Hate Should Not Be A Crime!

[Hoaxster]

Originally Posted by Jones

Got some statistics on that?

Heard it on PBS one evening...so answer is nope, really ain't interested. Sorry.

[Jones]

Originally Posted by Hoaxster

Heard it on PBS one evening...so answer is nope, really ain't interested. Sorry.

[diesel96]

Originally Posted by big_arrow_up

You made this and issue. YOU brought it up. You attempted to make a comparison (a stupid one at that) between the two based on your own twisted interpretation of what a particular group believes. The two are not comparable.

Not comparable...lol, I just proved they are comparable by using you as a role model. The Rt wing handbook instructs you against Hate crime Legislation and it instructs you against Equal Emploment Opportunities, and lets throw another comparison of Civil Equal rights for gays and lesbians . What's the problem? Why pretend Rt Wingers and Individual Freedom Lovers are something there not.

You are talking out of your rear as usual. If you could "STAY FOCUUSED" then your overly emotional and sensitive liberal mind would understand that Hate Crimes legislation and special treatment for certain groups pertaining to employment rights are both unconstitutional. You know....that thing all those old guys signed all those years ago when they were starting something called The United States of America? So, sounds like you are the one that needs to get in touch. With reality.

Emotional Liberal this, sensitive Liberal that....your Rep/Con handbook needs some new material BigA, it's out dated itself. Here's a touch of reality, hate crimes legislation, and EEOC/AA are in place, in the books, therefore are constitutional, until you can get the 9 members of the SCOTUS to change it, your just blowing smoke up people's rear as usual.

Debate over hate crime laws
Penalty-enhancement hate crime laws are traditionally justified on the grounds that, in

Chief Justice Rehnquist" target="_blank">Chief Justice Rehnquist

William_Rehnquist

's words, "this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest."[15]
Some people object to penalty-enhancement and federal prosecution laws because they believe they offer preferred protection to certain individuals over others. There is less opposition to data collection statutes

[bbsam]

Originally Posted by Hoaxster

That's too logical ... the masses will never understand it.

You would leave crime and punishment to what the "masses understand"? Are you looking to start a "French Revolution" in this country? Been practicing you knitting?

[big_arrow_up]

Originally Posted by diesel96

Debate over hate crime laws
Penalty-enhancement hate crime laws are traditionally justified on the grounds that, in Chief Justice Rehnquist's words, "this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest."[15]
Some people object to penalty-enhancement and federal prosecution laws because they believe they offer preferred protection to certain individuals over others. There is less opposition to data collection statutes

Oh sorryI forgot. All the whacko liberals have to do to get away with making laws that violate the constitution is, well, make the laws that violate The Constitution. You hit the nail on the head with that one. Once its in the books everything is just dandy right? Regardless of how many people get screwed over? And you don't have to worry about me getting a new "handbook." If idiot liberals such as yourself are allowed to keep running things in this country then that handbook I follow will be changed so much it will be a so unrecognizable it might as well be a new "handbook." That "handbook" is, or maybe I should say WAS The Constitution. How is that for blowing smoke up someone's rear? Now go put in your volunteer time at the local abortion clinic, purchase a carbon credit for all the times you passed gas today, or whatever it is your nutcases do to pass the time between working and sleeping.

[Dis-organized Labor]

Originally Posted by bbsam

You would leave crime and punishment to what the "masses understand"? Are you looking to start a "French Revolution" in this country? Been practicing you knitting?

Does one "practice you knitting" or "knit"???

[bbsam]

Originally Posted by Dis-organized Labor

Does one "practice you knitting" or "knit"???

I believe one practices knitting. One may also practice weaving or crocheting, but neither would have the same literary reference to Madame De'Farge. Wouldn't want to irritate the ghost of Dickens with such a slight.

