mullie1 - Posted - 02/25/2011:  13:38:42

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwgreene01

quote:

---

Originally posted by mullie1

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwgreene01

[quote]....Not relevant for the discussion.

---

definition of "lazy" - unwilling to do any work or make an effort

(sorry, back to the peanut gallery!)

---

Another projected unsavory and unfounded judgement

---

Uhm, no..quite the contrary, sorry. You were asked to provide your own definition(s) and continued for several posts to reflect the question back at others rather than researching it yourself. The definition of laziness.

---

Edited by - mullie1 on 02/25/2011 13:41:18

KE - Posted - 02/25/2011:  13:39:16

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Dress

Ad hominems are fun, KE, but really, it's fine to talk about hate groups, especially in these times. We all agree that hate groups are bad. The point is what is real and what is political pap?

The problem is that it gets political and rather ridiculous when you see the list of suspects. You guys are joking, right? The KKK? The skinheads? They are the threat? Please. These guys are all beating each other up in prison or lined up waiting to get back in. The only halfway serious bunch is the NBPP, but you won't see them on TV these days. Look around you and see the real hate groups running around right under your nose.

I just checked some news sites on the web and I saw video of lots of violent people, I saw union thuggery, I saw unions calling for blood in the streets, I saw reporters being beat down.

All this is irrelevant and instead we must go after boogeymen in sheets? That's your story, is it?

---

Finally! We have arrived at talking about hate groups.

I have not seen videos of violent people with union thuggery calling for blood on the streets. I may not watch the same news sources as you do, so please give a citation. I've seen lots of people protesting with signs with which one may or may not disagree, but no violence. Name-calling, certainly.

I've seen Randi Weingarten called a terrorist by Colbert (look for video, it's funny) but she seemed to take it in good fun.

I have asked which groups the SPLC has cited as a hate group you support and why. Let's start by discussing that, if possible. If we can't get into the politics, at least give names.

I'm wiling to call out Westboro Baptist Church as a small hate group. They visited my daughter's school a few months ago, and they have been to few soldier's funerals in our area.

jwgreene01 - Posted - 02/25/2011:  13:48:46

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KE

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwgreene01

KE,

FYI, had you researched, you would have found NO Congressional or Judicial definition of "Hate Group" for the some of the reasons posted in this thread by other members along with constitutional issues. The simple fact is the term was fabricated and propagandized by SPLC for raising donation money for personal gain and promotion of SPLC ideology.

As previously stated by other members selective determination of groups as “Hate Groups” is subjective classification at best and is perpetrated by SPLC for use on individuals or groups by projecting unfavorable labels to persuade public opinion, shut down dissenting opinions or de-legitimize opposing causes in order to promote their ideology or agenda.

---

You proposed it, not I. I know you wanted to put up a strawman, but why? It avoids the central argument.

There are clearly statutory definitions of hate crime; a group practicing a hate crime would reasonably be called a hate group.

I submit it is very important to identify and call out those groups practicing the definition I gave. The SPLC has done so. I wouldn't care who has done so -- the practice of hate deserves universal condemnation.

At least nobody here has yet publicly admitted to defending the groups cited as hate groups. There is at least that much discomfort exhibited.

---

No straw man argument, I already knew the answer. I just wanted you to find out on your own that your statement was undefensible.

Several of those practices you described are protected by the Constitution for example hanging effigy protected under the 1st amendment, protesting at funerals also 1st amendment, free association which means you can’t be held accountable if certain members of a group in which you are associated commit a crime without your knowledge or participation, 14th amendment “Due Process”. Unless you can produce the specific federal statues only individuals not groups can be tried for any crime. Keep in mind conspiracy must prove participation and individuals are tried seperately and if convicted sentenced indivdually.

I submit it is very important to identify and call out those groups practicing the definition I gave. The SPLC has done so. I wouldn't care who has done so -- the practice of hate deserves universal condemnation

Quite the narrow view. That suggests the elimination of independent thinking.
As my understanding no one has independent or moral authority or legitimate power to determine what constitutes a Hate Group. As previously stated, using SPLC's contrived criteria the Continental Congress would have been labeled a hate group by SPLC.

