Should Legislation Be Passed Making Overt Racism a Criminal Offense?

[Oz and the Orchestra]

Where did I call you a troll?

NewsVine was referring to me

I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.

Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...

I voted yea cos it already is in the UK and most of Europe and fukc your constitution it is about time America entered the 21st century.

what is in the UK? How do they define "OVERT RACISM" in the UK?
Do they put people in Prison for describing Pakistanis as "brown"-----or
even Iranians who VOMIT at the thought that they may not be considered
ARYAN even though they goosestep? IN the UK do they put Iranians in
jail for hating arabs?

No they prosecute people for making statements that are Racially offensive.
Also anti-Religious or Homophobic. Such cases would need to have a threat of violence.
Example:-
"You Black b******* STFU or I'll k*** your head in, you comie f*****!" Could easily land you in court and rightly so.

oh ok so what is the argument? We, in the USA, could do that but it might
put a damper on some of the "hip-hop" music. What about the religion thing?
Do you have to keep silent about disbelief of any and all creeds?

You can argue with anyone about practically anything.
You can't though make derogatory remarks about a persons Race, Religion, Creed, Colour, Gender. Sexuality.
But then why would anybody want to?

Because they’re frightened and ignorant.

Racism, bigotry, and hate are the consequence of fear and ignorance; racist rhetoric is comprehensively ignorant and motivated by fear – such as the unwarranted fear that a given minority will ‘take over’ and ‘replace’ whites.

And you can’t combat fear and ignorance with criminal prosecution – that will only fan the flames of racism and hate.

But people who don't engage in racist rhetoric, bigotry, or in any perceivable hate, are still being attacked and accused of doing so.

And if you're already doing the time, then you might as well do the crime.


Here's a scenario for you; a bunch of white guys ask themselves, what do we do about these rioters out in front of our houses? One guy says what will happen to us if we go out there with pick handles and baseball bats and run them the **** out of here? Answer; OMG, we'd all be demonized as violent racists, oh wait......





If you're going to be labeled it no matter what, then **** it........why put up with any shit at all?

I think you've expressed a lot of my personal sentiments right there.

Like everyone else I have my preferences, beliefs, etc. and don't shove them down other peoples throat. So, let me apply the laws to you in a hypothetical:

Suppose a white guy with a Confederate flag is run off the road by a non-white. They get into a tiff and the cops come along. So, did the fight happen because the guy with a Confederate flag "hate" non-whites OR was the result a fight ensued due to the fact that the non-white guy was an asshole and then made matters worse by engaging in mutual combat?

It depends partly on whether the Confederate flag is illegal, don't think it is here, But the non white guy would be arrested regardless for any one of a number of offences including attempted murder. At best he could hope for mitigating circumstances alleging he was provoked by a racist and it would be up to the jury to decide whether it was mitigation and to what degree But it would be unlikely to save him from a prison sentence.
Running down the highway with a confederate flag would not be automatically seen as racist - he might just be a Dukes of Hazard fan.

We used to have Freedom of Expression as a written guarantee in this country. Since you don't have it, I realize you cannot relate to the question except to the extent that it is not unusual for a non-white to provoke a fight. Still, it is always the white guy's fault in the NEW WORLD ORDER.

A fight has nothing to do with freedom of expression. I don't believe you when you say the white guy is always at fault and would think like here both would be arrested regardless of who started it.

OMG. Where did you get lost in this analogy? Let's try again:

Confederate guy is driving down the road with his Confederate flag waving in the wind

Non-white cuts off the Confederate guy

A pissing match ensues

The non-white guy started the fight

Under U.S. law, the Confederate guy is guilty even though he did not start the fight and the Confederate guy presupposes he still had Freedom and Liberty. The Confederate guy is guilty because we have hate laws. By policy, only whites have the capacity to hate. So, where, exactly, did you get lost?

Thought you said the guy with a confederate flag (why do you assume he is a Confederate) was running down the road. But no matter as I said in the last post. Don't know what the laws are in America thought you said you didn't have any hate laws!

 

[freyasman]

Where did I call you a troll?

NewsVine was referring to me

I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.

Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...

I voted yea cos it already is in the UK and most of Europe and fukc your constitution it is about time America entered the 21st century.

what is in the UK? How do they define "OVERT RACISM" in the UK?
Do they put people in Prison for describing Pakistanis as "brown"-----or
even Iranians who VOMIT at the thought that they may not be considered
ARYAN even though they goosestep? IN the UK do they put Iranians in
jail for hating arabs?

