are vulnerable to harassment or violence because of who they
are or what they believe.
I applaud any movement and provision that protects all citizens from
harm. But weakening and damaging our country is not something to be
proud of. And that is exactly what this new hate crime law does.
The bill tacks on penalties to violent crimes when deemed as motivated
by gender, sexual orientation or disabilities. It's the first major
expansion of hate crimes legislation originally passed in 1968,
targeting crimes aimed at race, color, religion and national origin.
After signing this new law, President Obama celebrated it by saying that
in this nation we should "embrace our differences."
On one hand, the president is right - No one deserves to be murdered
because he is gay or she is a lesbian. This nation should be safe for
all Americans, period.
On the other hand - The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and
religion, and hate-crime laws should not erode those freedoms.
Constitutional law is not about embracing differences. It is about
providing equal and non arbitrary protection to all citizens.
Equal protection for every individual American under the law is what the
14th Amendment to our Constitution, passed after the Civil War,
guarantees. That this nation takes this guarantee seriously - that there
are no classes of individuals treated differently under the law.
What could it possibly mean that the penalty for the same act of
violence - for murder - may be different depending on what might be
perceived as the motivation?
Is it not a sign of our own pathology that we now have classified it is
worse to murder a homosexual than someone who has committed adultery,
even with your spouse, or someone who has insulted or robbed?
Isn't murder - murder?
Is it realistic to believe that someone capable of murder is less likely
to do so if the victim is a homosexual if the penalties are greater?
Clearly the hate crime law has nothing to do with improving our law but
rather with creating favored political classes.
Black on black homicides that plague our inner cities - Hate crimes?
What of the source instructing against murder and to love your neighbor
as yourself? - Banned from schools and public spaces.
What seems to becoming a Godless nation, I see a mistaken identity of
the disease and the cure.
Armand Nardi is the publisher of the Gainesville Daily Register. He can
be contacted at: ana...@ntin.net.
--
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact to
Rangel's tax evasion.
Hell Toupee
> http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_314144704.html
>
> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a person
> because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse, say, than
> murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear ended your car?
Most people think so. Otherwise the crucifixion of that jewish fellow
a couple millenia ago would've gone down in history as just another
routine Roman execution.
Pat Magroyne
wrote:
> Equal protection for every individual American under the law is what the
> 14th Amendment to our Constitution
Which is why these laws are worded as they are. They refer, for
example, to "race" rather than any specific or all non-white races,
and "sexual orientation" rather than just non-heterosexual
orientations. This way, everyone's covered.
Dänk 1010011010
So please tell me when the first federal prosecution of a crime
against a heterosexual will occur.
Another problem with this legislation is that includes crimes
supposedly motivated by gender, meaning that (heterosexual) rape is
now a federal offense. Not that rape is a trivial crime, but states
are perfectly capable of prosecuting rapists on their own, as well as
any other crimes that occur solely within their borders.
This is just another attempt by the left to expand the powers of the
federal government far beyond what is permitted by the Constitution.
Leftists hate constitutions, which is why all communist countries are
tyrannical dictatorships.
JTEM
"Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroysoet...@usurper.org> wrote:
> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others?
Absolutely, and our laws have always reflected this fact.
> Is killing a person because of race, sexual orientation
You can't change your race or sexual orientation.
When you commit a hate crime, you're sending a message
to the entire race/sexual orientation/religion/ethnic group
community. The message is "Italians/gay people/Baptists
aren't allowed in this neighborhood."
Put another way: It's a violation of civil rights IN ADDITION
TO the violent crime.
JTEM
Dänk 1010011010 <dank...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> So please tell me when the first federal prosecution of a crime
> against a heterosexual will occur.
You're retarded. "Hate Crime" legislation doesn't make it a
more serious crime for victimizing a heterosexual, what it
does is make it a more serious crime for victimizing someone
for being a heterosexual.
That's not a subtle difference.
Peter Franks
> http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_314144704.html
>
> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a person
> because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse, say, than
> murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear ended your car?
So-called 'hate crime' legislation is unconstitutional, it violated the
principle of equal protection.
Josh Rosenbluth
How so?
Josh Rosenbluth
Peter Franks
Because it makes my rights less secure than those that belong to these
special classes.
Josh Rosenbluth
You belong to each of the special classes (you have race, sexual
orientation, religion, gender, ....). You are equally protected as
everyone else.
Josh Rosenbluth
Pat Magroyne
> >http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_314144704.html
>
> > Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a person
> > because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse, say, than
> > murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear ended your car?
> > ...
>
> So-called 'hate crime' legislation is unconstitutional,
Nope.
> it violated the
> principle of equal protection.
Nope. Protection based on race protects members of all races,
including whites. Protection based on sexual orientation protects
heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.
Pat Magroyne
We'll assume, then, that you are a white heterosexual Christian male.
You are protected based on your race, sexual orientation, religion,
and gender. You have the same rights as a black homosexual Jewish
female.
Peter Franks
Well then there is no need for the hate crimes law, is there?
Peter Franks
> them straight?
Soon.
Peter Franks
Well then the law serves no purpose.
Peter Franks
Oh, it /you/ again? Snort.
Peter Franks
Well then what is the purpose of the law?
Pat Magroyne
If you feel they're useless, just words, a waste of paper, then just
ignore them and go about your day.
Pat Magroyne
Then it's simply a law on the books that doesn't mean anything, and
you can just ignore it.
Pat Magroyne
To protect people who are singled out because of their race, sex,
religion, or sexual orientation. (Note: religion is a choice, so
don't even TRY.)
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
news:Xns9CC872E5D4...@202.177.16.121:
> http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_314144704.html
>
> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a person
> because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse, say, than
> murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear ended your car?
>
> President Barack Obama recently signed into law the Hate Crimes
> Prevention Act. Well, actually he passed the 2010 National Defense
> Authorization Act, slipped onto it was the hate crimes legislation.
>
> Now, before getting into what's wrong with the law, let's talk about
> what's right: Its goals are absolutely dead on. Society should protect
> people who are vulnerable to harassment or violence because of who they
> are or what they believe.
>
> I applaud any movement and provision that protects all citizens from
> harm. But weakening and damaging our country is not something to be
> proud of. And that is exactly what this new hate crime law does.
>
> The bill tacks on penalties to violent crimes when deemed as motivated
> by gender, sexual orientation or disabilities. It's the first major
> expansion of hate crimes legislation originally passed in 1968,
> targeting crimes aimed at race, color, religion and national origin.
>
The public can stop this by using jury nullification. Refuse to convict
anyone charged under this law.
Lefty
wrote:
> http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_314144704.html
>
> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a person
> because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse, say, than
> murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear ended your car?
