Off Topic- Equal Protection Under the law?

[afx114]

[quote=meadandale]Apparently, in Holder’s mind, ‘color of our skin’ implies NON WHITE only.[/quote]

Matthew Shepard was white.

[Eugene]

[quote=meadandale][quote=Eugene]The original federal hate crime statute was passed specifically to address the issue of whites using force or intimidation to keep minorities from voting, attending public facilities (e.g. schools), applying for federal jobs. That was back in 1968. It was not intended to address all interracial crimes regardless of circumstances, or all incidents where one person assaults another because he “hates” that specific person (as the title might imply).
[/quote]

Holder is seeking to expand current hate crime legislation..

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/25/holder.hate.crimes/

[quote]
“Perpetrators of hate crimes seek to deny the humanity that we all share, regardless of the color of our skin, the God to whom we pray or the person who we choose to love. …,” he said. “The time is now to provide justice to victims of bias-motivated violence and to redouble our efforts to protect our communities from violence based on bigotry and prejudice.”[/quote]

Apparently, in Holder’s mind, ‘color of our skin’ implies NON WHITE only. He’s obviously a hypocrite and a bigot. That’s the problem.
[/quote]

Please listen to the webcast. He did not say anything about “non white”-ness. The specific statement in the original post was in response to the question whether a murder of a soldier should be considered a hate crime. He said that soldiers as a group were not historically targeted for violence, as opposed to African Americans or Jews. I don’t think you’d argue that there are far more historic precedents of bias crimes against Jews than against whites.

Racially motivated attacks on whites are already covered by existing legislation dating back to 1968 (which used color-blind language, even though it was created in response to primarily white-on-black incidents). Whether or not Holder personally considers it possible for blacks to commit bias crimes against whites, it’s not relevant for our legal system. There are numerous precedents of convictions for anti-white hate crimes. In 2004, 20% of all racially motivated incidents in the country were anti-white. There’s also insufficient evidence, based on his testimony, that he in fact sees things that way.

[Eugene]

[quote=meadandale][quote=Eugene]The original federal hate crime statute was passed specifically to address the issue of whites using force or intimidation to keep minorities from voting, attending public facilities (e.g. schools), applying for federal jobs. That was back in 1968. It was not intended to address all interracial crimes regardless of circumstances, or all incidents where one person assaults another because he “hates” that specific person (as the title might imply).
[/quote]

Holder is seeking to expand current hate crime legislation..

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/25/holder.hate.crimes/

[quote]
“Perpetrators of hate crimes seek to deny the humanity that we all share, regardless of the color of our skin, the God to whom we pray or the person who we choose to love. …,” he said. “The time is now to provide justice to victims of bias-motivated violence and to redouble our efforts to protect our communities from violence based on bigotry and prejudice.”[/quote]

Apparently, in Holder’s mind, ‘color of our skin’ implies NON WHITE only. He’s obviously a hypocrite and a bigot. That’s the problem.
[/quote]

Please listen to the webcast. He did not say anything about “non white”-ness. The specific statement in the original post was in response to the question whether a murder of a soldier should be considered a hate crime. He said that soldiers as a group were not historically targeted for violence, as opposed to African Americans or Jews. I don’t think you’d argue that there are far more historic precedents of bias crimes against Jews than against whites.

Racially motivated attacks on whites are already covered by existing legislation dating back to 1968 (which used color-blind language, even though it was created in response to primarily white-on-black incidents). Whether or not Holder personally considers it possible for blacks to commit bias crimes against whites, it’s not relevant for our legal system. There are numerous precedents of convictions for anti-white hate crimes. In 2004, 20% of all racially motivated incidents in the country were anti-white. There’s also insufficient evidence, based on his testimony, that he in fact sees things that way.

[Eugene]

[quote=meadandale][quote=Eugene]The original federal hate crime statute was passed specifically to address the issue of whites using force or intimidation to keep minorities from voting, attending public facilities (e.g. schools), applying for federal jobs. That was back in 1968. It was not intended to address all interracial crimes regardless of circumstances, or all incidents where one person assaults another because he “hates” that specific person (as the title might imply).
[/quote]

Holder is seeking to expand current hate crime legislation..

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/25/holder.hate.crimes/

[quote]
“Perpetrators of hate crimes seek to deny the humanity that we all share, regardless of the color of our skin, the God to whom we pray or the person who we choose to love. …,” he said. “The time is now to provide justice to victims of bias-motivated violence and to redouble our efforts to protect our communities from violence based on bigotry and prejudice.”[/quote]

Apparently, in Holder’s mind, ‘color of our skin’ implies NON WHITE only. He’s obviously a hypocrite and a bigot. That’s the problem.
[/quote]

Please listen to the webcast. He did not say anything about “non white”-ness. The specific statement in the original post was in response to the question whether a murder of a soldier should be considered a hate crime. He said that soldiers as a group were not historically targeted for violence, as opposed to African Americans or Jews. I don’t think you’d argue that there are far more historic precedents of bias crimes against Jews than against whites.