No they prosecute people for making statements that are Racially offensive.
Also anti-Religious or Homophobic. Such cases would need to have a threat of violence.
Example:-
"You Black b******* STFU or I'll k*** your head in, you comie f*****!" Could easily land you in court and rightly so.

oh ok so what is the argument? We, in the USA, could do that but it might
put a damper on some of the "hip-hop" music. What about the religion thing?
Do you have to keep silent about disbelief of any and all creeds?

You can argue with anyone about practically anything.
You can't though make derogatory remarks about a persons Race, Religion, Creed, Colour, Gender. Sexuality.
But then why would anybody want to?

Because they’re frightened and ignorant.

Racism, bigotry, and hate are the consequence of fear and ignorance; racist rhetoric is comprehensively ignorant and motivated by fear – such as the unwarranted fear that a given minority will ‘take over’ and ‘replace’ whites.

And you can’t combat fear and ignorance with criminal prosecution – that will only fan the flames of racism and hate.

But people who don't engage in racist rhetoric, bigotry, or in any perceivable hate, are still being attacked and accused of doing so.

And if you're already doing the time, then you might as well do the crime.


Here's a scenario for you; a bunch of white guys ask themselves, what do we do about these rioters out in front of our houses? One guy says what will happen to us if we go out there with pick handles and baseball bats and run them the **** out of here? Answer; OMG, we'd all be demonized as violent racists, oh wait......





If you're going to be labeled it no matter what, then **** it........why put up with any shit at all?

I think you've expressed a lot of my personal sentiments right there.

Like everyone else I have my preferences, beliefs, etc. and don't shove them down other peoples throat. So, let me apply the laws to you in a hypothetical:

Suppose a white guy with a Confederate flag is run off the road by a non-white. They get into a tiff and the cops come along. So, did the fight happen because the guy with a Confederate flag "hate" non-whites OR was the result a fight ensued due to the fact that the non-white guy was an asshole and then made matters worse by engaging in mutual combat?

It depends partly on whether the Confederate flag is illegal, don't think it is here, But the non white guy would be arrested regardless for any one of a number of offences including attempted murder. At best he could hope for mitigating circumstances alleging he was provoked by a racist and it would be up to the jury to decide whether it was mitigation and to what degree But it would be unlikely to save him from a prison sentence.
Running down the highway with a confederate flag would not be automatically seen as racist - he might just be a Dukes of Hazard fan.

We used to have Freedom of Expression as a written guarantee in this country. Since you don't have it, I realize you cannot relate to the question except to the extent that it is not unusual for a non-white to provoke a fight. Still, it is always the white guy's fault in the NEW WORLD ORDER.

A fight has nothing to do with freedom of expression. I don't believe you when you say the white guy is always at fault and would think like here both would be arrested regardless of who started it.

Look up Terry Thompson in Harris county Texas.
He was attacked by a drunk, defended himself, held the guy down and the drunk died.

He was tried twice as the DA didn't get the politically correct verdict she wanted the first time.
He's doing 25 to life.

The intent of the framers was the state could not try you but once. Now they can do it until you are found guilty and MAYBE, if you're lucky, they will hear your appeal in 25 years.

As I keep trying to explain to people, it's not enough to know what the laws are, you have to know the agendas of the people who apply the laws.

 

[miketx]

I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.

Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...

No, because the next thing you'll is decide something is racist that you don't like, just like you are doing now, and then you're a criminal for no reason.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.

Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...

I voted yea cos it already is in the UK and most of Europe and fukc your constitution it is about time America entered the 21st century.

It was the USA who saved your asses in two world wars, also gave your nation a bucketful of money to help recover from WW2,

It was the American Constitution that spawned the great age for the rest of the world, while you European retards tried to steal a lot of land through Colonialism, which later gets rejected, sometimes violently.

Recall hyper racist South Africa, a long running British colony who disfranchised the black population for decades, overtly refused them to have a voice in the government.

You are one very ignorant jackass!

 

[irosie91]

That is the risk that it merely drives it underground, but at least we don't have to listen to it!

If we have to listen to libs like you then you should have to hear points of view that you dont like

Wouldn't be here if I didn't like to take on points I don't like.
The problem comes when criticism is made of a persons Race, Religion, based on nothing more than the fact they belong to it, or Colour, Sexuality something they were born with.

Someone calling me a white motherf***** however wouldn't be termed racist as I'm not in a minority!

Whatever gave you the idea you had to be a minority to experience racism? Do you even understand what the word means?