Depends on the circumstances. A drunk may have diminished capacity,
and a revenge murder in a moment of irrational rage is something
people can relate to because we've all felt that way at some time, but
didn't act on it. Now, if the rear-ended guy waited until he calmed
down and planned the killing for later, that's cold-blooded and
therefore more heinous. The courts are generally more lenient on
crimes of passion. Beating a dude to death just because he's queer
doesn't qualify as a crime of passion anymore than gassing six million
Jews did because gayness isn't something which would arouse that
degree of anger in a reasonable person.
> President Barack Obama recently signed into law the Hate Crimes
> Prevention Act. Well, actually he passed the 2010 National Defense
> Authorization Act, slipped onto it was the hate crimes legislation.
>
> Now, before getting into what's wrong with the law, let's talk about
> what's right: Its goals are absolutely dead on. Society should protect
> people who are vulnerable to harassment or violence because of who they
> are or what they believe.
>
> I applaud any movement and provision that protects all citizens from
> harm. But weakening and damaging our country is not something to be
> proud of. And that is exactly what this new hate crime law does.
He then fails to explain how. Classic sign of a bullshit artist.
> The bill tacks on penalties to violent crimes when deemed as motivated
> by gender, sexual orientation or disabilities. It's the first major
> expansion of hate crimes legislation originally passed in 1968,
> targeting crimes aimed at race, color, religion and national origin.
>
> After signing this new law, President Obama celebrated it by saying that
> in this nation we should "embrace our differences."
>
> On one hand, the president is right - No one deserves to be murdered
> because he is gay or she is a lesbian. This nation should be safe for
> all Americans, period.
>
> On the other hand - The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and
> religion, and hate-crime laws should not erode those freedoms.
They don't. Violence is not a constitutionally protected form of
expression.
> Constitutional law is not about embracing differences. It is about
> providing equal and non arbitrary protection to all citizens.
>
> Equal protection for every individual American under the law is what the
> 14th Amendment to our Constitution, passed after the Civil War,
> guarantees. That this nation takes this guarantee seriously - that there
> are no classes of individuals treated differently under the law.
>
> What could it possibly mean that the penalty for the same act of
> violence - for murder - may be different depending on what might be
> perceived as the motivation?
Motivation is always a consideration in sentencing. This is nothing
new.
> Is it not a sign of our own pathology that we now have classified it is
> worse to murder a homosexual than someone who has committed adultery,
> even with your spouse, or someone who has insulted or robbed?
No, it is not. To kill in a moment of justifiable anger is at least
somewhat understandable. We all have such urges.
> Isn't murder - murder?
Of course not all murders are equal. Nobody would say a pedophile who
tortures kids for weeks before killing them deserves the same
punishment as a person who kills, for example, a rapist in revenge for
assaulting his wife.
> Is it realistic to believe that someone capable of murder is less likely
> to do so if the victim is a homosexual if the penalties are greater?
By that reasoning, we should have no laws at all since they don't
usually deter criminals.
> Clearly the hate crime law has nothing to do with improving our law but
> rather with creating favored political classes.
Unexplained and unjustified claim.
> Black on black homicides that plague our inner cities - Hate crimes?
Of course not. But they can be equally serious ~depending on
motivation and circumstances~.
> What of the source instructing against murder and to love your neighbor
> as yourself? - Banned from schools and public spaces.
This fool is actually claiming the bible deters murder? Ludicrous,
unsupported nonsense. Besides, it's not banned. Any person who wants
to carry a bible can do so in any school or public place. What he
really laments is the fact that theo-fascists can't foist it on school
kids through mandatory prayer. This hypocritical shitheel cares
nothing about freedom of expression.
> What seems to becoming a Godless nation, I see a mistaken identity of
> the disease and the cure.
The disease is poverty and injustice. The United States is a more God-
fearing country than other wealthy nations, yet the violent crime rate
is much higher. Blacks are more likely to be Christians than whites,
so why so much black on black crime?
Obviously, the God connection is bullshit. Typical of stupid fundie
Christians and their clueless nattering. They need to stick a cock in
it and STFU.
> Armand Nardi is the publisher of the Gainesville Daily Register. He can
> be contacted at: ana...@ntin.net.
Fuck him and the bible he oozed in on.
Lefty
> On Nov 19, 12:36 pm, Pat Magroyne <patmagro...@null.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 2:17 pm, "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroysoet...@usurper.org>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Equal protection for every individual American under the law is what the
> > > 14th Amendment to our Constitution
>
> > Which is why these laws are worded as they are. They refer, for
> > example, to "race" rather than any specific or all non-white races,
> > and "sexual orientation" rather than just non-heterosexual
> > orientations. This way, everyone's covered.
>
> So please tell me when the first federal prosecution of a crime
> against a heterosexual will occur.
I will if you can find a case of a homo killing a hetero just because
he's a hetero. I expect nothing but the sound of crickets, but I'm
hoping you'll shock me and actually produce.
> Another problem with this legislation is that includes crimes
> supposedly motivated by gender, meaning that (heterosexual) rape is
> now a federal offense. Not that rape is a trivial crime, but states
> are perfectly capable of prosecuting rapists on their own, as well as
> any other crimes that occur solely within their borders.
Is rape included? I would doubt it. Sexual offenses aren't usually
considered hate crimes because the motivation is often mixed. It's not
always just about misogyny. Sometimes the creep just hates the whole
world, but takes it out on women only because he's a physical coward
and is afraid to beat up on men. Sometimes the freak is a sexual
sadist and is motivated by sexual deviance. The feminist line is that
all rapes are 100% about misogyny, and that's crap. It's certainly a
big factor, but not the whole story.
Still, why would you object to rapists getting longer sentences? Who
cares if it's the feds or the states as long as they are off the
streets for a long time?
> This is just another attempt by the left to expand the powers of the
> federal government far beyond what is permitted by the Constitution.
Show the passage that forbids considering motivation for crimes when
writing criminal law.
> Leftists hate constitutions, which is why all communist countries are
> tyrannical dictatorships.
So are all fascist countries. Communism is by nature dictatorial, as
if fascism. The tyranny of the far left and of the far right. Do you
actually believe US liberals are communists? Is that what you're
saying?
If so, you have to be outrageously stupid and a crypto-fascist
yourself.
People who invoke the sacred name of the constitution to try to
justify an irrational position are so common in these waters, and such
a bore.
Lefty
Nonsense. Nobody has the right to kill you, either. Your right to live
is intact.
Lefty
A sterling example of circular bullshit reasoning. Are you really this
stupid?
Lefty
The purpose of it is to make the statement that a particular
motivation for violence is especially heinous. We already consider
certain motivations worthy of greater punishment than others. Why is
this any different?
Lefty
<xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroysoet...@usurper.org> wrote innews:Xns9CC872E5D4...@202.177.16.121:
Only worthless, amoral assholes would do that.
ZerkonXXXX
> Constitutional law is not about embracing differences. It is about
> providing equal and non arbitrary protection to all citizens.
Originally, it was about limiting federal power which then gives
protection. Now it is used as giving power to the Federal government to
protect citizens from each other.
