Breaking News: Feds Arrest Somali-Born Teen After Car-Bomb Sting at Oregon Christmas

[Quantum Windbag]

They can't deport him. He's a naturalized US citizen. You obviously have done very little reading on this incident.

You're quite naive about law enforcement intelligence. We the people will likely never know about the most severe and most imminent threats to our country.

Why? Because of counter-intell.

We don't wanna publicly give our hand to the enemy. And we sure as hell dont wanna publicly lay out how we caught the most severe threats, or God forbid, inform a wannabe on how someone almost got us.

Portland was a small fish. Yes. But he had big plans. And we got him.

And NO, he was not "already guilty" of a crime. What crime? His desires, verbal and typed expressions are protected by the 1st amendment. Any material he bought was bought, read again, "BOUGHT", so that material was legally possessed. Only in the construction of the bomb did he have what he thought was a WMD. But the FBI constructed it from the parts he obtained. The "crime" happened when he took the bomb, possessed it, and then tried to use it.

And really, once he possessed it, why the hell stop there? Why not let his dumbass go ahead and try to ignite a fake bomb and charge him with attempting to use a WMD?

Sorry, but naturalized citizens can be deported.

Naturalized citizens may now be deported; Court may strip status if guilty of a crime - Filipino Reporter | HighBeam Research - FREE trial

Life sucks when you don't know what you are talking about, doesn't it?

Oh, cool, didn't know that. Kinda like how you said I was cookoo for thinking the KKK supports terrorism......when they themselves are a terrorist organization.

But anyhoo........with that correction, WHAT CRIME would they have arrested him and deported him for BEFORE he had the fake bomb and tried to detonate it?

We have illegal immigrants who kill people in DUI's, rape, rob, molest, etc, etc, and dont get deported. You think this guy would for buying a cell phone and some fertilizer? Nope. Possessing either is ok. Building a bomb.....and more importantly, trying to use it, is what got him. He wouldn't have gotten deported for anything less than trying to use what he thought was a bomb.

And the KKK is a terror organization.

Using your 1st amendment right to support terror isn't illegal. College professors do it. Obama's friend Bill Ayers still does it.

Your "wrong" is a bit worse than mine.

Wow. Apparently the feds never got the memo that supporting terrorism is perfectly legal.

Former San Diego Resident Among 14 Indicted for Supporting Somali Terrorists - San Diego 6

Not only that, the Supreme Court missed the memo that it is unconstitutional.

Yes, Virginia, Supporting Terrorists IS a Crime | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Since any communication with a terrorists group can potentially be called material support or resources, and plotting to build a bomb is definitely illegal, the FBI had everything they needed to charge this guy before they actually handed him the controls to a bomb. Would you still think this was a good idea if he had caught on, and then played the FBI by actually building a bomb, and having them drive it into downtown Portland? Wouldn't that have made some interesting headlines?

 

[bucs90]

Sorry, but naturalized citizens can be deported.

Naturalized citizens may now be deported; Court may strip status if guilty of a crime - Filipino Reporter | HighBeam Research - FREE trial

Life sucks when you don't know what you are talking about, doesn't it?

Oh, cool, didn't know that. Kinda like how you said I was cookoo for thinking the KKK supports terrorism......when they themselves are a terrorist organization.

But anyhoo........with that correction, WHAT CRIME would they have arrested him and deported him for BEFORE he had the fake bomb and tried to detonate it?

We have illegal immigrants who kill people in DUI's, rape, rob, molest, etc, etc, and dont get deported. You think this guy would for buying a cell phone and some fertilizer? Nope. Possessing either is ok. Building a bomb.....and more importantly, trying to use it, is what got him. He wouldn't have gotten deported for anything less than trying to use what he thought was a bomb.

And the KKK is a terror organization.

Using your 1st amendment right to support terror isn't illegal. College professors do it. Obama's friend Bill Ayers still does it.

Your "wrong" is a bit worse than mine.

Wow. Apparently the feds never got the memo that supporting terrorism is perfectly legal.

Former San Diego Resident Among 14 Indicted for Supporting Somali Terrorists - San Diego 6

Not only that, the Supreme Court missed the memo that it is unconstitutional.

Yes, Virginia, Supporting Terrorists IS a Crime | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Since any communication with a terrorists group can potentially be called material support or resources, and plotting to build a bomb is definitely illegal, the FBI had everything they needed to charge this guy before they actually handed him the controls to a bomb. Would you still think this was a good idea if he had caught on, and then played the FBI by actually building a bomb, and having them drive it into downtown Portland? Wouldn't that have made some interesting headlines?