Again, you miss the central issue in the topic. SPLC has no legitimate or moral authority or legal power to abritrairily fabricate,define,label or identify any group as a hate group.

mullie1 - Posted - 02/25/2011:  13:56:25

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Dress

Ad hominems are fun, KE, but really, it's fine to talk about hate groups, especially in these times. We all agree that hate groups are bad. The point is what is real and what is political pap?

The problem is that it gets political and rather ridiculous when you see the list of suspects. You guys are joking, right? The KKK? The skinheads? They are the threat? Please. These guys are all beating each other up in prison or lined up waiting to get back in. The only halfway serious bunch is the NBPP, but you won't see them on TV these days. Look around you and see the real hate groups running around right under your nose.

I just checked some news sites on the web and I saw video of lots of violent people, I saw union thuggery, I saw unions calling for blood in the streets, I saw reporters being beat down.

All this is irrelevant and instead we must go after boogeymen in sheets? That's your story, is it?

---

Oh, NOW I get where you are coming from, it explains a lot. The real hate groups are the Black Panthers and union members in your opinion rather than white supremist groups, homophobes, islamophobes, anti-government militias, etc. And how exactly did all of those kkk/skinheads that you mentioned get into prison in the first place?

The hate crimes and violence of today come from deluded extremists from all walks of life - including the NBPP and specifically many that you dub as "not serious". I'm having a hard time reconciling your claim of union members as a hate group but whatever floats your boat I guess. "Boogeymen in sheets"? You think they are no longer out there?! Sadly they are growing in number yet again whether you wish to wear your blinders or not (and for whatever reason you wear those blinders, but your examples are eye opening.) The FBI profile (and locations) of a substantial amount of recent and growing hate group violence runs contrary to everything you have been stating....

KE - Posted - 02/25/2011:  13:59:25

---

Responding to jwgreene01 just above:

They (SLPC) can define it as they wish! As can you or I. Sure, they have no legal authority to prosecute. But if you and I aren't willing to exercise moral authority through legitimate social action to condemn racism, sexism, homophobia, ethnic persecution, then I consider us to be culpable for the effects of violence. That's what free speech is for -- we have the right, if not the obligation.

Sultans of Claw - Posted - 02/25/2011:  14:01:57

---

Odd that the FBI would consider them a resource. Go figure.

KE - Posted - 02/25/2011:  14:03:15

---

The conspiracy runs deep.

Richard Dress - Posted - 02/25/2011:  14:04:35

---

"I have asked which groups the SPLC has cited as a hate group you support and why. Let's start by discussing that, if possible." -- KE

Are you serious with a question like that? An educated person would only resort to that kind of trickery because ...

You know, I can't figure it out. I know that you might be using your education to fool people with an old slick sophist trick, but I would rather think that you got caught with the 15 minute rule. Otherwise, upon reflection, you would have edited it out right?

Sultans of Claw - Posted - 02/25/2011:  14:05:55

---

You'd have to define deep, first Ken, and then runs, and oh yeah, I forgot conspiracy and the.

---

Edited by - Sultans of Claw on 02/25/2011 14:07:25

dlc - Posted - 02/25/2011:  14:08:28

---

The only thing I'm going to say on this topic is I can't help wondering about the warped mindset that sees ALL disagreement as hate, ALL opposition as extremism, ALL disapproval as intolerance and ALL voting as partisanship.

Carry on.

---

Edited by - dlc on 02/25/2011 14:09:28

KE - Posted - 02/25/2011:  14:11:43

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Dress

"I have asked which groups the SPLC has cited as a hate group you support and why. Let's start by discussing that, if possible." -- KE

Are you serious with a question like that? An educated person would only resort to that kind of trickery because ...

You know, I can't figure it out. I know that you might be using your education to fool people with an old slick sophist trick, but I would rather think that you got caught with the 15 minute rule. Otherwise, upon reflection, you would have edited it out right?

---

I am very serious. I've asked several times, so obviously no remorse about posing the question to you. If SPLC unfairly targets some groups, which groups. Straightforward question.

KE - Posted - 02/25/2011:  14:14:05

---

Just to be sure there's no misunderstanding, I'm posting it twice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Dress

"I have asked which groups the SPLC has cited as a hate group you support and why. Let's start by discussing that, if possible." -- KE

Are you serious with a question like that? An educated person would only resort to that kind of trickery because ...