It is unfortunate that special classes are made the issue here, they are
not. The issue is Federal Government anointing itself with power over
determining 'hate' and by extension criminalizing a mental precondition
to crime. The slippery slope landing in criminalizing thought without the
necessity for any criminal act actually being committed. Preemptive
prosecution.
The snappy precedent used is premeditation. Since courts are justified
with determining premeditation, courts are then justified in determining
'hate', so the argument goes and so does this slippery slope.
This relatively dry issue is instead made into hot buttons of sex, race,
and gods which does nothing but divide citizens. Prosecution of this law
as with all the hate laws before this will be arbitrary given the fact
the Federal government has given itself immunity from these same hate
crimes.
Peter Franks
But it is less secure.
Josh Rosenbluth
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:17:44 +0000, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
> > Constitutional law is not about embracing differences. It is about
> > providing equal and non arbitrary protection to all citizens.
>
> Originally, it was about limiting federal power which then gives
> protection. Now it is used as giving power to the Federal government to
> protect citizens from each other.
>
> It is unfortunate that special classes are made the issue here, they are
> not. The issue is Federal Government anointing itself with power over
> determining 'hate' and by extension criminalizing a mental precondition
> to crime. The slippery slope landing in criminalizing thought without the
> necessity for any criminal act actually being committed. Preemptive
> prosecution.
We've been over this before. There is no determination of "hate" in
the law, and there is no sign of heading down the slope of no need for
any underlying criinal activity.
> The snappy precedent used is premeditation. Since courts are justified
> with determining premeditation, courts are then justified in determining
> 'hate', so the argument goes and so does this slippery slope.
>
> This relatively dry issue is instead made into hot buttons of sex, race,
> and gods which does nothing but divide citizens. Prosecution of this law
> as with all the hate laws before this will be arbitrary given the fact
> the Federal government has given itself immunity from these same hate
> crimes.
Where did you get that idea?
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
How so?
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 8:04 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> >>> On Nov 19, 6:42 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >>>> Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
> >>>>>http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_314144704.html
> >>>>> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a person
> >>>>> because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse, say, than
> >>>>> murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear ended your car?
> >>>>> ...
> >>>> So-called 'hate crime' legislation is unconstitutional, it violated the
> >>>> principle of equal protection.
> >>> How so?
> >> Because it makes my rights less secure than those that belong to these
> >> special classes.
>
> > orientation, religion, gender, ....). You are equally protected as
> > everyone else.
>
> Well then there is no need for the hate crimes law, is there?
If you want to punish certain motivations more than others (the same
way we do for pre-meditation), there is.
Josh Rosenbluth
Pat Magroyne
> > Constitutional law is not about embracing differences. It is about
> > providing equal and non arbitrary protection to all citizens.
>
> Originally, it was about limiting federal power which then gives
> protection. Now it is used as giving power to the Federal government to
> protect citizens from each other.
>
> It is unfortunate that special classes are made the issue here, they are
> not. The issue is Federal Government anointing itself with power over
> determining 'hate' and by extension criminalizing a mental precondition
> to crime. The slippery slope landing in criminalizing thought without the
> necessity for any criminal act actually being committed.
That's a VERY slippery slope there. Until such time as technology
allows us to determine people's THOUGHTS, however, we might just file
this under "science fiction", where it belongs.
> Preemptive
> prosecution.
>
> The snappy precedent used is premeditation. Since courts are justified
> with determining premeditation, courts are then justified in determining
> 'hate', so the argument goes and so does this slippery slope.
By the time a person's hatred reaches such a point that he commits
violent felonies due to the internal hatred, I think it's safe to say
that most people would think that person might need a "break" from
society, in a penitentiary somewhere.
Dänk 1010011010
> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroysoet...@usurper.org> wrote:
> > I applaud any movement and provision that protects all citizens from
> > harm. But weakening and damaging our country is not something to be
> > proud of. And that is exactly what this new hate crime law does.
>
> He then fails to explain how. Classic sign of a bullshit artist.
The law damages our country by federalizing a crime that should be the
sole jurisdiction of the state it occurred in. America is a
federation of sovereign states, with a central government whose
function is to provide for the national defense and regulate
interstate commerce. Assault and battery has nothing to do with
interstate commerce, therefore it is the jurisdiction of states.
Also, the law seems to be unnecessary because nobody has provided an
example of any state refusing to prosecute an assault against a
homosexual victim. If there was evidence of deliberate inaction, then
perhaps federal intervention might be necessary, but this law seems
purely political in nature, designed to pander to a special interest
group, with the rationale that the federal government can do a better
job of prosecuting crime - that state governments are incompetent.
Peter Franks
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:57:32 -0800, Peter Franks
> <no...@none.com> wrote:
>
>>> You belong to each of the special classes (you have race, sexual
>>> orientation, religion, gender, ....). You are equally protected as
>>> everyone else.
>> Well then there is no need for the hate crimes law, is there?
>
> not wearing a tin-hat.
Presuming you aren't a tin-hat wearer, you will have no problem at all
elaborating on the justification now:
Take ALL the space you need............
Peter Franks
Motivations based on /what/? Someone's supposed whim?
What's the motivation here to protect gays more than straights?
Josh
I agree in part, and disagree in part.
I agree the law is largely to pander to a special interest group and has
little practical effect.
I disagree that the law is redundant because many states do not have
hate crimes laws that cover sexuality.
I also disagree that the law damages federalism because to be convicted
a jury must be convinced that not only was the crime committed because
of the victim's perceived sexuality, they must also find that interstate
commerce was implicated.
Josh Rosenbluth
Peter Franks
> On Nov 20, 8:47 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> Lefty wrote:
>>> On Nov 19, 8:04 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 19, 6:42 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_314144704.html
>>>>>>> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a person
>>>>>>> because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse, say, than
>>>>>>> murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear ended your car?
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> So-called 'hate crime' legislation is unconstitutional, it violated the
>>>>>> principle of equal protection.
>>>>> How so?
>>>> Because it makes my rights less secure than those that belong to these
>>>> special classes.
>>> Nonsense. Nobody has the right to kill you, either. Your right to live
>>> is intact.
>> But it is less secure.
>
> How so?
Because I don't fall into one of these special classes.
Josh
You have been told repeatedly that the law provides the same protection
to gays and straights. Stop lying about the law.
Josh Rosenbluth
Peter Franks
Yes, WHY is this any different?
It isn't.
Josh
There you go again. Yes, you do. Stop lying about the law.
Josh Rosenbluth
Pat Magroyne
Example: first-degree murder vs. unintentional manslaughter.
> What's the motivation here to protect gays more than straights?
The straights are covered by precisely the same law.
Pat Magroyne
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 8:47 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >> Lefty wrote:
> >>> On Nov 19, 8:04 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >>>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 19, 6:42 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
> >>>>>>>http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_314144704.html
> >>>>>>> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a person
> >>>>>>> because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse, say, than
> >>>>>>> murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear ended your car?
