WASHINGTON - White House hopeful Tom Tancredo said Thursday the existence of the Congressional Black Caucus and other race-based groups of lawmakers amounts to segregation and should be abolished.
"It is utterly hypocritical for Congress to extol the virtues of a colorblind society while officially sanctioning caucuses that are based solely on race," said the Colorado Republican, who is most widely known as a vocal critic of illegal immigration.
"If we are serious about achieving the goal of a colorblind society, Congress should lead by example and end these divisive, race-based caucuses," said Tancredo, who is scheduled pitch his longshot presidential bid this weekend in New Hampshire. ...

The Rep. Cohen rumor (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16812597/)

The request comes in the wake of reports that freshman Rep. Stephen Cohen, D-Tenn., was refused admission to the Congressional Black Caucus because he is white. All 43 members of the caucus are black.
Cohen said in a statement that he told a reporter that he would be honored to join the caucus but did not apply, "nor has the CBC denied membership to me."
The political Web site Politico.com, which first reported the issue, quoted Rep. William Clay, Jr., D-Mo., as saying the black membership in his group is "an unwritten rule."

That's so sad. What's happening to this country?

That's so sad. What's happening to this country?

So, wait, what's your stance? Do you think race-based caucuses should be abolished or not?

Representative Cohen felt that, since he represented African-Americans, he would be a better representative if he joined the Congressional Black Caucus.

He found out that membership is based entirely on "the color of his skin rather than the content of his character" (or the content of his district for that matter).

Notice how all this is rumor. Rep. Cohen has said officially that it wasn't true. While I'm inclined not to believe the official versions of stories in general, I think there would be a bigger fuss if it was true.

That said, race-based caucuses don't really seem like a good idea to me, although I tend to agree that blacks are still not thoroughly represented in the government, so maybe it's a necessary evil. I admit that I don't really know a lot of about what a caucus does....

One of the stated goals of the nation is to have a color blind society. How can that be achieved when there are groups in Congress whose membership is contingent solely on skin color or ethnicity?

Are the various caucuses even legal? The members receive government funds, both Federal and State. The argument has been used in the past by the government that organizations receiving government funds may not discriminate because of color or ethnicity. How can they say this and allow the Black and Hispanic Caucuses to continue?

All race based and ethnicity based groups in the government should be declared illegal.

I admit that I don't really know a lot of about what a caucus does....Their biggest accomplishment to date is the war on state flags.

I think their main goal is to exact revenge on whitey for all past wrong doings

Their biggest accomplishment to date is the war on state flags.
LOL!

One of the stated goals of the nation is to have a color blind society. How can that be achieved when there are groups in Congress whose membership is contingent solely on skin color or ethnicity?

Are the various caucuses even legal? The members receive government funds, both Federal and State. The argument has been used in the past by the government that organizations receiving government funds may not discriminate because of color or ethnicity. How can they say this and allow the Black and Hispanic Caucuses to continue?

All race based and ethnicity based groups in the government should be declared illegal.
That's exactly it. Right on, Frogger.

Well I think we're all in agreement on this one so far... Where are the liberals? Perhaps they can offer an opposing viewpoint?

Well I think we're all in agreement on this one so far... Where are the liberals? Perhaps they can offer an opposing viewpoint?
There is no logical (or American, for that matter) counter-argument for bolstering race-based caucuses. It's rankly offensive, at best.

They'd be screaming bloody murder if an all white caucus existed. Why? Because it's divisive. It's no different for them.

Look what happened last time we didn't allow minorities to have some form of protection, whether it be closed caucuses, civil rights laws or affirmative action.

Whitey hung them from trees

or have all yall's forgot about that sad period of time?

Look what happened last time we didn't allow minorities to have some form of protection, whether it be closed caucuses, civil rights laws or affirmative action.

Whitey hung them from trees

or have all Yale's forgot about that sad period of time?
how does giving one group special treatment not violate civil rights laws?

equal access is equal access if you're white, black, brown, yellow, red, or purple w/ pink polka dots.

now if they want to segregate themselves, that's fine by me, but not with my tax money.

if they want to segregate themselves, that's fine by me, but not with my tax money Not sure how much tax money goes into that.

If Black Caucus wishes to support black causes that should be allowed. But they should not deny membership based on race.

