Should Legislation Be Passed Making Overt Racism a Criminal Offense?

[freyasman]

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...

Most cons would be in jail.

And that would be the point.

It's just weaponized government used to target those she doesn't like.

It's as weak and childish as running and telling "Daddy".

 

[Mac-7]

You know this guy here, who is a white supremacist, claimed he was exercising his first amendment rights when he killed his victims:

What is your point?

the SC issues dumb decisions all the time, usually favoring the liberal point of view.

Or do I expect the 1st amendment to protect speech that liberals do not like for much longer

there is a deep sickness in our society that has been brewing for several generations

now it exists under the guise of civil rights for black people and anti fascism

but its actually hate and revenge by minorities combined with jealousy towards non-socialists

thats the essence of BLM and ANTIFA

I think the hardcore radicals on the left are a minority

but large enough and passionate enough to seize power and take this country to a very ugly and very bloody place

 

[Porter Rockwell]

By policy, only whites have the capacity to hate. So, where, exactly, did you get lost?

That is not true.

And how much experience do you have in dealing with the cops, they D.A.'s office, etc. on racial matters?

 

[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...

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!

What's happening on the convict continent?

 

[Issa]

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...

Most cons would be in jail.

And that would be the point.

It's just weaponized government used to target those she doesn't like.

It's as weak and childish as running and telling "Daddy".

Better than getting beat up or dead for been racist.

 

[freyasman]

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...

Most cons would be in jail.

And that would be the point.

It's just weaponized government used to target those she doesn't like.

It's as weak and childish as running and telling "Daddy".

Better than getting beat up or dead for been racist.

Lol, people been trying to kill me off and on for 35 years.

I'm scarred up some but I'm still here.

 

[Issa]

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...

Most cons would be in jail.

And that would be the point.

It's just weaponized government used to target those she doesn't like.

It's as weak and childish as running and telling "Daddy".

Better than getting beat up or dead for been racist.

Lol, people been trying to kill me off and on for 35 years.

I'm scarred up some but I'm still here.

Being racist can be too dangerous...one should not bring worst out of people.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually.

Are we talking about simple expression, or harrassment and acts of malice as well?

I'm not talking about thoughts, feelings or beliefs, I speaking of action which results in damages, which is why I was asking about the feasibility of statutory damages.

For example, there are two members of U.S. Message Board whom have racial and religious animosity towards me. Actually there are more but these two have been extreme to the point where I've asked them to stay off of my threads and to cease and desist their communications to/with/about me. Of course being told to stop only makes them take the stance of "who does she think she is, and I'm going to show her she can't tell me what to do or make me do ANYTHING".

Because I've asked them to discontinue there unwanted behavior towards me, they've acknowledged that they've been told to discontinue said behavior ONLY IN RESPECT TO ME, they're continuing to do so, if what the legal fields calls prima facie evidence (the evidence speaks for itself so to speak) that their behavior is INTENTIONAL after they've been told it's unwanted.

They've been doing this for several years and most recently just a day ago even after again being reminded of the cease and desist.

Every time they post a comment to/about/etc. me, they reset the clock on the statute of limitatation and the statute starts running again from the beginning. And each post is one more piece of evidence of deliberate harassment.

Now these two are just an example, and because it's online it's in a slightly different category, but I believe I've mentioned elsewhere people who call the police on you when you're not engaged in unlawful behavior, which can start a domino effect of consequences, which I will not outline here, is another example. If you access the case files for that police agency for these types of reporting and categorize them by gender, race, nationality, etc. you can use that data to support your case and or the case of others. You can also look into the person who made the call - we all remember Amy in Central Park behaving hysterically and falsely telling the police a black guy was threatening her. I would pull every tangible piece of documentation that exists, find out if and who else she has done this to, and talk to them, pooling resources and knowledge.

