Israel and Iran

Gunz said:
No surprise. The rioting's just going to get worse....

Bombings are a likelihood. Anti-war radicals in the 60's and 70's made bombs. Now we've got people rioting who quite likely have ties to foreign terrorist organizations...
Click to expand...

I'm patiently waiting on the sidelines for the "bubba effect" to kick in.
 
HR 6090 is a piece of legislation I'm going back and forth on atm.

On the one hand, hate crimes are a thing in the US and I think they should be due to people like Dylan Roof, because it adds more teeth behind Racist degenerates who engage in unlawful activity.

I agree with HR 6090's section 3 (5) goal in that "The use of alternative definitions of antisemitism impairs enforcement efforts by adding multiple standards and may fail to identify many of the modern manifestations of antisemitism." I.E. antisemitism clearly falls under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but that doesn't mean much if we can't accurately define it.

That part I'm on board with.

However...

I'm also not a fan of DEI. And if this just adds "Jews" to the DEI list of "oppressed, have-nots" #Neo-Marxist...putting a cherry on top of a pile of crap does not suddenly make the pile of crap less crappy. DEI sucks and needs to be disbanded from anything publicly funded imo.

On the other hand, If somebody is posting all over social media stuff like, "Hitler was right" and then they get arrested assaulting somebody at one of these anti-Jewish Rallies, I'm all for an extra charge being thrown their way.

At any rate, I'm still early on in the research stage of things and I'm open to arguments.
 
757 said:
HR 6090 is a piece of legislation I'm going back and forth on atm.

On the one hand, hate crimes are a thing in the US and I think they should be due to people like Dylan Roof, because it adds more teeth behind Racist degenerates who engage in unlawful activity.

I agree with HR 6090's section 3 (5) goal in that "The use of alternative definitions of antisemitism impairs enforcement efforts by adding multiple standards and may fail to identify many of the modern manifestations of antisemitism." I.E. antisemitism clearly falls under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but that doesn't mean much if we can't accurately define it.

That part I'm on board with.

However...

I'm also not a fan of DEI. And if this just adds "Jews" to the DEI list of "oppressed, have-nots" #Neo-Marxist...putting a cherry on top of a pile of crap does not suddenly make the pile of crap less crappy. DEI sucks and needs to be disbanded from anything publicly funded imo.

On the other hand, If somebody is posting all over social media stuff like, "Hitler was right" and then they get arrested assaulting somebody at one of these anti-Jewish Rallies, I'm all for an extra charge being thrown their way.

At any rate, I'm still early on in the research stage of things and I'm open to arguments.
Click to expand...

I am opposed to 6090.
1) It is being made in the heat of the moment.
2) What group do "you" belong to that could itself be protected, or even unprotected, from future bills?
3) This is just a bad precedent.
4) Our Congress has nothing else to do?

Like it or not, I think hate speech is considered to be free speech and this bill starts shutting down what we can't and can't say. That in mind, if someone drops an N bomb or whatever and takes an ass beating for their troubles? "Officer, the gentleman with the Nazi tattoos fell off the curb and that nice, young Black gentleman was helping him to his feet. That's what I saw."
 
AWP said:
I am opposed to 6090.
1) It is being made in the heat of the moment.
2) What group do "you" belong to that could itself be protected, or even unprotected, from future bills?
3) This is just a bad precedent.
4) Our Congress has nothing else to do?

Like it or not, I think hate speech is considered to be free speech and this bill starts shutting down what we can't and can't say. That in mind, if someone drops an N bomb or whatever and takes an ass beating for their troubles? "Officer, the gentleman with the Nazi tattoos fell off the curb and that nice, young Black gentleman was helping him to his feet. That's what I saw."
Click to expand...
I think those are fair points.

1) Elements of it do remind me of the Patriot Act, in terms of how it had a "good purpose" but was eventually used for a nefarious one.
2) Fair Point.
4) They get paid far more than they are worth, that's for damn sure...

