Republican Tim Scott, the Only GOP Senator to sign on to Anti-Lynching Bill

[buckeye45_73]

Sen. Tim Scott Says 'It's Good To Be First' As The Only GOP Senator To Sign On To Anti-Lynching Bill

On CBS's "Face The Nation," Sen. Tim Scott had a difficult time trying to explain why no other Republican has signed on to the anti-lynching bill that he has put forth.

-------------------------

The GOP is 90% white.

This is Tim Scott:

Do we need any further explanation?

Yes we do. WHY do we need an anti lynching bill? Why are our elected officials wasting time and tax dollars debating such unnecessary & ridiculous bills?

Just more shrimp on a treadmill bullshit.

Without having seen the bill and not being willing to take the word of a blog that won't even link it to know if that's a fair description, seems to me the question "why do we need an anti-lynching bill" should be directed to those on this site who continuously post laundry lists of "these Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills". Stuporgurl ( PoliticalChic ) comes to mind but there be many.

If anyone would know the answer to that, they should.

So I'm sure they'll be along any second now to explain why those Democrats had it right all along.




Any uh, second now....

"...Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills"


They were responsible for lynching blacks and any whites, Republicans, they could.

The Democrat Party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, .....and violence.


They didn't just vote against anti-lynching bills.....they blocked every one.

"Between 1882 and 1964, nearly five thousand people died from lynching, the majority African-American. The 1890s witnessed the worst period of lynching in U.S. history. Lynchings, often witnessed by large crowds of white onlookers, were the most extreme form of Southern white control over the African-American population, regularly meted out against African Americans who had been falsely charged with crimes but in fact were achieving a level of political or economic autonomy that whites found unacceptable.

The history of failed attempts to pass federal antilyching legislation goes back to 1894, when a House bill to set up a committee to investigate lynchings failed. In 1922, the House passed a bill to make lynching a Federal crime, but despite President Warren G. Harding’s support, Southern senators filibustered and defeated it. In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt failed to support an antilynching bill proposed by the NAACP, fearing that key Southerners lawmakers would retaliate and interfere with his New Deal agenda."
"We Can Control Our Affairs Pretty Well": Southern Senators Protest Proposed Antilynching Legislation

"Another way Democrats could keep blacks from being elected ... antilynching laws, but Democrats successfully blocked every antilynching bill. ... a federal antilynching bill in Congress, but Democrats in the Senate killed it."
"Stealing the Minds of America: A Must for All Truth Seekers Who Vote,"
By Janice L. Ponds
https://books.google.com/books?id=I...enate blocked every anti lynching law&f=false

Yup...Democrats are only looking out for the best interests of black folks......and Attila was just sightseeing.

So much verbiage, so little answer. In fact no answer whatsoever. I just knew you wouldn't let me down.

So here it comes again, prepare to duck ---- incoming:

"Why is anti-lynching legislation necessary?"

Cue non-answer in four... three... two....



And while you're unable to handle that, be equally unable to handle this:

"...Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills"
They were responsible for lynching blacks and any whites, Republicans, they could.

Link to any lynching, anywhere, any time, that required -- or recorded -- a political party to participate is ---------- where?

Want a resource? Here, go look in my old thread on the topic. Strangely enough for all your feigned interest I don't remember you ever showing up there. Lots of others of your persuasion did though, finding the whole topic inconvenient.... just as they whined when I posted about the Tulsa Race Riots. Or the Silent March in New York protesting East St. Louis.

Guess you'll avoid this like kryptonite too. As I said I knew I could count on you.

When was the lastime we've had a lynching?

So why do we need this?


All this does is trying to make murder a federal crime....and I say no.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes we do. WHY do we need an anti lynching bill? Why are our elected officials wasting time and tax dollars debating such unnecessary & ridiculous bills?

Just more shrimp on a treadmill bullshit.