> >>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>> So-called 'hate crime' legislation is unconstitutional, it violated the
> >>>>>> principle of equal protection.
> >>>>> How so?
> >>>> Because it makes my rights less secure than those that belong to these
> >>>> special classes.
> >>> Nonsense. Nobody has the right to kill you, either. Your right to live
> >>> is intact.
> >> But it is less secure.
>
> > How so?
>
> Because I don't fall into one of these special classes.
You don't have a race, gender, and sexual orientation?
Jim Sumner
I'm waiting to see how the internet keyboard warrior Fox News
fanboy faggots find a way to incorporate the term "Nazi" into hate
crimes legislations such as "Obama proves he's a Nazi by protecting
Blacks and homosexuals". These Fox fan faggots don't seem to grasp
that Nazi is an actual ideology not a synonym for any government
policy they don't agree with. In other words, a Black president can't
be a fucking Nazi, you idiots.
ZerkonXXXX
> That's a VERY slippery slope there. Until such time as technology
> allows us to determine people's THOUGHTS, however, we might just file
> this under "science fiction", where it belongs.
Agree but I am too techno-cynical. There has been way too many "fictions"
recently that are suggesting this be seen as not so fictitious. Where
'intent' becomes the crime with no need for the criminal act to establish
guilt. Whatever the flaws are to keep criminality centered on the
criminal act are minuscule compared to giving the state such power over
the interpretation of thought. Technology or no.
Technology, as you know, does not just spring forth infallible. By nature
it provides exclusive information which then is disseminated 'as is'. The
fact is, people's thoughts would have to be determined by other peoples
thoughts, the people who design, program, operate and read this
technology.
>
>> Preemptive
>> prosecution.
>>
>> The snappy precedent used is premeditation. Since courts are justified
>> with determining premeditation, courts are then justified in
>> determining 'hate', so the argument goes and so does this slippery
>> slope.
>
> By the time a person's hatred reaches such a point that he commits
> violent felonies due to the internal hatred, I think it's safe to say
> that most people would think that person might need a "break" from
> society, in a penitentiary somewhere.
Safe to say, yes. Safe to do? I do not think so.
ZerkonXXXX
>> Originally, it was about limiting federal power which then gives
>> protection. Now it is used as giving power to the Federal government to
>> protect citizens from each other.
>>
>> It is unfortunate that special classes are made the issue here, they
>> are not. The issue is Federal Government anointing itself with power
>> over determining 'hate' and by extension criminalizing a mental
>> precondition to crime. The slippery slope landing in criminalizing
>> thought without the necessity for any criminal act actually being
>> committed. Preemptive prosecution.
>
> We've been over this before. There is no determination of "hate" in the
> law, and there is no sign of heading down the slope of no need for any
> underlying criinal activity.
The 'we' here has changed and the past 'we' did not settle in agreement.
You may want to take these laws literally, so if the word 'hate' does not
appear in the body, hate is not really a issue even though the word is
used now as a legal classification ("hate crimes"). This is the sign of
the slippery slope.
>> The snappy precedent used is premeditation. Since courts are justified
>> with determining premeditation, courts are then justified in
>> determining 'hate', so the argument goes and so does this slippery
>> slope.
>>
>> This relatively dry issue is instead made into hot buttons of sex,
>> race, and gods which does nothing but divide citizens. Prosecution of
>> this law as with all the hate laws before this will be arbitrary given
>> the fact the Federal government has given itself immunity from these
>> same hate crimes.
>
> Where did you get that idea?
Which idea is that? Immunity from International law or seeing this as
only about sex, religion and race?
Josh
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:49:55 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>
>>> Originally, it was about limiting federal power which then gives
>>> protection. Now it is used as giving power to the Federal government to
>>> protect citizens from each other.
>>>
>>> It is unfortunate that special classes are made the issue here, they
>>> are not. The issue is Federal Government anointing itself with power
>>> over determining 'hate' and by extension criminalizing a mental
>>> precondition to crime. The slippery slope landing in criminalizing
>>> thought without the necessity for any criminal act actually being
>>> committed. Preemptive prosecution.
>> We've been over this before. There is no determination of "hate" in the
>> law, and there is no sign of heading down the slope of no need for any
>> underlying criinal activity.
>
> The 'we' here has changed and the past 'we' did not settle in agreement.
> You may want to take these laws literally, so if the word 'hate' does not
> appear in the body, hate is not really a issue even though the word is
> used now as a legal classification ("hate crimes"). This is the sign of
> the slippery slope.
Since you are making a claim that we are heading down a slope, we should
be able to set up some objective measures to see if you turn out to be
correct. For instance, what's the next step down the slope and when
will it occur?
>>> The snappy precedent used is premeditation. Since courts are justified
>>> with determining premeditation, courts are then justified in
>>> determining 'hate', so the argument goes and so does this slippery
>>> slope.
>>>
>>> This relatively dry issue is instead made into hot buttons of sex,
>>> race, and gods which does nothing but divide citizens. Prosecution of
>>> this law as with all the hate laws before this will be arbitrary given
>>> the fact the Federal government has given itself immunity from these
>>> same hate crimes.
>> Where did you get that idea?
>
> Which idea is that? Immunity from International law or seeing this as
> only about sex, religion and race?
The part about the Federal government given itself immunity.
Josh Rosenbluth
RD (The Sandman)
news:3de1cad4-c760-4af4...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
If he is a white male and is killed by a black male, the odds are very
high that the black male will NOT be charged with a hate crime. Is that
how it should be? Yes......and the reverse should also be true.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
RD (The Sandman)
news:6da08c75-0e6f-4125...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
You were doing fine until your last sentence. If a black president held
the same actual ideology as the Nazis, why, in your opinion, could he not
be one?
Klaus Schadenfreude
> I'm waiting to see how the internet keyboard warrior Fox News
>fanboy faggots find a way to incorporate the term "Nazi" into hate
>crimes legislations such as "Obama proves he's a Nazi by protecting
>Blacks and homosexuals". These Fox fan faggots don't seem to grasp
>that Nazi is an actual ideology not a synonym for any government
>policy they don't agree with.
Pretty funny, coming from the party of
"let's-redefine-words-to-fit-our-version-of-reality."
>In other words, a Black president can't
>be a fucking Nazi, you idiots.
You need to get out more, shit-for-brains.
http://www.vnnforum.com/archive/index.php/t-61829.html
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Black%20Nazi
http://www.jtf.org/israel/israel.black.nazi.nelson.mandela.htm
etc. etc. etc.
Jeff Strickland
"Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroys...@usurper.org> wrote in message
news:Xns9CC872E5D4...@202.177.16.121...
> http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_314144704.html
>
> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a person
> because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse, say, than
> murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear ended your car?
>
> Prevention Act. Well, actually he passed the 2010 National Defense
> Authorization Act, slipped onto it was the hate crimes legislation.
