Elucidated1 wrote: You are trying your best here. But this IS a hate crime. You can see the hate towards muslims on every blog like Heritage, Breitbart and Townhall. To suggest otherwise is hyperbole. But very nice try. - The Hate Crime President
Dear Comrade Hallucinated,
See this explains a lot about liberals.
Hate is a feeling. Murder is crime.
I know you guys get feelings mixed up with a lot of things. Like reality.
Remember when you felt that Obama was going to be this great president who made peace around the world and stopped the seas from rising? Or you felt like we couldn’t drill our way to energy independence? Or that spending a trillion dollars on stimulus was going to create jobs?
Yeah: “Feelings, nothing more than feeeeeelings...“
Actually, when I think about it, feelings are the perfect Democrat crime. They get to have as much as they want while criticizing others for having too much. Now if they could just tax it.
So are you gonna punish people for feeling “sad” because research suggests that people who are sad get sick more often and under Obamacare we have to control costs? A sad tax?
Oh, and if they don’t cheer up maybe we can get the IRS to put them in jail for the second offense.
I read hatred towards me everyday here and in other places because of my views. But I don’t pretend that it’s a crime. There was never a time in human history until now that a free people attempted to criminalize feelings, rather than actions. Hate crimes are a legal device used by dictatorships and monarchies to shred equal protection under the law.
In the same way, under Stalin, attacks on Soviet officials in the USSR warranted death by shooting. Ordinary murder however carried a ten-year sentence.
Other examples under the Stalinist criminal code akin to “hate crime” include:
1) Socially dangerous element;
2) Socially harmful element
3) Counterrevolutionary thought
4) Nurturing Anti-Sovietism or;
5) Being the family member of anyone suspected of these crimes
In real terms crimes are committed against individuals not society as a whole. And it’s only in prosecution of crimes against individuals as individuals that society as a whole can protect itself while preserving the rights of us all.
You can witness hatred against Christians—and conservatives-- every day at places like the Huffington Post, MSNBC, etc. for example. Those aren’t crimes though. Again they are feelings.
Or you can witness it when Palestinians lob missiles at Jewish settlements, which by the way are actions. Why not the hue and cry about that being a hate crime?
I’ll tell you why: Because a “hate crime” against Jews is only possible by Germans, or other white groups. The Palestinians get extra credit for being an oppressed minority thus incapable of hate crimes. And that’s the real motivation behind the idea of hate crimes.
It’s a legal device that pits groups against each other, rather than blaming individuals for their actions. If a black man had killed those students in Chapel Hill there would be no talk about a hate crime.
When Ismaaiyl Brinsley killed those two cops was it a hate crime? No.
Cops aren’t included statutorily in the definition of hate crime. So now the Fraternal Order of Police is lobbying that police be included. They wouldn’t be doing it if the status did not confer another level of rights or benefits not necessarily available to you or me.
The cops are dead. Killing cops is wrong.There are adequate civil and criminal remedies to deter and punish the act.
Let it go.
It might make you feel better to think of it as a hate crime, but there is no legal basis for “hate crimes” if you value equal protection under the law.
ericynot1 wrote: "Hate crime is a legal fiction that empowers the government to control thought." No. If some punk-ass robs a liquor store and shoots/kills the clerk so there are no eye witnesses, it's narcissistic, opportunistic, horrendous evil. But it's not hate because the gunman didn't know the victim or have any personal interest in him. If a twisted left-wing loon kills a right-wing columnist because they hate what that columnist says and wants to send a message to other right-wing writers, it's a hate crime. So, while only one person might actually have suffered physical damage, hundreds or even thousands may have been harmed through intimidation. The crime is therefore greater. It's the same logic that says that stealing a car is a much more serious crime than stealing a candy bar. - Kill ISIS, Don't Coddle It
Dear Comrade Y,
Thousands, not hundreds, live in fear every day on Chicago’s South and West sides because of the violence and intimidation that happens through organized street crime like drugs, murder and rape.
Snitches Get Stitches.
Is that a hate crime?
No. It’s crime. Period. And rather than excusing it because of race and doing nothing it would be better if Obama cleaned up his faux-hometown. And you yourself undermine your own argument with your candy bar analogy.
My argument against “hate crime” is that it violates the concept of equal protection under the law. You admit that is does by assigning a greater value to the person who is part of an included group because of the supposed psychological damage that is does to the group.
If the group actually had equal protection under the law, which is only possible by making the punishment for murder the same for everyone, then prosecution of the criminal for the individual act would allay the fears of society and that group.
