What's new
By:
5thGenRams Forums

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Freedom Convoy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mountain Whiskey said:
I agree. It seems that the premise of democracy does not exist. The majority does not rule.

If one snowflake is offended, the rest of the world has to change to accommodate that snowflake. When you carve out special privileges for one you diminish the privileges of all.

"Hate Crime" is a prime example. If five guys at a bar kick my *** in the parking lot and a cop comes along, some might get some misdemeanor assault charge or disturbing the peace or something. If those same five were beating up some ***** snowflake it would be a more severe crime when "hate crime" is added.

Why? Are we not equal? Kind of disturbing
Click to expand...
Yup. They preach unity, and divide us at the same time.
 
Last edited:
Mountain Whiskey said:
...."Hate Crime" is a prime example. If five guys at a bar kick my *** in the parking lot and a cop comes along, some might get some misdemeanor assault charge or disturbing the peace or something. If those same five were beating up some ***** snowflake it would be a more severe crime when "hate crime" is added.

Why? Are we not equal? Kind of disturbing overall.
Click to expand...
I'm no lawyer but I think for it to be a "hate crime" there has to be some sort of evidence that the crime was committed because of the victim's race, gender, religion or sexual orientation (maybe some other classifications too).

So if a green guy beats up another green guy it's just a fight. If a green guy beats up an orange guy it's just a fight.
However, if the green guy sought out (or made racial slurs while assaulting) the orange guy, then that would be a hate crime.
I don't think it's a hate crime just because the victim fits into a category. I'm pretty sure that category has to be the motivation, or at least contributing to the motivation, to commit the crime. I'm speculating, I don't know for sure though. I hope that's the way it works anyway.

theblet said:
Exactly. These women/girls train their whole life to compete with other females at the highest level. Then a mediocrely talented man comes along and wins by huge margins. How is that equality?
Click to expand...
You're right, men shouldn't be competing against women in women's sports. But to play devil's advocate.
Equality means exactly that, equal. So technically speaking, if men and women are equal it should be fair to compete against each other. Sports (or anything) shouldn't be segregated by gender. To be truly equal all sports should be intermural.
 
Shots said:
I'm no lawyer but I think for it to be a "hate crime" there has to be some sort of evidence that the crime was committed because of the victim's race, gender, religion or sexual orientation (maybe some other classifications too).

So if a green guy beats up another green guy it's just a fight. If a green guy beats up an orange guy it's just a fight.
However, if the green guy sought out (or made racial slurs while assaulting) the orange guy, then that would be a hate crime.
I don't think it's a hate crime just because the victim fits into a category. I'm pretty sure that category has to be the motivation, or at least contributing to the motivation, to commit the crime. I'm speculating, I don't know for sure though. I hope that's the way it works anyway.
Click to expand...
Problem is, if there are different races involved, even if it was just a straight up fight, someone is going to try to push the hate crime agenda
 
Shots said:
You're right, men shouldn't be competing against women in women's sports. But to play devil's advocate.
Equality means exactly that, equal. So technically speaking, if men and women are equal it should be fair to compete against each other. Sports (or anything) shouldn't be segregated by gender. To be truly equal all sports should be intermural.
Click to expand...
How about being Vice President or the next Supreme Court Justice? The guy in charge of the country who hires those people said it had to be a woman, and even more specific a woman of color. That eliminates competition
 
HSKR R/T said:
Problem is, if there are different races involved, even if it was just a straight up fight, someone is going to try to push the hate crime agenda
Click to expand...
This is true. It's also weird that you never hear stories on the drive by media that involve black on black crimes. Even though there is a much higher percentage of this. Doesn't fit their narrative.
 
HSKR R/T said:
Problem is, if there are different races involved, even if it was just a straight up fight, someone is going to try to push the hate crime agenda
Click to expand...
Oh, you're absolutely right. Same with sexual preference and/or gender identity, although that is less of an argument than it was 10+ years ago.
Although the media will call a biracial fight a hate crime, I assume the courts are less likely to convict for anything more than a fight. I would hope they want/need some evidence that it was racially motivated. For example there is a case that recently hit the news in Cleveland where some drunk white guy assaulted a black woman. He was reportedly making racial slurs at the time, so that certainly seems to fit the criteria for a hate crime.
 
Shots said:
Oh, you're absolutely right. Same with sexual preference and/or gender identity, although that is less of an argument than it was 10+ years ago.
Although the media will call a biracial fight a hate crime, I assume the courts are less likely to convict for anything more than a fight. I would hope they want/need some evidence that it was racially motivated. For example there is a case that recently hit the news in Cleveland where some drunk white guy assaulted a black woman. He was reportedly making racial slurs at the time, so that certainly seems to fit the criteria for a hate crime.
Click to expand...
On the topic of racial slurs, it shouldn't count as a racial slur if members of that race use the word in general conversation amongst themselves
 
Mountain Whiskey said:
I agree. It seems that the premise of democracy does not exist. The majority does not rule.