Racially motivated attacks on whites are already covered by existing legislation dating back to 1968 (which used color-blind language, even though it was created in response to primarily white-on-black incidents). Whether or not Holder personally considers it possible for blacks to commit bias crimes against whites, it’s not relevant for our legal system. There are numerous precedents of convictions for anti-white hate crimes. In 2004, 20% of all racially motivated incidents in the country were anti-white. There’s also insufficient evidence, based on his testimony, that he in fact sees things that way.

[Eugene]

[quote=meadandale][quote=Eugene]The original federal hate crime statute was passed specifically to address the issue of whites using force or intimidation to keep minorities from voting, attending public facilities (e.g. schools), applying for federal jobs. That was back in 1968. It was not intended to address all interracial crimes regardless of circumstances, or all incidents where one person assaults another because he “hates” that specific person (as the title might imply).
[/quote]

Holder is seeking to expand current hate crime legislation..

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/25/holder.hate.crimes/

[quote]
“Perpetrators of hate crimes seek to deny the humanity that we all share, regardless of the color of our skin, the God to whom we pray or the person who we choose to love. …,” he said. “The time is now to provide justice to victims of bias-motivated violence and to redouble our efforts to protect our communities from violence based on bigotry and prejudice.”[/quote]

Apparently, in Holder’s mind, ‘color of our skin’ implies NON WHITE only. He’s obviously a hypocrite and a bigot. That’s the problem.
[/quote]

Please listen to the webcast. He did not say anything about “non white”-ness. The specific statement in the original post was in response to the question whether a murder of a soldier should be considered a hate crime. He said that soldiers as a group were not historically targeted for violence, as opposed to African Americans or Jews. I don’t think you’d argue that there are far more historic precedents of bias crimes against Jews than against whites.

Racially motivated attacks on whites are already covered by existing legislation dating back to 1968 (which used color-blind language, even though it was created in response to primarily white-on-black incidents). Whether or not Holder personally considers it possible for blacks to commit bias crimes against whites, it’s not relevant for our legal system. There are numerous precedents of convictions for anti-white hate crimes. In 2004, 20% of all racially motivated incidents in the country were anti-white. There’s also insufficient evidence, based on his testimony, that he in fact sees things that way.

[Eugene]

[quote=meadandale][quote=Eugene]The original federal hate crime statute was passed specifically to address the issue of whites using force or intimidation to keep minorities from voting, attending public facilities (e.g. schools), applying for federal jobs. That was back in 1968. It was not intended to address all interracial crimes regardless of circumstances, or all incidents where one person assaults another because he “hates” that specific person (as the title might imply).
[/quote]

Holder is seeking to expand current hate crime legislation..

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/25/holder.hate.crimes/

[quote]
“Perpetrators of hate crimes seek to deny the humanity that we all share, regardless of the color of our skin, the God to whom we pray or the person who we choose to love. …,” he said. “The time is now to provide justice to victims of bias-motivated violence and to redouble our efforts to protect our communities from violence based on bigotry and prejudice.”[/quote]

Apparently, in Holder’s mind, ‘color of our skin’ implies NON WHITE only. He’s obviously a hypocrite and a bigot. That’s the problem.
[/quote]

Please listen to the webcast. He did not say anything about “non white”-ness. The specific statement in the original post was in response to the question whether a murder of a soldier should be considered a hate crime. He said that soldiers as a group were not historically targeted for violence, as opposed to African Americans or Jews. I don’t think you’d argue that there are far more historic precedents of bias crimes against Jews than against whites.

Racially motivated attacks on whites are already covered by existing legislation dating back to 1968 (which used color-blind language, even though it was created in response to primarily white-on-black incidents). Whether or not Holder personally considers it possible for blacks to commit bias crimes against whites, it’s not relevant for our legal system. There are numerous precedents of convictions for anti-white hate crimes. In 2004, 20% of all racially motivated incidents in the country were anti-white. There’s also insufficient evidence, based on his testimony, that he in fact sees things that way.

