RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing?

RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Alumbrado -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/17/2007 6:16:03 PM)
18 has been the legal age of majority in the US for decades, and alcohol restrictons are an exception to that. Whether you know that or not has no effect on it being the reality. And how do you get that the Hoovervile incident or any other blatant violation of the law proves that it isn't the law? Your postings over time have shown a pattern of demanding evidence, followed by your completely ignoring the evidence, or bizarre leaps of logic such as the above in support of denial. I wish you good luck in convincing other non-thinkers to buy your verbage, but don't hold your breath expecting the skeptical to fall for it.

Owner59 -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/17/2007 9:32:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Alumbrado: The constitution by omission seems to leave police powers and duties to the purview of the state. I have no idea what you mean by LEO. thompson Absolutely correct...10th amendment is where the police get their authority. LEOs are law enforcement officers, often referred to as 'sworn' officers, to distinguish them from security guards, bodyguards private police, etc (those being the ones who are actually paid to protect and serve).. And it is the 'sworn' part that provides the next clue as to the intended purpose of police/law enforcement agencies. Police officers are not only employees of the state or municipality that pays them, they are sworn in before a judge as an authorized agent of the courts...the purpose being to allow them to function as an extension of the judiciary, by bringing the accused, and evidence before the court. (Notice that they do not typically bring the accused before the Chief of Police, the Mayor, or City Council, even though those are in fact, their bosses). The notion of the police as a rival gang that outguns the bad gangs is fueled by Elliot Ness' ambitions and too many G-man movies. The concept of the police as an occupying army keeping the poor and minorities in place is of course, the Bull Connor legacy. There is an uber wealthy enclave someplace, where the police let themselves in to feed and walk the dogs of the residents, thus joining Andy of Mayberry in promoting the image of police as servants of the 'right kind' of citizens.. And then of course, there is Chuck Norris....[:D] Alumbrado: If the courts say that they are not here to protect me and I am not rich enough to have them walk my dog then it would seem to me that they are essentially revenue agents who seek to extract money from those whom they claim to protect and serve but which the courts say they have no statutory obligation to do. thompson false advertising too... that is what we are suppozzzzzzzzed to have a militia for. Militia? hmm. When you define "militia",do you mean the nuts out in the woods,who store food,guns and fantasize about fighting the US government(not what the Constitution was referring to,btw)? Or are you referring to the US army and/or law enforcement in general? Peace Original question: "When you define "militia",do you mean the nuts out in the woods,who store food,guns and fantasize about fighting the US government(not what the Constitution was referring to,btw)? Or are you referring to the US army and/or law enforcement in general?" ************************************************* I knew you wouldn`t answer the question.lol The question was clear enough,and didn`t require cutting and pasting text.It was a question to you, asking what you were referring to(as in,which one? 1. the survivalist/wacko type "militias"(which aren`t militia,just strange men feeding each others neurosis)or 2. the armed forces and/or LEOs. The context of your post,in reply to thomson,was that "a militia" ,was supposed to do, or preform,what LEOs couldn`t or wouldn`t do.Is that what you meant?Looks like it.I don`t see that anywhere in the Constitution.Could you point out where that is? Are you suggesting that the founding fathers,provided that state or federal militias would act as law enforcement?Or be used against it`s citizens or against the federal government?I think Posse Comitatus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act covers that,at least until Bush started to trample the Constitution. So the question is simple,were you referring to the nuts ,or legitimate institutions, like the police and army,in your post? It`s an important distinction When I refer to the nuts in the woods,I`m referring to groups of men(and a few woman),who call themselves " militia",and pretend that they`re the militia mentioned by the founding fathers, in the Constitution. They run anywhere from weekend warriors,playing w/ guns, to hard core white supremacists groups,preparing for "the end days",w/ underground bunkers and small arsenals. http://www.religioustolerance.org/cr_ident.htm http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Turner_Diaries.asp A common theme in the "militia"movement,(and NRA)is that the founding fathers guaranteed the right to own firearms,so that they, as (fake) "militias" or individually, could defend themselves against the tyranny of the government.In other words,they think the founding fathers,wanted folks to have guns,to protect them from the US government.This is what the Davidians,and most wacko groups think,including some groups that refer to themselves as a militia. There is also a large cross section of republicans, who give moral support this movement.NRA types and the such,who also think that the Constitution`s 2nd amendment,guarantees the right to own a gun(which it doesn`t). Something tells me you were talking about the wackos and nuts,when you mentioned "a militia".Not the legitimate ones,mentioned in the US Constitution. Was I correct?

