Feds: Cops covered up hate crime

[Soul Crusher]

Did I say one racist thing in that interview?Nope,not one.

Now,I ask you this.Who allowed Rev. Lowery to speak at his inaugertatiuon and insult whites?Who said the white cop acted stupidly and backed the black racist?Who had Van Jones in his administration?Who has had Jesse Jackson,a man who has admitted to spitting into white peoples food ,to the white house 6 times?Who dropped the charges against the black panthers when they threatned whites at polling booths?Who sat in a racist church for twenty years?

Now,I gave an interview to Resistance magazine.Please tell me how that compares to sitting in the pew and listening to Rev. Wright for twenty years and listening to his sermons as he went to bed because it soothed him and writing a book based on a Wright sermon.The very fact that you accuse me of racism[not that I care much]but excuse the overwhelming evidence of Obamas racism proves my point about the double standard in this country.

Maybe not a racist, but Obama is a real jerk. 

[Eyeball Chambers]

I should have edited it to "a number of Americans". And get off your Canadian high horse. Stormfront has a Canadian sub-forum. Keep trying to paint this picture of Canada as this superior place. It's not. Far from it.

You nor most of the other retards on here have made anything close to a compelling argument with regards to the topic of this thread. Mal seems to be the only one presenting a logical argument.

I some areas Jag actually is smart, in many (MANY) others though she is a total fool. 

[George Whorewell]

No- She's a total fucking moron on every single area that is known to the human race.

Hate Crime legislation is one of the most serious infringements on free speech that exist in this country today.

Think about it like this-- ( and this actually happened). If you were hanging out in your own neighborhood one day and saw someone breaking into one of your family members cars and you tried to apprehend them and a physical altercation ensued, would you be justified in using force to restrain them until the police arrived?

I think many people would say yes, while most others would agree that even if they were not willing to use physical force- they would hardly shed a tear for the perpetrator as long as he was not seriously injured in the process.

Now, lets say you called the perpetrator a spic, or a black or a wop or a kike or whatever. Does physically restraining that person-- hitting them if necessary, now escalate the incident into a hate crime?

In New York City it does. Randomly assaulting someone for absolutely no reason-- Or for any reason is assault. If you call the person names-- it's now a hate crime. How fucking retarded is that? Unless you explicitly go after someone because of their race/ sexual orientation, the idea of prosecuting someone for a hate crime because they called someone a mean name is absolutely idiotic.

I wonder if the whole cast of west side story feels that it is acting out hate crimes whenever it engages in any fight scenes.

[Eyeball Chambers]

No- She's a total fucking moron on every single area that is known to the human race.

Hate Crime legislation is one of the most serious infringements on free speech that exist in this country today.

Think about it like this-- ( and this actually happened). If you were hanging out in your own neighborhood one day and saw someone breaking into one of your family members cars and you tried to apprehend them and a physical altercation ensued, would you be justified in using force to restrain them until the police arrived?

I think many people would say yes, while most others would agree that even if they were not willing to use physical force- they would hardly shed a tear for the perpetrator as long as he was not seriously injured in the process.

Now, lets say you called the perpetrator a spic, or a guy or a wop or a kike or whatever. Does physically restraining that person-- hitting them if necessary, now escalate the incident into a hate crime?

In New York City it does. Randomly assaulting someone for absolutely no reason-- Or for any reason is assault. If you call the person names-- it's now a hate crime. How fucking retarded is that? Unless you explicitly go after someone because of their race/ sexual orientation, the idea of prosecuting someone for a hate crime because they called someone a mean name is absolutely idiotic.

I wonder if the whole cast of west side story feels that it is acting out hate crimes whenever it engages in any fight scenes.

I agree, this hate crime bull shit is scary stuff...

[24KT]

jag  you miss the whole entire point of that completly !  oh  and you must be talking about the type of legislature that let oj simpson off the hook due to inadmissable evidence hmmmm didnt hear that case labeled a hate crime when there were two dead white people and a black man in court.  that piece of legislation you speak of doesnt protect white people cause we arent the minority. to protect the whites wouldnt be politicaly correct

OJ wasn't acquitted due to inadmissible evidence, he was acquitted due to police misconduct and failure to follow established procedures which brought in the spectre of reasonable doubt. Furthermore, those murder occurred on June 13th 1994, well over 15 yrs ago prior to hate crime legislation. Had he committed those murders, it still wouldn't have constituted a hate crime. Just because victim and assailant are of different races, doesn't automatically make it a hate crime.

[24KT]

One time I was talking with a black friend, and he said "Black people are so fucked up"...

I didn't know what an appropriate reply would be.   

Tell him "I'm glad YOU said that, and not me, ...cause I'd get my ass kicked for saying it." 

[24KT]

I should have edited it to "a number of Americans". And get off your Canadian high horse. Stormfront has a Canadian sub-forum. Keep trying to paint this picture of Canada as this superior place. It's not. Far from it.

You nor most of the other retards on here have made anything close to a compelling argument with regards to the topic of this thread. Mal seems to be the only one presenting a logical argument.

Perhaps  it would have been a more accurate assessment to say "a number of Americans".
Yes, Canada has it's share of idiots too, ...however relatively speaking, I do believe we are a superior society.

As for making compelling arguments, that is not my intent, my intent is to simply state my opinion.
I'm not looking to change anyone's opinion on the matter, simply stating my own. Hate crime legislation exists, ..if and when it changes, or is in danger of changing, ...that would be the time for influencing opinion. Until then, those who dislike it...can lump it. It is what it is, and it serves a purpose which I am not opposed to.

[24KT]

I agree, as time goes on RP looks that much better.

As far as the topic goes, I dont agree with "hate crimes" laws since people are becoming more mixed and it leaves too much authority to the govt to determine motivation when the reality is that if a violent crime is committed against someone, their race should play no part whatseover, either for the criminal or the victim.   

That's all very well and good ...provided of course that race played no part whatsoever in the crime.
What do you do when race is the sole reason for the crime to begin with? That's where the hate crime legislation comes into effect.

[24KT]

In New York City it does. Randomly assaulting someone for absolutely no reason-- Or for any reason is assault. If you call the person names-- it's now a hate crime. How fucking retarded is that?

That's totally retarded... as is the scenario you laid out. That doesn't constitute or meet the definition of a hate crime.

Unless you explicitly go after someone because of their race/ sexual orientation, the idea of prosecuting someone for a hate crime because they called someone a mean name is absolutely idiotic.

There you have just laid out the scenario for which hate crime legislation was intended.

[24KT]

I agree, this hate crime bull shit is scary stuff...

Oh ya... real scary shit alright. Just imagine... you can no longer beat the crap out of Mexicans simply for being Mexican. You can no longer beat the crap out of gays simply for being gay, ...and God forbid, you can no longer vandalize Jewish homes, painting huge swastikas on them simply because they are Jews. What is America coming to when domestic terrorists cannot terrorize random innocent members of the public based on nothing more than their race, religion, or sexual orientation anymore? 

And you know you're really going to hell in a handbasket when the Feds start prospecuting cops for covering up cases of domestic terrorism? Makes you kind of nostalgic for the good ole days don't it?