If one snowflake is offended, the rest of the world has to change to accommodate that snowflake. When you carve out special privileges for one you diminish the privileges of all.

"Hate Crime" is a prime example. If five guys at a bar kick my *** in the parking lot and a cop comes along, some might get some misdemeanor assault charge or disturbing the peace or something. If those same five were beating up some ***** snowflake it would be a more severe crime when "hate crime" is added.

Why? Are we not equal? Kind of disturbing overall.
Click to expand...

I hear ya....kinda like when a bunch of old white pretending religious guys try to tell a woman what to do with her body......most people in the country are for a woman's right to choose but the majority doesn't rule......democracy doesn't exist.....like you say.
 
Yes, but one side is actively trying to take away my guns and gasoline at the moment. So I gotta hold my nose and go with the Republicans. That's why orange man bad was so good, cons and libs both hated him because he peeled back the curtain
 
Massive corruption and issues with both sides. The two party system is the issue.

Each side has been caving to their extreme outliers and common sense has gone out the window.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Shots said:
I'm no lawyer but I think for it to be a "hate crime" there has to be some sort of evidence that the crime was committed because of the victim's race, gender, religion or sexual orientation (maybe some other classifications too).

So if a green guy beats up another green guy it's just a fight. If a green guy beats up an orange guy it's just a fight.
However, if the green guy sought out (or made racial slurs while assaulting) the orange guy, then that would be a hate crime.
I don't think it's a hate crime just because the victim fits into a category. I'm pretty sure that category has to be the motivation, or at least contributing to the motivation, to commit the crime. I'm speculating, I don't know for sure though. I hope that's the way it works anyway.


You're right, men shouldn't be competing against women in women's sports. But to play devil's advocate.
Equality means exactly that, equal. So technically speaking, if men and women are equal it should be fair to compete against each other. Sports (or anything) shouldn't be segregated by gender. To be truly equal all sports should be intermural.
Click to expand...
So if two white West Virginians get in a fight and one calls the other a MF'er then it's not a hate crime because they both have family intercourse, but if the white guy is from Virginia calling the West Virginian that it would then be a hate crime?
HSKR R/T said:
On the topic of racial slurs, it shouldn't count as a racial slur if members of that race use the word in general conversation amongst themselves
Click to expand...
It is crazy how that works isn't it? See example above. 😃
jerrybob said:
I hear ya....kinda like when a bunch of old white pretending religious guys try to tell a woman what to do with her body......most people in the country are for a woman's right to choose but the majority doesn't rule......democracy doesn't exist.....like you say.
Click to expand...
Yea, kind of like "we will mandate that you inject this experimental substance in your body regardless of the fact that it does not work" yea, my body. I guess that does not compare to the freedom to kill babies.
 
Scram1500 said:
Yes, but one side is actively trying to take away my guns and gasoline at the moment. So I gotta hold my nose and go with the Republicans. That's why orange man bad was so good, cons and libs both hated him because he peeled back the curtain
Click to expand...
agreed. Republicans are the lesser of two evils at the moment. I know trump is labeled as a republican, but the difference is he didn’t go to Washington DC to get rich. He already is. He wanted to expose the swamp for who they are. In truth I think there’s only one party in congress. They act like they’re against each other on camera, and have dinner parties together when the cameras are off
 
theblet said:
agreed. Republicans are the lesser of two evils at the moment. I know trump is labeled as a republican, but the difference is he didn’t go to Washington DC to get rich. He already is. He wanted to expose the swamp for who they are. In truth I think there’s only one party in congress. They act like they’re against each other on camera, and have dinner parties together when the cameras are off
Click to expand...
That's the difference between Republicans and America First Republicans.
 
Scram1500 said:
Yes, but one side is actively trying to take away my guns and gasoline at the moment. So I gotta hold my nose and go with the Republicans. That's why orange man bad was so good, cons and libs both hated him because he peeled back the curtain
Click to expand...

Yep...you're right but in fairness.....the other side is trying to take away the right to vote for some people and are willing to look the other way while destroying democracy.......both parties suck.
 
jerrybob said:
Yep...you're right but in fairness.....the other side is trying to take away the right to vote for some people and are willing to look the other way while destroying democracy.......both parties suck.
Click to expand...
Requiring proof of citizenship(which is required to legally vote) isn't taking away anyone's right to vote. If you aren't a citizen, you have no right to vote.

To clarify, being a citizen is legally required to be able to vote. Not showing proof. But how is showing proof taking away people's rights? It's just ensuring that only those with the legal right to vote are voting.

You are supposed to show ID to drive, buy liquor, buy cigarettes, have a job. Why should voting be excluded?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Site Vendors

https://www.jasonlewisautomotive.com/

Members online

... and 1 more.
Total: 407 (members: 51, guests: 356)
Back
Top