My God you're stupid.

OK, here we go, I assume you're a brainwashed college sophomore, so lets start with basic words.

"Support" is not the same as "aiding", and in the context of THIS thread, "support" was meant as in his 1st amendment rights, in SPEECH and internet chat. THAT is the support that was involved in this case, not "material support" which if you read your own freakin' San Diego link, is different.

It's like saying I "support" the New Orleans Saints by cheering for them, or I "support" the Saints by donating $10,000 a year to them. 2 vastly different things. Do you understand?

"Aiding" is assisting physically or financially.

The FBI in it's affidavit stated he was a LONE operational and he was not affiliated or associated with any other group. THUS in the context of this thread, his support was 1st amendment support, not "material support".

Let me break it down to you in pothead jargon.

Lets say Joe Pothead thinks dope dealing is cool. He goes around saying "Yeah dude I wanna deal weed! I wanna sell weed all day everyday man!" Lets say he surfs the internet looking for ways to sell weed. He starts asking around how he can buy it and start selling it. If undercover cops see and hear all that, THEY HAVE NO CASE. This terror case is no different.



Now that you got that little grammar and context lesson, lets go a step further, and I'm gonna make YOU the director of the FBI.

Mr. FBI director, we have identified 150 potential bombers. All have stated their intent to blow up large groups of people. We only have the time and resources to prosecute the ones who are truly serious about it. What should we do?

(You): Well, give them the rope to hang themselves. The ones that are truly serious about it will try to follow through with it, and they, the serious ones, are the ones we want. The wannabes we aren't that worried about.

(Us): Wow Mr. FBI director, you are smart, thats a great plan on how we can catch the truly evil ones, by seeing who would actually follow through with it.



Now, do you understand?

Your 1st amendment right allows you to "support" terror through your speech and communication, but not aid them and not provide material support.

I couldn't believe you were this dumb at first. But then I reminded myself that in this whole horrible scenario in Portland, you are finding the FBI most at fault

 

[bucs90]

And both your links are in the realm of "MATERIAL" SUPPORT. As in giving money and resources.

God you're an idiot to not have figured that out. It proves 1 thing above all, you've barely read anything about the Portland incident.

And for the last time, I hope: They DID NOT have enough to charge him with "Attempting to Use a Weapon of Mass Destruction" without the "ATTEMPTING" part.

Thats kind of like charging someone with DUI.......before they get in the car. Or charging them with discharging a firearm in city limits.....when they never pulled the trigger.

Do you grasp that concept? To charge him with "attempting" to use a WMD, he had to "attempt" to use what he thought was a WMD. I know thats a lot to process, but thats how courts read these things. To be charged with "attempting" you must "attempt" it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh, cool, didn't know that. Kinda like how you said I was cookoo for thinking the KKK supports terrorism......when they themselves are a terrorist organization.

But anyhoo........with that correction, WHAT CRIME would they have arrested him and deported him for BEFORE he had the fake bomb and tried to detonate it?

We have illegal immigrants who kill people in DUI's, rape, rob, molest, etc, etc, and dont get deported. You think this guy would for buying a cell phone and some fertilizer? Nope. Possessing either is ok. Building a bomb.....and more importantly, trying to use it, is what got him. He wouldn't have gotten deported for anything less than trying to use what he thought was a bomb.

And the KKK is a terror organization.

Using your 1st amendment right to support terror isn't illegal. College professors do it. Obama's friend Bill Ayers still does it.

Your "wrong" is a bit worse than mine.

Wow. Apparently the feds never got the memo that supporting terrorism is perfectly legal.

Former San Diego Resident Among 14 Indicted for Supporting Somali Terrorists - San Diego 6

Not only that, the Supreme Court missed the memo that it is unconstitutional.

Yes, Virginia, Supporting Terrorists IS a Crime | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Since any communication with a terrorists group can potentially be called material support or resources, and plotting to build a bomb is definitely illegal, the FBI had everything they needed to charge this guy before they actually handed him the controls to a bomb. Would you still think this was a good idea if he had caught on, and then played the FBI by actually building a bomb, and having them drive it into downtown Portland? Wouldn't that have made some interesting headlines?

My God you're stupid.