Legislation does not necessarily mean the criminal code. In fact sometimes you can get more done utilizing the civil system because you don't have to rely on the police & prosecutor's office to make a determination that your case is deserving of their assistance. And the threshold to prevail is only 51% versus the 98% it's said is needed to prevail in a criminal case (beyond reasonable doubt).

I'm just bouncing around a couple of ideas because after those 3 racist cops in Wilmington North Carolina stated to the investigator that they're not racist, we have to start working on something. Things can't go one the way they do.

If it's the two I'm thinking of, they are black supremacists and hateful to everyone. They are thoroughly evil. One of this duo I suspect drinks heavily. He frequently gets on the board and threatens to kill everyone else.

 

[freyasman]

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...

Most cons would be in jail.

And that would be the point.

It's just weaponized government used to target those she doesn't like.

It's as weak and childish as running and telling "Daddy".

Better than getting beat up or dead for been racist.

Lol, people been trying to kill me off and on for 35 years.

I'm scarred up some but I'm still here.

Being racist can be too dangerous...one should not bring worst out of people.

Making dishonest accusations is pretty damn dangerous too, guy.

 

[Andylusion]

There are no stupid questions. So I apologize for those who refuse to engage you on that level.

Newsvine is a troll who starts a thread and then just sits back to watch the feathers fly

I asked a serious question to which he/she/it will never reply

Yeah calling me a troll simply because I'm not interested in engaging in conversation with you i

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...

So, you want to look people up for holding the wrong opinions?


I knew you guys were working up to it.


It was annoying when libs pretended that PC was just about being polite, when it was obviously laying the ground work for tyranny.


How many people do you see imprisoning, if you get your way? How long will you imprison them? Until they recant?

View attachment 356231

You need to stop this. You are making yourself look childish and pathetic.

If you really don't want to talk with someone, that correct thing to do, is use the ignore function.

We're not going to stop responding. So, you need to grow up. You are on a public forum, and we people are going to respond how they please.

If you don't know how to use the ignore function, it is very simple. Click on the name, such as mine. There will be a pop up window. Click ignore. Reload the page. Magic. You will not see my posts anymore, or anyone elses that you don't want to see.

But come on here and spam 50 posts "Don't talk to me! Stop it! I don't want to talk to you!"

Do you not see how you sound like a 5-year-old crying on here?

Cut it out. Man up. This is a open forum, not your private debate club where you can pick and choose who responds like a toddler.

 

[Correll]

There are no stupid questions. So I apologize for those who refuse to engage you on that level.

Newsvine is a troll who starts a thread and then just sits back to watch the feathers fly

I asked a serious question to which he/she/it will never reply

Yeah calling me a troll simply because I'm not interested in engaging in conversation with you i

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...

So, you want to look people up for holding the wrong opinions?


I knew you guys were working up to it.


It was annoying when libs pretended that PC was just about being polite, when it was obviously laying the ground work for tyranny.


How many people do you see imprisoning, if you get your way? How long will you imprison them? Until they recant?

View attachment 356231

You need to stop this. You are making yourself look childish and pathetic.

If you really don't want to talk with someone, that correct thing to do, is use the ignore function.

We're not going to stop responding. So, you need to grow up. You are on a public forum, and we people are going to respond how they please.

If you don't know how to use the ignore function, it is very simple. Click on the name, such as mine. There will be a pop up window. Click ignore. Reload the page. Magic. You will not see my posts anymore, or anyone elses that you don't want to see.

But come on here and spam 50 posts "Don't talk to me! Stop it! I don't want to talk to you!"

Do you not see how you sound like a 5-year-old crying on here?

Cut it out. Man up. This is a open forum, not your private debate club where you can pick and choose who responds like a toddler.

On the other hand, if he does ignore say, me.


I will continue to comment on the stupid and vile shit he says, pointing out how stupid and vile it is, and everyone will be able to see that what he says is stupid and vile, and that he cannot refute any of my points.


Just keeping it real.

 

[Agit8r]

I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually.