3) The only push back I initially have is that it is directly tied, if I am reading it correctly, to title VI of the Civil Rights Act which just makes it illegal to discriminate based on somebody's race/religion/etc. Since that law is already on the books, this wouldn't necessarily set precedent, just further clarify definitions, which I am ok with. However, the government's ability to stretch laws to meet their goals really is a major sticking point, and may be the sticking point.

The last part actually reminds me of this scenario with some Marines :ROFLMAO:
1714765738906.jpeg
 
757 said:
HR 6090 is a piece of legislation I'm going back and forth on atm.

On the one hand, hate crimes are a thing in the US and I think they should be due to people like Dylan Roof, because it adds more teeth behind Racist degenerates who engage in unlawful activity.

I agree with HR 6090's section 3 (5) goal in that "The use of alternative definitions of antisemitism impairs enforcement efforts by adding multiple standards and may fail to identify many of the modern manifestations of antisemitism." I.E. antisemitism clearly falls under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but that doesn't mean much if we can't accurately define it.

That part I'm on board with.

However...

I'm also not a fan of DEI. And if this just adds "Jews" to the DEI list of "oppressed, have-nots" #Neo-Marxist...putting a cherry on top of a pile of crap does not suddenly make the pile of crap less crappy. DEI sucks and needs to be disbanded from anything publicly funded imo.

On the other hand, If somebody is posting all over social media stuff like, "Hitler was right" and then they get arrested assaulting somebody at one of these anti-Jewish Rallies, I'm all for an extra charge being thrown their way.

At any rate, I'm still early on in the research stage of things and I'm open to arguments.
Click to expand...
There are already laws on the books against discrimination and killing people. Why should the Jewish people and one of their organizations control speech? The First Amendment is first for a reason. Freedom of Religion is also one of our founding national principles and Christianity is part of that founding backbone.

Don't you find it odd that this tiny group of people are trying to criminalize core American structures and beliefs? The timing of which is very suspicious.
 
DA SWO said:
I'm going to a convention in Madison Wisconsin this July. Same time frame as the RNC Convention in Milwaukee.

Expressed concerns yesterday that we may get bleed over. Hope not.
Click to expand...

Madison and Milwaukee are worlds apart, even though only a 75min drive exists between the two.

If any protests happen in Madison, they stay pretty isolated to the bottom of State St (a street that runs 7 blocks from campus to the Capitol) at Library Mall or the top of State St in the 100 block looking at the Capitol building. They will take occasional strolls down or up State St. There is always a protest of some kind at the top of State St, varying in size from 10 to 100 people. It's just the normal there, and they largely get ignored.

Spend your time around the Capitol and the streets that shoot off of it (minus State St) and you would never know that one block away there is a protest. The best bars and restaurants are located around the Capitol Building and on these streets.

Plus, it will be summer, and most of the students disappear. It's by far the best time to visit.
 
R.Caerbannog said:
There are already laws on the books against discrimination and killing people. Why should the Jewish people and one of their organizations control speech? The First Amendment is first for a reason. Freedom of Religion is also one of our founding national principles and Christianity is part of that founding backbone.

Don't you find it odd that this tiny group of people are trying to criminalize core American structures and beliefs? The timing of which is very suspicious.
Click to expand...
This is relevant I promise, but...

Hypothetically, if a person is walking across the street and he/she gets hit by a car...what is your first course of action??? As in, what is the first thing you would do???
 
757 said:
This is relevant I promise, but...

Hypothetically, if a person is walking across the street and he/she gets hit by a car...what is your first course of action??? As in, what is the first thing you would do???
Click to expand...
Check my carry piece, make sure the car isn't turning around, then go grab them?
 
RackMaster said:
Domestic terrorism and/or aiding a foreign terrorist entity.
Click to expand...

Better to go the state charges...we don't have a Federal Domestic Terrorism statute, and the Federal material support to terrorism charges would be hard in these demonstrations. Plus, we can keep stacking state charges over and over and over....

Now, for the people that traveled out of state and caused violent demonstrations (riot)...there is a good Federal riot charge for that. They dusted off the dust on that charge in the Chattanooga riots.
 
Back
Top