[Lue C Fur]

Originally Posted by big_arrow_up

Oh sorryI forgot. All the whacko liberals have to do to get away with making laws that violate the constitution is, well, make the laws that violate The Constitution. You hit the nail on the head with that one. Once its in the books everything is just dandy right? Regardless of how many people get screwed over? And you don't have to worry about me getting a new "handbook." If idiot liberals such as yourself are allowed to keep running things in this country then that handbook I follow will be changed so much it will be a so unrecognizable it might as well be a new "handbook." That "handbook" is, or maybe I should say WAS The Constitution. How is that for blowing smoke up someone's rear? Now go put in your volunteer time at the local abortion clinic, purchase a carbon credit for all the times you passed gas today, or whatever it is your nutcases do to pass the time between working and sleeping.

The carbon credit passing gas thing was a gutbuster....thanks. he he

[diesel96]

Originally Posted by big_arrow_up

Oh sorryI forgot. All the whacko liberals have to do to get away with making laws that violate the constitution is, well, make the laws that violate The Constitution. You hit the nail on the head with that one. Once its in the books everything is just dandy right? Regardless of how many people get screwed over?

And you don't have to worry about me getting a new "handbook." If idiot liberals such as yourself are allowed to keep running things in this country then that handbook I follow will be changed so much it will be a so unrecognizable it might as well be a new "handbook." That "handbook" is, or maybe I should say WAS The Constitution. How is that for blowing smoke up someone's rear? Now go put in your volunteer time at the local abortion clinic, purchase a carbon credit for all the times you passed gas today, or whatever it is your nutcases do to pass the time between working and sleeping.

Wow, you bring such strong arguements BigA...... whackos, idiots, nutcases, abortion clinics, and carbon credits....OOOh Such intelligence oozing out into your debating skills BigA. Seriously, why aren't you capable of keeping your composure in a public forum. Your post are a direct reflection of your maturity level and your obsession of resorting to namecalling and sterotyping when someone challenges you...
Please share with your minute array of conservative knowledge, what part of the Hate Crime Expansion Bill is un-constitutional ?
But before you do, are you aware that hate crime laws were enacted after the assassination of Martin Luther King, probably before your immature @ss was born.
The expansion of the Hate Crime Bill has long been sought by civil rights and gay rights groups. Conservatives groups naturally opposed it, as well as any other minority, gender, or gay issue, with a bogus arguement that it creates a special class of victims. There's also paranoia, that it could silence clergymen or others opposed to homosexuality on religious or philosophical grounds.
Statistics show 45 states have hate crimes statutes, and this bill will not change current practices where hate crimes are generally investigated and prosecuted by state and local officials.
So tell us BigA with your volunteer time, where do you spend it ? In a Mnpls airport restroom with a wide stance?

[chev]

Originally Posted by stevetheupsguy

So now that you know where he stands on these issues, does it make him a bad person? Does everyone here, at work, or even in this world have to agree with what you believe diesel? If we don't believe as you believe are we to be subject to ridicule?

Big props steve. This crap is getting old. Borderline flaming if you ask me

[big_arrow_up]

Originally Posted by Lue C Fur

The carbon credit passing gas thing was a gutbuster....thanks. he he

No problem. I'm sure he was offended by that as well. Probably has bad gas and has reported me to the thought police so I can be processed for a hate crime.

Originally Posted by chev

Big props steve. This crap is getting old. Borderline flaming if you ask me

Flaming is the appropriate word since the air coming out of liberals mouths is usually flaming hot.

[bbsam]

Originally Posted by big_arrow_up

Oh sorryI forgot. All the whacko liberals have to do to get away with making laws that violate the constitution is, well, make the laws that violate The Constitution. You hit the nail on the head with that one. Once its in the books everything is just dandy right? Regardless of how many people get screwed over? And you don't have to worry about me getting a new "handbook." If idiot liberals such as yourself are allowed to keep running things in this country then that handbook I follow will be changed so much it will be a so unrecognizable it might as well be a new "handbook." That "handbook" is, or maybe I should say WAS The Constitution. How is that for blowing smoke up someone's rear? Now go put in your volunteer time at the local abortion clinic, purchase a carbon credit for all the times you passed gas today, or whatever it is your nutcases do to pass the time between working and sleeping.

