Another hate crime fraud.
Yet another hate crime hoaxThis is getting predictable. "Hate crimes", particularly those purporting to be against blacks or homosexuals/whatever, should all be assumed to be frauds until proven otherwise.
So it was a made up piece of persecution?
ReplyDeleteOK. So let's concentrate on the real persecution. You know, like Pelosi's stormtroopers forcing Catholic bishops to perform gay weddings, and all those businessmen in reeducation camps because they refused to pay for abortions, and the IRS only going after Tea Party folks, and Tom Clancy's assassination, and the Obama plan to nuke South Carolina.
There's no 'culture war'. It's all in your ridiculous head.
Score: 0.5/5
DeleteI only gave you half credit for the Tea Party inclusion. In fact, it was broader than that.
[O]f the groups the IRS selected for audit, 100% were right-leaning.
--- WSJ, 2/11
But you're improving all the time!
"O]f the groups the IRS selected for audit, 100% were right-leaning.
Delete--- WSJ, 2/11"
Nope.
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/05/another_nail_in_the_irs_scandals_coffin/
Check the dates, dimwit.
DeleteWSJ: 2/11/14
NYT (Salon): 7/4/2013
Yep.
You don't know what an "audit" is, do you, Jem?
DeleteHere.. I'll help:
audit: Systematic examination and verification of a firm's books of account, transaction records, other relevant documents, and physical inspection of inventory by qualified accountants (called auditors).
"Scrutiny" and "audit" are different.
"You don't know what an "audit" is, do you, Jem?"
DeleteWhat I don't understand is how the right wing media bubble can exist when there are so many enormous pricks inside it.
There's no IRS scandal. There's some buzzwords the Murdoch media keep repeating to people with a persecution complex and the bizarre belief that every aspect of the government process is unconstitutional.
Good answer; change the subject.
DeleteLaying down irrelevant rabbit trails doesn''t work with me. You were wrong. Sorry. Happens. Often, with you, I'm sure. Anyway, this thread is over. Your ignorance and/or dissembling has been sufficiently exposed.
"Laying down irrelevant rabbit trails doesn''t work with me."
DeleteIf there's no IRS scandal, there's no sub-scandal about this 'audit'. There's no IRS scandal.
i don't know how lois lerner could so frequently invoke her right no to self-incriminate unless there was something incriminating about the political hit squad she oversaw. maybe you should stop reading thinkprogress talking points.
Deletenaidoo
"i don't know how lois lerner could so frequently invoke her right no to self-incriminate unless there was something incriminating about the political hit squad she oversaw"
DeleteShe maintained the right to silence because, rightly, she thinks Issa is a pindick gloryhound on a trawling mission.
The Constitution grants people the right to silence. Are you saying that the Constitution is wrong to do that? Or is the only Amendment that counts the second one?
Jem, you addressed your comment so Naidoo, but let me respond.
DeleteI don't believe you've really acquainted yourself with the facts of the case. Conservative groups were isolated and discriminated against by the IRS. They had their tax information divulged to third parties, which is a felony.
The Fifth Amendment is a fine thing and no one is talking about taking it away. It protects a person from having to testify against himself, what has been deemed protection against self-incrimination.
She maintains that right, of course. The only way to change that would be to grant her immunity. Nonetheless, she can't possibly incriminate herself if she has done nothing wrong. If they ask her if she abused her authority to hound conservative groups, and the answer is no, then she isn't really protecting herself from incrimination by telling the truth. It can only be incriminating if the answer is yes, in which case she can be prosecuted at a later date for perjury as well.
Basically, she's clamming up, which is her right under the Constitution. But she isn't clamming up because her hands are clean in this matter.
JQ
i don't know why catholic bishops shouldn't have to pay for abortions. if the free exercise of religion does not include the right to discriminate then they will have to.
ReplyDeletenaidoo
Naidoo, your comment doesn't make a lot of sense.
Delete--Francisca S.
sorry,sorry. what i meant was that if free exercise of religion does not extend to discriminate then churches will have to perform same-sex weddings. i don't see why not.