OK, here we go, I assume you're a brainwashed college sophomore, so lets start with basic words.

"Support" is not the same as "aiding", and in the context of THIS thread, "support" was meant as in his 1st amendment rights, in SPEECH and internet chat. THAT is the support that was involved in this case, not "material support" which if you read your own freakin' San Diego link, is different.

It's like saying I "support" the New Orleans Saints by cheering for them, or I "support" the Saints by donating $10,000 a year to them. 2 vastly different things. Do you understand?

"Aiding" is assisting physically or financially.

The FBI in it's affidavit stated he was a LONE operational and he was not affiliated or associated with any other group. THUS in the context of this thread, his support was 1st amendment support, not "material support".

Let me break it down to you in pothead jargon.

Lets say Joe Pothead thinks dope dealing is cool. He goes around saying "Yeah dude I wanna deal weed! I wanna sell weed all day everyday man!" Lets say he surfs the internet looking for ways to sell weed. He starts asking around how he can buy it and start selling it. If undercover cops see and hear all that, THEY HAVE NO CASE. This terror case is no different.



Now that you got that little grammar and context lesson, lets go a step further, and I'm gonna make YOU the director of the FBI.

Mr. FBI director, we have identified 150 potential bombers. All have stated their intent to blow up large groups of people. We only have the time and resources to prosecute the ones who are truly serious about it. What should we do?

(You): Well, give them the rope to hang themselves. The ones that are truly serious about it will try to follow through with it, and they, the serious ones, are the ones we want. The wannabes we aren't that worried about.

(Us): Wow Mr. FBI director, you are smart, thats a great plan on how we can catch the truly evil ones, by seeing who would actually follow through with it.



Now, do you understand?

Your 1st amendment right allows you to "support" terror through your speech and communication, but not aid them and not provide material support.

I couldn't believe you were this dumb at first. But then I reminded myself that in this whole horrible scenario in Portland, you are finding the FBI most at fault

Let me inform you about the real world consequences of offering material support to a terrorist group.

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project : SCOTUSblog

Humanitarian Law Project is a group that advises foreign groups on the legal issues involved in resolving conflicts. Some of this legal advise, not money, not weapons, and not information that could help them kill people, got them into trouble with the US government under current laws. The Supreme Court basically ruled that simply talking to a terrorist group and offering them this type of advice is illegal, and that the law not only can be applied this way, but it is constitutional to do so.

You and I might both agree that this is stupid and ridiculous, and that this is not really support of terrorism, but our government disagrees. You are therefore wasting your time in attempting to educate me in the difference between talking to and helping terrorists. Not beiong a lwayer I do not understand the subtleties involved in this, but if anyone ever asks you what rights we have lost as a result of the PATRIOT Act you can now inform them that we lost a bit of our freedom of speech and assembly.

I am not stupid, just better informed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And both your links are in the realm of "MATERIAL" SUPPORT. As in giving money and resources.

God you're an idiot to not have figured that out. It proves 1 thing above all, you've barely read anything about the Portland incident.

And for the last time, I hope: They DID NOT have enough to charge him with "Attempting to Use a Weapon of Mass Destruction" without the "ATTEMPTING" part.

Thats kind of like charging someone with DUI.......before they get in the car. Or charging them with discharging a firearm in city limits.....when they never pulled the trigger.

Do you grasp that concept? To charge him with "attempting" to use a WMD, he had to "attempt" to use what he thought was a WMD. I know thats a lot to process, but thats how courts read these things. To be charged with "attempting" you must "attempt" it.

But to be charged with supporting a terrorist all you have to do is talk.

If it makes you feel any better I will admit that I have not read everything about the Portland incident. I actually have no intention to do so because it is only incidental to my position. I am sure they have more than enough on him to get a guilty verdict if they are forced to take it to trial, and then we both will know that he has had the benefit of the finest legal system in the world today.

That does not change the fact that this entire sting was nothing but grandstanding to get better headlines. Attempting to use a WMD makes better headlines than material support of terrorism, and gives the agent in charge a better boost in his career. Not to mention that it makes Mueller, Holder, and Obama look like they are accomplishing something spectacular. That is the real reason the sting went as far as it did.

I am not supporting the guy they charged in Portland. I am also not supporting the FBI in its grandstanding. I personally would be quite happy if the FBI went about its job and never made any headlines, because I would then know they were doing the job they are supposed to. The only time I read about the FBI is when they screw up, or when they grandstand. I should never hear about either one, and neither should you.