Are we talking about simple expression, or harrassment and acts of malice as well?

I'm not talking about thoughts, feelings or beliefs, I speaking of action which results in damages, which is why I was asking about the feasibility of statutory damages.

For example, there are two members of U.S. Message Board whom have racial and religious animosity towards me. Actually there are more but these two have been extreme to the point where I've asked them to stay off of my threads and to cease and desist their communications to/with/about me. Of course being told to stop only makes them take the stance of "who does she think she is, and I'm going to show her she can't tell me what to do or make me do ANYTHING".

Because I've asked them to discontinue there unwanted behavior towards me, they've acknowledged that they've been told to discontinue said behavior ONLY IN RESPECT TO ME, they're continuing to do so, if what the legal fields calls prima facie evidence (the evidence speaks for itself so to speak) that their behavior is INTENTIONAL after they've been told it's unwanted.

They've been doing this for several years and most recently just a day ago even after again being reminded of the cease and desist.

Every time they post a comment to/about/etc. me, they reset the clock on the statute of limitatation and the statute starts running again from the beginning. And each post is one more piece of evidence of deliberate harassment.

Now these two are just an example, and because it's online it's in a slightly different category, but I believe I've mentioned elsewhere people who call the police on you when you're not engaged in unlawful behavior, which can start a domino effect of consequences, which I will not outline here, is another example. If you access the case files for that police agency for these types of reporting and categorize them by gender, race, nationality, etc. you can use that data to support your case and or the case of others. You can also look into the person who made the call - we all remember Amy in Central Park behaving hysterically and falsely telling the police a black guy was threatening her. I would pull every tangible piece of documentation that exists, find out if and who else she has done this to, and talk to them, pooling resources and knowledge.

Legislation does not necessarily mean the criminal code. In fact sometimes you can get more done utilizing the civil system because you don't have to rely on the police & prosecutor's office to make a determination that your case is deserving of their assistance. And the threshold to prevail is only 51% versus the 98% it's said is needed to prevail in a criminal case (beyond reasonable doubt).

I'm just bouncing around a couple of ideas because after those 3 racist cops in Wilmington North Carolina stated to the investigator that they're not racist, we have to start working on something. Things can't go one the way they do.

Well those worthless pigs violated their oath. That should be a crime, for absolute certain. There ought to be a constitutional amendment that adds violation of oath to uphold the constitution to the enumerated list of offences considered to be Treason.

My personal feeling on the subject is that since our enemies in the world are emboldened by the mayhem resulting from police misconduct, such oath-breaking could well be considered treason already.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The fact that you even asked this shows how truly fucked up you are as a person.

And your response indicates concern that you'd be adversely impacted by any such legislation (because you exhibit racist proclivitives).

So do you.
This is an example of how you're always trying to get an advantage over others; you want a charge you can level at anyone, anytime, for anything, so in the event they ever start to do better than you and yours, you can sic the power of government on them in order to destroy them, so you can take what they have.


The answer is "No." We won't be having these laws you fantasize about.

Well from that comment you're most definitely the one fantasizing lol.

You're waay off the mark, but all things in good time.

No, you just want to be able to sic the cops and the courts on people you don't like.

We won't be having any of that.

I can already do that

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

By policy, only whites have the capacity to hate. So, where, exactly, did you get lost?

That is not true.

And how much experience do you have in dealing with the cops, they D.A.'s office, etc. on racial matters?

Why do you ask? You haven't been answering any of my questions.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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.

I don't know any decent people who "like" racism or racists.

I don't know any decent people who call everyone they don't like racist.

You think I dislike you? Or just dislike racists? Is there someting about racists that you think I should like?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I would love to hear the pros and cons on this because I believe this is something that will be broached eventually.

Are we talking about simple expression, or harrassment and acts of malice as well?

I'm not talking about thoughts, feelings or beliefs, I speaking of action which results in damages, which is why I was asking about the feasibility of statutory damages.