Deletenaidoo
There was also a lesbian waitress who wrote some anti-gay stuff on her own receipt to drum up sympathy for herself. Then people started sending her money. There was also a birthday invitation for a kid with two dads, with an anti-gay response on it. That one turned out to be fake too. I don't understand the compulsion to make themselves victims all the time.
ReplyDelete--Francisca S.
let's not forget the mathew shepard hoax hate crime. shepard was a homosexual meth dealer killed by a bisexual meth dealer.
Deletenaidoo
naidoo, that wasn't in the play!!! It can't be right! ;-)
DeleteI understand the impulse to make themselves victims all the time. Victimhood is powerful stuff. You can lord your victimhood over other people, who are then required to forfeit all their rights in order to make you happy.
DeleteBen
shepard was also a child molester himself. when he was 15 he was arrested for sexually abusing a pair of 8 year old boys. funny how that isn't in the laramie project.
Deletenaidoo
Somebody drew a picture of Ronald Reagan with a Hitler mustache and hung it on my hotel door last night. I'm so upset. Please send me money.
ReplyDeleteNot only must we be vigilant against fabrication, but we must also be wary of how America has become "a veritable mad house of exaggeration and then over-reaction."
ReplyDeleteSee Mike Rozeff's superg blog post "On the Prevalence of Exaggeration and Over-Reaction."
Off-topic: Zionist Navy intercepts shipment of rocket-shaped humanitarian supplies to Gaza.
ReplyDeleteWell, let me -- let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel's.
--- imPOTUS Jeebus McLightworker (Amman, Jordan 2008)
"Hate crimes", particularly those purporting to be against blacks or homosexuals/whatever, should all be assumed to be frauds until proven otherwise.
ReplyDeleteThat would make some sense if false accusations of hate crimes outnumber the true accusations. Any evidence for that?
I think the burden of proof is on you, pal.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to think of a bias incident (as opposed to a hate crime) that wasn't fake.
Ben
"When black teenagers, angry at the Trayvon Martin killing, picked whites at random for retribution attacks, those were hate crimes."
ReplyDeleteIf you really have a moral compass that guides you into Trayvon Martin territory but gets you to the destination in which the 'real crime' was that black kids were angry about it ... then I really think that moral compass is broken beyond all possible repair or redemption.
What a vile belief system you have. Racism, fear, blinkered intolerance, mistaking a system that bends over backwards to accommodate every passing whim you claim is eternal doctrine.
You don't end poverty by shooting poor people. And the spiritual poverty that your view of the world demonstrates shouldn't be ended the same way. It's gratifying to know that you're the last gasp of this, that these are the dying breaths.
Good riddance.
The real crime wasn't that blacks were angry about it. Being angry is not a crime. I might point out however that there would have been a lot less anger if the media had not promoted a false narrative. But because the media was intent on fanning racial anger, they had to create a myth.
DeleteHere are some real crimes, however, that took place in the wake of the Trayvon shooting, in which random white victims were selected to pay the price in George >>White Hispanic<< Zimmerman's place.
In Mobile, Alabama, a group of five black adults, armed with brass knuckles, pipes, and chairs beat Matthew Owns into critical condition. One assailant shouted, >>Now that;s justice for Trayvon.<<
Hmmm...do you see the difference between being upset and beating a man into critical condition?
In Chicago, an adult black male and a teenaged black male robbed a white man with a tree branch, shoved him to the ground, punched him several times in the back of the head, and relieved him of his wallet. When the assailants were arrested, they confessed that they were upset about Trayvon Martin and beat the man because he was white.
JQ
I take the silence from the other commentators here to mean they agree with you. If anyone would like to speak up in defense of reality, now would be a great time.
DeleteI take it from your lack of a rebuttal that you have none.
DeleteDon't attribute my words to anyone else but me.
JQ
I certainly agree with JQ. Trayvon Martin's killing was a tragedy and a horror, but there was only one crime committed: Martin assaulted Zimerman.
DeleteTragically, that assault cost Martin his life. Zimmerman acted imprudently by going after Martin, but at no point did he commit any crime.
Those are the facts, beyond debate. What is also beyond debate is that the left is destroying our country.
