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

[Anonymous]

Some of these posts are sickeningly glib about horrible suffering inflicted on human beings simply because another human being has felt like it. Who cares what races or cultures are involved? Nobody should ever have to suffer because someone else thinks they don't deserve to live unharmed or else because they think it would be amusing to hurt or kill them. Absolutely nobody. End of story.

[Anonymous]

I think we got hate crime legislation because of the attack on Matthew Shepherd (gay).

[Anonymous]

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

As a reformed Democrat, it saddens me to think that the party I once so staunchly aligned myself to reverts to to slams like this whenever there is a disagreement. It is petty and childish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

As a reformed Democrat, it saddens me to think that the party I once so staunchly aligned myself to reverts to to slams like this whenever there is a disagreement. It is petty and childish.

Yeah and it is pretty childish to tell all liberals what they think, which is what I responded to in kind.

[Anonymous]

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

No, but they are by far the market leader.

[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.

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.

OMG if we have to go through the split of the Dixiecrats and the Southern Strategy one more time, I'm going to puke. The party took in the southern racists in the 50's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Which just goes to show that conservatives can change, but unfortunately not always for the better.

[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.

I believe the allegation by the above poster was that it was right wingers do the lynching.
That's only left leaning because[b] 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.

OMG if we have to go through the split of the Dixiecrats and the Southern Strategy one more time, I'm going to puke. The party took in the southern racists in the 50's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Which just goes to show that conservatives can change, but unfortunately not always for the better.

I believe the pp above was saying that it was right wingers doing the lynching which was hardly the truth. That's my point!

[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.

I believe the allegation by the above poster was that it was right wingers do the lynching.
That's only left leaning because[b] 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.

OMG if we have to go through the split of the Dixiecrats and the Southern Strategy one more time, I'm going to puke. The party took in the southern racists in the 50's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Which just goes to show that conservatives can change, but unfortunately not always for the better.

I believe the pp above was saying that it was right wingers doing the lynching which was hardly the truth. That's my point!

You are confusing "Democrat" with "Liberal". Democrats were full of right wingers in the South, because none of them wanted to be Republicans. Because of Lincoln and the War.

[Anonymous]

You are confusing "Democrat" with "Liberal". Democrats were full of right wingers in the South, because none of them wanted to be Republicans. Because of Lincoln and the War.

Really? NONE of them? You are sadly mistaken. My dad never voted for a DEM President--Mississippi and Alabama.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone answered OP's question? Is there a double standard when it comes to hate crime laws? Is there media bias about covering topics like this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 3rd dude is not white!

The authorities identified the 3rd guy as a "white male."

he was the driver though, niot the shooter. And not the one who tweeted about taking some "life's."

But, he knew that they were driving and looking for a victim to kill. He shouldn't get a pass because he did not pull the trigger, or because he looks like the victim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

You are ignorant scum. Zimmerman, Pagones, and the Duke Lacrosse Team walk freely on the streets. They are not hanging from trees. It says a lot about you that you happily politicize the killing of thousands of innocents. How many black men do you believe have been wrongly charged with crimes? Do you know their names as well? Do you consider them to have been "lynched"?

Your race-baiting progressive buddies keep running into reality and facts disrupting their oh so juicy narratives. It's a problem endemic to Progressives in general. There hasn't been an actual lynching of a black person in this country for decades, a fact you Progressives do your very best to pretend isn't so. Let me quote one of the accused in this case:

James Edwards wrote:Ayeee I knocked out 5 woods [that would be short for Peckerwoods] since Zimmerman court lol shit ima keep sleepin shit!

James Byrd, 1998. It might not fit your narrative of strange fruit, but it was akin to a lynching.

Race-baiting Progressive scum created the whole Zimmerman narrative. Race-baiting Progressive scum have Lane's blood on their hands.

[Anonymous]

Oops, My posting was all messed up. I will try again.

James Byrd 1998 a racial lynching by chains attached to his feet and dragged for miles before being dumped in a cemetery. The three white men were white supremacist members.

[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.

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.

Harry Truman desegregated the armed forces in '48. During the 1960's the then elected southern democrats switched parties and became republicans after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Acts. But, I'm sure you already knew that.

[Anonymous]

Let's add these two scum-f*ckers to the list...beat a WWII vet to death.

http://www.kxly.com/news/spokane-news/elderly-man-dies-after-being-attacked-outside-ice-arena/-/101214/21574858/-/9flm7iz/-/index.html