Without having seen the bill and not being willing to take the word of a blog that won't even link it to know if that's a fair description, seems to me the question "why do we need an anti-lynching bill" should be directed to those on this site who continuously post laundry lists of "these Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills". Stuporgurl ( PoliticalChic ) comes to mind but there be many.

If anyone would know the answer to that, they should.

So I'm sure they'll be along any second now to explain why those Democrats had it right all along.




Any uh, second now....

"...Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills"


They were responsible for lynching blacks and any whites, Republicans, they could.

The Democrat Party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, .....and violence.


They didn't just vote against anti-lynching bills.....they blocked every one.

"Between 1882 and 1964, nearly five thousand people died from lynching, the majority African-American. The 1890s witnessed the worst period of lynching in U.S. history. Lynchings, often witnessed by large crowds of white onlookers, were the most extreme form of Southern white control over the African-American population, regularly meted out against African Americans who had been falsely charged with crimes but in fact were achieving a level of political or economic autonomy that whites found unacceptable.

The history of failed attempts to pass federal antilyching legislation goes back to 1894, when a House bill to set up a committee to investigate lynchings failed. In 1922, the House passed a bill to make lynching a Federal crime, but despite President Warren G. Harding’s support, Southern senators filibustered and defeated it. In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt failed to support an antilynching bill proposed by the NAACP, fearing that key Southerners lawmakers would retaliate and interfere with his New Deal agenda."
"We Can Control Our Affairs Pretty Well": Southern Senators Protest Proposed Antilynching Legislation

"Another way Democrats could keep blacks from being elected ... antilynching laws, but Democrats successfully blocked every antilynching bill. ... a federal antilynching bill in Congress, but Democrats in the Senate killed it."
"Stealing the Minds of America: A Must for All Truth Seekers Who Vote,"
By Janice L. Ponds
https://books.google.com/books?id=I...enate blocked every anti lynching law&f=false

Yup...Democrats are only looking out for the best interests of black folks......and Attila was just sightseeing.

So much verbiage, so little answer. In fact no answer whatsoever. I just knew you wouldn't let me down.

So here it comes again, prepare to duck ---- incoming:

"Why is anti-lynching legislation necessary?"

Cue non-answer in four... three... two....



And while you're unable to handle that, be equally unable to handle this:

"...Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills"
They were responsible for lynching blacks and any whites, Republicans, they could.

Link to any lynching, anywhere, any time, that required -- or recorded -- a political party to participate is ---------- where?

Want a resource? Here, go look in my old thread on the topic. Strangely enough for all your feigned interest I don't remember you ever showing up there. Lots of others of your persuasion did though, finding the whole topic inconvenient.... just as they whined when I posted about the Tulsa Race Riots. Or the Silent March in New York protesting East St. Louis.

Guess you'll avoid this like kryptonite too. As I said I knew I could count on you.

Perhaps you didn't get the jist of my post

a. Democrat were responsible for both lynchings and for blocking anti-lynching bills.

And I'm calling for your basis. Your lynching registration lists. Your lynching bouncers turning people away if they couldn't show the proper voter registration forms. Where is that?

We both know where it is, so I'll give you time to call your proctologist.

At that link I just gave you --- which also btw examines cases of lynchings in the last decade --- another anus-delving klown tried to make the same point you just did. He too dresses up in a fictional character, specifically Spock smoking a cigarette. I called for the same evidence from him on the same point, and he ran away.

So where is it? Who is this "Democrat" who "were" responsible for lynchings?
Hm?

And of course the original question you were summoned here for, which is --- why do we need an anti-lynching law?

The whole thread wants to know.

Absent an answer we must assume you're saying we don't, and therefore this Democrat, whoever he or she were, were correct to block it.

Please don't address me again, you bloated bladder of bilious swill.

 

[Pogo]

Sen. Tim Scott Says 'It's Good To Be First' As The Only GOP Senator To Sign On To Anti-Lynching Bill

On CBS's "Face The Nation," Sen. Tim Scott had a difficult time trying to explain why no other Republican has signed on to the anti-lynching bill that he has put forth.