You know, I can't figure it out. I know that you might be using your education to fool people with an old slick sophist trick, but I would rather think that you got caught with the 15 minute rule. Otherwise, upon reflection, you would have edited it out right?

---

I am very serious. I've asked several times, so obviously no remorse about posing the question to you. If SPLC unfairly targets some groups, which groups. Straightforward question.

Richard Dress - Posted - 02/25/2011:  14:15:44

---

"The real hate groups are the Black Panthers" -- M

I am sorry I can't get thru your post; it reads like a logical maze. But I am very disappointed that you didn't see that I credited the NBPP as being the most savvy and effective of those nitwits on the list. After that misreading, you lost me. I mean you really did.

KE - Posted - 02/25/2011:  14:18:37

---

I rather thought mullie1's post captured it clear as a bell. Hard to misunderstand.

Forrest - Posted - 02/25/2011:  14:19:35

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KE

I have not seen videos of violent people with union thuggery calling for blood on the streets. I may not watch the same news sources as you do, so please give a citation. I've seen lots of people protesting with signs with which one may or may not disagree, but no violence. Name-calling, certainly.

---

That was Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) who called for violence in support of unions in general and in direct response to the situation in Wisconsin. He did so on Tuesday, February 22, 2011 in a speech to union members in Boston. What he said was:

"I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going," "Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary."

comments.americanthinker.com/r...4084.html
thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefin...necessary

djingodjango - Posted - 02/25/2011:  14:22:28

---

This thread is in it's seventh page. And no one is closer then when it began. I'm quite surprised it hasn't been locked.

I'm just sayin'

God bless
George

KE - Posted - 02/25/2011:  14:26:05

---

Ah, thanks. I did see that. My thought was his comment meant taking to the streets despite the risk that somebody opposed may bloody you. Unions have certainly faced violent crackdowns before in history. I did not see it as a call to violence, but a call to action in the face of potential violence in opposition to your protest. But we may be interpreting it much differently, and it pays to mind your words.

Sultans of Claw - Posted - 02/25/2011:  14:31:03

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KE

Ah, thanks. I did see that. My thought was his comment meant taking to the streets despite the risk that somebody opposed may bloody you. Unions have certainly faced violent crackdowns before in history. I did not see it as a call to violence, but a call to action in the face of potential violence in opposition to your protest. But we may be interpreting it much differently, and it pays to mind your words.

---

I think that's a fair assessment, plus he apologized for his words -- not something you often see a hate monger do.

---

Edited by - Sultans of Claw on 02/25/2011 14:32:39

Richard Dress - Posted - 02/25/2011:  14:33:46

---

"I am very serious. I've asked several times, so obviously no remorse about posing the question to you." --KE

OK, but first clear something up for me. I heard there was a recent blog on the topic "the Canine as a Marital Surrogate" and I wondered if you now regret being the OP? I'd like to know where we stand on this. After all, these kind of questions are apparently allowed in your view of critical thinking. So please let me put just this one in play and see how you handle it before I try your 'wife-beater'. I am not very good at this, you know. I always try to avoid sophistry, it complicates our thinking and once more diverts everyone's attention from the central point.

KE - Posted - 02/25/2011:  14:35:28

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by djingodjango

This thread is in it's seventh page. And no one is closer then when it began. I'm quite surprised it hasn't been locked.

I'm just sayin'

God bless
George

---

It is a testament to civility, George, is it not?

jwgreene01 - Posted - 02/25/2011:  14:38:08

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mullie1

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwgreene01

quote:

---

Originally posted by mullie1

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwgreene01

[quote]....Not relevant for the discussion.

---

definition of "lazy" - unwilling to do any work or make an effort

(sorry, back to the peanut gallery!)

---

Another projected unsavory and unfounded judgement

---

Uhm, no..quite the contrary, sorry. You were asked to provide your own definition(s) and continued for several posts to reflect the question back at others rather than researching it yourself. The definition of laziness.

---

Unfortunately for the unfounded judgement statement I already knew there was no Congressional or Judicial definition of Hate group. That pesky constitution sure can be inconvenient. 0 for 2 is not a very good batting avg. I guess thats why they have peanut galleries.

