Oh dear. See there are crimes of murder which are legislated separately from crimes of terrorism. What you're doing here is suggesting that ALL black crimes involving killing are terrorist offences. They are not. Nice try though.
So, are you saying that no one can really say what a hate crime is? If a Muslim chops the head off someone and doesn't specifically say while the sword is on its downward arch "God is great!" that it wouldn't necessarily be a hate crime?
The LAW clearly states what a hate crime consists of, and I already provided the relevant link-which you clearly ignored. Go fetch; and don't try your predictable 'cite the relevant whatever...' get out of jail card; we're wise to you.
My god they will try anythingThese photos are from the Rodney King riots, in 1992, lol.
Care to try again?
Dude can you read? Lol
Please excerpt out the portions of the law you agree with and show them for me so I can see where you're coming from. This is the proper and courteous thing to do.The LAW clearly states what a hate crime consists of, and I already provided the relevant link-which you clearly ignored. Go fetch:
Hate Crime Laws
www.justice.gov
Make me a sandwich first!!!! Lol
Read what? You never say anything of value, so just what is it I am supposed to read and find out that it is just an opinion from someone? Please explain/
Its black letter law. You are hilarious
See, I predicted you would do this. What's your problem; are you unable to click on a link and read the contents, or is it merely one of your diversionary tactics? You have the link, you read it; I'm not here to hold your hand. The "proper and courteous" thing to do is to READ what you are provided with. I did you the courtesy of doing that; now you do me the courtesy of addressing what I provided.
Derailing is always his intent. Ignore.
I don't have a clue what you mean.
I know you dont. The law was posted but it confuses you. You just wont be able to understand. Sorry
I've gone down this rabbit hole with more than a couple posters in just the past week where I read their links and found out they actually proved what I was saying instead of the other way around, so mo more. You wanna slap up a link....YOU excerpt the parts that tend to prove what you're saying and say why. That's how this works.
Not accepting arrogance and contempt and laziness from the posters anymore who slap a link or two or 5 and say "Go fetch". That's not my job.
The law? GREAT, Vegas.........please post your analysis of the law by excerpting out the important points with your brief critique. You can do that, right?
Tell you what mate; you go and pretend you've won your argument if it helps you sleep at night, and ignore EVERY poster in nearly 30 pages who has contradicted you with evidence, provided links which you ignore and tried their best to educate you without success.
The only laziness here is yours, and it's so transparently deliberate as to be laughable. Everyone is wrong except Paradoxical folks!
Yep. From here on, I am ignoring links that come from lazy posters or arrogant ones who slap a link up of a DOJ website If that poster doesn't have enough consideration for my time, I don't take the time to read his link to try to determine what point he was trying to make.
Oh yes, I understand your cowardice and avoidance strategies 100%! You demonstrate that with every post that has proven you wrong, and with every link that you're too dishonest to open, read and comment on after you asked for 'proof' to be provided. Instead you attempt to deflect your inabilities onto others. Your theories are a joke mate, and you prove it with every post.
One man's opinion (and a book you never read), and you're citing opinion as fact? Try harder; maybe something from Infowars or Heritage Foundation to really persuade us?