-------------------------

The GOP is 90% white.

This is Tim Scott:

Do we need any further explanation?

Yes we do. WHY do we need an anti lynching bill? Why are our elected officials wasting time and tax dollars debating such unnecessary & ridiculous bills?

Just more shrimp on a treadmill bullshit.

Without having seen the bill and not being willing to take the word of a blog that won't even link it to know if that's a fair description, seems to me the question "why do we need an anti-lynching bill" should be directed to those on this site who continuously post laundry lists of "these Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills". Stuporgurl ( PoliticalChic ) comes to mind but there be many.

If anyone would know the answer to that, they should.

So I'm sure they'll be along any second now to explain why those Democrats had it right all along.




Any uh, second now....

"...Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills"


They were responsible for lynching blacks and any whites, Republicans, they could.

The Democrat Party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, .....and violence.


They didn't just vote against anti-lynching bills.....they blocked every one.

"Between 1882 and 1964, nearly five thousand people died from lynching, the majority African-American. The 1890s witnessed the worst period of lynching in U.S. history. Lynchings, often witnessed by large crowds of white onlookers, were the most extreme form of Southern white control over the African-American population, regularly meted out against African Americans who had been falsely charged with crimes but in fact were achieving a level of political or economic autonomy that whites found unacceptable.

The history of failed attempts to pass federal antilyching legislation goes back to 1894, when a House bill to set up a committee to investigate lynchings failed. In 1922, the House passed a bill to make lynching a Federal crime, but despite President Warren G. Harding’s support, Southern senators filibustered and defeated it. In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt failed to support an antilynching bill proposed by the NAACP, fearing that key Southerners lawmakers would retaliate and interfere with his New Deal agenda."
"We Can Control Our Affairs Pretty Well": Southern Senators Protest Proposed Antilynching Legislation

"Another way Democrats could keep blacks from being elected ... antilynching laws, but Democrats successfully blocked every antilynching bill. ... a federal antilynching bill in Congress, but Democrats in the Senate killed it."
"Stealing the Minds of America: A Must for All Truth Seekers Who Vote,"
By Janice L. Ponds
https://books.google.com/books?id=I...enate blocked every anti lynching law&f=false

Yup...Democrats are only looking out for the best interests of black folks......and Attila was just sightseeing.

So much verbiage, so little answer. In fact no answer whatsoever. I just knew you wouldn't let me down.

So here it comes again, prepare to duck ---- incoming:

"Why is anti-lynching legislation necessary?"

Cue non-answer in four... three... two....



And while you're unable to handle that, be equally unable to handle this:

"...Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills"
They were responsible for lynching blacks and any whites, Republicans, they could.

Link to any lynching, anywhere, any time, that required -- or recorded -- a political party to participate is ---------- where?

Want a resource? Here, go look in my old thread on the topic. Strangely enough for all your feigned interest I don't remember you ever showing up there. Lots of others of your persuasion did though, finding the whole topic inconvenient.... just as they whined when I posted about the Tulsa Race Riots. Or the Silent March in New York protesting East St. Louis.

Guess you'll avoid this like kryptonite too. As I said I knew I could count on you.

When was the lastime we've had a lynching?

So why do we need this?


All this does is trying to make murder a federal crime....and I say no.

I don't know if we need it or not. I put the question to Stuporgurl, since she's always bringing up lynching laws.

Now she ran away. At super-speed.

To be precise lynching isn't just 'murder' -- it's terrorism. And we do have terrorism laws.

 

[Pogo]

Without having seen the bill and not being willing to take the word of a blog that won't even link it to know if that's a fair description, seems to me the question "why do we need an anti-lynching bill" should be directed to those on this site who continuously post laundry lists of "these Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills". Stuporgurl ( PoliticalChic ) comes to mind but there be many.

If anyone would know the answer to that, they should.