As for my own definitions, they may or may not coincide with your definitions making them neutrally invalid.

KE - Posted - 02/25/2011:  14:41:12

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Dress

"I am very serious. I've asked several times, so obviously no remorse about posing the question to you." --KE

OK, but first clear something up for me. I heard there was a recent blog on the topic "the Canine as a Marital Surrogate" and I wondered if you now regret being the OP? I'd like to know where we stand on this. After all, these kind of questions are apparently allowed in your view of critical thinking. So please let me put just this one in play and see how you handle it before I try your 'wife-beater'. I am not very good at this, you know. I always try to avoid sophistry, it complicates our thinking and once more diverts everyone's attention from the central point.

---

With regard to your question - I have no regrets. Glad we could clear that up.

Now, which groups do you believe the SPLC has unfairly identified as a hate group? TIA

BanjoLink - Posted - 02/25/2011:  14:55:05

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KE

Ah, thanks. I did see that. My thought was his comment meant taking to the streets despite the risk that somebody opposed may bloody you. Unions have certainly faced violent crackdowns before in history. I did not see it as a call to violence, but a call to action in the face of potential violence in opposition to your protest. But we may be interpreting it much differently, and it pays to mind your words.

---

You're kidding - right? If not, after seven pages of reading this, I think I now understand the problem!

BanjoLink - Posted - 02/25/2011:  15:04:52

---

OK - you wanted some names of some groups labeled as "hate groups" by the SPLC! How about these -
Concerned Women for America, the Traditional Values Coalition, the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage.

The Family Research Council is the organization run by Tony Perkins, a conservative christian based organization promoting family values. Apparently, a hate group is now a mainstream christian group that plainly states that they do not hate anyone. No, Westborough Baptist Church is not mainstream and should be condemned by everyone.

Sultans of Claw - Posted - 02/25/2011:  15:08:24

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwgreene01

As for my own definitions, they may or may not coincide with your definitions making them neutrally invalid.

---

I'm pretty sure the FBI's definitions of hate crimes, which are based on federal statutory law and definitions, pretty well trump any you may have dreamed up.

slabounty - Posted - 02/25/2011:  15:13:10

---

I believe the FRC is on the list based on this ... tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...itary.php. Basically saying that homosexual rape of heteros will increase if DADT is repealed in the armed forces. Sounds like hate speech to me.

Scott

KE - Posted - 02/25/2011:  15:17:46

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BanjoLink

OK - you wanted some names of some groups labeled as "hate groups" by the SPLC! How about these -
Concerned Women for America, the Traditional Values Coalition, the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage.

The Family Research Council is the organization run by Tony Perkins, a conservative christian based organization promoting family values. Apparently, a hate group is now a mainstream christian group that plainly states that they do not hate anyone. No, Westborough Baptist Church is not mainstream and should be condemned by everyone.

---

Thank you!

You may very well support the aims of those groups. The SPLC may very well identify them as anti-homosexual; and I doubt those organizations would disagree. The SPLC, exercising it's rights of free speech may identify them as hate groups on the basis of words and deeds, which we may now cite as evidence as long as they are not political.

jwgreene01 - Posted - 02/25/2011:  15:18:50

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KE

Responding to jwgreene01 just above:

They (SLPC) can define it as they wish! As can you or I. Sure, they have no legal authority to prosecute. But if you and I aren't willing to exercise moral authority through legitimate social action to condemn racism, sexism, homophobia, ethnic persecution, then I consider us to be culpable for the effects of violence. That's what free speech is for -- we have the right, if not the obligation.

---

KE,

Happy you see it that way. Moral authority is only legitimate to the individual. It's how we react individually to perceived threats to our own morals.

Richard Dress - Posted - 02/25/2011:  15:24:43

---

Well, there is a man who doubles down to the very end. There is something admirable in that kind of dedication. Wife Beating questions are OK. I wonder if there are any limits to discussion in your rule book. I myself would balk at admitting to serial bestiality.

Let's review the list:

Nation of Islam (Black Separatist)- a has-been organization, nobody cares anymore, they sell newspapers
New Black Panther Party (Black Separatist) - a nonentity right now, probably had to go back to Harvard for IInd semester

Aryan Nations 88 (Neo-Nazi)
Volksfront (Racist skinhead)
Blood and Honor (Racist Skinhead)
Council of Conservative Citizens (White Nationalist)
Conservative Citizens Foundation (White Nationalist)

The above are all incarceration social organizations, I guess. They are very exclusive and we are not like to be seeing them running around on the street.

The Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC)
Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (Ku Klux Klan)

I know nothing about these guys but I think they are somehow involved in the Melungeon conspiracy.

To sum up, you ask which have been unfairly accused of being a hate group.

Well, I don't really care about them one way or another so I don't care if they were unfairly identified, as you say. You can take them all or none, as far as I am concerned. But it seems like a joke to me to get all excited about these obscure weirdos and ignore the hate that flares in the streets right now. Why this selective vision? Why this insistence on spending money for SPLC detectives to root out society's halt and lame (morally and mentally speaking) when the real danger is right in our face?

(As an aside I counted nine organizations on the list, so I must have miscounted--but seven out of the nine are ideologically rooted in socialism and the other two are probably on Social Security.)

KE - Posted - 02/25/2011:  15:26:55

---

Responding to jwgreene01 above:

That's the nature of great civil debate. But it's not all individual -- we do develop a collective morality through consensus and tradition. That collective morality becomes enforceable through mores and laws. And that is why it is important to allow the discussion, and to allow the SLPC to call out hate as they see it. It's not that long ago that those categories (race, for only one example) were treated very differently than today. And gender and gender orientation are evolving at different paces as well. But as individuals we all come along at different rates as we evolve, and there are some backwaters that need to be called out.

---

Edited by - KE on 02/25/2011 15:27:46

jwgreene01 - Posted - 02/25/2011:  15:27:45

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KE

quote:

---

Originally posted by BanjoLink

OK - you wanted some names of some groups labeled as "hate groups" by the SPLC! How about these -
Concerned Women for America, the Traditional Values Coalition, the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage.

The Family Research Council is the organization run by Tony Perkins, a conservative christian based organization promoting family values. Apparently, a hate group is now a mainstream christian group that plainly states that they do not hate anyone. No, Westborough Baptist Church is not mainstream and should be condemned by everyone.

---

Thank you!

You may very well support the aims of those groups. The SPLC may very well identify them as anti-homosexual; and I doubt those organizations would disagree. The SPLC, exercising it's rights of free speech may identify them as hate groups on the basis of words and deeds, which we may now cite as evidence as long as they are not political.

---

Total conjecture, unless you are the spokesperson for these groups. For a minute there I had hope for you KE.

mullie1 - Posted - 02/25/2011:  15:29:01

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwgreene01
......Unfortunately for the unfounded judgement statement I already knew there was no Congressional or Judicial definition of Hate group. That pesky constitution sure can be inconvenient. 0 for 2 is not a very good batting avg. I guess thats why they have peanut galleries.

As for my own definitions, they may or may not coincide with your definitions making them neutrally invalid.

---

You actually look to the Constitution to tell you what a hate group is in 2011??!! And YOU want to be my latex salesman? (if I were you I wouldn't be bringing up batting averages...just sayin")

KE - Posted - 02/25/2011:  15:30:27

---

Did I not use the words "I doubt" rather than "they would"?

Keep the faith.

Edit: What do you think the odds are that those groups are endorsing homosexuality.

---

Edited by - KE on 02/25/2011 15:32:53

jwgreene01 - Posted - 02/25/2011:  15:48:57

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KE

Did I not use the words "I doubt" rather than "they would"?

Keep the faith.

Edit: What do you think the odds are that those groups are endorsing homosexuality.

---

Interesting, I took the quote straight from your post? Was there an edit involved?

---

Edited by - jwgreene01 on 02/25/2011 15:57:48

KE - Posted - 02/25/2011:  15:59:27

---

Umm, no edit. Check the post and you'll see none. Just pointing out that by saying "I doubt" it should have been clear it was my personal assessment, as opposed to "they would" which would suggest some knowledge of their position. As far as I know, I'm the ultimate authority on my beliefs. Seems picky, at any rate.

Rick Anderson - Posted - 02/25/2011:  16:45:04

---

I hate hate groups. Maybe we should start a group called I hate hate groups. Sorry, couldn't resist trying to bring some humor into this tense thread.

edavidt - Posted - 02/25/2011:  16:47:49

---

Interesting thread. Upon reading all 8 pages, I laughed a bit.

