Frankeneinstein
Gold Member
- Dec 7, 2016
- 11,285
- 2,327
well, since you haven't had or needed a further explanation for anything for more than half a century now I am going to say no.Do we need any further explanation?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
well, since you haven't had or needed a further explanation for anything for more than half a century now I am going to say no.Do we need any further explanation?
Who was murdered?"the willful act of murder by a collection of people assembled with the intention of committing an act of violence upon any person."
So does that mean you would be willing to prosecute this group in the same manner?
Trump supporters can sue San Jose cops for attacks by protesters, court says
Heather Heyer was. How about that?
Say, that's only eighteen years before James Byrd.
Pretty sure Jasper County Texas is in the United States.
Ok cookie. He does have to keep pretending that you aren’t the party of the kkkTim Scott is finding it harder and harder to pretend he’s not in a party of white supeemacist losersSen. Tim Scott Says 'It's Good To Be First' As The Only GOP Senator To Sign On To Anti-Lynching Bill
On CBS's "Face The Nation," Sen. Tim Scott had a difficult time trying to explain why no other Republican has signed on to the anti-lynching bill that he has put forth.
-------------------------
The GOP is 90% white.
This is Tim Scott:
Do we need any further explanation?
He doesn't need to pretend. He isn't a Democrat
Say, that's only eighteen years before James Byrd.
Pretty sure Jasper County Texas is in the United States.
Not exactly what I'd call a traditional lynching, but okay...that's two in the last 40 years...and the people responsible, one was executed, one's on death row awaiting execution, and the last is serving life without the possibility of parole.
How do you propose the anti-lynching bill is going to serve more justice than that? Put their executed bodies back in prison for a few years after they're dead? Execute them a couple of times each?
Like I said...a solution to a non-problem...
I appreciate that...thanks for posting it...it really drives home the idiocy of the OP & the notion that an "anti-lynching bill" has any use other than political theater...which is about the only thing the Democrats excel at these days.Say, that's only eighteen years before James Byrd.
Pretty sure Jasper County Texas is in the United States.
Not exactly what I'd call a traditional lynching, but okay...that's two in the last 40 years...and the people responsible, one was executed, one's on death row awaiting execution, and the last is serving life without the possibility of parole.
How do you propose the anti-lynching bill is going to serve more justice than that? Put their executed bodies back in prison for a few years after they're dead? Execute them a couple of times each?
Like I said...a solution to a non-problem...
I don't "propose an anti-lynching bill". I simply corrected your timeline.
I didn't bother to research it; that's just a famous case that I know was well after 1981. How many more there may be, I don't know, but I do know they didn't quit in 1981.
No, it was white conservatives.Ok cookie. He does have to keep pretending that you aren’t the party of the kkkTim Scott is finding it harder and harder to pretend he’s not in a party of white supeemacist losersSen. Tim Scott Says 'It's Good To Be First' As The Only GOP Senator To Sign On To Anti-Lynching Bill
On CBS's "Face The Nation," Sen. Tim Scott had a difficult time trying to explain why no other Republican has signed on to the anti-lynching bill that he has put forth.
-------------------------
The GOP is 90% white.
This is Tim Scott:
Do we need any further explanation?
He doesn't need to pretend. He isn't a Democrat
No pretense necessary, since we aren't the party that FOUNDED it.
I appreciate that...thanks for posting it...it really drives home the idiocy of the OP & the notion that an "anti-lynching bill" has any use other than political theater...which is about the only thing the Democrats excel at these days.Say, that's only eighteen years before James Byrd.
Pretty sure Jasper County Texas is in the United States.
Not exactly what I'd call a traditional lynching, but okay...that's two in the last 40 years...and the people responsible, one was executed, one's on death row awaiting execution, and the last is serving life without the possibility of parole.
How do you propose the anti-lynching bill is going to serve more justice than that? Put their executed bodies back in prison for a few years after they're dead? Execute them a couple of times each?