So I'm sure they'll be along any second now to explain why those Democrats had it right all along.




Any uh, second now....

"...Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills"


They were responsible for lynching blacks and any whites, Republicans, they could.

The Democrat Party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, .....and violence.


They didn't just vote against anti-lynching bills.....they blocked every one.

"Between 1882 and 1964, nearly five thousand people died from lynching, the majority African-American. The 1890s witnessed the worst period of lynching in U.S. history. Lynchings, often witnessed by large crowds of white onlookers, were the most extreme form of Southern white control over the African-American population, regularly meted out against African Americans who had been falsely charged with crimes but in fact were achieving a level of political or economic autonomy that whites found unacceptable.

The history of failed attempts to pass federal antilyching legislation goes back to 1894, when a House bill to set up a committee to investigate lynchings failed. In 1922, the House passed a bill to make lynching a Federal crime, but despite President Warren G. Harding’s support, Southern senators filibustered and defeated it. In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt failed to support an antilynching bill proposed by the NAACP, fearing that key Southerners lawmakers would retaliate and interfere with his New Deal agenda."
"We Can Control Our Affairs Pretty Well": Southern Senators Protest Proposed Antilynching Legislation

"Another way Democrats could keep blacks from being elected ... antilynching laws, but Democrats successfully blocked every antilynching bill. ... a federal antilynching bill in Congress, but Democrats in the Senate killed it."
"Stealing the Minds of America: A Must for All Truth Seekers Who Vote,"
By Janice L. Ponds
https://books.google.com/books?id=I...enate blocked every anti lynching law&f=false

Yup...Democrats are only looking out for the best interests of black folks......and Attila was just sightseeing.

So much verbiage, so little answer. In fact no answer whatsoever. I just knew you wouldn't let me down.

So here it comes again, prepare to duck ---- incoming:

"Why is anti-lynching legislation necessary?"

Cue non-answer in four... three... two....



And while you're unable to handle that, be equally unable to handle this:

"...Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills"
They were responsible for lynching blacks and any whites, Republicans, they could.

Link to any lynching, anywhere, any time, that required -- or recorded -- a political party to participate is ---------- where?

Want a resource? Here, go look in my old thread on the topic. Strangely enough for all your feigned interest I don't remember you ever showing up there. Lots of others of your persuasion did though, finding the whole topic inconvenient.... just as they whined when I posted about the Tulsa Race Riots. Or the Silent March in New York protesting East St. Louis.

Guess you'll avoid this like kryptonite too. As I said I knew I could count on you.

Perhaps you didn't get the jist of my post

a. Democrat were responsible for both lynchings and for blocking anti-lynching bills.

And I'm calling for your basis. Your lynching registration lists. Your lynching bouncers turning people away if they couldn't show the proper voter registration forms. Where is that?

We both know where it is, so I'll give you time to call your proctologist.

At that link I just gave you --- which also btw examines cases of lynchings in the last decade --- another anus-delving klown tried to make the same point you just did. He too dresses up in a fictional character, specifically Spock smoking a cigarette. I called for the same evidence from him on the same point, and he ran away.

So where is it? Who is this "Democrat" who "were" responsible for lynchings?
Hm?

And of course the original question you were summoned here for, which is --- why do we need an anti-lynching law?

The whole thread wants to know.

Absent an answer we must assume you're saying we don't, and therefore this Democrat, whoever he or she were, were correct to block it.

Please don't address me again, you bloated bladder of bilious swill.

Your concession is duly noted and logged.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Yes we do. WHY do we need an anti lynching bill? Why are our elected officials wasting time and tax dollars debating such unnecessary & ridiculous bills?

Just more shrimp on a treadmill bullshit.

Without having seen the bill and not being willing to take the word of a blog that won't even link it to know if that's a fair description, seems to me the question "why do we need an anti-lynching bill" should be directed to those on this site who continuously post laundry lists of "these Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills". Stuporgurl ( PoliticalChic ) comes to mind but there be many.