 

[sangha]

A crime of what? "Possession of Electronic Equipment"? "Possession of Crazy"???

He was charged with Attempting to Use a Weapon of Mass Destruction. Which is what he intended to do. He attempted it, with is phone, to ignite the bomb he placed there, all by his grown self.

The special agent SHOULD get a promotion.

And guess what? HAD they found some lesser charge, such as conspiracy or possession of explosives (ATF jurisdiction btw) then what would happen? He'd get a slap on the wrist, probably get some jail time where he would meet other jihadi lifers, and be RELEASED with an even deeper resentment of America, more motivation, and a small insight on how the FBI investigated him (through trial discovery), so he could act more stealthly the next time.

I can't believe you are actually taking this guys side over the FBI.

Apparently you forgot about the laws that make it illegal to support terrorism. I would challenge you to show anywhere I took the side of the guy that they arrested. All I have done is express skepticism of what the FBI is saying, and pointed out that there are better uses of resources than to catch a guy they already caught.

Dude, you and I are on the same page on this. We get it and they don't.

SUddenly, the winguts want to punish thought-crimes

 

[sangha]

Somebody asked a question, I answered. Can you point to anything I said that is not true? Are they not human? Are they not cops, even if they are federal versions of cops? Does their budget not get higher when we are afraid?

Demanding that posters attempt to prove a negative is NOT permitted.

Really? The rules say I cannot challenge you to prove I lied?

If the only way you can prove your honesty is by demanding that people prove a negative, then you have no honesty to begin with.

The inability to prove something false, does not prove it is true. There is only one way to prove your honesty and that's by providing proof of your honesty. "You can't prove I'm guilty" is appropriate in a criminal court

 

[sangha]

And both your links are in the realm of "MATERIAL" SUPPORT. As in giving money and resources.

God you're an idiot to not have figured that out. It proves 1 thing above all, you've barely read anything about the Portland incident.

And for the last time, I hope: They DID NOT have enough to charge him with "Attempting to Use a Weapon of Mass Destruction" without the "ATTEMPTING" part.

Thats kind of like charging someone with DUI.......before they get in the car. Or charging them with discharging a firearm in city limits.....when they never pulled the trigger.

Do you grasp that concept? To charge him with "attempting" to use a WMD, he had to "attempt" to use what he thought was a WMD. I know thats a lot to process, but thats how courts read these things. To be charged with "attempting" you must "attempt" it.

But to be charged with supporting a terrorist all you have to do is talk.

If it makes you feel any better I will admit that I have not read everything about the Portland incident. I actually have no intention to do so because it is only incidental to my position. I am sure they have more than enough on him to get a guilty verdict if they are forced to take it to trial, and then we both will know that he has had the benefit of the finest legal system in the world today.

That does not change the fact that this entire sting was nothing but grandstanding to get better headlines. Attempting to use a WMD makes better headlines than material support of terrorism, and gives the agent in charge a better boost in his career. Not to mention that it makes Mueller, Holder, and Obama look like they are accomplishing something spectacular. That is the real reason the sting went as far as it did.

I am not supporting the guy they charged in Portland. I am also not supporting the FBI in its grandstanding. I personally would be quite happy if the FBI went about its job and never made any headlines, because I would then know they were doing the job they are supposed to. The only time I read about the FBI is when they screw up, or when they grandstand. I should never hear about either one, and neither should you.

WIngnuts don't like free speech and want to arrest people for what they say


"If it makes you feel any better I will admit that I have not read everything about the Portland incident. I actually have no intention to do so because it is only incidental to my position."
WIngnuts think "the facts don't matter" is a reasonable argument

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Demanding that posters attempt to prove a negative is NOT permitted.

Really? The rules say I cannot challenge you to prove I lied?

If the only way you can prove your honesty is by demanding that people prove a negative, then you have no honesty to begin with.

The inability to prove something false, does not prove it is true. There is only one way to prove your honesty and that's by providing proof of your honesty. "You can't prove I'm guilty" is appropriate in a criminal court

What negative am I asking someone to prove? If any statement I made was false it would be easy to prove, and thus not proving a negative.

Beside, any decent debater could easily prove a negative if challenged, so making it against the rules only favors the incompetent. I understand why you feel the need for that help, but why should the rest of us be forced to play at your level?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And both your links are in the realm of "MATERIAL" SUPPORT. As in giving money and resources.