Real0ne -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/18/2007 12:12:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Original question: "When you define "militia",do you mean the nuts out in the woods,who store food,guns and fantasize about fighting the US government(not what the Constitution was referring to,btw)? Or are you referring to the US army and/or law enforcement in general?" ************************************************* I knew you wouldn`t answer the question.lol The question was clear enough,and didn`t require cutting and pasting text.It was a question to you, asking what you were referring to(as in,which one? 1. the survivalist/wacko type "militias"(which aren`t militia,just strange men feeding each others neurosis)or 2. the armed forces and/or LEOs. The context of your post,in reply to thomson,was that "a militia" ,was supposed to do, or preform,what LEOs couldn`t or wouldn`t do.Is that what you meant?Looks like it.I don`t see that anywhere in the Constitution.Could you point out where that is? Are you suggesting that the founding fathers,provided that state or federal militias would act as law enforcement?Or be used against it`s citizens or against the federal government?I think Posse Comitatus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act covers that,at least until Bush started to trample the Constitution. So the question is simple,were you referring to the nuts ,or legitimate institutions, like the police and army,in your post? It`s an important distinction When I refer to the nuts in the woods,I`m referring to groups of men(and a few woman),who call themselves " militia",and pretend that they`re the militia mentioned by the founding fathers, in the Constitution. They run anywhere from weekend warriors,playing w/ guns, to hard core white supremacists groups,preparing for "the end days",w/ underground bunkers and small arsenals. http://www.religioustolerance.org/cr_ident.htm http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Turner_Diaries.asp A common theme in the "militia"movement,(and NRA)is that the founding fathers guaranteed the right to own firearms,so that they, as (fake) "militias" or individually, could defend themselves against the tyranny of the government.In other words,they think the founding fathers,wanted folks to have guns,to protect them from the US government.This is what the Davidians,and most wacko groups think,including some groups that refer to themselves as a militia. There is also a large cross section of republicans, who give moral support this movement.NRA types and the such,who also think that the Constitution`s 2nd amendment,guarantees the right to own a gun(which it doesn`t). Something tells me you were talking about the wackos and nuts,when you mentioned "a militia".Not the legitimate ones,mentioned in the US Constitution. Was I correct? icorrect i thought i was pretty clear but the constitution does speak for itself does it not? CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES ARTICLES IN ADDITION TO, AND AMENDMENT OF, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PROPOSED BY CONGRESS, AND RATIFIED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF THE SEVERAL STATES, PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION1 Bill of Rights Amendment I: Freedom of speech, religion, press, petition and assembly. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.2 Amendment II: Right to bear arms and militia. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment III: Quartering of soldiers. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Amendment IV: Warrants and searches. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ------------------------------------- Suppose you enlighten me as to what a constitutionally "legitimate" militia is by whatever you are are using as a standard to gauge it by and also explain its function within a republic of course as intended by the founding fathers and we will go from there.

thompsonx -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/18/2007 5:20:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado 18 has been the legal age of majority in the US for decades, and alcohol restrictons are an exception to that. Whether you know that or not has no effect on it being the reality. I pointed out that alcohol was an exception, and merely ask if it were true also of all contracts. Thank you for your clarification. And how do you get that the Hoovervile incident or any other blatant violation of the law proves that it isn't the law? Perhaps you might share with me just how "Hooverville"was a blatant violation of the law? If it were a violation of the law(which it was not)then would it not be the responsibility of the police and not the army? Your postings over time have shown a pattern of demanding evidence, followed by your completely ignoring the evidence, or bizarre leaps of logic such as the above in support of denial. Perhaps you should read a bit more closely. I wish you good luck in convincing other non-thinkers to buy your verbage, but don't hold your breath expecting the skeptical to fall for it. The only place I hold my breath is underwater.[;)]

thompsonx -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/18/2007 5:25:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado If you two keep on torturing logic and definitions like that, in an attempt to make reality fit TV shows, there is probably a job waiting for you at Abu Ghraib.[8\|] Alumbrado: What precisely have I said that might lead you to believe that I might be interested in or qualified for a job at Abu Ghraib? thompson

Owner59 -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/18/2007 6:55:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Original question: "When you define "militia",do you mean the nuts out in the woods,who store food,guns and fantasize about fighting the US government(not what the Constitution was referring to,btw)? Or are you referring to the US army and/or law enforcement in general?" ************************************************* I knew you wouldn`t answer the question.lol The question was clear enough,and didn`t require cutting and pasting text.It was a question to you, asking what you were referring to(as in,which one? 1. the survivalist/wacko type "militias"(which aren`t militia,just strange men feeding each others neurosis)or 2. the armed forces and/or LEOs. The context of your post,in reply to thomson,was that "a militia" ,was supposed to do, or preform,what LEOs couldn`t or wouldn`t do.Is that what you meant?Looks like it.I don`t see that anywhere in the Constitution.Could you point out where that is? Are you suggesting that the founding fathers,provided that state or federal militias would act as law enforcement?Or be used against it`s citizens or against the federal government?I think Posse Comitatus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act covers that,at least until Bush started to trample the Constitution. So the question is simple,were you referring to the nuts ,or legitimate institutions, like the police and army,in your post? It`s an important distinction When I refer to the nuts in the woods,I`m referring to groups of men(and a few woman),who call themselves " militia",and pretend that they`re the militia mentioned by the founding fathers, in the Constitution. They run anywhere from weekend warriors,playing w/ guns, to hard core white supremacists groups,preparing for "the end days",w/ underground bunkers and small arsenals. http://www.religioustolerance.org/cr_ident.htm http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Turner_Diaries.asp A common theme in the "militia"movement,(and NRA)is that the founding fathers guaranteed the right to own firearms,so that they, as (fake) "militias" or individually, could defend themselves against the tyranny of the government.In other words,they think the founding fathers,wanted folks to have guns,to protect them from the US government.This is what the Davidians,and most wacko groups think,including some groups that refer to themselves as a militia. There is also a large cross section of republicans, who give moral support this movement.NRA types and the such,who also think that the Constitution`s 2nd amendment,guarantees the right to own a gun(which it doesn`t). Something tells me you were talking about the wackos and nuts,when you mentioned "a militia".Not the legitimate ones,mentioned in the US Constitution. Was I correct? icorrect i thought i was pretty clear but the constitution does speak for itself does it not? CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES ARTICLES IN ADDITION TO, AND AMENDMENT OF, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PROPOSED BY CONGRESS, AND RATIFIED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF THE SEVERAL STATES, PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION1 Bill of Rights Amendment I: Freedom of speech, religion, press, petition and assembly. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.2 Amendment II: Right to bear arms and militia. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment III: Quartering of soldiers. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Amendment IV: Warrants and searches. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ------------------------------------- Suppose you enlighten me as to what a constitutionally "legitimate" militia is by whatever you are are using as a standard to gauge it by and also explain its function within a republic of course as intended by the founding fathers and we will go from there. Thanks for the effort,I couldn`t agree more.The Constitution is perfectly clear<smile>.Wish more people saw it that way. But the question was not to you,sorry for the confusion.It was meant for "Luckydog". It`s pretty clear what the legitimate militias were then and are now.Today ,it`s the National Guard and the regular armed forces,hence "well regulated"in that there is state or government control. It`s not referring to private armed groups or private armys.Or the "militia movement"types,who have grown to be a threat to,not a defender of our constitution.No ones regulating them,accept the David Koreshs of the world. The function of the guard,and occasionally the army,are today(for the most part),what they were meant to be 200+ years ago.A ready(or near ready) standing force,in case of an invasion or rebellion or emergency.The states would pay for and also be responsible for the force,and accountable for their conduct.That`s why state governors actually command them.You gotta get the governor`s permission to use them,if you`re the POTUS. Today, they also preform rescue and disaster relief,fight forest fires,etc.Something the founding fathers meant as well(IMO).They knew the governors needed men at the ready,for whatever,to secure the free state. This has all happened over time(200 years) and legally.Laws like Posse Comitatus(though not of the founding fathers),provide that these forces never be used against citizens.That`s for LEOs only,but they to are "well regulated" as well and controlled by the state. That`s my take,and how I believe most people see it. Peace

thompsonx -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/18/2007 7:07:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 This has all happened over time(200 years) and legally.And laws like Posse Comitatus,provide that these forces never be used against citizens.That`s for LEOs only,but they to are "well regulated"and controlled by the state. That`s my take,and how I believe most people see it. Peace Owner59: Thus my question as to why the military was used instead of LEOs at Waco and "Hooverville" thompson

Alumbrado -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/18/2007 7:27:37 AM)
quote: Alumbrado: What precisely have I said that might lead you to believe that I might be interested in or qualified for a job at Abu Ghraib? thompson See below: quote: Perhaps you might share with me just how "Hooverville"was a blatant violation of the law? *If it were a violation of the law (which it was not) then would it not be the responsibility of the police and not the army?* I rest my case. Your ability to torture logic and reality in order to get what you want out of them is undeniable. Logic has rights too, so you will have to employ your skills someplace where such rights have been suspended....like Abu Gahraib (For those who aren't familiar with the Bonus March, the Hooverville incident that I referred to, took place when US troops led by McArthur violated the posse comitatus law by leaving Washington DC in open violation of a direct Presidential order, and proceeded to kill peaceful citizens in their encampment, which they had ironically named 'Hooverville' Now according to Thompson, this incident was not a violation of law (see above in blue). The excuses for the Hooverville incident that I've come across are that there were exceptions to the PC law, one crafted by the Army itself, called 'Emergency Plan White', in which the Army gave itself permission to attack in the case of armed insurrection, which this was not. The other was that McArthur reasonably believed that he was exempt from a direct Presidential order because he was fighting a Communist attack - a claim made ridiulous by the fact that he was attacking unarmed US veterans, women and children. A clear cut and obvious violation..yet to some, it was perfectly legal, and to others, there is no such law...[8\|] [8\|] [8\|]).

Owner59 -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/18/2007 7:45:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 This has all happened over time(200 years) and legally.And laws like Posse Comitatus,provide that these forces never be used against citizens.That`s for LEOs only,but they to are "well regulated"and controlled by the state. That`s my take,and how I believe most people see it. Peace Owner59: Thus my question as to why the military was used instead of LEOs at Waco and "Hooverville" thompson That`s a whole other thread,which I`d be perfectly happy to engage.I have mixed feeling about Waco,Ruby Ridge,etc? Not to be a factinista,but LEOs were the guys involved in those cases,not regular army,or NG personal.They were federal law enforcment.Makes little difference,and in some ways I agree with that sentiment. But the Branch Davidians were making fertilizer bombs,and other types of explosive devices,and blowing them on in the scrub.People could hear the explosions.That`s how the investigation into them started.If they just prayed and followed the law,no one would have acted against them.I believe they were suicidal,and used children as human shields.I believe that pedophile and child rapist Davis Koresh ,was as nutty as they come,and as charismatic as Jim Jones and the like. This was pre 9/11,but the feds weren`t going to let a group of would-be terrotists,make bombs. I also have problems w/ the conduct of "some" LEOs,and the policies,at that time,in those cases.There are many ways to skin a cat.