>
> Now, before getting into what's wrong with the law, let's talk about
> what's right: Its goals are absolutely dead on. Society should protect
> people who are vulnerable to harassment or violence because of who they
> are or what they believe.
>
> I applaud any movement and provision that protects all citizens from
> harm. But weakening and damaging our country is not something to be
> proud of. And that is exactly what this new hate crime law does.
>
> by gender, sexual orientation or disabilities. It's the first major
> expansion of hate crimes legislation originally passed in 1968,
> targeting crimes aimed at race, color, religion and national origin.
>
> After signing this new law, President Obama celebrated it by saying that
> in this nation we should "embrace our differences."
>
> On one hand, the president is right - No one deserves to be murdered
> because he is gay or she is a lesbian. This nation should be safe for
> all Americans, period.
>
> On the other hand - The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and
> religion, and hate-crime laws should not erode those freedoms.
>
> Constitutional law is not about embracing differences. It is about
> providing equal and non arbitrary protection to all citizens.
>
> 14th Amendment to our Constitution, passed after the Civil War,
> guarantees. That this nation takes this guarantee seriously - that there
> are no classes of individuals treated differently under the law.
>
> What could it possibly mean that the penalty for the same act of
> violence - for murder - may be different depending on what might be
> perceived as the motivation?
>
> Is it not a sign of our own pathology that we now have classified it is
> worse to murder a homosexual than someone who has committed adultery,
> even with your spouse, or someone who has insulted or robbed?
>
> Isn't murder - murder?
>
> Is it realistic to believe that someone capable of murder is less likely
> to do so if the victim is a homosexual if the penalties are greater?
>
> Clearly the hate crime law has nothing to do with improving our law but
> rather with creating favored political classes.
>
> Black on black homicides that plague our inner cities - Hate crimes?
>
> What of the source instructing against murder and to love your neighbor
> as yourself? - Banned from schools and public spaces.
>
> What seems to becoming a Godless nation, I see a mistaken identity of
> the disease and the cure.
>
> Armand Nardi is the publisher of the Gainesville Daily Register. He can
> be contacted at: ana...@ntin.net.
>
All crime committed against another person is at some level a Hate Crime. I
agree, hate crime legislation making a senseless murder more heinous because
a white guy killed a black instead of another white, or a black guy killed a
white instead of another black is fundamentally flawed.
A guy can kill his wife because he truly hates her -- or she can do him in
for the same reason -- but this seems to not be part of the Hate Crimes
legislation. If the couple is mixed race, and one of them offs the other, is
it suddenly a hate crime under the legislatioin? Is the crime different? Or
the punishment different?
The cirme is the same crime. The _reason_ behind committing the crime might
be different, or not, but the crime itself is the same -- murder is murder
and it is never right. Well, I suppose it might be right in some instances,
but then it's not murder anymore.
Peter Franks
That isn't an example of different motivation.
It is an example of different causes.
So, explain again, motivations based on what?
Pat Magroyne
Don't be silly. Of course it is.
> It is an example of different causes.
Nope. Incident: Hitting a person with a car.
First-degree murder requires intent.
Unintentional manslaughter implies lack of intent, more likely
recklessness or some such thing.
> So, explain again, motivations based on what?
I'm not sure what you're asking here.
Lefty
> On Nov 19, 7:58 pm, Lefty <leftydr...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroysoet...@usurper.org> wrote:
> > > I applaud any movement and provision that protects all citizens from
> > > harm. But weakening and damaging our country is not something to be
>
> > He then fails to explain how. Classic sign of a bullshit artist.
>
> The law damages our country by federalizing a crime that should be the
> sole jurisdiction of the state it occurred in. America is a
> federation of sovereign states, with a central government whose
> function is to provide for the national defense and regulate
> interstate commerce. Assault and battery has nothing to do with
> interstate commerce, therefore it is the jurisdiction of states.
>
> Also, the law seems to be unnecessary because nobody has provided an
> example of any state refusing to prosecute an assault against a
> homosexual victim. If there was evidence of deliberate inaction, then
> perhaps federal intervention might be necessary, but this law seems
> purely political in nature, designed to pander to a special interest
> group, with the rationale that the federal government can do a better
> job of prosecuting crime - that state governments are incompetent.
None of what you have posted equates to damage. Damage would imply
harm. Who is being harmed?
As for states prosecuting crimes against homosexuals, these crimes are
being committed by police themselves, according to Amnesty
International. Of course they wouldn't be prosecuted. Just how naive
are you? The state's DA is not going to prosecute his/her own police
allies.
Peter Franks
Those aren't examples of different motivations, they examples of
different causes. The different cause can have a different punishment.
An example of different motivations is something like:
someone bent on killing someone because:
- they are black
- they are gay
- they have red hair
- they are rich
- they look funny
etc.
Those are examples of different motivations.
So, back to my question, why is one motivation for murder more protected
than another?
Peter Franks
I'm not a cop.
Peter Franks
I do.
But what makes those classes more protected than say:
- red hair
- wealth, or lack thereof
- non-race/gender looks
etc.
Let's simplify:
Why is murder because someone is black so much more heinous than murder
because someone has red hair?
Josh
But, you are straight, white and male, Therefore, you fall into the
special classes.
Josh Rosenbluth
Lefty
It isn't more heinous. But unless you can document that there are
cases of hate-based crimes against redheads, ugly people, etc, it
isn't a problem that needs to be addressed by the law. You do have a
point about social class, since homeless people get attacked just for
being homeless quite often. That is a hate crime which is a problem.
Enos Penvy
The act of murder is heinous in both situations. Blacks belong to a
suspect class, while redheads do not. Here's a primer on "suspect
classes": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification
Your having used this as an example illustrates just how ridiculous
and unacceptable acting on such hatred is. If for some reason
suddenly lots of people became anti-redhead and thought it OK and
socially acceptable to attack redheads simply because they are
redheads, I think you'd see redheads included as a suspect class.
I think you can see how the population of redheads -- knowing they can
be persecuted and attacked simply for having red hair -- would be
terrorized.
Hate crimes affect much more than the individuals involved in them.
They affect an entire class of people who could face the same for
simply being who they are.
Hate crimes are an act of terrorism against the group, and for that
reason, these crimes differ from random acts of violence or acts of
violence against an individual who DID something that somehow directly
affected the attacker.
Josh
> On Nov 23, 6:31 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> Let's simplify:
>>
>> Why is murder because someone is black so much more heinous than murder
>> because someone has red hair?
>
> The act of murder is heinous in both situations. Blacks belong to a
> suspect class, while redheads do not. Here's a primer on "suspect
> classes": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification
Legislatures are free to include non-suspect classifications in hate
crimes statutes, and also free to exclude suspect classifications.
Josh Rosenbluth
Jim Sumner
@comcast.net> wrote:
Blacks can't hold the same ideology as Nazis since the foundation of
Nazi ideology is Nordic supremacy. Obama is not of the Nordic race.
