Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by BA.Barcolounger

  1. Wow. Don't be such a dumbass.

    You're an imbecile.

    You're a dense {censored}ing brick wall, dude.

    PC, dogma-snorkeling follower BULL{censored}.

    is actually what passes for "logic" in that cinder block noggin of yours?! Incredible.

    You guys must have been all-stars on your HS Debate teams.


    Not to mention, good luck with the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt of so-called "intimidation".

    The burden of proof is quite steep. Prosecutors usually have a difficult time prosecuting these cases and have a tendency to drop the hate crime addendum and prosecute only the underlying crime. Most of the time only the most egregious cases get through the process. Which is fine by me - we can't go all willy-nilly with this stuff.


    Also, what do you suppose the odds would be that this would carry even a drop of water EVER in a court of law if it were say, a white person claiming to be a victim of a "hate crime"? Yeah, that's what I thought.

    The constitutionality of hate crimes laws was upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Wisconsin v Mitchell, which had a black assailant and a white victim.

  2. Prove that he was "knowingly negligent". You think he's going to say "oh, yeah, I was on my cell and I just drifted into the lane..."


    It is right there in the situation I described...


    Situation one: I'm driving down the road. Bored, I start {censored}ing around with my cell phone.
    I know it is against the law but {censored} it.

  3. It doesn't matter.
    In most states
    , it's not illegal to use your cellphone while driving. Meaning, since he wasn't breaking any laws, it's still just an accident. He's going to be charged with reckless driving, regardless.

    In the state of NY, it's illegal to drive with your cellphone, it's not just about everywhere outside the northeast.


    In most states, if you knowingly do something that puts other people at risk, and it results in someone's death - you get negligent homicide.

  4. One is ACCIDENTAL vehicular manslaughter.

    The second is PREMEDITATED vehicular homicide.

    They're already different. Race has nothing to do with it. You're an imbecile.


    The first example is not an accident. It is negligent homicide. The driver knew his behavior was risky to himself and others, but did it anyway.

  5. If someone's convicted for premeditated murder, regardless of "motivation", explain to me what rationale would dictate that the punishment should be any more or less severe based on bigotry or prejudice?


    Hate crimes are a form of intimidation. Hate criminals are attempting to use fear to achieve their goals (chasing immigrants out of a neighborhood, 'keeping them in their place", etc). It is a crime against not only the specific victim of the crime, but also the rest of the victim's group who now fear walking in particular neighborhoods as result of the crime.


    Therefore the punishment must also include punishment for the intimidation as well as the underlying crime.

  6. Wow.

    Don't be such a dumbass.


    Let's try an example.


    Situation one: I'm driving down the road. Bored, I start {censored}ing around with my cell phone. I know it is against the law but {censored} it. Not paying attention, I cross the yellow line and hit a car head on. The driver, an elderly Japanese man is killed instantly.


    Situation two: I'm bitter and angry about my grandfather dying in WWII. Japanese immigrants have been moving into my neighborhood. My cat is missing. I write on my blog that I'm going to do something about it. I go out in my car. I see an elderly japanese man waiting at the bus stop. I run him down. While backing over him for good measure, I yell out the window at his horrified grandchildren, "Go back to ching-chong-land you {censored}ing slopes!"



    Should these situations be treated equally in the eyes of the law? Both situations involved a person being killed with a car, right?

  7. The whole politically-correct idea behind "hate crimes" is idiotic to begin with. Rape is rape, murder is murder, assault is assault. Prosecute and punish them all accordingly and quit PROMOTING discrimination with this ridiculous PC idiocy already. {censored}.


    Motive means nothing in criminal justice?


    No difference between vehicular manslaughter and murder for hire?

  8. I really don't think this a racial issue. What it's about is justice, if we as a nation condemn hate with special laws and punishment shouldn't those laws apply to everyone? We can't have a group of laws that favor one particular group like affirmative action. And really isn't hate crimes kind of a oxymoron, i mean are there any love crimes?


    You should probably look up the first case prosecuted under federal hate crime legislation. Make note of the race of the victim and the perp.

  9. Yes this is after Scott Brown WON in Massachusettes (liberal Ted Kennedy's old seat) --- and Scott Brown ran on the platform that he was going to vote AGAINST Obamas healthcare bill (which he did)

    The people of liberal Mass said "no" and thats the point thats being missed and you wonder why the healthcare bill is still UNPOPULAR 2 yrs later





    After the 2008 election (the one that did not happen in 2007), Democrats had 58 seats. It took 6 months for them to get their 59th seat when Al Franken was finally declared the winner in Minnesota.

  10. Uberfailz


    Evidently you can't read a graph


    Ok, let's see....what year was Obama Elected............2007

    What year did he take office............2008


    Holy Muther{censored}ing {censored}!


    Are you seriously contending that Obama was elected president in 2007?

  11. Listen Reps can get some blame as well, but the bottom line (FACT) is that Obama had a super majority in the congress, (Pelosi) Senate (Reid) in 2010 until the Scott Brown "W"


    At the peak of Democratic power in the Senate, the Dems held 59 seats. That is not a super-majority when 60 votes are required to even debate an issue.

  12. .... How many times did he say hes focusing on jobs? Like a laserbeam was 1 quote --- how many times did he say this bull{censored} line -- 3, 4, 5?


    Obama submitted a very reasonable Jobs Bill to congress, and pushed for its passage for months. Only a handful of provisions garnered enough republican support to pass.


    Speaking of jobs...


    NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Private companies continued to add jobs in March, albeit at a slightly slower pace than in February. Businesses added 209,000 jobs in March, according to a report issued Wednesday by payroll-processing company ADP.

  13. Yeah, they eliminated jobs paying 40-75K and replaced them with minumum wage, paper hat wearing, "you want fries with that ?" jobs...........but hey.........we created jobs.


    Here's the ADP report in full.


    Here's the breakdown...


    Employment in the private, service-providing sector increased 164,000 in March, after rising a revised 183,000 in February. Employment in the private, goods-producing sector rose 45,000 in March. Manufacturing employment increased 23,000, while construction employment advanced 13,000 and the financial services sector added 8,000 jobs during that period.


    You said that the job gains were in minimum wage jobs. Show me where the report says that.

  14. The election will be on finance and economy
    , govt debt, etc -- not as much on social issues!


    You sure?


    NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Private companies continued to add jobs in March, albeit at a slightly slower pace than in February. Businesses added 209,000 jobs in March, according to a report issued Wednesday by payroll-processing company ADP.

  • Create New...