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.
Yeah maybe Bin Laden attacked the towers because he wanted to attack a random building, and not because he wanted to scare AmericansWell let me ask you... the person burned down a Muslim owned restaurant, with the intent of scaring other Muslims away from starting their own restaurants. Do you think that's okay?
Could have just been some nut wanting to burn a random building. You can't assume he burned it down because he hated Muslims.
Intent.That's not a "thought" issue. That's the matter between an accident (from reckless actions) and not an accident.Not really, we have manslaughter and two kinds of murder with numerous enhancements for all involving how the victim was killed and why. If someone walks out in front of your car you might get it ruled an accident but be driving drunk and what happens? Should the penalties be the same?
Dude...what the hell are you talking about? First of all, the markets are skyrocketing on the news of Trump's election alone so the ecomic future is bright. Second, my job isn't going anywhere. Third, what difference does it make what color I am, you racist wing-nut?Oh you're not brown? Then you probably aren't at risk of being put on a registry or having your rights stolen away in Trump's new Amerika. Sorry your job won't be coming back. I hope you can afford the price hikes at Wal-Mart.
Yeah. The action of accidentally killing someone vs. intentionally killing someone. Why is this so difficult for libtards?Intent.That's not a "thought" issue. That's the matter between an accident (from reckless actions) and not an accident.Not really, we have manslaughter and two kinds of murder with numerous enhancements for all involving how the victim was killed and why. If someone walks out in front of your car you might get it ruled an accident but be driving drunk and what happens? Should the penalties be the same?
Ok....so it'S clear that your paralyzed by fear over the realization that you can't defend your emotional position in a discussion based on logic so I will pick the numbers TheOldSchool. To keep it simple, how about 5 years for burning down a restaurant and 10 years for burning down a muslim restaurant under the guise of a "hate crime". Does that work for you?Well burning down the restaurant is not ok. So why the person did it is irrelevant (especially when it can't be proven unless the defendant confesses).Well let me ask you... the person burned down a Muslim owned restaurant, with the intent of scaring other Muslims away from starting their own restaurants. Do you think that's okay?Ok. And hypothetically speaking - what should the sentence be for that crime for the purposes of this discussion and then what additional sentence should there be for the "hate crime" on top of that? You don't have to have something realistic here. We just need numbers so we have something for the sake of the discussion.A guy burning down a Muslim owned restaurant, after years of posts on social media about how Muslims are a danger to the country.
There let's discuss that.
Now, do you want to pick the numbers so we can discuss or should I? I'd prefer you did it so you have nothing to cry about when I prove you wrong but I'm happy to do it if necessary. Let me know.
Yeah. The action of accidentally killing someone vs. intentionally killing someone. Why is this so difficult for libtards?Intent.That's not a "thought" issue. That's the matter between an accident (from reckless actions) and not an accident.Not really, we have manslaughter and two kinds of murder with numerous enhancements for all involving how the victim was killed and why. If someone walks out in front of your car you might get it ruled an accident but be driving drunk and what happens? Should the penalties be the same?
Intent is an action...not a thought.
Everything about the supposed "hate crime" laws are illegal and unconstitutional. For starters, it's a form of double-jeopardy. It's already illegal to assault someone. Charging them with the assault and a "hate crime" on top of that (or in addition to that to make the penalties for the crime harsher) is absurd. The same goes with murder, rape, etc.
Second, and much more importantly, it violates every basic law we have. Short of a confession, there is absolutely no possible way to prove the mindset of the accused. If the prosecutor were to - in a court of law - ask a witness if the accused committed the crime because they were racist/homophobic/etc., any competent defense attorney would object on the grounds of speculation. Nobody could possibly know what was in the mind of the accused. And any competent judge would sustain the objection. Even if the accused were a devout member of the KKK and killed a black person, nobody could possibly know with any level of certainty that the murder was committed due to the color of the victim. It could have been out of rage from confrontation. It could have been a hired hit by the wife of the victim. It could have been out of a perceived threat by the victim to the accused.
And yet that's exactly what these idiotic hate crime laws do - they assume what was in the mind of the accused and introduce it as "fact" in their arguments. Now that the party of logic and reason is in control again, we need to start repealing these idiotic laws. All minorities are already protected by the same laws that protect any other class of citizen.
Ok....so it'S clear that your paralyzed by fear over the realization that you can't defend your emotional position in a discussion based on logic so I will pick the numbers TheOldSchool. To keep it simple, how about 5 years for burning down a restaurant and 10 years for burning down a muslim restaurant under the guise of a "hate crime". Does that work for you?Well burning down the restaurant is not ok. So why the person did it is irrelevant (especially when it can't be proven unless the defendant confesses).Well let me ask you... the person burned down a Muslim owned restaurant, with the intent of scaring other Muslims away from starting their own restaurants. Do you think that's okay?Ok. And hypothetically speaking - what should the sentence be for that crime for the purposes of this discussion and then what additional sentence should there be for the "hate crime" on top of that? You don't have to have something realistic here. We just need numbers so we have something for the sake of the discussion.A guy burning down a Muslim owned restaurant, after years of posts on social media about how Muslims are a danger to the country.
