Freedom of Speech Forum!

[nuttyjoe]

Originally Posted by chandon12

I'll never forget that Twana Brawly fiasco- remember the girl who wiped feces all over herself and said some white men did it?

Yes, and who is the only one who benefitted from this crap? Sharpton. Because he at that point announced that he had been retained by this girl's family as a "media consultant". I was angry then, as I still am just thinking about that. What in the Sam F--- is a "media consultant" when you believed a loved one in your family has been kidnapped, raped, and defiled in such a way as was reported? The whole thing had "choreographed" written all over it. I'll stop now. I think everyone knows by now my dislike for Al Sharpton; and besides that I think we are getting off track of the thread. I apologize for the rant.

[chandon12]

Originally Posted by nuttyjoe

Yes, and who is the only one who benefitted from this crap? Sharpton. Because he at that point announced that he had been retained by this girl's family as a "media consultant". I was angry then, as I still am just thinking about that. What in the Sam F--- is a "media consultant" when you believed a loved one in your family has been kidnapped, raped, and defiled in such a way as was reported? The whole thing had "choreographed" written all over it. I'll stop now. I think everyone knows by now my dislike for Al Sharpton; and besides that I think we are getting off track of the thread. I apologize for the rant.

LOL!

Its all good! I could've gone on a major tangent myself regarding Mr Sharpton.

[mytmouse57]

Originally Posted by chandon12

And, I wonder why a 16 y/o girl would also be charged with resisiting arrest. Most 16 y/o girls I would assume would be more than happy to comply with an officers demands rather than fight with him.

And you are right, nonbody knows if the girl meant this as a prank or joke. Either way, it was still mean spirited and tantamount to a hate crimes act per its definition.

"Hate crime" laws are a retarded concept to begin with. Crime is freakin' crime. For example, it's illegal to beat somebody up. As it should be.

... but that's a whole other topic.

[chandon12]

Originally Posted by mytmouse57

"Hate crime" laws are a retarded concept to begin with. Crime is freakin' crime. For example, it's illegal to beat somebody up. As it should be.

... but that's a whole other topic.

I guess if somebody or people were beating you up and calling you a faggot and other choice words you'd feel differently.

BTW, what I wrote above happened to me 20 something years ago as I was leaving a bar that was known to be "frequented" by gays and straights.... But then again, some would say that is mt fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time....

[highway80west]

Originally Posted by nuttyjoe

Yes, and who is the only one who benefitted from this crap? Sharpton. Because he at that point announced that he had been retained by this girl's family as a "media consultant". I was angry then, as I still am just thinking about that. What in the Sam F--- is a "media consultant" when you believed a loved one in your family has been kidnapped, raped, and defiled in such a way as was reported? The whole thing had "choreographed" written all over it. I'll stop now. I think everyone knows by now my dislike for Al Sharpton; and besides that I think we are getting off track of the thread. I apologize for the rant.

Shaprton is a complete phony, and I really wonder what his feelings are now since he had eggs on his face from that Twana Brawley crap?

Sharpton and Jessie Jackson are just a couple of rabble rousers who don't represent their roles well at all.

Really, one young woman's lie brought a phony like Sharpton into the fold. Another woman, who refused to give up her bus seat, brought another man into the fold : Martin Luther King, Jr.

I have more respect for MLK than I ever will have for both Sharpton and Jackson.

[mytmouse57]

Originally Posted by chandon12

I guess if somebody or people were beating you up and calling you a faggot and other choice words you'd feel differently.

An appeal to emotion isn't a sound argument. If I was married, and Bjork showed up on my doorstep begging me to make passionate love to her, I would "feel" very strongly about it. But my feelings wouldn't be germane to an honest debate over the implications of adultry.

BTW, what I wrote above happened to me 20 something years ago as I was leaving a bar that was known to be "frequented" by gays and straights.... But then again, some would say that is mt fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time....

No, it's not your fault. It's the fault of the idiots who beat you up and called you names.
I believe in this little thing called personal accountability. In other words, people should be held accountable for what they do. And there are laws by which people who beat other people up can be held accountable for their actions. You don't need to put "hate" in front of "crime" in order to make crime illegal and punishable by law.

[garysher]

Originally Posted by mytmouse57

No, it's not your fault. It's the fault of the idiots who beat you up and called you names.
I believe in this little thing called personal accountability. In other words, people should be held accountable for what they do. And there are laws by which people who beat other people up can be held accountable for their actions. You don't need to put "hate" in front of "crime" in order to make crime illegal and punishable by law.

I agree.

Hate crime legislation is all about certain minority groups demanding a special status to be treated differently.

When that happens then everyone else becomes less special by default.

[mytmouse57]

Originally Posted by garysher

I agree.

Hate crime legislation is all about certain minority groups demanding a special status to be treated differently.

When that happens then everyone else becomes less special by default.

Exactly. Beating the crap out of anybody is horrible. Now, true, one might argue it's "more" horrible to just randonmly select somebody to beat because they are (fill in the blank.) However, there's still not need for "hate crime" laws, because that random threat factor can be argued as an aggravating circumstance.

Plus, I was quite familiar with case in which a guy beat the crap out of a little old lady in her home. No "hate crime" law would cover that.
So, are we saying the guy should have been punished more if he had instead chosen to beat up a gay guy? Would it have somehow hurt a gay guy more to be punched in the face by this cretin than it hurt that little old lady?
No, I say. This guy is clearly a sick person who is a violent threat to others. I don't care WHO he beat up. His actions made me furious regardless. The fact is, he beat up a weak, defensless person. And therefore has no business being a free man -- at least not for a very long time.

[garysher]

Originally Posted by mytmouse57

Exactly. Beating the crap out of anybody is horrible. Now, true, one might argue it's "more" horrible to just randonmly select somebody to beat because they are (fill in the blank.) However, there's still not need for "hate crime" laws, because that random threat factor can be argued as an aggravating circumstance.

Plus, I was quite familiar with case in which a guy beat the crap out of a little old lady in her home. No "hate crime" law would cover that.
So, are we saying the guy should have been punished more if he had instead chosen to beat up a gay guy? Would it have somehow hurt a gay guy more to be punched in the face by this cretin than it hurt that little old lady?
No, I say. This guy is clearly a sick person who is a violent threat to others. I don't care WHO he beat up. His actions made me furious regardless. The fact is, he beat up a weak, defensless person. And therefore has no business being a free man -- at least not for a very long time.

Exactly.

It doesn't make sense to give homosexuals, or anyone else, special legal protections that aren't available to old ladies.

[nuttyjoe]

Guys, I don't think "hate crimes" are defined by giving "legal protectection" to anybody. I feel that they are applied to a situation where a victim is specifically targeted because of any certain reason; whether race, religious belief, sexual orientation, or any other reason. If there is a policeman or a prosecutor among the members of this forum; I would like to hear their definition of "hate crime".