If anyone would know the answer to that, they should.

So I'm sure they'll be along any second now to explain why those Democrats had it right all along.




Any uh, second now....

"...Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills"


They were responsible for lynching blacks and any whites, Republicans, they could.

The Democrat Party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, .....and violence.


They didn't just vote against anti-lynching bills.....they blocked every one.

"Between 1882 and 1964, nearly five thousand people died from lynching, the majority African-American. The 1890s witnessed the worst period of lynching in U.S. history. Lynchings, often witnessed by large crowds of white onlookers, were the most extreme form of Southern white control over the African-American population, regularly meted out against African Americans who had been falsely charged with crimes but in fact were achieving a level of political or economic autonomy that whites found unacceptable.

The history of failed attempts to pass federal antilyching legislation goes back to 1894, when a House bill to set up a committee to investigate lynchings failed. In 1922, the House passed a bill to make lynching a Federal crime, but despite President Warren G. Harding’s support, Southern senators filibustered and defeated it. In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt failed to support an antilynching bill proposed by the NAACP, fearing that key Southerners lawmakers would retaliate and interfere with his New Deal agenda."
"We Can Control Our Affairs Pretty Well": Southern Senators Protest Proposed Antilynching Legislation

"Another way Democrats could keep blacks from being elected ... antilynching laws, but Democrats successfully blocked every antilynching bill. ... a federal antilynching bill in Congress, but Democrats in the Senate killed it."
"Stealing the Minds of America: A Must for All Truth Seekers Who Vote,"
By Janice L. Ponds
https://books.google.com/books?id=I...enate blocked every anti lynching law&f=false

Yup...Democrats are only looking out for the best interests of black folks......and Attila was just sightseeing.

So much verbiage, so little answer. In fact no answer whatsoever. I just knew you wouldn't let me down.

So here it comes again, prepare to duck ---- incoming:

"Why is anti-lynching legislation necessary?"

Cue non-answer in four... three... two....



And while you're unable to handle that, be equally unable to handle this:

"...Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills"
They were responsible for lynching blacks and any whites, Republicans, they could.

Link to any lynching, anywhere, any time, that required -- or recorded -- a political party to participate is ---------- where?

Want a resource? Here, go look in my old thread on the topic. Strangely enough for all your feigned interest I don't remember you ever showing up there. Lots of others of your persuasion did though, finding the whole topic inconvenient.... just as they whined when I posted about the Tulsa Race Riots. Or the Silent March in New York protesting East St. Louis.

Guess you'll avoid this like kryptonite too. As I said I knew I could count on you.

When was the lastime we've had a lynching?

So why do we need this?


All this does is trying to make murder a federal crime....and I say no.

I don't know if we need it or not. I put the question to Stuporgurl, since she's always bringing up lynching laws.

Now she ran away. At super-speed.

To be precise lynching isn't just 'murder' -- it's terrorism. And we do have terrorism laws.

Yeah, I would agree. It's illegal to kill someone, to torture them, it just seems redundant, which makes me suspicious.

 

[Hiryuu]

Yeah, I would agree. It's illegal to kill someone, to torture them, it just seems redundant, which makes me suspicious.

It's more about running race up the flagpole and counting the people that salute it. Forbid the useless politicians in Congress stop wasting their time on this crap and start thinking about doing something a bit more productive like balancing the budget.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Yeah, I would agree. It's illegal to kill someone, to torture them, it just seems redundant, which makes me suspicious.

It's more about running race up the flagpole and counting the people that salute it. Forbid the useless politicians in Congress stop wasting their time on this crap and start thinking about doing something a bit more productive like balancing the budget.

makes sense, there's always an angle to this stuff.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Without having seen the bill and not being willing to take the word of a blog that won't even link it to know if that's a fair description, seems to me the question "why do we need an anti-lynching bill" should be directed to those on this site who continuously post laundry lists of "these Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills". Stuporgurl ( PoliticalChic ) comes to mind but there be many.