God you're an idiot to not have figured that out. It proves 1 thing above all, you've barely read anything about the Portland incident.

And for the last time, I hope: They DID NOT have enough to charge him with "Attempting to Use a Weapon of Mass Destruction" without the "ATTEMPTING" part.

Thats kind of like charging someone with DUI.......before they get in the car. Or charging them with discharging a firearm in city limits.....when they never pulled the trigger.

Do you grasp that concept? To charge him with "attempting" to use a WMD, he had to "attempt" to use what he thought was a WMD. I know thats a lot to process, but thats how courts read these things. To be charged with "attempting" you must "attempt" it.

But to be charged with supporting a terrorist all you have to do is talk.

If it makes you feel any better I will admit that I have not read everything about the Portland incident. I actually have no intention to do so because it is only incidental to my position. I am sure they have more than enough on him to get a guilty verdict if they are forced to take it to trial, and then we both will know that he has had the benefit of the finest legal system in the world today.

That does not change the fact that this entire sting was nothing but grandstanding to get better headlines. Attempting to use a WMD makes better headlines than material support of terrorism, and gives the agent in charge a better boost in his career. Not to mention that it makes Mueller, Holder, and Obama look like they are accomplishing something spectacular. That is the real reason the sting went as far as it did.

I am not supporting the guy they charged in Portland. I am also not supporting the FBI in its grandstanding. I personally would be quite happy if the FBI went about its job and never made any headlines, because I would then know they were doing the job they are supposed to. The only time I read about the FBI is when they screw up, or when they grandstand. I should never hear about either one, and neither should you.

WIngnuts don't like free speech and want to arrest people for what they say


"If it makes you feel any better I will admit that I have not read everything about the Portland incident. I actually have no intention to do so because it is only incidental to my position."
WIngnuts think "the facts don't matter" is a reasonable argument

The facts matter, but what is being printed is not necessarily the facts. Of did the fact that everybody lies somehow escape you again?

 

[sangha]

Sorry, but naturalized citizens can be deported.

Naturalized citizens may now be deported; Court may strip status if guilty of a crime - Filipino Reporter | HighBeam Research - FREE trial

Life sucks when you don't know what you are talking about, doesn't it?

Oh, cool, didn't know that. Kinda like how you said I was cookoo for thinking the KKK supports terrorism......when they themselves are a terrorist organization.

But anyhoo........with that correction, WHAT CRIME would they have arrested him and deported him for BEFORE he had the fake bomb and tried to detonate it?

We have illegal immigrants who kill people in DUI's, rape, rob, molest, etc, etc, and dont get deported. You think this guy would for buying a cell phone and some fertilizer? Nope. Possessing either is ok. Building a bomb.....and more importantly, trying to use it, is what got him. He wouldn't have gotten deported for anything less than trying to use what he thought was a bomb.

And the KKK is a terror organization.

Using your 1st amendment right to support terror isn't illegal. College professors do it. Obama's friend Bill Ayers still does it.

Your "wrong" is a bit worse than mine.

Wow. Apparently the feds never got the memo that supporting terrorism is perfectly legal.

Former San Diego Resident Among 14 Indicted for Supporting Somali Terrorists - San Diego 6

Not only that, the Supreme Court missed the memo that it is unconstitutional.

Yes, Virginia, Supporting Terrorists IS a Crime | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Since any communication with a terrorists group can potentially be called material support or resources, and plotting to build a bomb is definitely illegal, the FBI had everything they needed to charge this guy before they actually handed him the controls to a bomb. Would you still think this was a good idea if he had caught on, and then played the FBI by actually building a bomb, and having them drive it into downtown Portland? Wouldn't that have made some interesting headlines?

Like I said, wingnuts support the govt when it arrests people for thought crimes

 

[sangha]

Wow. Apparently the feds never got the memo that supporting terrorism is perfectly legal.

Former San Diego Resident Among 14 Indicted for Supporting Somali Terrorists - San Diego 6

Not only that, the Supreme Court missed the memo that it is unconstitutional.

Yes, Virginia, Supporting Terrorists IS a Crime | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Since any communication with a terrorists group can potentially be called material support or resources, and plotting to build a bomb is definitely illegal, the FBI had everything they needed to charge this guy before they actually handed him the controls to a bomb. Would you still think this was a good idea if he had caught on, and then played the FBI by actually building a bomb, and having them drive it into downtown Portland? Wouldn't that have made some interesting headlines?

