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

[Pogo]

Democrats...experts at finding solutions to non-problem.

The last lynching in the United States was 1981 !

Lynching of Michael Donald - Wikipedia

Say, that's only eighteen years before James Byrd.

Pretty sure Jasper County Texas is in the United States.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Democrats...experts at finding solutions to non-problem.

The last lynching in the United States was 1981 !

Lynching of Michael Donald - Wikipedia

Say, that's only eighteen years before James Byrd.

Pretty sure Jasper County Texas is in the United States.

Wow, did you JUST now figure out that people continue to kill each other in spite of it being against the law?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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?

It's already illegal to lynch people you nitwit.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Democrats...experts at finding solutions to non-problem.

The last lynching in the United States was 1981 !

Lynching of Michael Donald - Wikipedia

Say, that's only eighteen years before James Byrd.

Pretty sure Jasper County Texas is in the United States.

Wow, did you JUST now figure out that people continue to kill each other in spite of it being against the law?

Wow, real genius that one!!

 

[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....

 

[Pogo]

Who gets prosecuted here: View attachment 210147

Think I might start with the vermin who brings children to a lynching.

 

[Pogo]

Democrats...experts at finding solutions to non-problem.

The last lynching in the United States was 1981 !

Lynching of Michael Donald - Wikipedia

Say, that's only eighteen years before James Byrd.

Pretty sure Jasper County Texas is in the United States.

Wow, did you JUST now figure out that people continue to kill each other in spite of it being against the law?

Wow, have you not yet figured out that "1998" is long after "1981"? Ergo the "1981" cannot have been the "last"?

Read much?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Democrats...experts at finding solutions to non-problem.

The last lynching in the United States was 1981 !

Lynching of Michael Donald - Wikipedia

Say, that's only eighteen years before James Byrd.

Pretty sure Jasper County Texas is in the United States.

Wow, did you JUST now figure out that people continue to kill each other in spite of it being against the law?

Wow, have you not yet figured out that "1998" is long after "1981"?

Read much?

I'm aware that 1998 is long after 1981. What I'm having trouble figuring out is what the fuck that has to do with passing a law against doing something that's ALREADY against the law.

If you could clear THAT little confusion up, it would be immensely helpful.

 

[Pogo]

Who gets prosecuted here:

That's Duluth Minnesota, 1920. Circus workers who were accused of a rape that apparently didn't happen, but facts of course don't hamper mob mentality.

Among the witnesses to that lynching was a young boy named Abraham Zimmerman. Decades later he related the story to his son, who incorporated it into one of his famous songs. It went:

They're selling postcards of the hanging
They're painting the passports brown
The beauty parlor is filled with sailors
The circus is in town...

(Bob Dylan, Desolation Row, 1965)

"Postcards" is a reference to how photos like this were made into postcards as souvenirs. Along with body parts.

 

[Pogo]

Democrats...experts at finding solutions to non-problem.

The last lynching in the United States was 1981 !

Lynching of Michael Donald - Wikipedia

Say, that's only eighteen years before James Byrd.

Pretty sure Jasper County Texas is in the United States.

Wow, did you JUST now figure out that people continue to kill each other in spite of it being against the law?

Wow, have you not yet figured out that "1998" is long after "1981"?

Read much?

I'm aware that 1998 is long after 1981. What I'm having trouble figuring out is what the fuck that has to do with passing a law against doing something that's ALREADY against the law.

If you could clear THAT little confusion up, it would be immensely helpful.

That post makes no reference to any "law". Again --- read much?

My actual reference to "law" is in a different post. Read that much.

 

[g5000]

"the willful act of murder by a collection of people assembled with the intention of committing an act of violence upon any person."

So does that mean you would be willing to prosecute this group in the same manner?

Trump supporters can sue San Jose cops for attacks by protesters, court says

Who was murdered?

Heather Heyer was. How about that?

 

[g5000]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't lynching already illegal?

The law would make lynching a federal hate crime.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Democrats...experts at finding solutions to non-problem.

The last lynching in the United States was 1981 !

Lynching of Michael Donald - Wikipedia

Say, that's only eighteen years before James Byrd.

Pretty sure Jasper County Texas is in the United States.

Wow, did you JUST now figure out that people continue to kill each other in spite of it being against the law?

Wow, have you not yet figured out that "1998" is long after "1981"?

Read much?

I'm aware that 1998 is long after 1981. What I'm having trouble figuring out is what the fuck that has to do with passing a law against doing something that's ALREADY against the law.

If you could clear THAT little confusion up, it would be immensely helpful.

That post makes no reference to any "law". Again --- read much?

My actual reference to "law" is in a different post. Read that much.

Ahhh, so what you're telling me is that I'm crediting you with too much intelligence by assuming your post actually had something to do with the topic, rather than just being an utterly meaningless reference to dates.

Got it. I will never, ever make the mistake of assuming you're anything but a blithering idiot again. My apologies.

 

[g5000]

If you lynch someone your are committing a murder that is already against the law. What is an Anit Lynching Bill going to do make murder more illegal than it already is?

The law would make it a federal hate crime.

 

[Pogo]

Say, that's only eighteen years before James Byrd.

Pretty sure Jasper County Texas is in the United States.

Wow, did you JUST now figure out that people continue to kill each other in spite of it being against the law?

Wow, have you not yet figured out that "1998" is long after "1981"?

Read much?

I'm aware that 1998 is long after 1981. What I'm having trouble figuring out is what the fuck that has to do with passing a law against doing something that's ALREADY against the law.

If you could clear THAT little confusion up, it would be immensely helpful.

That post makes no reference to any "law". Again --- read much?

My actual reference to "law" is in a different post. Read that much.

Ahhh, so what you're telling me is that I'm crediting you with too much intelligence by assuming your post actually had something to do with the topic, rather than just being an utterly meaningless reference to dates.

Got it. I will never, ever make the mistake of assuming you're anything but a blithering idiot again. My apologies.

Just learn how the fuck to READ and you might not fall into those holes. What a concept.

My post was a direct response to the point QUOTED. .
Which is in fact exactly why it was, uh, QUOTED.

That post QUOTED was about not the LAW part of the topic but the LYNCHING part.
Which is why I responded with a post about a later LYNCHING.

Let me know if you need smaller words. I have three more font sizes.

 

[g5000]

Um, I think murder is already against the law, whether it be by gunshot or lynching. Oh how the left yearns to return to the good old days of the civil rights days. No one told them this is the 21st fucking century I guess.

The law would make lynching a federal hate crime.

All caught up now?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

Republicans are worried that bigots, racists, and neo-fascists might be offended by the legislation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Republicans are worried that bigots, racists, and neo-fascists might be offended by the legislation.

No, we're just worried that our tax money is being wasted to pay these stuffed suits to virtue signal instead of actually working.

 

[Pogo]

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.