If anyone would know the answer to that, they should.

So I'm sure they'll be along any second now to explain why those Democrats had it right all along.




Any uh, second now....

"...Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills"


They were responsible for lynching blacks and any whites, Republicans, they could.

The Democrat Party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, .....and violence.


They didn't just vote against anti-lynching bills.....they blocked every one.

"Between 1882 and 1964, nearly five thousand people died from lynching, the majority African-American. The 1890s witnessed the worst period of lynching in U.S. history. Lynchings, often witnessed by large crowds of white onlookers, were the most extreme form of Southern white control over the African-American population, regularly meted out against African Americans who had been falsely charged with crimes but in fact were achieving a level of political or economic autonomy that whites found unacceptable.

The history of failed attempts to pass federal antilyching legislation goes back to 1894, when a House bill to set up a committee to investigate lynchings failed. In 1922, the House passed a bill to make lynching a Federal crime, but despite President Warren G. Harding’s support, Southern senators filibustered and defeated it. In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt failed to support an antilynching bill proposed by the NAACP, fearing that key Southerners lawmakers would retaliate and interfere with his New Deal agenda."
"We Can Control Our Affairs Pretty Well": Southern Senators Protest Proposed Antilynching Legislation

"Another way Democrats could keep blacks from being elected ... antilynching laws, but Democrats successfully blocked every antilynching bill. ... a federal antilynching bill in Congress, but Democrats in the Senate killed it."
"Stealing the Minds of America: A Must for All Truth Seekers Who Vote,"
By Janice L. Ponds
https://books.google.com/books?id=I...enate blocked every anti lynching law&f=false

Yup...Democrats are only looking out for the best interests of black folks......and Attila was just sightseeing.

So much verbiage, so little answer. In fact no answer whatsoever. I just knew you wouldn't let me down.

So here it comes again, prepare to duck ---- incoming:

"Why is anti-lynching legislation necessary?"

Cue non-answer in four... three... two....



And while you're unable to handle that, be equally unable to handle this:

"...Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills"
They were responsible for lynching blacks and any whites, Republicans, they could.

Link to any lynching, anywhere, any time, that required -- or recorded -- a political party to participate is ---------- where?

Want a resource? Here, go look in my old thread on the topic. Strangely enough for all your feigned interest I don't remember you ever showing up there. Lots of others of your persuasion did though, finding the whole topic inconvenient.... just as they whined when I posted about the Tulsa Race Riots. Or the Silent March in New York protesting East St. Louis.

Guess you'll avoid this like kryptonite too. As I said I knew I could count on you.

When was the lastime we've had a lynching?

So why do we need this?


All this does is trying to make murder a federal crime....and I say no.

I don't know if we need it or not. I put the question to Stuporgurl, since she's always bringing up lynching laws.

Now she ran away. At super-speed.

To be precise lynching isn't just 'murder' -- it's terrorism. And we do have terrorism laws.

Yeah, I would agree. It's illegal to kill someone, to torture them, it just seems redundant, which makes me suspicious.

It's all a dog and pony show along with wasting our tax dollars. It's like whey they tried to pass the "equal pay" bill a couple of years ago so they could claim that Republicans are against equal pay for women. The problem is the bill was already passed........back in the 1960's.

Democrats don't care if they lie to their constituents, play them for idiots, or even virtually call them idiots to their faces. Since they don't have any real message, just try to get them to hate Republicans to win votes.

 

[buckeye45_73]

"...Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills"


They were responsible for lynching blacks and any whites, Republicans, they could.

The Democrat Party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, .....and violence.


They didn't just vote against anti-lynching bills.....they blocked every one.

"Between 1882 and 1964, nearly five thousand people died from lynching, the majority African-American. The 1890s witnessed the worst period of lynching in U.S. history. Lynchings, often witnessed by large crowds of white onlookers, were the most extreme form of Southern white control over the African-American population, regularly meted out against African Americans who had been falsely charged with crimes but in fact were achieving a level of political or economic autonomy that whites found unacceptable.