I don't What is racism? but first What is race?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

That is the risk that it merely drives it underground, but at least we don't have to listen to it!

If we have to listen to libs like you then you should have to hear points of view that you dont like

Wouldn't be here if I didn't like to take on points I don't like.
The problem comes when criticism is made of a persons Race, Religion, based on nothing more than the fact they belong to it, or Colour, Sexuality something they were born with.

Someone calling me a white motherf***** however wouldn't be termed racist as I'm not in a minority!

Whatever gave you the idea you had to be a minority to experience racism? Do you even understand what the word means?

I don't What is racism? but first What is race?

I'm not sure I understand your point. However, addressing Oz's remarks, the definition of racism is not contingent on one race or the other being in a minority or the majority. Racism is racism.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.

Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...

I voted yea cos it already is in the UK and most of Europe and fukc your constitution it is about time America entered the 21st century.

If entering the 21st century means abolishing free speech and prosecution for thought crimes, I'll stay right here in the 20th century, thank you very much.

 

[Bush92]

I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.

Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...

We don't need legislation for crybabies.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.

Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...

It already has been passed. It's called the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.

Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...

I voted yea cos it already is in the UK and most of Europe and fukc your constitution it is about time America entered the 21st century.

It was the USA who saved your asses in two world wars, also gave your nation a bucketful of money to help recover from WW2,

It was the American Constitution that spawned the great age for the rest of the world, while you European retards tried to steal a lot of land through Colonialism, which later gets rejected, sometimes violently.

Recall hyper racist South Africa, a long running British colony who disfranchised the black population for decades, overtly refused them to have a voice in the government.

You are one very ignorant jackass!

And Washington was a traitor and slave owner but none of this has anything to do with the op's question!

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.

Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...

I voted yea cos it already is in the UK and most of Europe and fukc your constitution it is about time America entered the 21st century.

If entering the 21st century means abolishing free speech and prosecution for thought crimes, I'll stay right here in the 20th century, thank you very much.

Nobody is prosecuted for what they think it is when they open their dumb arse mouths the problems begin!

 

[irosie91]

I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.

Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...

I voted yea cos it already is in the UK and most of Europe and fukc your constitution it is about time America entered the 21st century.

It was the USA who saved your asses in two world wars, also gave your nation a bucketful of money to help recover from WW2,

It was the American Constitution that spawned the great age for the rest of the world, while you European retards tried to steal a lot of land through Colonialism, which later gets rejected, sometimes violently.

Recall hyper racist South Africa, a long running British colony who disfranchised the black population for decades, overtly refused them to have a voice in the government.

You are one very ignorant jackass!

And Washington was a traitor and slave owner but none of this has anything to do with the op's question!

the OP does not have a real question. It is a very QUALIFIED statement (conditional, so to speak) It (the OP) is not willing to reveal its very RACIST conditions

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Where did I call you a troll?

NewsVine was referring to me

I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.

Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...

I voted yea cos it already is in the UK and most of Europe and fukc your constitution it is about time America entered the 21st century.

what is in the UK? How do they define "OVERT RACISM" in the UK?
Do they put people in Prison for describing Pakistanis as "brown"-----or
even Iranians who VOMIT at the thought that they may not be considered
ARYAN even though they goosestep? IN the UK do they put Iranians in
jail for hating arabs?

No they prosecute people for making statements that are Racially offensive.
Also anti-Religious or Homophobic. Such cases would need to have a threat of violence.
Example:-
"You Black b******* STFU or I'll k*** your head in, you comie f*****!" Could easily land you in court and rightly so.

oh ok so what is the argument? We, in the USA, could do that but it might
put a damper on some of the "hip-hop" music. What about the religion thing?
Do you have to keep silent about disbelief of any and all creeds?

You can argue with anyone about practically anything.
You can't though make derogatory remarks about a persons Race, Religion, Creed, Colour, Gender. Sexuality.
But then why would anybody want to?

Because they’re frightened and ignorant.

Racism, bigotry, and hate are the consequence of fear and ignorance; racist rhetoric is comprehensively ignorant and motivated by fear – such as the unwarranted fear that a given minority will ‘take over’ and ‘replace’ whites.

And you can’t combat fear and ignorance with criminal prosecution – that will only fan the flames of racism and hate.

But people who don't engage in racist rhetoric, bigotry, or in any perceivable hate, are still being attacked and accused of doing so.

And if you're already doing the time, then you might as well do the crime.


