- May 6, 2007
- Reaction score
- North Carolina
So you have not defended the racist remarks of Wright and the fact that Obama has claimed that after 20 years of a close personal and professional relationship he never knew Wright thought that way?And once again, the genius makes stuff up that he wishes were said...
go bother someone who'll play with you.
The one not debating is YOU. You want to make statements and then pretend you do not have to back them up. THAT is your position. When faced with a debate you run away. But then I understand why, given the minimal ability you have in that field.I'm sorry it makes you sad that I don't play with people who can't debate.
So sorry. No matter how many times you ask... it's just not happening.
You're right about one thing. Anyone that complains about hate crimes on the grounds that they're not prosecuted against blacks is certainly a fool. The wise person recognizes that the real folly of hate crime legislation is that it goes beyond prosecuting the criminal act itself and actually criminalizes a human emotion. Anyone that doesn't see what a slippery slope hate crime legislation represents, is as big a fool as ever there was.http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/p...n=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1
For all you fools who say they never prosicute hate crimes against black people.
Quit being retarded. You know precisely how it criminalizes a human emotion.How exactly does it criminalize a human emotion? You can't arrest someone for their thoughts or even their words (for the most part). The legislation allows for leeway in the penalty if the perp is convicted of the crime. And there certainly has to be an actual crime committed.
It's useless. They won't admit that it's racist if a white OR a black person does it, nor will they admit they're racist if they make a distinction between what is acceptable (and ultimately, legal) behavior for whites and blacks.The one not debating is YOU. You want to make statements and then pretend you do not have to back them up. THAT is your position. When faced with a debate you run away. But then I understand why, given the minimal ability you have in that field.
Do you also object to different punishment for different types of murder? If not, why not?Quit being retarded. You know precisely how it criminalizes a human emotion.
The exact same criminal act can carry two different punishments depending upon whether a particular human emotion was present. How can any rational and intellectually honest person not conclude that this is the criminalization of the emotion in question? The fact that the emotion must be combined with the act before it's criminalized, doesn't change the fact that an emotion is being criminalized.
No. But we're talking about the EXACT same criminal act. Not two different types, so this question is not relevant.Do you also object to different punishment for different types of murder? If not, why not?
I guess they're just symbolic then and this whole argument is moot.Also, I'm pretty sure hate crimes carry no mandatory sentencing. In fact I remember reading of a suit brought because a judge ignored mandatory sentencing when he determined the intent...he sentenced a stiffer penalty.
It's actually pretty simple. I believe criminal acts should be prosecuted. I also believe that judges should be allowed to exercise judgement in handing down sentences.Like the second amendment?
I do understand your misgivings, I'm just not sure how valid they are. How do you feel about terrorism in general...the ultimate hate crime.
That's an answer? Like I said, you should be a politician.It's actually pretty simple. I believe criminal acts should be prosecuted. I also believe that judges should be allowed to exercise judgement in handing down sentences.