Hate crimes...

Post Reply New Topic

No. I wouldn't lock them up. I'm just saying I don't exactly care if they are. They're idiots. And it's not just a thought crime. If some professor is teaching his BS to a load of kids, then it's much more than that. I don't think they should be locked up for it, but I also don't care that they are.

I dislike the concept of "hate crime" because it criminalizes thought or intent. As Fedaykin said, it comes dangerously close to the Orwellian "thought crime."

You should see what's been done to the second amendment.

Reminds me of a joke: A football player got a free kick given against him, and he didn't like the decision, so he said to the umpire 'You're an a***hole'. The umpire said, 'Right, I'm reporting you!' and the player then said, 'Can I be reported for thinking something, then?' The umpire said 'No, not really' and the player said, 'Right, I think your an a***hole!'

Seems to me that there are more amendments than the original Constitution. Maybe it should be renamed the 'Book of Amendments'. Second thought, maybe some would think it's part of the Bible, and they'd be wondering whether it lies after Acts or just before Revelation.....

Indeed. There's only one Constitution here.
Kinda planned it that way.

I see you're a constitutional scholar as well. This post doesnt even make any sense. The original constitution never had any amendments. They had to push through a bill of rights posthumously... aww f**k it. You're not even worth the time. You obviously dont even understand what amendments are.

Just a thought: It's mentioned that the 1st amendment of the US Constitution is about free speech etc. Does that mean there was no real provision for it in the original Constitution for you to need an amendment in the first place?

Also, Robin Williams had a funny slant on the right of large animals to defend themselves against hunters; he said 'the Constitution says 'You have the right to bear arms, and the right to arm bears'. A hunter stalking a bear in the woods sees a bear with a rifle and the bear says 'I'm ready fo' yo' ass!' Possibly mentioned police in there somewhere too (Live at the Met).

hate crimes shouldn't be treated any more than regular crimes. if it was a part of an act from a group or someone associated with a group, treat it like an act of terrorism (because that's normally what it is). but otherwise, if it's just some pissed off drunk white guy happens to beat the ever loving crap out of some black guy....then no, that's not a hate crime.


as far as hate crimes against gays go...i dunno...i say treat it like a regular crime until conspiracy or some kind of intent can be proven.

Of course there is no provision.
The US Constitution is primarily
about the methods of Governance,
not the limits on it.

But, the Constitution (in contrast
to someone whose racist name
I shall not note) would have
never been adopted, without the
understanding that the Bill of Rights
was to follow.

Aww.. you still whining about "racism"? Tell me, what race is my name offensive to? And you're wrong about the bill of rights anyway. It was added years after the constitution was ratified.

Someone local got killed over use of that
word. Never had heard it before, but it was
clearly a racially charged epitaph.

As to whom the contraction "white n****r"
is offensive to? Humans.

Now, as to the Bill of Rights, what part of my
sentence stated anything about the time period?
We're talking what, three years? The UNDERSTANDING
was key to the passage of the Constitution, which was
a close-run thing to begin with.

Though you may indeed be the Constitutional Scholar
that you claim our Aussie friend is not, you should perhaps
look to the meanings of words, if you wish to try and utilize
them for communications - as is normally done on a forum.

*psst* it's epithet, dude.


as far as the racism goes....we have a couple racists on the board so...uh...expect the monkeys to start throwing when something like hate crimes or the BNP to come up.

Sorry, but an "understanding" doesnt cut it. That is an intentionally vague term on your part. There was no formal commitment or promise. So you're wrong.

And you're really pulling at the heart strings with that sob story. LOL and lol at "epitaph" too

So, fitting. Since I HAD to use language in
my retort.

That's along the lines of claiming that the US is
not committed to a two-party system. Or that
there is no "understanding" that it will remain
that way.

When men who respect one another made
such agreements, while they certainly COULD
have gone against them, it was clear that they
wouldn't.

I know the idea of such faith is alien to you,
but some people do abide by their honor.

No it isnt along those lines at all. Nice red herring though. That's like saying there is an implied understanding that the Democrats want to end the war, but they wont actually commit to it. Oh, and it was a gentlemen's agreement among ruling aristocrats? I get it.. That's all the proof I need!