Not sure how much tax money goes into that.

If Black Caucus wishes to support black causes that should be allowed. But they should not deny membership based on race.
if freedom of religion is also freedom from religion, the same can be said of association...and I'll pretty sure that Newt took away their use of public funds for CBC administration.

how does giving one group special treatment not violate civil rights laws?

equal access is equal access if you're white, black, brown, yellow, red, or purple w/ pink polka dots.

now if they want to segregate themselves, that's fine by me, but not with my tax money.

Blacks lived for a couple of centuries having their civil rights violated and no one seemed to care. Why all the concern now that whites are getting a taste of what they dished out?

Goes 'round, comes 'round and all that stuff.

Blacks lived for a couple of centuries having their civil rights violated and no one seemed to care. Why all the concern now that whites are getting a taste of what they dished out?

Goes 'round, comes 'round and all that stuff.
if you're going to punish the son for the sins of the father, we should lock up the children of felons too.

how does giving one group special treatment not violate civil rights laws?Who is being given special treatment?

Members of congress are free to form any caucus they wish.

Who is being given special treatment?

Members of congress are free to form any caucus they wish.
sure they are, but if they decide to have memebership be race based they should lose any public funding, or even the right to free use of public buildings for meetings.

sure they are, but if they decide to have memebership be race based they should lose any public funding, or even the right to free use of public buildings for meetings.They are allowed to form a caucus on any basis they wish -- and that includes choosing whom they wish to allow membership. As far as I know, the only public funding they receive are their salaries and franking privileges. You think those should be forfeit if they exercise their right to freely associate?

Oh noes! Black men voluntarily joining the Congressional Black Caucus. This is segregation! Whatever will we do?

Oh noes! Black men voluntarily joining the Congressional Black Caucus. This is segregation! Whatever will we do?

Hahaha... You never fail to crack me up.

They are allowed to form a caucus on any basis they wish -- and that includes choosing whom they wish to allow membership. As far as I know, the only public funding they receive are their salaries and franking privileges. You think those should be forfeit if they exercise their right to freely associate?
now the only public funding they receive are their salaries and franking privileges, but before Speaker Newt Gingrich took it away, they also got office space, and salaries for CBC staffers...look for that to come back now that the queen of double standards reigns.

if Sen. Byrd doesn't get to burn crosses on the lawn, why should the CBC get a room for meetings?

Oh noes! Black men voluntarily joining the Congressional Black Caucus. This is segregation! Whatever will we do?
it's fine with me, just don't ask me to pay for it.

now the only public funding they receive are their salaries and franking privileges, but before Speaker Newt Gingrich took it away, they also got office space, and salaries for CBC staffers...look for that to come back now that the queen of double standards reigns.

if Sen. Byrd doesn't get to burn crosses on the lawn, why should the CBC get a room for meetings?

Well we aren't paying for it now, and I haven't seen any evidence that it's something to worry about.

Are the various caucuses even legal? The members receive government funds, both Federal and State. The argument has been used in the past by the government that organizations receiving government funds may not discriminate because of color or ethnicity.

??!?

You seem clearly to be implying that the organization going by the name *the Congressional Black Caucus* is receiving Government funding.

I find that hard to believe.

Ideally, there would be no need for a Congressional Black Caucus. If society was colorblind then Congress should be too. However, the reality is that racial issues still exist in America, so I see no problem in having an organization in Congress that specifically deals with them. It's not so much that the CBC causes racial division, but that it exists because of it. If the racial divide disappears from society then the CBC will lose its purpose and probably disappear as well.

Ideally, there would be no need for a Congressional Black Caucus. If society was colorblind then Congress should be too. However, the reality is that racial issues still exist in America, so I see no problem in having an organization in Congress that specifically deals with them. It's not so much that the CBC causes racial division, but that it exists because of it. If the racial divide disappears from society then the CBC will lose its purpose and probably disappear as well.

Exactly.

Excellent post.

There is a Republican Caucus, and it does not admit Democrats. There is a Democratic caucus, and it does not admit Republicans. If we are going to ban one caucus because it doesn't admit everyone, we should treat all caucuses equally.

"Membership" issues (country clubs, boy scouts, etc..) usually revolve around "protected group" status. This may include religion, race or sexual orientation. I don't think political party is comparable.