Here's a scenario for you; a bunch of white guys ask themselves, what do we do about these rioters out in front of our houses? One guy says what will happen to us if we go out there with pick handles and baseball bats and run them the **** out of here? Answer; OMG, we'd all be demonized as violent racists, oh wait......





If you're going to be labeled it no matter what, then **** it........why put up with any shit at all?

I think you've expressed a lot of my personal sentiments right there.

Like everyone else I have my preferences, beliefs, etc. and don't shove them down other peoples throat. So, let me apply the laws to you in a hypothetical:

Suppose a white guy with a Confederate flag is run off the road by a non-white. They get into a tiff and the cops come along. So, did the fight happen because the guy with a Confederate flag "hate" non-whites OR was the result a fight ensued due to the fact that the non-white guy was an asshole and then made matters worse by engaging in mutual combat?

It depends partly on whether the Confederate flag is illegal, don't think it is here, But the non white guy would be arrested regardless for any one of a number of offences including attempted murder. At best he could hope for mitigating circumstances alleging he was provoked by a racist and it would be up to the jury to decide whether it was mitigation and to what degree But it would be unlikely to save him from a prison sentence.
Running down the highway with a confederate flag would not be automatically seen as racist - he might just be a Dukes of Hazard fan.

We used to have Freedom of Expression as a written guarantee in this country. Since you don't have it, I realize you cannot relate to the question except to the extent that it is not unusual for a non-white to provoke a fight. Still, it is always the white guy's fault in the NEW WORLD ORDER.

A fight has nothing to do with freedom of expression. I don't believe you when you say the white guy is always at fault and would think like here both would be arrested regardless of who started it.

OMG. Where did you get lost in this analogy? Let's try again:

Confederate guy is driving down the road with his Confederate flag waving in the wind

Non-white cuts off the Confederate guy

A pissing match ensues

The non-white guy started the fight

Under U.S. law, the Confederate guy is guilty even though he did not start the fight and the Confederate guy presupposes he still had Freedom and Liberty. The Confederate guy is guilty because we have hate laws. By policy, only whites have the capacity to hate. So, where, exactly, did you get lost?

Thought you said the guy with a confederate flag (why do you assume he is a Confederate) was running down the road. But no matter as I said in the last post. Don't know what the laws are in America thought you said you didn't have any hate laws!

Our governor signed a hate law yesterday. It's basically a state issue at present. Much to the delight of the Monarchy we sought our independence from, it appears that your tyrannical asses have risen from the grave to now bury the descendants of those who fought, bled and died in the cause of Liberty. BTW, if you have a Confederate flag (mere possession) the liberals assume you are Ku Klux Klan member.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Where did I call you a troll?

NewsVine was referring to me

I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.

Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...

I voted yea cos it already is in the UK and most of Europe and fukc your constitution it is about time America entered the 21st century.

what is in the UK? How do they define "OVERT RACISM" in the UK?
Do they put people in Prison for describing Pakistanis as "brown"-----or
even Iranians who VOMIT at the thought that they may not be considered
ARYAN even though they goosestep? IN the UK do they put Iranians in
jail for hating arabs?

No they prosecute people for making statements that are Racially offensive.
Also anti-Religious or Homophobic. Such cases would need to have a threat of violence.
Example:-
"You Black b******* STFU or I'll k*** your head in, you comie f*****!" Could easily land you in court and rightly so.

oh ok so what is the argument? We, in the USA, could do that but it might
put a damper on some of the "hip-hop" music. What about the religion thing?
Do you have to keep silent about disbelief of any and all creeds?

You can argue with anyone about practically anything.
You can't though make derogatory remarks about a persons Race, Religion, Creed, Colour, Gender. Sexuality.
But then why would anybody want to?

Because they’re frightened and ignorant.

Racism, bigotry, and hate are the consequence of fear and ignorance; racist rhetoric is comprehensively ignorant and motivated by fear – such as the unwarranted fear that a given minority will ‘take over’ and ‘replace’ whites.

And you can’t combat fear and ignorance with criminal prosecution – that will only fan the flames of racism and hate.

But people who don't engage in racist rhetoric, bigotry, or in any perceivable hate, are still being attacked and accused of doing so.

And if you're already doing the time, then you might as well do the crime.


Here's a scenario for you; a bunch of white guys ask themselves, what do we do about these rioters out in front of our houses? One guy says what will happen to us if we go out there with pick handles and baseball bats and run them the **** out of here? Answer; OMG, we'd all be demonized as violent racists, oh wait......