[Arraya]

Or better yet, read the bill;

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s909/text
any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (HR 1966, SEC 3

I’m not a fan of this bill at all. First, it definitely does seem to take aim directly at the First Amendment. Second, just personall speaking, I far prefer an atmosphere where everyone can say exactly what they’re thinking. That way the racists and homophobes stand out loud and clear, exposed for exactly what they are. Think of how one could whittle down their Christmas card list if everyone had complete freedom to say what they were really thinking at any given time…

IMO, this is not aimed at “white” people, this is aimed at thought control.

The plaintiff wont have to prove emotional distress , the defendant will have to prove no emotional distress. Every fuckdoodle with a grudge and filing fee money can make someone else’s life miserable.

To think you can legislate away racism is laughable. It will make things worse and cause more tensions.

[Arraya]

Or better yet, read the bill;

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s909/text
any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (HR 1966, SEC 3

I’m not a fan of this bill at all. First, it definitely does seem to take aim directly at the First Amendment. Second, just personall speaking, I far prefer an atmosphere where everyone can say exactly what they’re thinking. That way the racists and homophobes stand out loud and clear, exposed for exactly what they are. Think of how one could whittle down their Christmas card list if everyone had complete freedom to say what they were really thinking at any given time…

IMO, this is not aimed at “white” people, this is aimed at thought control.

The plaintiff wont have to prove emotional distress , the defendant will have to prove no emotional distress. Every fuckdoodle with a grudge and filing fee money can make someone else’s life miserable.

To think you can legislate away racism is laughable. It will make things worse and cause more tensions.

[Arraya]

Or better yet, read the bill;

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s909/text
any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (HR 1966, SEC 3

I’m not a fan of this bill at all. First, it definitely does seem to take aim directly at the First Amendment. Second, just personall speaking, I far prefer an atmosphere where everyone can say exactly what they’re thinking. That way the racists and homophobes stand out loud and clear, exposed for exactly what they are. Think of how one could whittle down their Christmas card list if everyone had complete freedom to say what they were really thinking at any given time…

IMO, this is not aimed at “white” people, this is aimed at thought control.

The plaintiff wont have to prove emotional distress , the defendant will have to prove no emotional distress. Every fuckdoodle with a grudge and filing fee money can make someone else’s life miserable.

To think you can legislate away racism is laughable. It will make things worse and cause more tensions.

[Arraya]

Or better yet, read the bill;

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s909/text
any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (HR 1966, SEC 3

I’m not a fan of this bill at all. First, it definitely does seem to take aim directly at the First Amendment. Second, just personall speaking, I far prefer an atmosphere where everyone can say exactly what they’re thinking. That way the racists and homophobes stand out loud and clear, exposed for exactly what they are. Think of how one could whittle down their Christmas card list if everyone had complete freedom to say what they were really thinking at any given time…

IMO, this is not aimed at “white” people, this is aimed at thought control.

The plaintiff wont have to prove emotional distress , the defendant will have to prove no emotional distress. Every fuckdoodle with a grudge and filing fee money can make someone else’s life miserable.

To think you can legislate away racism is laughable. It will make things worse and cause more tensions.

[Arraya]

Or better yet, read the bill;

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s909/text
any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (HR 1966, SEC 3

I’m not a fan of this bill at all. First, it definitely does seem to take aim directly at the First Amendment. Second, just personall speaking, I far prefer an atmosphere where everyone can say exactly what they’re thinking. That way the racists and homophobes stand out loud and clear, exposed for exactly what they are. Think of how one could whittle down their Christmas card list if everyone had complete freedom to say what they were really thinking at any given time…

IMO, this is not aimed at “white” people, this is aimed at thought control.

The plaintiff wont have to prove emotional distress , the defendant will have to prove no emotional distress. Every fuckdoodle with a grudge and filing fee money can make someone else’s life miserable.

To think you can legislate away racism is laughable. It will make things worse and cause more tensions.

[Zeitgeist]

It will certainly limit the unbridled commentary most of us feel free to express here. Who knows what will constitute substantial emotional distress. It should be a field day for the lawyers. I would like to go back to the 80’s now. I liked the music better then.

[Zeitgeist]

It will certainly limit the unbridled commentary most of us feel free to express here. Who knows what will constitute substantial emotional distress. It should be a field day for the lawyers. I would like to go back to the 80’s now. I liked the music better then.

[Zeitgeist]

It will certainly limit the unbridled commentary most of us feel free to express here. Who knows what will constitute substantial emotional distress. It should be a field day for the lawyers. I would like to go back to the 80’s now. I liked the music better then.

[Zeitgeist]

It will certainly limit the unbridled commentary most of us feel free to express here. Who knows what will constitute substantial emotional distress. It should be a field day for the lawyers. I would like to go back to the 80’s now. I liked the music better then.

[Author]

Posts