Also, they should never have had franking priveleges. The CBC doesn't have constituents so they wouldn't need constituent mailings.

If the racial divide disappears from society then the CBC will lose its purpose and probably disappear as well.

I don't know - I think there are two things keeping groups like this going - racism and the perception of racism. A quick explanation of what I mean. Ohio's new governor got rid of all of the investment companies doing business with the state's bureau of worker's comp because of a huge scandal. Jesse Jackson is now complaining that minority-owned investment companies were affected by this. As long as groups like the CBC bring race into non-racial issues, the racial divide isn't going away even if racism does.

I don't know - I think there are two things keeping groups like this going - racism and the perception of racism.
Excellent point.

There is a Republican Caucus, and it does not admit Democrats. There is a Democratic caucus, and it does not admit Republicans. If we are going to ban one caucus because it doesn't admit everyone, we should treat all caucuses equally.

Good point.

??!?

You seem clearly to be implying that the organization going by the name *the Congressional Black Caucus* is receiving Government funding.

I find that hard to believe.

You find so many things hard to believe, Freethinker.

Do they meet in private homes? No, they meet in federal buildings. that means the federal government (read we the citizens) are providing their meeting place. Do they ever fly on government planes or use government transportation in any way? If so they are a racist group engaging in interstate commerce.

I don't care what they do in their own homes but as soon as they meet on government property it becomes my business. If they wish to exclude Whitey in their private lives and not invite him to their homes that is fine with me but as soon as they become a quasi-governmental organization they lose the right to exclude people because of race, sex, religion, ethnicity or country of origin.

I think the black caucus should make a statement that they will allow whites in their caucus when Georgia (or is it Alabama) stops having segregated proms and Texans stop dragging blacks behind pickup trucks.

From the Members Congressional Handbook:

Congressional Member Organizations

General
Members of Congress may form a Congressional Member Organization (CMO) in order to pursue common legislative objectives.


Registration
Each Congress, CMOs must register with the Committee on House Administration.

CMOs must provide the following information:

1. Name

2. Statement of Purpose

3. Officers of the CMO

4. Employee designated to work on issues related to the CMO


Membership
Members of both the House and Senate may participate in CMO, but at least one of the Officers of the CMO must be a Member of the House. The participation of Senators in a CMO does not impact the scope of authorized CMO activities in any regard.



Funding and Resources
CMOs have no separate corporate or legal identity. A CMO is not an employing authority. The MRA may not directly support a CMO as an independent entity. A CMO may not be assigned separate office space.

Neither CMOs nor individual Members may accept goods, funds, or services from private organizations or individuals to support the CMO. Members may use personal funds to support the CMO.

A Member of a CMO, in support of the objectives of that CMO, may utilize employees (including shared employees) and official resources under the control of the Member to assist the CMO in carrying out its legislative objectives, but no employees may be appointed in the name of a CMO.


Communications
CMOs may not use the Frank, nor may a Member lend his or her Frank to a CMO.

A Member may use official resources for communications related to the purpose of a CMO. Any such communications must comply with the Franking Regulations.

Members may devote a section of their official Web site to CMO issues, but CMOs may not have independent Web pages.

A Member may use inside mail to communicate information related to a CMO.

Members may prepare material related to CMO issues for dissemination.

Official funds may not be used to print or pay for stationery for the CMO.

Members may refer to their membership in a CMO on their official stationery.


http://cha.house.gov/services/memberhandbook.htm#160

I don't know - I think there are two things keeping groups like this going - racism and the perception of racism. A quick explanation of what I mean. Ohio's new governor got rid of all of the investment companies doing business with the state's bureau of worker's comp because of a huge scandal. Jesse Jackson is now complaining that minority-owned investment companies were affected by this. As long as groups like the CBC bring race into non-racial issues, the racial divide isn't going away even if racism does.False perceptions of racism arise because of the existence of real racism, and false racial divisions arise because of the existence of real ones. If true racism and racial division were to decline then so would the false perceptions of them.

Well I think we're all in agreement on this one so far... Where are the liberals? Perhaps they can offer an opposing viewpoint?