I am impressed that someone on the right even remembers how to spell "Constitution" after ignoring it for 8 years. But you are right. The words "Hate Crime" do not appear in the Constitution. Of course neither does "extraordinary rendition". Or "manslaughter", "rape", "drunk driving", "tax evasion". See how silly your argument becomes?

[big_arrow_up]

Originally Posted by bbsam

I am impressed that someone on the right even remembers how to spell "Constitution" after ignoring it for 8 years. But you are right. The words "Hate Crime" do not appear in the Constitution. Of course neither does "extraordinary rendition". Or "manslaughter", "rape", "drunk driving", "tax evasion". See how silly your argument becomes?

Are you serious? You've got to be kidding me. They aren't in The Constitution but they are in the individual states' constitutions and/or law books. Nice try though. Actually....no it wasn't. It was rather "silly." But since you seem lost on the very issue you attempted to use against me I'll help you. Try studying up on the 10th Amendment.

[JimJimmyJames]

It is correct that at times motive needs to be established to correctly apply the law.

I don't think this translates to a need for hate crimes legislation.

[stevetheupsguy]

Originally Posted by JimJimmyJames

It is correct that at times motive needs to be established to correctly apply the law.

I don't think this translates to a need for hate crimes legislation.

I hate when you say stuff like that, oops!

[bbsam]

Originally Posted by big_arrow_up

Are you serious? You've got to be kidding me. They aren't in The Constitution but they are in the individual states' constitutions and/or law books. Nice try though. Actually....no it wasn't. It was rather "silly." But since you seem lost on the very issue you attempted to use against me I'll help you. Try studying up on the 10th Amendment.

Well there you go. I was under the impression that you were some kind of originalist with respect to the Constitution. Under the belief that the Constitution was the "be all and end all" of American juris-prudence. But as you point out there are Amendments and state law and apparently Hate Crime legislation fits in with all the other laws and amendments until the Supreme Court (and not personal opinion) decides that said laws run contrary to the Constitution.

[Dis-organized Labor]

Thris thread is too deep; like the "Contract", we write the parameters and negotiate the details.............

[big_arrow_up]

Originally Posted by bbsam

Well there you go. I was under the impression that you were some kind of originalist with respect to the Constitution. Under the belief that the Constitution was the "be all and end all" of American juris-prudence. But as you point out there are Amendments and state law and apparently Hate Crime legislation fits in with all the other laws and amendments until the Supreme Court (and not personal opinion) decides that said laws run contrary to the Constitution.

Like I said before....all those whackos have to do to to make a law that violates The Constitution is to just simply make the law and use the same half witted logic (or lack of) you just used to justify it. That is the liberal mind at work in a nutshell. And personal opinion seems to be the basis for any liberal decision making regarding The Constitution which is the problem. Last time I checked decisions regarding laws of any kind are supposed to be based on what's in the books. Not personal opinion.

[bbsam]

Originally Posted by big_arrow_up

Like I said before....all those whackos have to do to to make a law that violates The Constitution is to just simply make the law and use the same half witted logic (or lack of) you just used to justify it. That is the liberal mind at work in a nutshell. And personal opinion seems to be the basis for any liberal decision making regarding The Constitution which is the problem. Last time I checked decisions regarding laws of any kind are supposed to be based on what's in the books. Not personal opinion.

So the John Roberts court is a left wing wacko court out of control in it's silence as BHO and Pelosi ram through a socialist agenda? That's a stretch. And yes, on the books. Books and books and books of laws. Not just the Constitution. It's logic like yours that would suggest that the Second Amendment would allow citizens to buy not only assault rifles but chemical, biological, and even nuclear weapons.

[island1fox]

bbsam,
Lets see you say a word and I will immediately say what comes to mind:

RENDITION -------- CLINTON !!!
RAPE ------- CLINTON ----- KENNEDY CLAN
DRUNK DRIVING --------KENNEDY CLAN
MANSLAUGTER --------KENNEDY CLAN
TAX CHEATS -----------RANGEL& MOST OF OBAMAS CABINET
BROKEN PROMISES-LIES ---OBAMA ---"NO BILL WILL BE SIGNED UNTIL AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE READ IT "
"NO MORE SPECIAL INTERESTS GROUPS"
"NO MORE WASTFUL SPENDING"
"HEALTH CARE REFORM WILL NOT BE DONE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS"
ETC ETC ETC !!!!