I am wondering if it would move to a more precise place if someone identified what they thought was a "hate crime."

For example:

csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011...igilantes

Was this a hate crime, based on definitions and thought discussed so far?

jwgreene01 - Posted - 02/25/2011:  16:49:24

---

Either way its worded is still making unqualified presumptions.

Yes, you are the master of your moral domain without having your morals subjagated to other arbitrairy moral beliefs (which is a considable point here).

I'm not saying SPLC can't voice their opinion. The questions arises from SPLC constant revision of its arbitrary criteria. Which there is overwhelming evidence suggesting it targets groups/individuals who oppose their ideology and/or agenda diminishing any credibility and exposing them once again.

Sultans of Claw - Posted - 02/25/2011:  17:22:08

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by edavidt

Interesting thread. Upon reading all 8 pages, I laughed a bit.

I am wondering if it would move to a more precise place if someone identified what they thought was a "hate crime."

---

I already posted a link to all the applicable federal statutes specifically written for use in prosecuting hate crimes. Alas, to no avail!

edavidt - Posted - 02/25/2011:  17:24:39

---

Yes, I know, but I was thinking if we could agree on some actual examples of hate crimes, then we could move from deductive thinking to inductive thinking.

Sultans of Claw - Posted - 02/25/2011:  17:33:32

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by edavidt

Yes, I know, but I was thinking if we could agree on some actual examples of hate crimes, then we could move from deductive thinking to inductive thinking.

---

Here's one to start:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

kipperr - Posted - 02/25/2011:  17:36:38

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by edavidt
csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011...igilantes

Was this a hate crime, based on definitions and thought discussed so far?

---

Based JUST on the information contained in the article, I don't know, and wonder whether anyone can know, whether this was a hate crime or not. It was a robbery and murder and a tragedy, and the defendant got what she deserved. Actually, here in Texas most of us would think that "life" is getting off a little easy, but that's a totally different subject.

She was supposedly trying to get money for the Minutemen American Defense group. So then you have to judge that group as a "hate" group (based on whose definition? see the last 3 pages of this thread), and say she was trying to fund a hate group and thus it was a hate crime. Would she have invaded a caucasian house to rob for money? Did she pick a hispanic household out of hatred? Are the Minutemen a "hate" group? Was she charged with a hate crime? If not, why?

Too many assumptions in this case for me to be comfortable judging whether it was motivated by racial hate or not. I'm uncomfortable anytime someone can make a boatload of assumptions in order to use the "hate crime" or "hate group" label.

Sultans of Claw - Posted - 02/25/2011:  17:44:21

---

Or, in response to an aggregate of incidents:

civilrights.org/monitor/vol8_n...art4.html

---

Edited by - Sultans of Claw on 02/25/2011 17:44:45

KE - Posted - 02/25/2011:  17:46:11

---

Billy Jack parses the question:

youtube.com/watch?v=jXXyms5g5o...e=related

Sultans of Claw - Posted - 02/25/2011:  17:48:04

---

Again, in response to an aggregate of incidents:

prochoice.org/pubs_research/pu...e_act.pdf

edavidt - Posted - 02/25/2011:  17:54:18

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KE

Billy Jack parses the question:

youtube.com/watch?v=jXXyms5g5o...e=related

---

I saw that movie at the drive in, on a date. But, I can't seem to remember the movie too well.

Sultans of Claw - Posted - 02/25/2011:  17:54:29

---

And this one pretty well defines what constitutes a "group":

law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_...000-.html

fivebranch - Posted - 02/25/2011:  17:58:25

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sultans of Claw

And this one pretty well defines what constitutes a "group":

law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_...000-.html

---

I surprise that law has not been deemed Unconstitutional for being sexist no mention of she, her

Ronnie - Posted - 02/25/2011:  18:03:17

---

Two neo-nazis, Cowart and Schlesselman from my area had plans to assassinate Obama after a state-to-state spree of murdering black people. They were arrested by local authorities and incarcerated in our county jail. This was apparently nipped in the bud before anyone was killed. I don't know the final outcome of the case. I think this would qualify as a hate crime.