Unlikely a liberal would disagree, but I suppose it's possible. I have no problem with Congress having groups dedicated to passing legislation related to specific groups of constituents, but I find it hard to imagine any legislation that would be appropriate, and race-specific.

False perceptions of racism arise because of the existence of real racism....And false claims take credibility away from the real claims.

When members of the aggrieved group allow the buffoons to march into their neighborhoods they only hurt themselves in the long run.

....and Texans stop dragging blacks behind pickup trucks.....and environmentalists stop killing people with bombs.

Do all environmentalists blow people up or was it just Ted Kaczynski?

And false claims take credibility away from the real claims.

When members of the aggrieved group allow the buffoons to march into their neighborhoods they only hurt themselves in the long run.True, though it must be said that since racism is no longer as overt as it used to be, it's more difficult to distinguish real claims from false claims.

I think the black caucus should make a statement that they will allow whites in their caucus when Georgia (or is it Alabama) stops having segregated proms and Texans stop dragging blacks behind pickup trucks.
You're completely off the fucking reservation crazy.

If you think that comparison is even remotely valid, then you should seek help immediately (oh, and while you're at it, you should enroll in some rudimentary logic classes, but hey - one step at a time, okay?).

You're completely off the fucking reservation crazy.

If you think that comparison is even remotely valid, then you should seek help immediately (oh, and while you're at it, you should enroll in some rudimentary logic classes, but hey - one step at a time, okay?).

How does not allowing blacks to participate in a prom differ from not letting whites participate in a caucus?

I can't wait to hear this one.

How does not allowing blacks to participate in a prom differ from not letting whites participate in a caucus?

I can't wait to hear this one.
Well, situation A (be it a "Dop" reference in the first place (read; I think you're probably taking something out of context, but I'm not quite sure without a link)) is an example of ONE or TWO rogue schools in the US (amongst roughly 30 or so THOUSAND, that is) that have made a poor decision via their backwards administration (one that could be EASILY remedied by a simple lawsuit) to green-light school sanctioned ostracism, and the other situation is one in which our government is giving a blanket endorsement for congress sanctioned segregation by means of establishing a precedent that flies in the face of EVERYTHING we've been working to avoid for the past 140+ years. Your examples are blatantly offensive in the extreme, as is most of what you say with regards to racism in modern America.

Well, situation A (be it a "Dop" reference in the first place (read; I think you're probably taking something out of context, but I'm not quite sure without a link)) is an example of ONE or TWO rogue schools in the US (amongst roughly 30 or so THOUSAND, that is) that have made a poor decision via their backwards administration (one that could be EASILY remedied by a simple lawsuit) to green-light school sanctioned ostracism, and the other situation is one in which our government is giving a blanket endorsement for congress sanctioned segregation by means of establishing a precedent that flies in the face of EVERYTHING we've been working to avoid for the past 140+ years. Your examples are blatantly offensive in the extreme, as is most of what you say with regards to racism in modern America.


You can't argue this down to one school or small set of schools. We're talking about one of the worse cancers to ever invade our counry segregation.

One school practicing segregation is no different than one caucus practicing segregation.

Segregation should be a boolean-OR situation ... it's either on or it's off with no middle ground - in for a penny, in for a pound.

As long as the whites get to segregate, it's only fair for the blacks to do the same thing.

As a sidebar ... what the hell is so bad about having a small group of blacks operating as a caucus in our congress? Crimminey ... we are waging war on millions of unarmed civilians in Iraq, hated by the entire world, quickly approaching a constitutional crisis with our rogue president threatening to marginalize congress and one of the shakiest economies and monetary systems in our history and no one is worried about any of those issues ... just worried about about a bunch of brothers getting one over on the whites.