For example, there are two members of U.S. Message Board whom have racial and religious animosity towards me. Actually there are more but these two have been extreme to the point where I've asked them to stay off of my threads and to cease and desist their communications to/with/about me. Of course being told to stop only makes them take the stance of "who does she think she is, and I'm going to show her she can't tell me what to do or make me do ANYTHING".

Because I've asked them to discontinue there unwanted behavior towards me, they've acknowledged that they've been told to discontinue said behavior ONLY IN RESPECT TO ME, they're continuing to do so, if what the legal fields calls prima facie evidence (the evidence speaks for itself so to speak) that their behavior is INTENTIONAL after they've been told it's unwanted.

They've been doing this for several years and most recently just a day ago even after again being reminded of the cease and desist.

Every time they post a comment to/about/etc. me, they reset the clock on the statute of limitatation and the statute starts running again from the beginning. And each post is one more piece of evidence of deliberate harassment.

Now these two are just an example, and because it's online it's in a slightly different category, but I believe I've mentioned elsewhere people who call the police on you when you're not engaged in unlawful behavior, which can start a domino effect of consequences, which I will not outline here, is another example. If you access the case files for that police agency for these types of reporting and categorize them by gender, race, nationality, etc. you can use that data to support your case and or the case of others. You can also look into the person who made the call - we all remember Amy in Central Park behaving hysterically and falsely telling the police a black guy was threatening her. I would pull every tangible piece of documentation that exists, find out if and who else she has done this to, and talk to them, pooling resources and knowledge.

Legislation does not necessarily mean the criminal code. In fact sometimes you can get more done utilizing the civil system because you don't have to rely on the police & prosecutor's office to make a determination that your case is deserving of their assistance. And the threshold to prevail is only 51% versus the 98% it's said is needed to prevail in a criminal case (beyond reasonable doubt).

I'm just bouncing around a couple of ideas because after those 3 racist cops in Wilmington North Carolina stated to the investigator that they're not racist, we have to start working on something. Things can't go one the way they do.

If it's the two I'm thinking of, they are black supremacists and hateful to everyone. They are thoroughly evil. One of this duo I suspect drinks heavily. He frequently gets on the board and threatens to kill everyone else.

I've never seen anyone on this board openly threaten to kill anyone although I've seen plenty of veiled TOVs.

 

[freyasman]

The fact that you even asked this shows how truly fucked up you are as a person.

And your response indicates concern that you'd be adversely impacted by any such legislation (because you exhibit racist proclivitives).

So do you.
This is an example of how you're always trying to get an advantage over others; you want a charge you can level at anyone, anytime, for anything, so in the event they ever start to do better than you and yours, you can sic the power of government on them in order to destroy them, so you can take what they have.


The answer is "No." We won't be having these laws you fantasize about.

Well from that comment you're most definitely the one fantasizing lol.

You're waay off the mark, but all things in good time.

No, you just want to be able to sic the cops and the courts on people you don't like.

We won't be having any of that.

I can already do that

And doing so will open you up to both criminal charges of filing a false report, and a civil lawsuit.

And that's just if I only retaliate by legal means..... and since you will be the one who decided to get shitty first, don't expect me to play by any rules but my own.

 

[freyasman]

I think you seriously resent anyone who disagrees with you, lady.

 

[Correll]

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.

I don't know any decent people who "like" racism or racists.

I don't know any decent people who call everyone they don't like racist.

You think I dislike you? Or just dislike racists? Is there someting about racists that you think I should like?

I think that you call people racist, not because you think they really are, but because you want to have an excuse to dismiss their ideas.


AND, you think that you have the right to smear good people with vile slurs, while still getting treated with a civility and respect that you do not give.


You are wrong about that. You deserve to be treated with the same lack of respect you show people.

 

[esalla]

The fact that you even asked this shows how truly fucked up you are as a person.

Cool I was going to try to answer, but you said it perfectly. Thanks