There let's discuss that.
Now, do you want to pick the numbers so we can discuss or should I? I'd prefer you did it so you have nothing to cry about when I prove you wrong but I'm happy to do it if necessary. Let me know.
He doesn't. And neither do the other idiots.Ok....so it'S clear that your paralyzed by fear over the realization that you can't defend your emotional position in a discussion based on logic so I will pick the numbers TheOldSchool. To keep it simple, how about 5 years for burning down a restaurant and 10 years for burning down a muslim restaurant under the guise of a "hate crime". Does that work for you?Well burning down the restaurant is not ok. So why the person did it is irrelevant (especially when it can't be proven unless the defendant confesses).Well let me ask you... the person burned down a Muslim owned restaurant, with the intent of scaring other Muslims away from starting their own restaurants. Do you think that's okay?Ok. And hypothetically speaking - what should the sentence be for that crime for the purposes of this discussion and then what additional sentence should there be for the "hate crime" on top of that? You don't have to have something realistic here. We just need numbers so we have something for the sake of the discussion.A guy burning down a Muslim owned restaurant, after years of posts on social media about how Muslims are a danger to the country.
There let's discuss that.
Now, do you want to pick the numbers so we can discuss or should I? I'd prefer you did it so you have nothing to cry about when I prove you wrong but I'm happy to do it if necessary. Let me know.
Ummm. You do know that just because it's Muslim restaurant DOESNT make it a hate crime .
No it's not. If I look down at my cell phone and accidentally run you over, the physical action is exponentially different than if I stare directly at you, steer directly toward you, and accelerate. Vastly different physical actions nitwit.Yeah. The action of accidentally killing someone vs. intentionally killing someone. Why is this so difficult for libtards?Intent.That's not a "thought" issue. That's the matter between an accident (from reckless actions) and not an accident.Not really, we have manslaughter and two kinds of murder with numerous enhancements for all involving how the victim was killed and why. If someone walks out in front of your car you might get it ruled an accident but be driving drunk and what happens? Should the penalties be the same?
Intent is an action...not a thought.
Wrong ! Its thought dummy. The physical action of killing someone is exactly the same .
Everything about the supposed "hate crime" laws are illegal and unconstitutional. For starters, it's a form of double-jeopardy. It's already illegal to assault someone. Charging them with the assault and a "hate crime" on top of that (or in addition to that to make the penalties for the crime harsher) is absurd. The same goes with murder, rape, etc.
Second, and much more importantly, it violates every basic law we have. Short of a confession, there is absolutely no possible way to prove the mindset of the accused. If the prosecutor were to - in a court of law - ask a witness if the accused committed the crime because they were racist/homophobic/etc., any competent defense attorney would object on the grounds of speculation. Nobody could possibly know what was in the mind of the accused. And any competent judge would sustain the objection. Even if the accused were a devout member of the KKK and killed a black person, nobody could possibly know with any level of certainty that the murder was committed due to the color of the victim. It could have been out of rage from confrontation. It could have been a hired hit by the wife of the victim. It could have been out of a perceived threat by the victim to the accused.
And yet that's exactly what these idiotic hate crime laws do - they assume what was in the mind of the accused and introduce it as "fact" in their arguments. Now that the party of logic and reason is in control again, we need to start repealing these idiotic laws. All minorities are already protected by the same laws that protect any other class of citizen.
The Repug Party...the party of "logic of reason"....LOL!!
The party that started a disastrous war in Iraq for no damn good reason.
The party that STILL believes tax cuts for the rich helps the economy, despite a shitty economy the entire time that Dubya was president. I could go on and on.
On top of being an unabashed bigot, you're a fucking idiot.
No it's not. If I look down at my cell phone and accidentally run you over, the physical action is exponentially different than if I stare directly at you, steer directly toward you, and accelerate. Vastly different physical actions nitwit.Yeah. The action of accidentally killing someone vs. intentionally killing someone. Why is this so difficult for libtards?Intent.That's not a "thought" issue. That's the matter between an accident (from reckless actions) and not an accident.Not really, we have manslaughter and two kinds of murder with numerous enhancements for all involving how the victim was killed and why. If someone walks out in front of your car you might get it ruled an accident but be driving drunk and what happens? Should the penalties be the same?
Intent is an action...not a thought.
Wrong ! Its thought dummy. The physical action of killing someone is exactly the same .
A shitty economy? The highest unemployment ever reached under W. was just over 7%. It went over 10% under Barack Obama.The Repug Party...the party of "logic of reason"....LOL!! The party that started a disastrous war in Iraq for no damn good reason. The party that STILL believes tax cuts for the rich helps the economy, despite a shitty economy the entire time that Dubya was president. I could go on and on. On top of being an unabashed bigot, you're a fucking idiot.