Egnor,
DeleteHow do you know that Trayvon Martin wasn't defending himself? He's not around to give testimony. It's possible that he felt threatened by someone larger approaching him in an unfamiliar area at night and that he was making use of the Florida law not to be obliged to retreat when threatened.
Zimmerman was found 'not guilty', not innocent. The jury presumably felt that the evidence for conviction wasn't beyond 'all reasonable doubt'.
You're an asshole bach. The evidence in the case was-- Zimmerman acted in self-defense at the moment he killed Martin. Period. The prosecution and the press fabrications were intended to gin up black turn-out in the 2012 election-- just in case the other Democrat tactics (IRS suppression, biased "journalism", etc) weren't sufficient to get The One reelected and hold the Senate.
DeleteYou're shilling for racists and race-baiters who are trying to gin up race-hate and racial violence.
Egnor,
DeleteDo you really think that juries always get their verdicts right? If you can improve your reading skills, you might notice that I wrote 'it's possible...'
If America had the Scottish possible verdicts of 'guilty, not guilty or not proven', it's possible that Zimmerman might have been found 'not proven'.
But again, Trayvon Martin didn't survive the encounter to give evidence. There was little publicity given to the case in America for two weeks. It caused more comment abroad as an illustration of America's insane love of firearms - not of racial strife.
I'm Australian, don't forget. I don't have any personal interest in American politics or race relations.
Trayvon Martin was taller than George Zimmerman and probably "larger" as well. I don't know their weights. The shooting took place in the middle of the day.
DeleteZimmerman was found not guilty just like every other acquitted defendant. There is no higher for of acquittal. No, juries don't always get the verdict correct, just like SCOTUS justices.
No one said Trayvon was obligated to retreat. I think you're confused about what stand your ground laws mean.
For someone without a personal interest in American politics and race relations, you're constantly offering your opinion. It might be more accurate to say that you don't have a clue about American politics and race relations.
Joey
None of these side conversations about Zimmerman/Martin prove that the real hate crimes against white people that occurred during the height of media hysteria, were not hate crimes. JQ's point is that real hate crimes exist and no one on this blog has done anything to refute that.
DeleteJoey
"No one said Trayvon was obligated to retreat. I think you're confused about what stand your ground laws mean."
DeleteI think it's probably naive to ignore the racial element here, but let's ignore it anyway. The moral evil here is precisely that a man with a gun can kill an unarmed man in broad daylight, when it was perfectly within his power to not enter or stay in that situation, and *not* break any law.
You say you believe in Jesus. The whole basis of your whinge about gay marriage is that you feel that your religion gives you access to a higher law than the rest of us. Is there, perhaps, a commandment from your God about killing that applies here?
I know that at least some of you, probably all of you, would call yourself 'pro life'. Does that not apply here? Why not? Oh, did Fox News say Trayvon Martin smoked weed and said something mean once on Twitter. Are those capital offenses?
Explain what Trayvon Martin did wrong that meant he had to be summarily executed by a private citizen.
'Media hysteria'. A man killed another man. He stalked him, he was told by the police not to engage. If there was danger, and that's highly debatable, he placed himself in it. And the best you have on the victim is that he was 'taller'? Americans should have the right to shoot people if they're taller, now?
OK. You have a vile belief system, one that makes you think that you have the right to shoot people if they look at you funny, but that being part of a health plan that allows the use of contraceptives is complicity to murder. One that thinks that Supreme Court rulings that say local government can't discriminate against homosexuals is 'activism', but that the NRA spending a quarter of billion a year to push through bills that allow white people to shoot black people without committing a crime is just freedom reigning.
That it's somehow a great injustice that a cake shop owner has to sell a wedding cake, but that it's also an injustice if a mentally ill person with criminal convictions for violence isn't allowed the right to carry concealed guns in a bar.
Just one of you, once, try to examine the double standards at play in your minds.
But I think we head the bedrock problem with theism. You won't, will you? You construct a God in your head and then anything, at all, that happens is that God's will. The contradicts, absurdities, the fact that you are *all* cheering on the death of a teenager. Even the behavior of atoms and the weather, it's all part of this paranoid loonball conspiracy theory.