Here’s an idea: Why don’t we give everyone the same rights and prosecute crime rather than using the criminal code to interpret crime for us.
arab wrote: ITS PAY BACK TIME FOR THE STEALING AND KILLING IN PALESTINE BY ISRA-HELL , I PREDICT IT WILL GET WORSE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Obama Statement on Jewish Attacks: "Fore!"
Dear Comrade Arab,
Here’s another idea: Rather than waging war against the whole world, thereby making your region a relic of the Middle Ages, perhaps you should join the modern world and renounce war against Jews, Christians, gays, women, education, free thought and opinion.
It is in the hands of the people of the Arab states—and Islamic states, like Pakistan and Iran too—to decide if a war that you are bound to continuing losing will go on.
Since 1948 you have been fighting Israel. That war ended in catastrophe and it’s been catastrophe ever since.
You and your co-religionists are supporting terror acts throughout the world as well. You even managed to piss off the French, which is a hard thing to do. And it won’t end well for you.
Just because the American people are idealistic and sometimes appear dumb, doesn’t mean that they are infinitely patient.
Hurray for Israel.
Maybe one day you'll grow tired of the rest of the world hating you and grow up.
derfelcadarn wrote: Perpetuating the myth of Lincoln does not serve well the American People. The truth is always the better path even when it is ugly. Lincoln's Constitutional breaches are no less damaging than the present "occupant" of that office. Truth over agenda in all things, thank you. - Resurrecting Lincoln
Dear Der,
I have no agenda except this: The crime of chattel slavery and the denial of the civil rights of blacks by the United States is a terrible blot on our history. The effects of it are still with us in racial hatred, the decimation of black families, the high levels of crime, the dependency culture we have fostered in African American neighborhoods.
Lincoln was a flawed man; a flawed president. But ultimately he was a great man and a great president because he preserved the Union and extinguished slavery. Did he do it as I would have? I don’t know, but he did accomplish these two important things. He was content to submit his actions to the judgment of the Supreme Court and to history.
You should be content as well.
You’re just pissed because history doesn’t agree with you.
You should spend more time condemning those who thought it okay for one man to own another. That was the biggest crime, no matter what you thought Lincoln did.
Blastoff wrote: John Ransom I suggest you stick to financial articles as you are very obviously ignorant of the true history of the tyrant lincoln. You are so ignorant on this subject that you actually seem to be arguing that lincoln did what he did to free the slaves. How about his own words in his first inaugural address; “Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that — I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in those States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”- Resurrecting Lincoln
Dear Comrade Blastoff,
Lincoln did not have any purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with slavery where it existed—the slave states-- when he gave that address. That is a documented historical fact. Lincoln felt that slavery would die if it did not expand. We know this from his private correspondence and public statements. It was only the aggressive attempts by slaveholders to expand slavery into the territories and the FREE STATES thereby violating a consensus that slavery not be expanded in America that Lincoln opposed.
“Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all of the States,” said Lincoln in his House Divided speech delivered in 1858. “Welcome or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the political dynasty at present shall be met and overthrown. We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are about to make their State a free one, and we shall wake up to discover that the Supreme Court has just made Illinois a slave State.
Ultimately Lincoln did oppose slavery. He felt it a personal wrong that would die if contained. He did admit however that a president had no right to interfere with slavery where it existed in the sovereign states. The territories owned by the United States, however, was a different matter he felt.
Exigencies of a great rebellion against the United States forced Lincoln to take the actions that he did in confiscating the slaves in the states in rebellion.
He knew, and we know it from his correspondence, that he felt slavery was the great issue, the only issue, dividing North and South. That with slavery removed the cause of the war would cease.
This is largely provable: The recovery of the Southern States was only accomplished when civil rights were guaranteed to blacks in the 1970s in practice as well as law. Since then, the South has indeed risen. But it’s not the bigoted, parochial south of before. That’s because like Lincoln did then, Southerners now understand that a black man is man in the same way a white man is.
You call Lincoln a tyrant. The tyrants who damaged our Republic the most however were the bigoted, rednecks in both the North and South who attempted to deny blacks their rights even after the civil war should have settled the question.They did more to damage our federal system and states rights than ANYONE else.
Save your raillery for them, not Lincoln.
I know quite a bit as much as anyone about the topic. More than you do.
I suggest that you stick to writing comments and I’ll write the history.
That's it for this week,
V/r,
JR