Jump to content

Liberal Protests


B-Man

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

"This bill would cheapen the meaning of lynching by defining it so broadly as to include a minor bruise of abrasion."

 


Here's the transcript.
I seek to amend this legislation, not because I take it or I take lynching lightly, but because I take it seriously, and this legislation does not.
Lynching is a tool of terror that claimed the lives of nearly 5,000 Americans between 1881 and 1968. But this bill would cheapen the meaning of lynching by defining it so broadly as to include a minor bruise or abrasion. Our nation’s history of racial terrorism demands more seriousness from us than that....
It would be a disgrace for the Congress of the United States to declare that a bruise is lynching, that an abrasion is lynching, that any injury to the body, no matter how temporary, is on par with the atrocities done to people like Emmett Till, Raymond Gunn, and Sam Hose, who were killed for no reason, but because they were black. To do that would demean their memory and cheapen the historic and horrific legacy of lynching in our country.... 
We have had federal hate crime statutes for over 50 years, and it has been a federal hate crime to murder someone because of their race for over a decade. Additionally, murder is already a crime in 50 states. In fact, rather than consider a good-intentioned but symbolic bill, the Senate could immediately consider addressing qualified immunity and ending police militarization. We can and must do better....
 
 
At the link — the heated response from Senators Kamala Harris and Cory Booker. Harris accuses Paul of having "no reason... other than cruel and deliberate obstruction on a day of mourning." Booker praises Rand Paul — doesn't "question his heart" — but stresses what it "would mean for America" to pass the bill right now instead of getting hung up on "legalistic issues."
 
 
 
Typical Democrats.................let's pass it just so we can show we did "something"
 
 
 
 
 
 

Paul is a d-bag of the first order. That’s all that needs to be said 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Magox said:

I was talking about this with a friend.  The political class from the left thinks they can harness this into a voting block. They are wrong, many of these people are radically to the left and entering into the environment if you weren’t radicalized odds are you will be by the time this is over.   The left have a real dilemma, do they adopt many of their crazy initiatives and risk losing the suburban vote or do they just give lip service and throw a bone as they always have and risk low turnout?   I think they placate more so than they’d like.

 

The patients are running wild and have control of the asylum.   There is no satisfying these people.

 

 

 

11 hours ago, Magox said:

Like I said

 

The inmates aren’t running the asylum

 

 

 

Whitmer and Frey are despicable.

 

these people do not understand what they are asking for

https://twitter.com/MarkHiggie1/status/1269301655658512384

 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Foxx said:

is she trying to pass a law that says bruising is lynching?

Yup, and she wants whites to go to jail if they look at Blacks wrong

4 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

I ask this as a serious question. What, in this bill, do you think is specifically needed?  

Let’s suppose it’s just symbolic, why oppose it? What symbolism is Paul showing by opposing something that supposedly does nothing? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was hoping to come on here this morning to see that the discussions had progressed but apparently not so much. Seeing as how this is the Liberal Protest thread, can someone please list three tangible things that these protestors want? (Not slogans.....but actual changes.) I’ll try....

 

1. Justice and Peace (the officers have all been arrested and charged, and yet the protestors are still out there disrupting the peace?)

 

2. Defunding Police (replacing law enforcement with some sort of army of social workers?)

 

3. Anything else?

Edited by SoCal Deek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Let’s suppose it’s just symbolic, why oppose it? What symbolism is Paul showing by opposing something that supposedly does nothing? 

 

Because symbolic legislation is still legislation and has actual consequences. I am not a fan of enacting legislation, for any reason, symbolic or otherwise, that (1) recreates legislation that already exists as a means of putting motive at the center of the crime, or (2) that is vague or too broad. 

 

There are some aspects of this bill I could get behind as I am not sure if specific laws already exist. Much of it is too vague or unnecessary for me.

 

Edited by billsfan1959
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, billsfan1959 said:

 

Because symbolic legislation is still legislation and has actual consequences. I am not a fan of enacting legislation, for any reason, symbolic or otherwise, that (1) recreates legislation that already exists that puts motive at the center of the crime, or (2) that is vague or too broad. 

 

There are some aspects of this bill I could get behind as I am not sure if specific laws already exist. Much of it is too vague or unnecessary for me.

I just totally support the bill. If the local governments don’t want to punish people I’d be happy a federal law is ready to be used to go after who ever does something so evil. It’s good to have tool in the tool box if needed 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I was hoping to come on here this morning to see that the discussions had progressed but apparently not so much. Seeing as how this is the Liberal Protest thread, can someone please list three tangible things that these protestors want? (Not slogans.....but actual changes.) I’ll try....

 

1. Justice and Peace (the officers have all been arrested and charged, and yet the protestors are still out there disrupting the peace?)

 

2. Defunding Police (replacing law enforcement with some sort of army of social workers?)

 

3. Anything else?

4. hell on Earth. because that is what they will get.

 

14 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Yup, and she wants whites to go to jail if they look at Blacks wrong...

 

 

did you just look at me sideways?

Edited by Foxx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Foxx said:

4. hell on Earth. because that is what they will get.

 

I appreciate the effort but like me, you couldn’t come up with #3. This protest has devolved into a daily group outing for the young, out of work, Bored to Death from Being Inside crowd. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....and MORE scum......27 year old "tough guy".......

 

Massachusetts Trump supporter, 82, ‘violently assaulted’ by motorist, 27, police say

By Dom Calicchio | Fox News

 

Nobody should be attacked for their political views, Charlie Chase says.

But according to authorities, that’s exactly what happened last week to the 82-year-old U.S. military veteran and supporter of President Trump.

 

The Fall River, Mass., man says he was holding a Trump sign and wearing a Trump hat when suddenly a motorist allegedly got out of his car and charged toward him.

 

“Give me the (expletive) sign!” the suspect said, according to police.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/massachusetts-trump-supporter-82-violently-assaulted-by-motorist-27-police-say

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...