My God you're stupid.

OK, here we go, I assume you're a brainwashed college sophomore, so lets start with basic words.

"Support" is not the same as "aiding", and in the context of THIS thread, "support" was meant as in his 1st amendment rights, in SPEECH and internet chat. THAT is the support that was involved in this case, not "material support" which if you read your own freakin' San Diego link, is different.

It's like saying I "support" the New Orleans Saints by cheering for them, or I "support" the Saints by donating $10,000 a year to them. 2 vastly different things. Do you understand?

"Aiding" is assisting physically or financially.

The FBI in it's affidavit stated he was a LONE operational and he was not affiliated or associated with any other group. THUS in the context of this thread, his support was 1st amendment support, not "material support".

Let me break it down to you in pothead jargon.

Lets say Joe Pothead thinks dope dealing is cool. He goes around saying "Yeah dude I wanna deal weed! I wanna sell weed all day everyday man!" Lets say he surfs the internet looking for ways to sell weed. He starts asking around how he can buy it and start selling it. If undercover cops see and hear all that, THEY HAVE NO CASE. This terror case is no different.



Now that you got that little grammar and context lesson, lets go a step further, and I'm gonna make YOU the director of the FBI.

Mr. FBI director, we have identified 150 potential bombers. All have stated their intent to blow up large groups of people. We only have the time and resources to prosecute the ones who are truly serious about it. What should we do?

(You): Well, give them the rope to hang themselves. The ones that are truly serious about it will try to follow through with it, and they, the serious ones, are the ones we want. The wannabes we aren't that worried about.

(Us): Wow Mr. FBI director, you are smart, thats a great plan on how we can catch the truly evil ones, by seeing who would actually follow through with it.



Now, do you understand?

Your 1st amendment right allows you to "support" terror through your speech and communication, but not aid them and not provide material support.

I couldn't believe you were this dumb at first. But then I reminded myself that in this whole horrible scenario in Portland, you are finding the FBI most at fault

Let me inform you about the real world consequences of offering material support to a terrorist group.

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project : SCOTUSblog

Humanitarian Law Project is a group that advises foreign groups on the legal issues involved in resolving conflicts. Some of this legal advise, not money, not weapons, and not information that could help them kill people, got them into trouble with the US government under current laws. The Supreme Court basically ruled that simply talking to a terrorist group and offering them this type of advice is illegal, and that the law not only can be applied this way, but it is constitutional to do so.

You and I might both agree that this is stupid and ridiculous, and that this is not really support of terrorism, but our government disagrees. You are therefore wasting your time in attempting to educate me in the difference between talking to and helping terrorists. Not beiong a lwayer I do not understand the subtleties involved in this, but if anyone ever asks you what rights we have lost as a result of the PATRIOT Act you can now inform them that we lost a bit of our freedom of speech and assembly.

I am not stupid, just better informed.

Even this wingnut admits there's a difference between "support" and "material support", but he still can't fathom why "giving legal advice" is different than a mere statement of support (ex "I agree with the terrorists")

 

[AllieBaba]

It's not a thought crime to engage in what you believe will be an act of terror. That's nothing like a thought crime.

 

[sangha]

It's not a thought crime to engage in what you believe will be an act of terror. That's nothing like a thought crime.

Wake up, wingnut

QW has claimed that the govt can arrest someone for terrorism merely for saying "I agree with the terrorists" or for ANY communication with a terrorist or terrorist org.

 

[AllieBaba]

Those aren't thoughts. Those are actions.

Moron.

 

[sangha]

Those aren't thoughts. Those are actions.

Moron.

Wingnuts don't understand the protections the constitution offers via the 1st Amend.

 

[AllieBaba]

Apparently better than you. I do understand the difference between a thought and an action, and never confuse the two.

 

[sangha]

Apparently better than you. I do understand the difference between a thought and an action, and never confuse the two.

So how are Hate Crimes "thought crimes"? That's what wingnuts claim

 

[AllieBaba]

Don't ask me. The whole "hate crime" thing is a lefty concoction. They just never wanted it to be used for the good of America.

 

[sangha]

Don't ask me. The whole "hate crime" thing is a lefty concoction. They just never wanted it to be used for the good of America.

In wingnut world, hate crimes are "a lefty concoction"

In the real world, they're the law in many areas.