Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
meadandale
ParticipantWay to cherry pick the video Hatfield…there is no baby bump if you watch the whole video…but that doesn’t play into your smear…
ParticipantWay to cherry pick the video Hatfield…there is no baby bump if you watch the whole video…but that doesn’t play into your smear…
ParticipantWay to cherry pick the video Hatfield…there is no baby bump if you watch the whole video…but that doesn’t play into your smear…
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
ParticipantChange we can believe in from the Obama administration…
ParticipantChange we can believe in from the Obama administration…
ParticipantChange we can believe in from the Obama administration…
ParticipantChange we can believe in from the Obama administration…
ParticipantChange we can believe in from the Obama administration…
Participant[quote=svelte]So I assume you are against scholarships, which are basically just payment for grades in most cases.[/quote]
The difference is, elementary school and high school are free (unless you are in private school). College costs money. Scholarships are ONE way to help pay for that.
Plus, I think that elementary school and high school are formative years. By the time you get to college, you are supposedly an adult and have learned good study habits…enough to be on your own.
Having said that, it’s ironic that I paid WAY less attention and was WAY less engaged in college at 18 when it was getting paid for with loans and the occasional grant or scholarship than I was at 30 in grad school when I was paying pretty much every penny out of my own pocket.
Maybe rather than paying the kids to get good grades, you should CHARGE them to go to school, LOL
-
AuthorPosts