[Jones]

Originally Posted by island1fox

bbsam,
Lets see you say a word and I will immediately say what comes to mind:

RENDITION -------- CLINTON !!!
RAPE ------- CLINTON ----- KENNEDY CLAN
DRUNK DRIVING --------KENNEDY CLAN
MANSLAUGTER --------KENNEDY CLAN
TAX CHEATS -----------RANGEL& MOST OF OBAMAS CABINET
BROKEN PROMISES-LIES ---OBAMA ---"NO BILL WILL BE SIGNED UNTIL AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE READ IT "
"NO MORE SPECIAL INTERESTS GROUPS"
"NO MORE WASTFUL SPENDING"
"HEALTH CARE REFORM WILL NOT BE DONE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS"
ETC ETC ETC !!!!

What does all that have to do with whether or not hate crime legislation is unconstitutional?

[island1fox]

Jones,
I refer you to post #37 !!!

Hate speech and thought that was directed against Bush Administration for 8 years ----- left does not like what they hear today --but an old proverb"People in Glass houses should not throw stones " !!!

Hate speech crime ?
Hate thought a crime ?
Hate action a crime ?
Is hate just an adjective or a verb ?

[big_arrow_up]

Originally Posted by bbsam

So the John Roberts court is a left wing wacko court out of control in it's silence as BHO and Pelosi ram through a socialist agenda? That's a stretch. And yes, on the books. Books and books and books of laws. Not just the Constitution. It's logic like yours that would suggest that the Second Amendment would allow citizens to buy not only assault rifles but chemical, biological, and even nuclear weapons.

Any court/judge that makes decisions based on their personal beliefs or opinions are whackos. Usually its the liberal robes that are guilty of that but republican/conservative judges have been known to make that mistake.

No, logic, as well as The Constitution, would not suggest that The Second Amendment would allow citizens to have chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons! Only an idiot with no logic what so ever would make such an accusation. And I know that I didn't. That leaves you.

[Jones]

Originally Posted by island1fox

Jones,
I refer you to post #37 !!!

Hate speech and thought that was directed against Bush Administration for 8 years ----- left does not like what they hear today --but an old proverb"People in Glass houses should not throw stones " !!!

Hate speech crime ?
Hate thought a crime ?
Hate action a crime ?
Is hate just an adjective or a verb ?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Is someone saying that criticism of the administration constitutes a hate crime? If so I would certainly disagree with that, but I thought that the hate crime legislation being discussed here concerned minority groups.

[wkmac]

Originally Posted by Jones

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Is someone saying that criticism of the administration constitutes a hate crime? If so I would certainly disagree with that, but I thought that the hate crime legislation being discussed here concerned minority groups.

From a certain POV, criticism of the current adminstration is alleged if not a hate crime, at least on racism which in turn is construed a hate crime if you will. Not sure if that is Island's perspective but as I've watched this discussion from afar after making the first post and then seeing your comment, that thought came to my mind.

Hate crimes? Way to easy to cross that fine line into thought crimes and then once you cross that Rubicon, I'm not sure you go back without first venturing into a destructive authoriterian hell that everyone regrets, even the potential victims the law was intended to protect.

If someone hates me because of my race, religion or ethic ways, I'd rather them be free to voice those opinions in the open so I know where they stand, I know who to avoid and not do business with or better yet, I know if around them to not let my guard down.

Also most people like this are talkers and if allowed to exist in their little micro world believing themselve free to waller in their hate, they talk it up and that's about it. Especially if they know their victim intends to meet force with force should that line be crossed. By passing laws that prohibit free speech no matter how noble the intent, it won't cleanse the ignorant thoughts and beliefs, it only hides them underground and other means are found to exercise them when need be, ways that a victim might have no clue or see until it's too late because said victim having again placed false trust that the brute violence of the state would protect them learns the hard way.

jmo