You are under the confused notion that Nazism is simply totalitarian
rule and anti-Semitism, it is not.
Jim Sumner
<klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nazism is Nordic supremacy, Blacks can't be Nordic supremacists.
juanjo
wrote:
> http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_314144704.html
>
> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a person
> because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse, say, than
> murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear ended your car?
>
> Prevention Act. Well, actually he passed the 2010 National Defense
> Authorization Act, slipped onto it was the hate crimes legislation.
>
> Now, before getting into what's wrong with the law, let's talk about
> what's right: Its goals are absolutely dead on. Society should protect
> people who are vulnerable to harassment or violence because of who they
> are or what they believe.
>
> harm. But weakening and damaging our country is not something to be
There are numerous fallacies with this argument.
First we as a society have always considered the motivation of an act
in the decision of whether the act is even punishable much lass what
the degree of punishment might be. Fundamental to the commission of
crime in western law is the concept of Mens Rea which simply means the
"guilty mind". For example, if someone were walking down the street
and stumbled, he falling into another person and pushing him in front
of a speeding truck which killed that poor unfortunate passerby, we
would not consider the person who stumbled as having committed a
criminal act as it was not volitional.
Similarly we have considered the motivation of the criminal in the
commission of his actions in determining the punishment for the
crime. For example, many states have laws which provide for enhanced
punishment if one rapes and very young or an elderly person because
they people are seen as especially vulnerable and thus the people who
prey upon them are exceptionally depraved. Thus we enhance the
punishment of the criminal for selecting that particular class
victim.
Most states have varying degrees of murder and these can differ from
state to state. But there is typically a distinction made between a
murder committed in the heat of the moment as opposed to one which is
carefully thought out and planned well in advance. Many states
provide for an enhanced penalty where one murders a police officer or
any public official who is discharging the duties to which he has been
assigned. Again we look to the motivation of the act and punish the
perpetrator based upon his action.
Hate crimes legislation does the same thing. It looks to the intent
of the perpetrator. If the perpetrator selects his victim based upon
certain enumerated classifications then he can receive an enhanced
punishment. So for example you could have a African American man who
for some reason decides that he hates African Americans and seeks out
his victims solely on that basis and kills them. He is guilty of a
hate crime because of the motivation of the act he committed. A
homosexual who hates other homosexuals and assaults gay men simply
because they are gay men could also face enhanced punishment for a
hate crime because he selected his victims based upon their sexual
orientation. Admittedly these cases are few and far between but hate
crimes do occur and the issue in a hate crime is whether the
perpetrator of the crime selected the victim on the basis of the
victims perceived membership in one of the enumerated
classifications.
The Supreme Court case which ruled that this was constitutional did so
in a case in which a group of young black men went out and assaulted a
white man for no reason other than he was white. See State v.
Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 113 S. Ct. 2194, 124 L. Ed. 2d 436 (1993).
The court ruled that it was the law was aimed at conduct not
expression. So for example a group of Ku Klux Klan members could hold
a rally and burn a cross while shouting "white power" and "kill all
niggers". However if the Klan members come to someone's house and
burn a cross in their yard without their permission and with the
intent to drive them from their home because they are not white
Christians, the Klan members can be prosecuted for the crime of
criminal intimidation and receive the enhanced sentence provided for
in a hate crime since the criminal act was motivated by racial and
religious bias. See Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 123 S. Ct. 1536,
155 L. Ed. 2d 535 (2003).
Mr. Nardi makes a statement which I agree with:
"Constitutional law is not about embracing differences. It is about
providing equal and non arbitrary protection to all citizens.
Equal protection for every individual American under the law is what
the
14th Amendment to our Constitution, passed after the Civil War,
guarantees. That this nation takes this guarantee seriously - that
there
are no classes of individuals treated differently under the law. "
But his argument then goes about setting that statement on its ear.
The 14th Amendment was all about ensuring that people were nto
selected out and prohibited from participating the functions of our
society because of racial animus. it was specifically directed at
actions designed to protect former slaves who were being stripped of
their rights to participate in society as free citizens. The 14th
Amendment was directed at preventing governmental entities from
stripping citizens of their rights under the constitution.
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
There are no special classes of people under hate crimes legislation
since arguably everyone comes under the definitions involved.
Everyone has a race and gender. Everyone has a sexual orientation.
We have as a society decided that selecting people out on the basis
for example of their religion to attack them is particularly
reprehensible and deserving of more punishment than a crime in which
the victim is selected at random, because of the more extreme
maliciousness involved in the process.
As noted above we do this frequently in determining the punishments
for crimes in various areas, especially murder and rape.
Now the Supreme Court has ruled that one has the right to hate and to
express that hate verbally. You can burn a cross in a public space or
on your own property as an expression of your political views. See
for example R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 112 S. Ct. 2538,
120 L. Ed. 2d 305 [1992] You can march down the street in Skokie and
scream hatred towards Jews. National Socialist Party of America v.
Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977) You can put up a website and
write megabytes of invective against the "mud peoples" who are
polluting your country. You can write a book such as the Turner
Diaries and sell it on Amazon, see
http://www.amazon.com/Turner-Diaries-Novel-Andrew-MacDonald/dp/1569800863.
But if you go out and blow up government buildings or start killing
nonwhites based upon your beliefs be prepared to face the consequences
of your actions. And those consequences may be enhanced because of
the motivation you had for the crime.
Now someone commented earlier how they considered hate crimes
enhancements to be irrelevant as you can only kill a man once for a
murder and that is true to the extent you cannot kill a person more
than once. But not all murders are punished by death. But a murder
in which a person goes out and kills for no other reason than he hates
people of a particular race is a crime in which the state can show the
criminal's motivation is especially heinous and deserving of death.
juanjo
> On Nov 19, 7:58 pm, Lefty <leftydr...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > I applaud any movement and provision that protects all citizens from
> > > harm. But weakening and damaging our country is not something to be
> > > proud of. And that is exactly what this new hate crime law does.
>
>
> The law damages our country by federalizing a crime that should be the
> sole jurisdiction of the state it occurred in. America is a
> federation of sovereign states, with a central government whose
> function is to provide for the national defense and regulate
> interstate commerce. Assault and battery has nothing to do with
> interstate commerce, therefore it is the jurisdiction of states.
>
> Also, the law seems to be unnecessary because nobody has provided an
> example of any state refusing to prosecute an assault against a
> homosexual victim. If there was evidence of deliberate inaction, then
> perhaps federal intervention might be necessary, but this law seems
> purely political in nature, designed to pander to a special interest
> group, with the rationale that the federal government can do a better
> job of prosecuting crime - that state governments are incompetent.
where did you get your law degree?
Tijuana?
juanjo
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 8:47 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >> Lefty wrote:
> >>> On Nov 19, 8:04 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >>>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 19, 6:42 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_314144704.html
> >>>>>>> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a person
> >>>>>>> because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse, say, than
> >>>>>>> murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear ended your car?
