1 posted on
04/05/2022 8:17:54 AM PDT by
Signalman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
To: Signalman
Their holy grail is the ability to imprison anyone they don’t like for anything or nothing at all. They’re almost there.
2 posted on
04/05/2022 8:28:01 AM PDT by
I want the USA back
(The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.)
To: Signalman
You know that old saying “first they came for the ....”
Well, here we are.
First they came for the terrorists, then they came for Trump, then they came for the Jan6 protestors, and now they cam come for anyone for really any reason.
4 posted on
04/05/2022 8:32:45 AM PDT by
jz638
To: Signalman
If you want “Minority Report” this is how you get “Minority Report”.
5 posted on
04/05/2022 8:33:57 AM PDT by
VTenigma
(Conspiracy theory is the new "spoiler alert")
To: Signalman
when does the intent of a law conflict with a constitutional right?
just saying i hate you, does not make it a hate crime.
6 posted on
04/05/2022 8:35:29 AM PDT by
teeman8r
(Armageddon won't be pretty, but it's not like it's the end of the world or something )
To: Signalman
So how many Republicans voted for it?
7 posted on
04/05/2022 8:40:44 AM PDT by
mass55th
("Courage is being scared to death, but saddling up anyway." ~~ John Wayne )
To: Signalman
You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with. Dr. Floyd Ferris, Atlas Shrugged
8 posted on
04/05/2022 8:44:13 AM PDT by
pepsi_junkie
(Often wrong, but never in doubt!)
To: Signalman
Executive summary: Self defense is now "lynching" under federal law, even if you are found not guilty at the state level.
There hasn't been a lynching (old definition) for a long while, but there will be a wave of "lynching" in time for the next election.
10 posted on
04/05/2022 8:50:39 AM PDT by
Salman
(It's not a "slippery slope" if it was part of the program all along. )
To: Signalman
“...Hate Crimes Prevention Act, passed in 2009, which defines and criminalizes hate crimes.”
Does that law specifically define a “hate crime” designation as only to be used against white people, but not against any minority that attacks white people?
11 posted on
04/05/2022 8:51:22 AM PDT by
euram
To: Signalman
Lynching won’t be considered a crime if the victim is a white, heterosexual male.
12 posted on
04/05/2022 8:54:00 AM PDT by
ought-six
(Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule. )
To: Signalman
If the fed fascists enter the states with intent to arrest people for freedom of speech, the states can activate their anti-klan laws to designate and arrest the federal fascists as terrorists.
To: Signalman
Perhaps I’m missing something, but I don’t see an issue as described.
All laws against thought crime are bad. Intent is not discernible absent pronouncement.
But conspiracy to commit a thought crime, absent a crime being committed, is not enforceable.
14 posted on
04/05/2022 8:55:48 AM PDT by
Mariner
(War Criminal #18)
To: Signalman
Is hurt feelings considered bodily injury and therefor be grounds for a hate crime?
To: Signalman
Emmett Till was killed by 2 men. In the old days lynching meant a mob, then it was redefined to mean a group of three or more, but Till’s death doesn’t even meet that standard.
To: Signalman
“specifically those who advocate for the superiority of the white race” - That comment right there is damning evidence that the law will be enforced unconstitutionally and was intended to be enforced unconstitutionally and will violate the 14th Amendment - the law will almost certainly be in violation of equal protection as applied.
Problem is, it will have to be applied before it can be constitutionally nuked
19 posted on
04/05/2022 9:08:46 AM PDT by
jpp113
To: Signalman
They can define ‘hate thought’ but not what a woman is.
To: Signalman
If applied fairly by Biden’s DOJ, there would be many more blacks than whites arrested under this law. Yes, I said ‘applied fairly by the DOJ’, permission given to fall down laughing.
To: Signalman
I thank God for this bill.Every day when I'm going about my business I see folks...always black...just swaying in the breeze hanging from oak trees,maple trees...every type of tree imaginable.
To: Signalman
Lotta black and latino thugs who work together could easily be prosecuted by this.
Its idiotic, we already have conspiracy laws for crimes. Just don’t plea bargain the charges away.
23 posted on
04/05/2022 9:54:04 AM PDT by
Secret Agent Man
(Gone Galt; not averse to Going Bronson.)
To: Taxman
24 posted on
04/05/2022 10:55:33 AM PDT by
Taxman
(SAVE AMERICA!)
To: Signalman; Liz; SunkenCiv
The bill amends the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, passed in 2009, which defines and criminalizes hate crimes. The minimum qualification is an attempt “to cause bodily injury” due to the victim’s race, sexual orientation, nationality, gender, religion, or disability. Bodily injury can be defined as “physical pain” or “any other injury to the body, no matter how temporary.” Sensibly, the 2009 law requires an attempt at violence to be made, which is a crime itself regardless of prejudiced motives. The new “antilynching” law takes this a step further by criminalizing “conspiracy” to commit certain hate crimes.
White liberal elites finally got their 'thought crimes' bill...
25 posted on
04/05/2022 11:18:55 AM PDT by
GOPJ
(We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignorinbg reality. Ayn Rand)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson