One of the 3 Oklahoma thrill killers hates white people. How is this not a hate crime?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:The legal concept of a hate crime was created to protect oppressed minorities. This murder may well have stemmed from racial hatred, but there is an imbalance between the status of whites in America and the status of blacks. It would be a terrible crime if a group of black men lynched a white man, but as a matter of historic fact, that is not something that has happened repeatedly, while white lynchings of blacks were once common in parts of the country.

I have no problem with these kids being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But it seems to me that bringing up hate crimes does lttle more than say that the hundreds of lynchings and other crimes against blacks over the years (or beatings and killings of gays) are somehow less horrible because blacks kill whites also.

All killings are bad, but certain types are a much greater problem in our society. Not that one killing is a greater sin than another, just that certain types are a quantitatively greater problem and merit specific legal remedies.

If you think that "hate crimes" are "a quantitatively greater problem" than standard issue street crime, you might want to refresh your study of crime statistics. Points for honesty, though, most people at least try to pretend that "hate crimes" are a neutral concept, instead of what they are, which is a very definite and left-wing political point of view written into the criminal law.

That's only left leaning because lynchings are a right wing activity.

Back when lynchings actually occurred, they were a Democratic party activity. These days lynchings are reserved for likes of Zimmerman, Pagones and the Duke Lacrosse Team. In other words, it's still a Democratic Party activity.

The duke lacrosse team went free and the prosecutor was sent to jail by another prosecutor hardly the narrative you made up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:The legal concept of a hate crime was created to protect oppressed minorities. This murder may well have stemmed from racial hatred, but there is an imbalance between the status of whites in America and the status of blacks. It would be a terrible crime if a group of black men lynched a white man, but as a matter of historic fact, that is not something that has happened repeatedly, while white lynchings of blacks were once common in parts of the country.

I have no problem with these kids being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But it seems to me that bringing up hate crimes does lttle more than say that the hundreds of lynchings and other crimes against blacks over the years (or beatings and killings of gays) are somehow less horrible because blacks kill whites also.

All killings are bad, but certain types are a much greater problem in our society. Not that one killing is a greater sin than another, just that certain types are a quantitatively greater problem and merit specific legal remedies.

If you think that "hate crimes" are "a quantitatively greater problem" than standard issue street crime, you might want to refresh your study of crime statistics. Points for honesty, though, most people at least try to pretend that "hate crimes" are a neutral concept, instead of what they are, which is a very definite and left-wing political point of view written into the criminal law.

That's only left leaning because lynchings are a right wing activity.

Back when lynchings actually occurred, they were a Democratic party activity. These days lynchings are reserved for likes of Zimmerman, Pagones and the Duke Lacrosse Team. In other words, it's still a Democratic Party activity.

The duke lacrosse team went free and the prosecutor was sent to jail by another prosecutor hardly the narrative you made up.

The reality doesn't matter to the left. What is important is the perception of white racism and injustice that these cases help create regardless of any reality to them or not. In each of the cases above the perception of racism, the atmosphere of racial division were increased. This helps feed and sustain the identity politics which along with class warfare are the two pillars that the Democratic party has always been built on. The fact that the Democrats have shifted their racist backing from poor whites to poor non-whites changed the fundamental philosophy not a bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:The legal concept of a hate crime was created to protect oppressed minorities. This murder may well have stemmed from racial hatred, but there is an imbalance between the status of whites in America and the status of blacks. It would be a terrible crime if a group of black men lynched a white man, but as a matter of historic fact, that is not something that has happened repeatedly, while white lynchings of blacks were once common in parts of the country.

I have no problem with these kids being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But it seems to me that bringing up hate crimes does lttle more than say that the hundreds of lynchings and other crimes against blacks over the years (or beatings and killings of gays) are somehow less horrible because blacks kill whites also.

All killings are bad, but certain types are a much greater problem in our society. Not that one killing is a greater sin than another, just that certain types are a quantitatively greater problem and merit specific legal remedies.

If you think that "hate crimes" are "a quantitatively greater problem" than standard issue street crime, you might want to refresh your study of crime statistics. Points for honesty, though, most people at least try to pretend that "hate crimes" are a neutral concept, instead of what they are, which is a very definite and left-wing political point of view written into the criminal law.

That's only left leaning because lynchings are a right wing activity.

Back when lynchings actually occurred, they were a Democratic party activity. These days lynchings are reserved for likes of Zimmerman, Pagones and the Duke Lacrosse Team. In other words, it's still a Democratic Party activity.

The duke lacrosse team went free and the prosecutor was sent to jail by another prosecutor hardly the narrative you made up.

The reality doesn't matter to the left. What is important is the perception of white racism and injustice that these cases help create regardless of any reality to them or not. In each of the cases above the perception of racism, the atmosphere of racial division were increased. This helps feed and sustain the identity politics which along with class warfare are the two pillars that the Democratic party has always been built on. The fact that the Democrats have shifted their racist backing from poor whites to poor non-whites changed the fundamental philosophy not a bit.

As a conservative, you don't get to tell us what we think, just your wife.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:The legal concept of a hate crime was created to protect oppressed minorities. This murder may well have stemmed from racial hatred, but there is an imbalance between the status of whites in America and the status of blacks. It would be a terrible crime if a group of black men lynched a white man, but as a matter of historic fact, that is not something that has happened repeatedly, while white lynchings of blacks were once common in parts of the country.

I have no problem with these kids being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But it seems to me that bringing up hate crimes does lttle more than say that the hundreds of lynchings and other crimes against blacks over the years (or beatings and killings of gays) are somehow less horrible because blacks kill whites also.

All killings are bad, but certain types are a much greater problem in our society. Not that one killing is a greater sin than another, just that certain types are a quantitatively greater problem and merit specific legal remedies.

If you think that "hate crimes" are "a quantitatively greater problem" than standard issue street crime, you might want to refresh your study of crime statistics. Points for honesty, though, most people at least try to pretend that "hate crimes" are a neutral concept, instead of what they are, which is a very definite and left-wing political point of view written into the criminal law.

That's only left leaning because lynchings are a right wing activity.

A few facts for you:

-The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery.

-During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.

-The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party, and its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and Republicans who sympathized with them.

-In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.

-The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
A few facts for you:

-The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery.

-During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.

-The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party, and its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and Republicans who sympathized with them.

-In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.

-The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.

I wrote a long post about this the other day. As I concluded, Republicans can tell a great history of support for civil rights. Unfortunately, it ends in 1964. Then, the racist Democrats left the party to became Republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't worry, Australia is calling it a black on white hate crime and urging people not to come here as students or tourists.
Obama has been silent.

obama didn't comment on Trayvon until a month and a half after the killing.

And other country's presidents and diplomats were on the news saying what on Day 1 (as they are now)?

No need for excuses or distractions. Looks petty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a leftist and I have mixed feelings about hate crime legislation, in part because of the issue that OP raised - can this be applied fairly and consistently? I'm definitely opposed to hate speech regulations of the type seen on some college campuses because they can be too easily abused depending on who is deciding what "hate" speech is. I don't know how we should address what are called hate crimes though.

That said, I find OP to be a whiner. So tired of these posts by white people feeling sorry for themselves. Guys, we white people (especially those of us with high SES) have enormous advantages. Any time I walk into a room I know I have instant acceptance because I'm white - regardless of the race of the people in the room. Such a waste of time to spend it complaining over what is basically an anomaly. We white people don't have to worry about being displaced by other groups.

That's unfortunate - it should be different - but it's a fact so stop feeling sorry for yourself, OP.

Wow. How incredibly closed minded of you to accuse me of being whiny and feeling sorry for myself because I created a dialogue about whether there is a hypocrisy in the way we look at this law. There is such over-sensitivity among people like you to never acknowledge that racism from minorities does occur or that it can be publicly acknowledged. I lived next to the head of the New Black Panthers for a year and saw first hand how racism exists on all sides. I'm not crying about it though. I'm just asking an honest question if there is a double standard.

Oh talk about close-minded! You just said people like me never acknowledge racism from minorities exists. Uh, reread my post, OP. Where does it say that some people who are minorities don't act in a racist manner? Of course they do. I just don't think it matters in most (but definitely not all) cases. I can only remember one time in my life where I was worried about being discriminated against for being white by someone who had the power to affect my life. Oh yeah there were a few times when people called me "white bitch" - poor crazy people who had absolutely no power over me whatsoever.

And yeah, I'm sure your neighbor was a complete asshole just like you are intimating but that doesn't make you NOT a whiner. I still walk through society being welcomed everywhere or at the least getting the benefit of the doubt while your former neighbor (asshole or not) doesn't. And so do you, OP - assuming you're white. I do agree that individuals shouldn't act like assholes even if they're the victims of prejudice and discrimination (and I get tired of a few white liberals who make excuses for it). But then I don't expect that other black people or white liberals should make it up to me and sooth my hurt feelings because of the bad behavior of a few people. They're not ambassadors from a foreign government, for god's sakes!

You call it dialogue - It may be dialogue but your part of the dialogue sounds a lot like whining.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A few facts for you:

-The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery.

-During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.

-The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party, and its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and Republicans who sympathized with them.

-In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.

-The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.

I wrote a long post about this the other day. As I concluded, Republicans can tell a great history of support for civil rights. Unfortunately, it ends in 1964. Then, the racist Democrats left the party to became Republicans.

I'd love to see your blog post. And examples you have for the Republican party being so racist over the last 49 years. Anecdotally I have about equal amount of friends, family, colleagues that are Democrat and Republican. The most racist ones I've known are older Democrats. Just my personal experience though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't worry, Australia is calling it a black on white hate crime and urging people not to come here as students or tourists.
Obama has been silent.

obama didn't comment on Trayvon until a month and a half after the killing.

And other country's presidents and diplomats were on the news saying what on Day 1 (as they are now)?

No need for excuses or distractions. Looks petty.

everything Obana says or does looks wrong to you. The guy can't watch a movie in Saturday night without wingnuts pissed off about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't worry, Australia is calling it a black on white hate crime and urging people not to come here as students or tourists.
Obama has been silent.

obama didn't comment on Trayvon until a month and a half after the killing.

And other country's presidents and diplomats were on the news saying what on Day 1 (as they are now)?

No need for excuses or distractions. Looks petty.

everything Obana says or does looks wrong to you. The guy can't watch a movie in Saturday night without wingnuts pissed off about it.

Actually, my point was that other authorities are calling it a hate crime. This is very much in the front and center news in Australia and England.

I could care less what or when Obama says, he usually stays silent on international issues for many days, hoping it blows over. Everyone knows that.

[Anonymous]

Anecdotally I have about equal amount of friends, family, colleagues that are Democrat and Republican. The most racist ones I've known are older Democrats. Just my personal experience though.

This.

[Anonymous]

Yeah I don't think the Republicans have a corner on the market on racism.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I'd love to see your blog post. And examples you have for the Republican party being so racist over the last 49 years. Anecdotally I have about equal amount of friends, family, colleagues that are Democrat and Republican. The most racist ones I've known are older Democrats. Just my personal experience though.

Here it is:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/45/324799.page#3939551

(not a blog post, but a response in another thread).

I don't disagree that there are racist Democrats. Obviously, there are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't worry, Australia is calling it a black on white hate crime and urging people not to come here as students or tourists.
Obama has been silent.

obama didn't comment on Trayvon until a month and a half after the killing.

And do you think at any point he's going to state that he thinks any of these young men could be his son?? Doubt it!

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:I'd love to see your blog post. And examples you have for the Republican party being so racist over the last 49 years. Anecdotally I have about equal amount of friends, family, colleagues that are Democrat and Republican. The most racist ones I've known are older Democrats. Just my personal experience though.

Jeff will probably post a link. [Make that "has posted"] Meanwhile, some thing you might Google is Hubert Humphrey's speech at the Dem Convention in 1948, which led to the adoption of a civil rights plank in the party platform and a consequent southern walk-out and the Dixiecrat candidacy of Strom Thurmond, who later led many of his collegues into the GOP.

Then you can Google Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy, which seized on the south's negative reaction to civil rights to cement the movement of the once solidly Democrat south to the GOP.

It's not so much anything racist that the GOP did, as of image -- just as the Dems have not done all that much in recent decades for blacks, and yet the parties still foster the image that if you're black, you belong with the Dems and if you resent blacks, you belong with the GOP.

And please don't attack me for accusing all Republicans of being racists -- that's not the same as saying that the GOP leadership jumped at the chance of getting the votes of those who resented black progress any more than it would be to say that all Dem are black because the Dem leadership tries to attract black votes.