> >>>>>> So-called 'hate crime' legislation is unconstitutional, it violated the
> >>>>>> principle of equal protection.
> >>>>> How so?
> >>>> Because it makes my rights less secure than those that belong to these
> >>>> special classes.
> >>> Nonsense. Nobody has the right to kill you, either. Your right to live
> >>> is intact.
> >> But it is less secure.
>
> > How so?
>
> Because I don't fall into one of these special classes.
You have no gender? No age? No religious affiliation? No
ethnicity? No national origin? No skin color? No sexual
orientation? You must be Mr. Cellophane.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Uh, no, it isn't, dumb ass.
As a generic concept, National Socialism opposes capitalism,
communism, democratic socialism and liberalism. It *may* also oppose
certain nations, ethnicities and other groups that are deemed to be
enemies of the specific ethnicity to which it is applied.
RD (The Sandman)
> On Nov 22, 12:16�pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
> @comcast.net> wrote:
>> Jim Sumner <JimSummer...@aol.com> wrote
>> innews:6da08c75-0e6f-4125-84a8-c3
> 43c5e...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 21, 9:23�pm, Pat Magroyne <patmagro...@null.net> wrote:
>> >> On Nov 21, 8:49�pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> >> > > On Nov 20, 8:47 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> >> > >> Lefty wrote:
>> >> > >>> On Nov 19, 8:04 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> >> > >>>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> >> > >>>>> On Nov 19, 6:42 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> >> > >>>>>> Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
>> >> > >>>>>>>http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_
>> >> > >>>>>>>314 144
He is half white. You are correct, he could only be a Na or a zi. ;)
> You are under the confused notion that Nazism is simply totalitarian
> rule and anti-Semitism, it is not.
I know that.
Jimbo
wrote:
> http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_314144704.html
>
> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a person
> because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse, say, than
> murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear ended your car?
>
> Prevention Act. Well, actually he passed the 2010 National Defense
> Authorization Act, slipped onto it was the hate crimes legislation.
>
> Now, before getting into what's wrong with the law, let's talk about
> what's right: Its goals are absolutely dead on. Society should protect
> people who are vulnerable to harassment or violence because of who they
> are or what they believe.
Before getting into your complaints, have you taken the time to read
the hate crime law?
RamRod Sword of Baal
wrote:
> http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_314144704.html
>
> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a person
> because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse, say, than
> murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear ended your car?
Yes
Jim Sumner
wrote:
> In talk.politics.guns Jim Sumner <JimSummer...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Nov 22, 12:29 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude
> ><klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> In talk.politics.guns Jim Sumner <JimSummer...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> > I'm waiting to see how the internet keyboard warrior Fox News
> >> >fanboy faggots find a way to incorporate the term "Nazi" into hate
> >> >crimes legislations such as "Obama proves he's a Nazi by protecting
> >> >Blacks and homosexuals". These Fox fan faggots don't seem to grasp
> >> >that Nazi is an actual ideology not a synonym for any government
> >> >policy they don't agree with.
>
> >> Pretty funny, coming from the party of
> >> "let's-redefine-words-to-fit-our-version-of-reality."
>
> >> >In other words, a Black president can't
> >> >be a fucking Nazi, you idiots.
>
>
> >> etc. etc. etc.
>
> > Nazism is Nordic supremacy
>
> Uh, no, it isn't, dumb ass.
>
> As a generic concept, National Socialism opposes capitalism,
> communism, democratic socialism and liberalism. It *may* also oppose
> certain nations, ethnicities and other groups that are deemed to be
> enemies of the specific ethnicity to which it is applied.
There's no may about it, it has a set racial belief system based on
the Nordic race. Also, National Socialism is not a Globalist ideology
therefore there's no such thing as whichever specific ethnicity it is
applied to, it is not that open for interpretation, it relates only to
Germany, Germans, and Nordics.
Jim Sumner
wrote:
> In talk.politics.guns Jim Sumner <JimSummer...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Nov 22, 12:29 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude
> ><klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> In talk.politics.guns Jim Sumner <JimSummer...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> > I'm waiting to see how the internet keyboard warrior Fox News
> >> >fanboy faggots find a way to incorporate the term "Nazi" into hate
> >> >crimes legislations such as "Obama proves he's a Nazi by protecting
> >> >Blacks and homosexuals". These Fox fan faggots don't seem to grasp
> >> >that Nazi is an actual ideology not a synonym for any government
> >> >policy they don't agree with.
>
> >> Pretty funny, coming from the party of
> >> "let's-redefine-words-to-fit-our-version-of-reality."
>
> >> >In other words, a Black president can't
> >> >be a fucking Nazi, you idiots.
>
>
> >> etc. etc. etc.
>
> > Nazism is Nordic supremacy
>
> Uh, no, it isn't, dumb ass.
>
> As a generic concept, National Socialism opposes capitalism,
> communism, democratic socialism and liberalism. It *may* also oppose
> certain nations, ethnicities and other groups that are deemed to be
> enemies of the specific ethnicity to which it is applied.
There is no generic National Socialism, it was created for Germany.
What you've listed above is a generic definition of Fascism which is
not National Socialism. I find it amusing that there are people in
this group who are so dumb as to belief that the Nazis invented Nazism
so that Arabs could hate Blacks or Asians could hate Indians. Nazis
invented Nazism for themselves and themselves alone, for Germany,
Germans, and the Nordic race. Therefore, Barack Obama can't be a
freakin' Nazi regardless of what Rush Oxycontin addict Limbaugh leads
you to believe.
TranslucentAmoebae
> On Nov 19, 2:17 pm, "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroysoet...@usurper.org>
> wrote:
>
> > 14th Amendment to our Constitution
>
> example, to "race" rather than any specific or all non-white races,
> and "sexual orientation" rather than just non-heterosexual
> orientations. This way, everyone's covered.
Hardly.
All these -so called- hate crime bills are not meant to protect some
specific groups,
They are intended to allow hate crimes against everyone NOT mentioned
specifically.
These laws need to be abolished and when you do murder someone, or
just ruff them up,
It needs to be established and considered at your sentencing.
As it is; Ugly & Fat people are still in Season.
TranslucentAmoebae
wrote:
> http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/editorials/local_story_314144704.html
>
> Are some violent crimes more heinous than others? Is killing a person
> because of race, sexual orientation or religion worse, say, than
> murdering someone because you were drunk or he rear ended your car?
>
> Prevention Act. Well, actually he passed the 2010 National Defense
> Authorization Act, slipped onto it was the hate crimes legislation.
>
> Now, before getting into what's wrong with the law, let's talk about
> what's right: Its goals are absolutely dead on. Society should protect
> people who are vulnerable to harassment or violence because of who they
> are or what they believe.
>
> harm. But weakening and damaging our country is not something to be
> proud of. And that is exactly what this new hate crime law does.