I'm out of here. There's no point engaging. Scratch the surface of Christianity and it's just hate club, isn't it?
I ask just one thing: keep talking. Go into the public square and say, loud and clear, that you are a Christian and that you believe these things. Proclaim it from the highest towers. Go tell it on the mountain. Explain how integral these beliefs are to your faith, how your belief in Jesus motivates it. Assert that the moral arc of Christianity insists you are right.
Please do that. Be loud, be proud. I want to see your worldview ended, and nothing I could possibly do would be as effective to that goal as an honest, open discussion of what you repulsive, irrational, prejudiced, closed minded little shitbags are happy to say when you think no one normal's listening.
[I think it's probably naive to ignore the racial element here, but let's ignore it anyway.]
DeleteThere was no racial element until the left created it. There isn't a scintilla of evidence that Zimmerman was a racist. Just the opposite. NBC faked the racial element by altering the 911 tape intentionally, and the incident was made racial by leftists primarily to gin up the black vote for the coming election. It worked.
[The moral evil here is precisely that a man with a gun can kill an unarmed man in broad daylight, when it was perfectly within his power to not enter or stay in that situation, and *not* break any law.]
Moral evil is not synonymous with legal evil. I think Z's act to follow M was evil in the sense of imprudence. But at the time of the shooting, Z was justifiably in fear for his life, and M was killed in self defense. That is not moral or legal evil on the part of Z.
Should Z have allowed M to beat him to death, or shoot him when M found the gun?
[You say you believe in Jesus. The whole basis of your whinge about gay marriage is that you feel that your religion gives you access to a higher law than the rest of us. Is there, perhaps, a commandment from your God about killing that applies here?]
You have access to the same law, you just defy it. Killing in self defense is permitted in Christian ethics.
(continued)
Delete[I know that at least some of you, probably all of you, would call yourself 'pro life'. Does that not apply here? Why not? Oh, did Fox News say Trayvon Martin smoked weed and said something mean once on Twitter. Are those capital offenses?]
I don't care particularly about M's habits. I do care about justice and honesty. The killing was self-defense, and a tragedy. The lies about it by you and others are race-baiting of its most odious and dangerous sort. You have incited people to attack others based on race.
[Explain what Trayvon Martin did wrong that meant he had to be summarily executed by a private citizen.]
M attacked Z. He was not executed. He was killed (tragically) in self defense.
['Media hysteria'. A man killed another man. He stalked him, he was told by the police not to engage. If there was danger, and that's highly debatable, he placed himself in it. And the best you have on the victim is that he was 'taller'? Americans should have the right to shoot people if they're taller, now?]
The best evidence is that Z was on his back getting his head beaten into the ground. That M saw the gun and threatened Z that he would kill him is credible.
Since you believe that it is credible to use force to make people bake you wedding cakes, surely using force to save your own life is legitimate.
[OK. You have a vile belief system, one that makes you think that you have the right to shoot people if they look at you funny,]
No one believes that. That has nothing to do with M vs Z. If Z had shot M simply for looking at him, rather than attacking him, he would be guilty of murder. I point out that shooting black people simply for looking goes on all the time in gang-infested Democrat-governed cities. You don't seem to notice or care.
[but that being part of a health plan that allows the use of contraceptives is complicity to murder.]
It's not murder, because it's legal. It's killing. You believe that you have no right to kill a man who is actively trying to kill you, but it's all right to kill a baby in your womb who is inconvenient.
[One that thinks that Supreme Court rulings that say local government can't discriminate against homosexuals]
I don't condone discrimination against homosexuals by businessmen, although I think that people should have the prerogative to discriminate in their own personal (and business) life. It's their shop. I like freedom, even if it's used for purposes I disagree with.
[is 'activism', but that the NRA spending a quarter of billion a year to push through bills that allow white people to shoot black people without committing a crime is just freedom reigning.]
What the fuck are you talking about? The "stand your ground law" had nothing to with with M vs Z. The NRA is defending 2nd Amendment rights. If you know some magic way to reduce gun violence, reduce it in Democrat shit-holes like Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans, etc etc that you govern, before you lecture peaceful law abiding people like NRA members and conservatives about violence.