Real0ne -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/18/2007 8:31:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 This has all happened over time(200 years) and legally.And laws like Posse Comitatus,provide that these forces never be used against citizens.That`s for LEOs only,but they to are "well regulated"and controlled by the state. First i assume you are aware there is a difference between legally and lawfully, they are not one in the same. there is nothing in our constitution that would indicate we cannot have police if they are wanted by the people. However police have nothing to do with a militia as we are directed to maintain in the constitution. Neither is a national gaurd. The Founders of our Nation and the Framers of the Constitution were well aware of the dangers of the tyranny and treason of a run-away governmental bureaucracy and had a very PRIMARY reason for the inclusion of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispenable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." -- George Washington, Commanding General of the Continental Army, Father of Our Country and First President of the United States, in his address to 2nd Session of 1st Congress. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government." Again that is: to protect themselves against tyranny in Government." -- Thomas Jefferson, Author of The Declaration of Independence, and President of the United States. I suppose i should emphasize this part since so many just gloss over without actually reading "The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. -- James Madison, principal author of Constitution, principal writer of The Federalist Papers, President of the United States, Mainstream Revolutionary and Militant. "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ...Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." -- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789 "It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." --- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Parker, Chief Prosecuter for the United States of America at the Nurnberg Trials As far as kooks and wackos are concerned: Wacko clinton and reno killing all those kids in waco? Over an unpaid 200 dollar invoice. Waco was a threat to the "status quo" defunct government and a blessing for liberty. Of course they used tanks and spun it such that koresh was a kook which justified them going in with TANKS to massacre them. In the name of tyranny. err i mean law. If you want to talk about the queen of wackos lets look at jocelyn elders LOLOL How about shooting the unarmed weavers on ruby ridge? Shooting a kid and the guys wife while she was holding her baby! Is that a republic or is that a wacko? How about the murrah building that is known to have blown from the inside out not the outside in as it would have to happen if TMs fertilizer were the actual device that did the damage. What ever happened to those 2 huge unexploded bombs they found in the murrah building that the gov took out? They took them out and they mysteriously dissappeared into government land, (just like the wtc), with no further knowledge to be had. i wont even get into how his trial was nothing more than staged, a setup. of course we all knew that, and being protectors of this countries values we just let it all slide on by.... not my problem we hire cops to take care of it, or was that the fbi, or was that fema, or was that the batf. anyway with all those agencies we are paying we know we are safe and well taken care of by a sane effective government of the people and when that does not work we will create and pay for 50 more agencies. Whatever it takes to avoid picking up a gun. No a citizens militia is just that; citizens with arms controlled by citizens, to defend citizens agains the "governent", not a part of the government. The sole intention of the right to bear arms and the purpose of the militia is in fact to "force" the goverment to the will of the people and the will of the people is clearly elaborated and enumerated in the constitution. (that is before us numb skull idiots let the so called genius's slice away at it) Remember only it was only 7% of the population that broke us away from england creating the united states of america and they were all gun toting bastard "citizens", as you can see by a couple quickly googled original quotes of the founders and others. Now that is not to say some militias cannot get it all wrong. Is it surprising however? I mean after all we were all taught the intricate details of the "forefathers" and it was pounded into our heads in school! right? NOT! We were all taught revisionist post 1900 era thank you very much mr rockefucker, wilson, and cronies. treasonous traitors to the constitution. (add gwb) We need to return to citizen militias who have been properly instructed on the actually meaning and desire of the founders. (think swiss). Get that in place and watch this government snap to in a new york second. (Now they would have a damn good reason to "fear" the people as it was meant to be. OR do you think they would stop short of nuking us? i wonder how far this government would go to suppress the people of this nation from defending our liberties? They wasted them at waco, used tanks, nearly 3000 at wtc for oil, one little disaster away from martial law..........and they play on our ignorance, (we believe any fucking thing the government says), and complacency lack of will to fight. The water is to hot right now, however give it some time for people to forget, the next disaster will be sure to get it for them. anyone say "patriot act", "military act", consolidated exective powers, executive priviledge, privacy of government enforced not that of the people? Does the government need to invoke the FOIA to find out what YOU THE PRIVATE CITIZEN ARE DOING? No but you do to find out what the government is doing dont you. Does that sound like a government OF the people. NO. Do you need to invoke the FOIA to find out what your employees are doing in your company? NO Then why is that we need it for our government employees? I have said it many times that the system is broken on many levels and we are now paying and will continue to pay even more dearly in the future for our blatant ignorance and complacency even to the point of the totaly dismantling of the constitutional government and destruction of the republic as a whole.

Real0ne -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/18/2007 8:33:51 AM)
scrap this post

Real0ne -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/18/2007 8:38:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Logic has rights too not in this republic

Alumbrado -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/18/2007 8:45:32 AM)
Weed out all the conspiracy theories, and I agree with RO on a couple of remaining points. The reasoning behind the 2nd amendment as explicated with the 'blood of tyrants' quote would make it appear illogical to restrict it to use against only foreign tyrants And if we are going to indulge in 'shoulda-coulda-woulda' about Waco, it seems that the ATF and the DOJ screwed it up on many levels, including giving the Davidians the 'end times battle' they had been preparing for.

michaelOfGeorgia -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/18/2007 8:50:04 AM)
it's one thing to hate someone, it's entirely different to attack, possibly kill, someone they hate.

Alumbrado -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/18/2007 9:06:00 AM)
Which is, of course, back on topic. Is there a criminal penalty for hating someone without acting on that hate? If not, then were does the extra criminal penalty come from for actions that are hate motivated?

Real0ne -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/18/2007 9:09:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Weed out all the conspiracy theories, and I agree with RO on a couple of remaining points. The reasoning behind the 2nd amendment as explicated with the 'blood of tyrants' quote would make it appear illogical to restrict it to use against only foreign tyrants And if we are going to indulge in 'shoulda-coulda-woulda' about Waco, it seems that the ATF and the DOJ screwed it up on many levels, including giving the Davidians the 'end times battle' they had been preparing for. why not? its only a mere 6 years after 911 and the wtc. Many of us claimed waco was a conspiracy in real time and complained of government suppression of our rights way back then. Now days we are saying that 911 was a conspiracy in real time and AGAIN pointing out why. Of course since conspiracy is only in a persons vocabulary when the government makes the claim we certainly cannot consider anything that has that word attached. err except from the government then its kool, binladen did it! After all 30 years from now, like waco we can all sit back and say "oh yeh, the wtc thing. if we indulge in the 'shoulda-coulda-woulda' about WTC, it seems that the <insert who ever you want here> and the......................... screwed it up on many levels. Completely glossing over as you just have that it is a repugnant violation of the constitution and that it is the citizens responsibility, that is you the next guy and i to suppress this kind of government terror in the form of a "citizens militia". they call that 20-20 hind sight and even worse since you did not add that the government was in complete violation of the constitution and you furhter down played it by saying that they "screwed up" rather than emphasizing the atrocity that is really is.