Like I said...a solution to a non-problem...
I don't "propose an anti-lynching bill". I simply corrected your timeline.
I didn't bother to research it; that's just a famous case that I know was well after 1981. How many more there may be, I don't know, but I do know they didn't quit in 1981.
James Byrd wasn't lynched, dumbass.Democrats...experts at finding solutions to non-problem.
The last lynching in the United States was 1981 !
Lynching of Michael Donald - Wikipedia
Say, that's only eighteen years before James Byrd.
Pretty sure Jasper County Texas is in the United States.
Wow, did you JUST now figure out that people continue to kill each other in spite of it being against the law?
Wow, have you not yet figured out that "1998" is long after "1981"? Ergo the "1981" cannot have been the "last"?
Read much?
LMAO! You’re my favorite USMB retard. Keep up the good work though rdean is right on your heels.Too many conservatives want the right to lynch black people back. It’s bad politics for republicans to support this bill in their Trump era.
^ doesn’t realize that if it were good politics for the modern GOP, they’d be signing up to support it.LMAO! You’re my favorite USMB retard. Keep up the good work though rdean is right on your heels.Too many conservatives want the right to lynch black people back. It’s bad politics for republicans to support this bill in their Trump era.
Why would I be pissed? Murder is not acceptable. It’s one of the biggest sins one can commit. Made the top ten. I’ve never read a version that had any exceptions for race have you?^ doesn’t realize that if it were good politics for the modern GOP, they’d be signing up to support it.LMAO! You’re my favorite USMB retard. Keep up the good work though rdean is right on your heels.Too many conservatives want the right to lynch black people back. It’s bad politics for republicans to support this bill in their Trump era.
Admit it, you’d be pissed if your GOP rep came out in opposition to lynching.
What the phukk are you talking about? What the hell are you smoking? Or is it just LibTard Kool-Aid?Too many conservatives want the right to lynch black people back. It’s bad politics for republicans to support this bill in their Trump era.
What the phukk are you talking about? What the hell are you smoking? Or is it just LibTard Kool-Aid?Too many conservatives want the right to lynch black people back. It’s bad politics for republicans to support this bill in their Trump era.
Republicans are worried that bigots, racists, and neo-fascists might be offended by the legislation.
That does not refute the point in the post though which is that lynching is not an issue anymore. Further, your example is actually a fantastic illustration of why this 'law' is asinine in the first place, existing laws already completely cover this type of crime.But since we've had James Byrd mentioned, albeit in a post I have had explained to me had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the topic or with any sort of point, let's discuss what difference these sort of "even more illegal!" laws are supposed to make.
Byrd was killed by three men. Of those three, one has already been executed, one is on death row awaiting execution, and one was sentenced to life in prison, and has apparently had to be in solitary since 2003 for his own protection. In the aftermath of Byrd's death, we saw the passage of numerous "hate crimes" laws, to apparently make it even MORE illegal to kill someone than it already was. At the time, I couldn't figure out how that was supposed to work. Were we gonna call in a necromancer to raise them from the dead and execute them twice?
And now we somehow need a law to SPECIFICALLY make it illegal to lynch people, even more than it's already illegal to kill people generally? And the same question applies: what more is there to do than the law already provides? What, in other words, is the frigging POINT?
It isn't my thread or my bill, Ms. Hair-up-the-ass. I simply corrected a post that said that "the last lynching was in 1981" with a reference to a well-known one from 1998. In the civilised world we call this "refutation".
In tiny little words that means "no, the last lynching was not 1981 because here's one long after".Don't like it? Tough titty.
Can't believe I actually have to sit and explain simple shit to a purported adult.
Go change your diaper. You're making a mess here.
It already is. The law is pointless.The law would make it a federal hate crime.If you lynch someone your are committing a murder that is already against the law. What is an Anit Lynching Bill going to do make murder more illegal than it already is?