(continued)
Delete[That it's somehow a great injustice that a cake shop owner has to sell a wedding cake]
It's a great injustice to force a baker to participate in a ceremony he believes is sinful.
[but that it's also an injustice if a mentally ill person with criminal convictions for violence isn't allowed the right to carry concealed guns in a bar.]
I don't support allowing dangerously mentally ill people to carry guns. Who does? Give references.
[Just one of you, once, try to examine the double standards at play in your minds.]
How's this for a double standard: why do people who govern cities that are war zones lecture law-abiding peaceful people about gun violence? Nearly all gun violence in this country is committed by Democrats in municipalities governed by Democrats.
[But I think we head the bedrock problem with theism. You won't, will you? You construct a God in your head and then anything, at all, that happens is that God's will. The contradicts, absurdities, the fact that you are *all* cheering on the death of a teenager. Even the behavior of atoms and the weather, it's all part of this paranoid loonball conspiracy theory.]
When you get a coherent critique of Christianity, let me know. I love hearing critiques from people who insist everything came from nothing, there is no purpose for anything, "survivors survive" explains life, and there is no objective moral law.
If there is no God, why is killing Trayvon Martin wrong? It's just a matter of opinion.
[I'm out of here. There's no point engaging. Scratch the surface of Christianity and it's just hate club, isn't it?]
Yea. Christians killed so many people in the 20th century-- oh-- wait...
[I ask just one thing: keep talking. Go into the public square and say, loud and clear, that you are a Christian and that you believe these things. Proclaim it from the highest towers. Go tell it on the mountain. Explain how integral these beliefs are to your faith, how your belief in Jesus motivates it. Assert that the moral arc of Christianity insists you are right.]
Ok. I will.
[Please do that. Be loud, be proud. I want to see your worldview ended,]
Go to North Korea. It's already been ended there.
[and nothing I could possibly do would be as effective to that goal as an honest, open discussion of what you repulsive, irrational, prejudiced, closed minded little shitbags are happy to say when you think no one normal's listening.]
"repulsive, irrational, prejudiced, closed minded little shitbags"-- what a fine precis of the gay rights movement.
My very last post here. I'm not going to change your mind. I'll stick to the reality-based community from now on.
ReplyDelete"I don't support allowing dangerously mentally ill people to carry guns. Who does? Give references."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/22/us/when-the-right-to-bear-arms-includes-the-mentally-ill.html
http://www.gunsandammo.com/2005/03/01/mental-illness-and-gun-ownership/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-mendelson-md/mental-health-gun-background-checks_b_3088438.html
http://patriotupdate.com/articles/where-are-the-2nd-amendment-rights-for-the-mentally-ill-and-their-families/
http://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/gun-control-mental-health-and-the-end-of-the-second-amendment/
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/17239-ny-times-touts-study-to-resolve-mental-health-loophole-and-gun-ownership
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2013/mental-health-and-firearms.aspx?s=%22mental+health%22&st=&ps=
I support reasonable laws to try to prevent gun ownership by people who are dangerously mentally ill or have serious criminal records. Virtually all gun-rights proponents agree.
DeleteTry picking something that is a real issue.
And I understand that you are running away, Jem. You've encountered an environment that doesn't just parrot your liberal idiocies, and you are overwhelmed.
Pitiful.
"And I understand that you are running away, Jem."
DeleteAnyone who finds herself continuing to argue with an idiot needs to take a step back and make sure her opponent isn't doing the same thing.
i knew he that wouldn't be his last post. they always threaten and then never follow through.
Deletemake yourself an honest man, jem, and next time stay gone.
naidoo
I for one will miss Jem.
DeleteSniff.
"I'll stick to the reality-based community from now on."
ReplyDeleteBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
I like your style of writing. You break it down nicely. Very informative post. Keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteAcer - 15.6" Aspire Notebook - 8 GB Memory - 750 GB Hard Drive (E1-571-53238)
Acer - 15.6" Aspire Notebook - 6 GB Memory - 750 GB Hard Drive (V5-571P-53336)