As a sidebar ... what the hell is so bad about having a small group of blacks operating as a caucus in our congress? Crimminey ... we are waging war on millions of unarmed civilians in Iraq, hated by the entire world, quickly approaching a constitutional crisis with our rogue president threatening to marginalize congress and one of the shakiest economies and monetary systems in our history and no one is worried about any of those issues ... just worried about about a bunch of brothers getting one over on the whites.That's because when you can no longer defend the indefensible the only thing left to do is go on the offensive. :)

You can't argue this down to one school or small set of schools. We're talking about one of the worse cancers to ever invade our counry segregation.
Agreed. So why let it exist on ANY level?
One school practicing segregation is no different than one caucus practicing segregation.
But both are divisive. One is being allowed to operate under government auspices, and the other (with a quick lawsuit, mind you) could be quashed within a year. You could follow the arraignment, indictment, and prosecution of the guilty parties involved (read; the ENTIRE administration) on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, CSNBC, et al.
Segregation should be a boolean-OR situation ... it's either on or it's off with no middle ground - in for a penny, in for a pound.
I agree, so let's stop it. Either that, or we should institute a full-on system of segregation again. Hell, that wouldn't bother me any, but I'd bet nickels to doughnuts that black people would be looting shit within an hour of hearing the good news.
As long as the whites get to segregate, it's only fair for the blacks to do the same thing.
Yeah, except blacks should be able to segregate on state AND federal levels, right?

You know.....to make up for slavery and shit.... :rolleyes:

C'mon, Dop - give me a break.
As a sidebar ... what the hell is so bad about having a small group of blacks operating as a caucus in our congress? Crimminey ... we are waging war on millions of unarmed civilians in Iraq...
Last I heard, we waged a war on terrorism, not on "unarmed civilians". Now I realize you'll probably reference a link showing that as of January 28th, 22 million Iraqis (nary a single combatant amongst them, of course) have been indiscriminately murdered by US forces, and in doing so, you'll have to pardon my skepticism; I don't buy it.
.....hated by the entire world, quickly approaching a constitutional crisis with our rogue president threatening to marginalize congress and one of the shakiest economies and monetary systems in our history.
You must be looking at a different analysis than I am.
....and no one is worried about any of those issues ... just worried about about a bunch of brothers getting one over on the whites.
Once again, why should anyone have the right to get "one over" on someone else (especially when it's based on the color of their skin)? The segregated prom bullshit could be (and should be) stopped within a few months. Could the Caucuses?

Amazing how it's only racist when whites do it.

Exactly.

I guess you didn't see where 9 blacks were conviceted of beating 3 whites and IIRC, it was violations of civil rights.

I just can't get all wound up over this caucus stuff. There are more important things in my life than worrying about something so insignificant.

Get over it -- Sore LoserSkin

I guess you didn't see where 9 blacks were conviceted of beating 3 whites and IIRC, it was violations of civil rights.
I'm not familiar with the story, so consequently, I can't comment on it. Care to elaborate (possibly post a link)???
I just can't get all wound up over this caucus stuff. There are more important things in my life than worrying about something so insignificant.
Maybe your sense of justice and fair play is lacking - who knows...
Get over it -- Sore LoserSkin
Okaaaay. I beg to differ, but whatever.

Oh, and what message are you trying to convey with the whole "Sore LoserSkin" comment? I'm curious...

I guess you didn't see where 9 blacks were conviceted of beating 3 whites and IIRC, it was violations of civil rights.

See it? Look at post #4 (http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?t=24187)

The obvious questions for Mr. Tancredo are,

1. What good would come of this?

2. Aren't there bigger things to worry about right now?

I am glad the libs get to decide whates worth debating and what isnt. from now on conservative congressmen should come here and ask dop and that other guy if they should waste time bringing something up

I think the black caucus should make a statement that they will allow whites in their caucus when Georgia (or is it Alabama) stops having segregated proms and Texans stop dragging blacks behind pickup trucks.

Excellent suggestion.

I agree completely.

I'm serious.

I'd would truly like to see the Congressional Black Caucus in Washington make an official release stating that on the very same day that Southern states ended all racist acts -such as having segregated proms-, and when southern rednecks in states like Texas stopped murdering blacks (such as, for instance, dragging them behind pickup trucks until all that's left of them is a few bones) because they do not like the color of their skin, the Congressional Black Caucus would agree to entirely disband and cease to exist.

It would send a very meaningful message to all the imbecilic white racists in this country that choose to whimper and whine about there being a Congressional Black Caucus.

It would send a very meaningful message to all the imbecilic white racists in this country that choose to whimper and whine about there being a Congressional Black Caucus.

Not a very good way to make your point FT. I see no need for a Congressional Black Caucus. Would you say I'm an imbecile? Racist? Maybe I'm just whimpering and whining?