Bwahahahahaha! You just got owned and you know it. Again, staring directly at you, steering directly toward you, and accelerating, and "looking down at my phone to FAKE it" are all actions and all vastly different than actually looking down at my phone and accidentally hitting you.No it's not. If I look down at my cell phone and accidentally run you over, the physical action is exponentially different than if I stare directly at you, steer directly toward you, and accelerate. Vastly different physical actions nitwit.Yeah. The action of accidentally killing someone vs. intentionally killing someone. Why is this so difficult for libtards?Intent.That's not a "thought" issue. That's the matter between an accident (from reckless actions) and not an accident.
Intent is an action...not a thought.
Wrong ! Its thought dummy. The physical action of killing someone is exactly the same .
No it's not !!!! God you are dense .
It both scenarios you run the guy over . If you planned the murder and then looked down at your phone to set up a fake excuse , it's still murder one !
A shitty economy? The highest unemployment ever reached under W. was just over 7%. It went over 10% under Barack Obama.The Repug Party...the party of "logic of reason"....LOL!! The party that started a disastrous war in Iraq for no damn good reason. The party that STILL believes tax cuts for the rich helps the economy, despite a shitty economy the entire time that Dubya was president. I could go on and on. On top of being an unabashed bigot, you're a fucking idiot.
Barack Obama saw a record number of food stamps during his administration (more than W.).
Barack Obama saw 3.7 million more women pushed into poverty than under W.
Barack Obama saw a record number of people leave the labor force during his administration (more than W.).
Barack Obama became the first and only president in U.S. history not to see at least one year of 3% or more GDP growth (Jimmy Carter's administration was an economic disaster and even he managed to achieve that once in 4 years while Obama couldn't do it once in 8 years).
You're not only an asshole Dubya Da Last Repug Prez, but you're also ignorant as hell.
Bwahahahahaha! You just got owned and you know it. Again, staring directly at you, steering directly toward you, and accelerating, and "looking down at my phone to FAKE it" are all actions and all vastly different than actually looking down at my phone and accidentally hitting you.No it's not. If I look down at my cell phone and accidentally run you over, the physical action is exponentially different than if I stare directly at you, steer directly toward you, and accelerate. Vastly different physical actions nitwit.Yeah. The action of accidentally killing someone vs. intentionally killing someone. Why is this so difficult for libtards?Intent.
Intent is an action...not a thought.
Wrong ! Its thought dummy. The physical action of killing someone is exactly the same .
No it's not !!!! God you are dense .
It both scenarios you run the guy over . If you planned the murder and then looked down at your phone to set up a fake excuse , it's still murder one !
You must like being my bitch Timmg because you keep coming back and bending over again and again
No it's not. If I look down at my cell phone and accidentally run you over, the physical action is exponentially different than if I stare directly at you, steer directly toward you, and accelerate. Vastly different physical actions nitwit.Yeah. The action of accidentally killing someone vs. intentionally killing someone. Why is this so difficult for libtards?Intent.That's not a "thought" issue. That's the matter between an accident (from reckless actions) and not an accident.
Intent is an action...not a thought.
Wrong ! Its thought dummy. The physical action of killing someone is exactly the same .
No it's not !!!! God you are dense .
It both scenarios you run the guy over . If you planned the murder and then looked down at your phone to set up a fake excuse , it's still murder one !
Bwahahahahaha! You just got owned and you know it. Again, staring directly at you, steering directly toward you, and accelerating, and "looking down at my phone to FAKE it" are all actions and all vastly different than actually looking down at my phone and accidentally hitting you.No it's not. If I look down at my cell phone and accidentally run you over, the physical action is exponentially different than if I stare directly at you, steer directly toward you, and accelerate. Vastly different physical actions nitwit.Yeah. The action of accidentally killing someone vs. intentionally killing someone. Why is this so difficult for libtards?
Intent is an action...not a thought.
Wrong ! Its thought dummy. The physical action of killing someone is exactly the same .
No it's not !!!! God you are dense .
It both scenarios you run the guy over . If you planned the murder and then looked down at your phone to set up a fake excuse , it's still murder one !
You must like being my bitch Timmg because you keep coming back and bending over again and again
How do you prove "accident" ? It's all about what your THINKING at the time .
Bwahahahahaha! You just got owned and you know it. Again, staring directly at you, steering directly toward you, and accelerating, and "looking down at my phone to FAKE it" are all actions and all vastly different than actually looking down at my phone and accidentally hitting you.No it's not. If I look down at my cell phone and accidentally run you over, the physical action is exponentially different than if I stare directly at you, steer directly toward you, and accelerate. Vastly different physical actions nitwit.Wrong ! Its thought dummy. The physical action of killing someone is exactly the same .
No it's not !!!! God you are dense .
It both scenarios you run the guy over . If you planned the murder and then looked down at your phone to set up a fake excuse , it's still murder one !
You must like being my bitch Timmg because you keep coming back and bending over again and again
How do you prove "accident" ? It's all about what your THINKING at the time .
No, it's about the EVIDENCE. Lol.
