Hate Should Not Be A Crime!

[bbsam]

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.............

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

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]

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]

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 ?

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

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]

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]

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

 

[Dis-organized Labor]

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

You left out "Hated due to thinking ONE has a Learned insight, when it actually reads like a 12 pack of Budweiser talking"

 

[Jones]

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

For what it's worth, the supreme court has already ruled unanimously that categorizing speech as a hate crime is unconstitutional (505 US 377 Rav v. City of St Paul Minnesota), so outlawing speech isn't even on the table with any of the current legislation.

 

[wkmac]

For what it's worth, the supreme court has already ruled unanimously that categorizing speech as a hate crime is unconstitutional (505 US 377 Rav v. City of St Paul Minnesota), so outlawing speech isn't even on the table with any of the current legislation.

Not even counting the last year, how many of those other constitutional rights the court has said in the past were sacro-saint but were washed away like dust on a car at a carwash just during the Bush years? When gov't decides it's interests are more important than those of the citizens, just how truly safe are we?

Case in point?

I'll just leave it at that and return to observing this debate from afar!

 

[Babagounj]

I just hate this whole thread, it's just criminal.

 

[bbsam]

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.

Well then weapons bans in certain states must naturally supercede the Second Amendment and only logic derived from personal opinion can justify upholding any weapons ban...if you take an originalists point of view.

 

[bbsam]

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 !!!!

Helre's what comes to my mind: politics as usual. Democrat and Republican alike. I noticed you didn't add any Republicans in your list. Let me help.

Bush-----WMD
Cheney-----Lucifer--I mean Haliburton
Extraordinary Rendition---torture
Florida--Jeb Bush
Palin--lolololololol
No more special interest groups---Republicans? Really?

 

[island1fox]

Helre's what comes to my mind: politics as usual. Democrat and Republican alike. I noticed you didn't add any Republicans in your list. Let me help.

Bush-----WMD
Cheney-----Lucifer--I mean Haliburton
Extraordinary Rendition---torture
Florida--Jeb Bush
Palin--lolololololol
No more special interest groups---Republicans? Really?

bbsam,
As I have noticed from previous posts --I inadvertently moved the focus of this thread --sorry to all.
But I must comment on our word association game ---cannot relate to most of your responses but can firmly agree on YOUR statement of politics as usual.
During his run for the Presidency --Obama --YES WE CAN -real Change from politicians that "Bamboozle" us. Well what do we have --real change ?? No I agree with you "politics as usual" Same old -same old !!

 

[stevetheupsguy]

bbsam,
As I have noticed from previous posts --I inadvertently moved the focus of this thread --sorry to all.
But I must comment on our word association game ---cannot relate to most of your responses but can firmly agree on YOUR statement of politics as usual.
During his run for the Presidency --Obama --YES WE CAN -real Change from politicians that "Bamboozle" us. Well what do we have --real change ?? No I agree with you "politics as usual" Same old -same old !!

You mean, HI-JACKED, right?

 

[tieguy]

Helre's what comes to my mind: politics as usual. Democrat and Republican alike. I noticed you didn't add any Republicans in your list. Let me help.

Bush-----WMD
Cheney-----Lucifer--I mean Haliburton
Extraordinary Rendition---torture
Florida--Jeb Bush
Palin--lolololololol
No more special interest groups---Republicans? Really?

Looks like you had to really create something for the republicans.

The democratic list was much easier. Lot of felony activity there.

 

[island1fox]

Looks like you had to really create something for the republicans.

The democratic list was much easier. Lot of felony activity there.

Tieguy,
I could not agree with you more --my word association list was automatic and easy ---the other list --My Democrat parents that voted for Obama --feel that Jeb Bush is a Saint --the best Gov Florida has had in some time ---????? I truly have no idea what bb meant ????