farglebargle -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/18/2007 9:19:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Which is, of course, back on topic. Is there a criminal penalty for hating someone without acting on that hate? If not, then were does the extra criminal penalty come from for actions that are hate motivated? Sounds like the crime of Conspiracy. Depends on if you're a connected White Man, or not, whether you end up in Prison.

Alumbrado -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/18/2007 9:21:24 AM)
quote: Now days we are saying that 911 was a conspiracy in real time and AGAIN pointing out why. The difference is that I rely on skepticism to decide if some conspiracy theory may or may not be true... skepticism of the government, skepticism of the media, and skepticism of those claiming the conspiracy theory. Then I employ logical and rational deductive approaches to the available information, hoping to reach some sort of useful conclusion. That is why it didn't take me 30 years to debunk the Gulf of Tonkin incident or the government's account of Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc. You on the other hand, rely on blind faith, and refuse to question anything as long as it supports certain knee jerk reactions. That means you have to employ sophomoric logical fallacies to cobble together a 'support' system for your forgone conclusions. You are building up houses of cards, I am testing them. And you are more than welcome to stick with your approach. just don't expect everyone to buy it. quote: Completely glossing over as you just have that it is a repugnant violation of the constitution and that it is the citizens responsibility, that is you the next guy and i to suppress this kind of government terror in the form of a "citizens militia". they call that 20-20 hind sight and even worse since you did not add that the government was in complete violation of the constitution and you furhter down played it by saying that they "screwed up" rather than emphasizing the atrocity that is really is. Now you are just being completely dishonest.

farglebargle -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/18/2007 9:26:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado The difference is that I rely on skepticism to decide if some conspiracy theory may or may not be true... skepticism of the government, skepticism of the media, and skepticism of those claiming the conspiracy theory. Then I employ logical and rational deductive approaches to the available information, hoping to reach some sort of useful conclusion. That is why it didn't take me 30 years to debunk the Gulf of Tonkin incident or the government's account of Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc. You on the other hand, rely on blind faith, and refuse to question anything as long as it supports certain knee jerk reactions. That means you have to employ sophomoric logical fallacies to cobble together a 'support' system for your forgone conclusions. You are building up houses of cards, I am testing them. And you are more than welcome to stick with your approach. just don't expect everyone to buy it. I think you are confusing the CONCEPT of a "Crackpot Conspiracy Theory" with the act of "Criminal Conspiracy" "the presentation of information to Congress and the general public through deceit, craft, trickery, dishonest means, and fraudulent representations, including lies, half-truths, material omissions, and statements made with reckless indifference to their truth or falsity, while knowing and intending that such fraudulent representations would influence Congress' decisions regarding authorization to use military force and funding for military action, constitutes interfering with, obstructing, impairing, and defeating a lawful government function of a department of the United States within the meaning of Section 371." That's the OVERT ACT. Getting together with other people is a CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT THE OVERT ACT. One person may defraud. MANY people may defraud. ONE Person cannot CONSPIRE to defraud, but MANY people may CONSPIRE to defraud. It's like whipped cream on top of the overt criminal act of Fraud.

Alumbrado -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/18/2007 9:29:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Which is, of course, back on topic. Is there a criminal penalty for hating someone without acting on that hate? If not, then were does the extra criminal penalty come from for actions that are hate motivated? Sounds like the crime of Conspiracy. Depends on if you're a connected White Man, or not, whether you end up in Prison. Just hating someone, without any act in furtherance, is not the legal definition of the crime of conspiracy. It requires more than one person, and some sort of act, not just opinions. If we are saying that acting to harm someone one because of hate is the crime of conspiracy in addition to the harmful criminal act, then doesn't that make extra hate crimes legislation even mor redundant?

Page: << < prev 19 20 [21] 22 23 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

5.078125E-02