>
> by gender, sexual orientation or disabilities. It's the first major
> expansion of hate crimes legislation originally passed in 1968,
> targeting crimes aimed at race, color, religion and national origin.
>
> After signing this new law, President Obama celebrated it by saying that
> in this nation we should "embrace our differences."
>
> On one hand, the president is right - No one deserves to be murdered
> because he is gay or she is a lesbian. This nation should be safe for
> all Americans, period.
>
> On the other hand - The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and
> religion, and hate-crime laws should not erode those freedoms.
>
> Constitutional law is not about embracing differences. It is about
> providing equal and non arbitrary protection to all citizens.
>
> guarantees. That this nation takes this guarantee seriously - that there
> are no classes of individuals treated differently under the law.
>
> What could it possibly mean that the penalty for the same act of
> violence - for murder - may be different depending on what might be
> perceived as the motivation?
>
> Is it not a sign of our own pathology that we now have classified it is
> worse to murder a homosexual than someone who has committed adultery,
> even with your spouse, or someone who has insulted or robbed?
>
> Isn't murder - murder?
>
> Is it realistic to believe that someone capable of murder is less likely
> to do so if the victim is a homosexual if the penalties are greater?
>
> Clearly the hate crime law has nothing to do with improving our law but
> rather with creating favored political classes.
>
> Black on black homicides that plague our inner cities - Hate crimes?
>
> What of the source instructing against murder and to love your neighbor
> as yourself? - Banned from schools and public spaces.
>
> What seems to becoming a Godless nation, I see a mistaken identity of
> the disease and the cure.
>
> Armand Nardi is the publisher of the Gainesville Daily Register. He can
> be contacted at: ana...@ntin.net.
>
> Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact to
> Rangel's tax evasion.
Hate crime legislation is a back door crime.
Drug laws are full of these.
For whatever reasons; Prosecutors may decide that the current laws are
being severe enough, and so they tack on back door crimes.
In several recent -Terrorist- cases; A suspect was brought in roughed
up, and after weeks of torture, they finally charge him with several
back door crimes that they committed during their interrogation; Like
being inconsistent or sweating too much...
But what happened to the original charges?
There never were any.
Back Door crimes are gawdsend to The Terrorists on our side.
Pat Magroyne
wrote:
> On Nov 19, 11:36 am, Pat Magroyne <patmagro...@null.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 2:17 pm, "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroysoet...@usurper.org>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Equal protection for every individual American under the law is what the
> > > 14th Amendment to our Constitution
>
> > Which is why these laws are worded as they are. They refer, for
> > example, to "race" rather than any specific or all non-white races,
> > and "sexual orientation" rather than just non-heterosexual
> > orientations. This way, everyone's covered.
>
> Hardly.
> All these -so called- hate crime bills are not meant to protect some
> specific groups,
> They are intended to allow hate crimes against everyone NOT mentioned
> specifically.
Get real.
Peter Franks
So, what sense does it make to give this suspect class additional
protections that those that aren't in the special class don't enjoy?
Why not make the punishment more severe and protect ALL, regardless of
the class.
Peter Franks
So the question is why don't they? If there is a group that is more
susceptible to discrimination, then stiffen the penalty - period, and
protect all, equally.
The creation of these artificial classes is repugnant when you consider
the true purpose of government.
Peter Franks
According to a reference provided elsewhere in this thread, a suspect
classification is "any classification of groups meeting a series of
criteria suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination".
Most of the groups that I belong to are not more likely to be the
subject of discrimination.
The groups that I do belong to that are subject to discrimination aren't
protected, and more than likely, won't be due to the utter disregard for
those that strive to do what is right.
Josh
> Josh wrote:
>> Enos Penvy wrote:
>>> On Nov 23, 6:31 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>> Let's simplify:
>>>>
>>>> Why is murder because someone is black so much more heinous than murder
>>>> because someone has red hair?
>>>
>>> The act of murder is heinous in both situations. Blacks belong to a
>>> suspect class, while redheads do not. Here's a primer on "suspect
>>> classes": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification
>>
>> Legislatures are free to include non-suspect classifications in hate
>> crimes statutes, and also free to exclude suspect classifications.
>
> So the question is why don't they? If there is a group that is more
> susceptible to discrimination, then stiffen the penalty - period, and
> protect all, equally.
All are protected equally. Gays with red hair get the same protection
as straights with blond hair.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh
A better wording would be, "the trait by which people are classified
into groups, where one or more of the resulting groups are likely the
subject of discrimination." The trait is "race" not blacks.
Josh Rosenbluth
RD (The Sandman)
When is the last time you saw gays charged with a hate crime against
straights?
Josh
> Josh <us...@nowhere.com> wrote in news:hekpfv$375$1...@josh.motzarella.org:
>
>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>> Josh wrote:
>>>> Enos Penvy wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 23, 6:31 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Let's simplify:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why is murder because someone is black so much more heinous than
>>>>>> murder because someone has red hair?
>>>>> The act of murder is heinous in both situations. Blacks belong to
>>>>> a suspect class, while redheads do not. Here's a primer on
>>>>> "suspect classes":
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification
>>>> Legislatures are free to include non-suspect classifications in hate
>>>> crimes statutes, and also free to exclude suspect classifications.
>>> So the question is why don't they? If there is a group that is more
>>> susceptible to discrimination, then stiffen the penalty - period, and
>>> protect all, equally.
>> All are protected equally. Gays with red hair get the same protection
>> as straights with blond hair.
>
> When is the last time you saw gays charged with a hate crime against
> straights?
There were 33 such cases in 2008.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/data/table_01.html
Josh Rosenbluth
Wayne
"Josh" <us...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:hemo59$su$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
But, they didn't get singled out for special "hate crimes" punishment.
Josh
> But, they didn't get singled out for special "hate crimes" punishment.
Yes they were.
Josh Rosenbluth
Info Junkie
Excellent information Mr Rosenbluth. I am curious though. Is the data
in this table based on a conviction of a so-called hate crime or just
a "claim" of a "reported" hate crime bias?
If you celebrated the Thanksgiving holiday, I hope you had an
enjoyable day.
Josh
I'm guessing it was charges, not convictions. Thanksgiving was a
hate-free day.
Josh Rosenbluth
RD (The Sandman)
> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>> Josh <us...@nowhere.com> wrote in news:hekpfv$375$1
Thank you for the cite.
RD (The Sandman)
@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> "Josh" <us...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:hemo59$su$1...@josh.motzarella.org...
>> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>>> Josh <us...@nowhere.com> wrote in news:hekpfv$375$1
If they hadn't been, they wouldn't have been on the list.
Wayne
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CD05BB1C...@216.196.97.130...
the punishment was not addressed. With the current PC climate, it is most
likely that the homosexual perps were not singled out for "hate crime"
punishment.
Peter Franks
Answer me one question:
Why is murdering someone because they are rich less heinous than
murdering someone because he is white?