If you're going to be labeled it no matter what, then **** it........why put up with any shit at all?

I think you've expressed a lot of my personal sentiments right there.

Like everyone else I have my preferences, beliefs, etc. and don't shove them down other peoples throat. So, let me apply the laws to you in a hypothetical:

Suppose a white guy with a Confederate flag is run off the road by a non-white. They get into a tiff and the cops come along. So, did the fight happen because the guy with a Confederate flag "hate" non-whites OR was the result a fight ensued due to the fact that the non-white guy was an asshole and then made matters worse by engaging in mutual combat?

It depends partly on whether the Confederate flag is illegal, don't think it is here, But the non white guy would be arrested regardless for any one of a number of offences including attempted murder. At best he could hope for mitigating circumstances alleging he was provoked by a racist and it would be up to the jury to decide whether it was mitigation and to what degree But it would be unlikely to save him from a prison sentence.
Running down the highway with a confederate flag would not be automatically seen as racist - he might just be a Dukes of Hazard fan.

We used to have Freedom of Expression as a written guarantee in this country. Since you don't have it, I realize you cannot relate to the question except to the extent that it is not unusual for a non-white to provoke a fight. Still, it is always the white guy's fault in the NEW WORLD ORDER.

A fight has nothing to do with freedom of expression. I don't believe you when you say the white guy is always at fault and would think like here both would be arrested regardless of who started it.

Look up Terry Thompson in Harris county Texas.
He was attacked by a drunk, defended himself, held the guy down and the drunk died.

He was tried twice as the DA didn't get the politically correct verdict she wanted the first time.
He's doing 25 to life.

The intent of the framers was the state could not try you but once. Now they can do it until you are found guilty and MAYBE, if you're lucky, they will hear your appeal in 25 years.

As I keep trying to explain to people, it's not enough to know what the laws are, you have to know the agendas of the people who apply the laws.

You're right. That is why I could tell the MAGA supporters before DACA was ever considered by the United States Supreme Court Dreamers that would not be deported. Their past performance (and standing precedents) determine the future behavior. Nobody liked what I said then and now act as if I had some part in the predictable outcome.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.

Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...

Seems a bit thought police-y to me. Seems we have enough of that shit in this country already. Just being honest.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.

Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...

I voted yea cos it already is in the UK and most of Europe and fukc your constitution it is about time America entered the 21st century.

If entering the 21st century means abolishing free speech and prosecution for thought crimes, I'll stay right here in the 20th century, thank you very much.

Nobody is prosecuted for what they think it is when they open their dumb arse mouths the problems begin!

Like I said, abolishing free speech.

 

[MizMolly]

I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.

Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...

I am not sure. I was going to vote yes, because racism is wrong. Many blacks don’t believe anyone other than whites are racist,which is false. Racism isn’t just about power, most whites have no power but there are white racists, there are black racists, people who hate others because of their skin color. Whites are arrested for hate crimes against blacks, as they should be. But blacks who attack whites for no reason aren’t charged with hate crimes. To be fair, make it across the board. But then, what about people who make fun of the elderly or disabled? Where does it stop?

 

[22lcidw]

I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.

Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...

I voted yea cos it already is in the UK and most of Europe and fukc your constitution it is about time America entered the 21st century.

It was the USA who saved your asses in two world wars, also gave your nation a bucketful of money to help recover from WW2,

It was the American Constitution that spawned the great age for the rest of the world, while you European retards tried to steal a lot of land through Colonialism, which later gets rejected, sometimes violently.

Recall hyper racist South Africa, a long running British colony who disfranchised the black population for decades, overtly refused them to have a voice in the government.

You are one very ignorant jackass!

And Washington was a traitor and slave owner but none of this has anything to do with the op's question!

Most of the slave trade has a British flavor to it. Who were the people involved in it back then? Who financed it? Who were the ships captains? It all gets fuzzy that we don't have all the names. Just those who received "the goods" at the end of the journey. And signed for them for cash.

 

[yidnar]

I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually. Also curious on your thoughts on how it can be proven, although I imagine that is something that could be part of the statute itself.

Please indicate why you voted as you did. Thank you...

I voted yea cos it already is in the UK and most of Europe and fukc your constitution it is about time America entered the 21st century.

if it werent for our constitution America wouldnt exist ....... and if it werent for America you would be speaking german !

 

[yidnar]

Conservatives are at complete liberty to engage in hate speech, to express their fear, ignorance, bigotry, racism, and hate absent government preemption or regulation – and no one seeks to change that fact.

thanks ****** .