The history of failed attempts to pass federal antilyching legislation goes back to 1894, when a House bill to set up a committee to investigate lynchings failed. In 1922, the House passed a bill to make lynching a Federal crime, but despite President Warren G. Harding’s support, Southern senators filibustered and defeated it. In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt failed to support an antilynching bill proposed by the NAACP, fearing that key Southerners lawmakers would retaliate and interfere with his New Deal agenda."
"We Can Control Our Affairs Pretty Well": Southern Senators Protest Proposed Antilynching Legislation

"Another way Democrats could keep blacks from being elected ... antilynching laws, but Democrats successfully blocked every antilynching bill. ... a federal antilynching bill in Congress, but Democrats in the Senate killed it."
"Stealing the Minds of America: A Must for All Truth Seekers Who Vote,"
By Janice L. Ponds
https://books.google.com/books?id=I...enate blocked every anti lynching law&f=false

Yup...Democrats are only looking out for the best interests of black folks......and Attila was just sightseeing.

So much verbiage, so little answer. In fact no answer whatsoever. I just knew you wouldn't let me down.

So here it comes again, prepare to duck ---- incoming:

"Why is anti-lynching legislation necessary?"

Cue non-answer in four... three... two....



And while you're unable to handle that, be equally unable to handle this:

"...Democrats voted against anti-lynching bills"
They were responsible for lynching blacks and any whites, Republicans, they could.

Link to any lynching, anywhere, any time, that required -- or recorded -- a political party to participate is ---------- where?

Want a resource? Here, go look in my old thread on the topic. Strangely enough for all your feigned interest I don't remember you ever showing up there. Lots of others of your persuasion did though, finding the whole topic inconvenient.... just as they whined when I posted about the Tulsa Race Riots. Or the Silent March in New York protesting East St. Louis.

Guess you'll avoid this like kryptonite too. As I said I knew I could count on you.

When was the lastime we've had a lynching?

So why do we need this?


All this does is trying to make murder a federal crime....and I say no.

I don't know if we need it or not. I put the question to Stuporgurl, since she's always bringing up lynching laws.

Now she ran away. At super-speed.

To be precise lynching isn't just 'murder' -- it's terrorism. And we do have terrorism laws.

Yeah, I would agree. It's illegal to kill someone, to torture them, it just seems redundant, which makes me suspicious.

It's all a dog and pony show along with wasting our tax dollars. It's like whey they tried to pass the "equal pay" bill a couple of years ago so they could claim that Republicans are against equal pay for women. The problem is the bill was already passed........back in the 1960's.

Democrats don't care if they lie to their constituents, play them for idiots, or even virtually call them idiots to their faces. Since they don't have any real message, just try to get them to hate Republicans to win votes.

I approve this message!

 

[FA_Q2]

But since we've had James Byrd mentioned, albeit in a post I have had explained to me had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the topic or with any sort of point, let's discuss what difference these sort of "even more illegal!" laws are supposed to make.

Byrd was killed by three men. Of those three, one has already been executed, one is on death row awaiting execution, and one was sentenced to life in prison, and has apparently had to be in solitary since 2003 for his own protection. In the aftermath of Byrd's death, we saw the passage of numerous "hate crimes" laws, to apparently make it even MORE illegal to kill someone than it already was. At the time, I couldn't figure out how that was supposed to work. Were we gonna call in a necromancer to raise them from the dead and execute them twice?

And now we somehow need a law to SPECIFICALLY make it illegal to lynch people, even more than it's already illegal to kill people generally? And the same question applies: what more is there to do than the law already provides? What, in other words, is the frigging POINT?

It isn't my thread or my bill, Ms. Hair-up-the-ass. I simply corrected a post that said that "the last lynching was in 1981" with a reference to a well-known one from 1998. In the civilised world we call this "refutation".

In tiny little words that means "no, the last lynching was not 1981 because here's one long after".Don't like it? Tough titty.

Can't believe I actually have to sit and explain simple shit to a purported adult.

Go change your diaper. You're making a mess here.

That does not refute the point in the post though which is that lynching is not an issue anymore. Further, your example is actually a fantastic illustration of why this 'law' is asinine in the first place, existing laws already completely cover this type of crime.

Here is the text. Several pages of text in this bill and the actual law is essentially 1 paragraph. The entire thing is nothing but showmanship.
https://www.harris.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ALB18773.pdf

Once AGAIN it isn't addressed to whether lynching is "an issue" or needs a "law". It simply addresses "the last lynching was 1981". The two are NOT EVEN RELATED.

That's why the post directly addressed one that made the 1981 claim. It's challenging that point.

I get that.

Now, my post was looking to further the discussion. If you do not want to get past that the 1981 claim was false, why bother to continue to post? I also put the text there for you as that was another of your complaints. Care to comment on the thread or are you just here for that single correction?

It's more than a single correction when Ms Hair-Up-the-Ass takes it as her personal mission to act too stupid to get the point. That then becomes a second correction. And when you piled on it became the third. All for a post that was intrinsically self-explanatory in the first place.

I know deflection tactics when I see them, and I don't tolerate it. Meanwhile my other posts about the broader topic --- the ones she's trying to deflect away from --- continue to reside separately.

We done now?

Apparently because you have still not commented on any actual point. I gave you the correction and you went off on correcting it again.

Pogo, you do tolerate deflection posts. I have not seen a post from you in some time that was not one.

 

[Pogo]

It isn't my thread or my bill, Ms. Hair-up-the-ass. I simply corrected a post that said that "the last lynching was in 1981" with a reference to a well-known one from 1998. In the civilised world we call this "refutation".

In tiny little words that means "no, the last lynching was not 1981 because here's one long after".Don't like it? Tough titty.

Can't believe I actually have to sit and explain simple shit to a purported adult.

Go change your diaper. You're making a mess here.

That does not refute the point in the post though which is that lynching is not an issue anymore. Further, your example is actually a fantastic illustration of why this 'law' is asinine in the first place, existing laws already completely cover this type of crime.

Here is the text. Several pages of text in this bill and the actual law is essentially 1 paragraph. The entire thing is nothing but showmanship.
https://www.harris.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ALB18773.pdf

Once AGAIN it isn't addressed to whether lynching is "an issue" or needs a "law". It simply addresses "the last lynching was 1981". The two are NOT EVEN RELATED.

That's why the post directly addressed one that made the 1981 claim. It's challenging that point.

I get that.

Now, my post was looking to further the discussion. If you do not want to get past that the 1981 claim was false, why bother to continue to post? I also put the text there for you as that was another of your complaints. Care to comment on the thread or are you just here for that single correction?

It's more than a single correction when Ms Hair-Up-the-Ass takes it as her personal mission to act too stupid to get the point. That then becomes a second correction. And when you piled on it became the third. All for a post that was intrinsically self-explanatory in the first place.

I know deflection tactics when I see them, and I don't tolerate it. Meanwhile my other posts about the broader topic --- the ones she's trying to deflect away from --- continue to reside separately.

We done now?

Apparently because you have still not commented on any actual point. I gave you the correction and you went off on correcting it again.

Pogo, you do tolerate deflection posts. I have not seen a post from you in some time that was not one.

The post(s) you quoted put down a deflection, that being the attempt to deflect from my simple refutation of history timelines into "whether the law is needed" which was in no way what my post picked on was about.

My posts that actually are about "whether the law is needed" are entirely separate from that, as they should be. And as already noted I will not have some third party inject ass-sumed words into my posts that I never put there in the first place.

Why would I do that? You're actually suggesting that when some wag attributes assertions to me that I never made, I have to just assume the position and take it? That does not fly on my planet.