I find it curious that you make the claim that someone who sees this organization as furthering the notion of segregation, is a "racist" somehow. Care to clarify?

Originally Posted by Freethinker
It would send a very meaningful message to all the imbecilic white racists in this country that choose to whimper and whine about there being a Congressional Black Caucus.

Not a very good way to make your point FT. I see no need for a Congressional Black Caucus. Would you say I'm an imbecile? Racist? Maybe I'm just whimpering and whining?

I believe that a check of what i posted would reveal that I noted that there are imbecilic white racists in this country that are whimpering and whining about there being a Congressional Black Caucus.

If you take that to mean that every human being who --like you-- disagrees with the need for a CBC is **an imbecilic racist**, then you have just had a failure of logic.

I do not consider you an imbecile or a racist....nor have i heard you whimpering and complaining about the existence of the CBC.


I find it curious that you make the claim that someone who sees this organization as furthering the notion of segregation, is a "racist" somehow. Care to clarify?

?!?!?

I was in no way trying to say that any person who sees this organization as furthering the notion of segregation is a racist. I was saying that I view those who DO complain about the existence of the CBC are revealing their racism.

For me, Jester made the best possible comment and explanation of this issue there could be, when he said ---

""Ideally, there would be no need for a Congressional Black Caucus. If society was colorblind then Congress should be too. However, the reality is that racial issues still exist in America, so I see no problem in having an organization in Congress that specifically deals with them. It's not so much that the CBC causes racial division, but that it exists because of it. If the racial divide disappears from society then the CBC will lose its purpose and probably disappear as well.""

I'm not familiar with the story, so consequently, I can't comment on it. Care to elaborate (possibly post a link)???

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=nation_world&id=4977210

Maybe your sense of justice and fair play is lacking - who knows...

Okaaaay. I beg to differ, but whatever.

OK then, let's let women in the NFL. Got game?

Oh, and what message are you trying to convey with the whole "Sore LoserSkin" comment? I'm curious...

Forget it.

Oh, and what message are you trying to convey with the whole "Sore LoserSkin" comment? I'm curious...
http://www.donspage.com/funny/pictures/whiners.jpg

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=nation_world&id=4977210
Those kids should get the chair for what they did.

Those kids should get the chair for what they did.

but this guy deserves a friggin medal, seriously. This is a horrible story but at least this guy stood up and did something about it. I applaud this guy, whoever he is.

The group then attacked the victims, knocking them to the ground. The beating stopped when a black man driving by pulled the assailants away and shielded the women with his body, prosecutors said.

Those kids should get the chair for what they did.

I don't know about the chair but your point is taken.

This case is very high profile in CA and will set a precedent for the entire country.

but this guy deserves a friggin medal, seriously.
Agreed. That was quite cool.

....Of course, he probably just wanted to nail 'em, but who knows - I've been wrong before. :D

This case is very high profile in CA and will set a precedent for the entire country.
Let's hope so.

I, for one, am tired of hearing how "hate crimes" are only perpetrated by racist white people.

I, for one, am tired of hearing how "hate crimes" are only perpetrated by racist white people.

Here's your big chance, you racist muuhfucker.

Name whatever instances you are aware of --in the entire history of the United States-- where that has been said. By anyone.

Name whatever instances you are aware of --in the entire history of the United States-- where that has been said. By anyone.
Why were "hate crime" initiatives brought to the table in the first place? Why not just call assault, assault? It was originally instituted to "protect" minorities (READ; black people) from Senator Byrd types, period.

Prove me wrong.

If calling it like I see it makes me a racist, then so be it...

Having said that, you know goddamned good and well that your argument is flawed.

Why were "hate crime" initiatives brought to the table in the first place? Why not just call assault, assault? It was originally instituted to "protect" minorities (READ; black people) from Senator Byrd types, period.

Prove me wrong.

If calling it like I see it makes me a racist, then so be it...

Having said that, you know goddamned good and well that your argument is flawed.

You're quite right about the hate crime initiatives. I'd venture to say that most hate crimes are committed against minorities (whether of race, religion, ethnicity, or anything else). It is assault, but it's a special type of assault.

It is assault, but it's a special type of assault.
A bizarre notion, for sure. For example, if I punch an elderly white woman in the face because she cut in line, it's somehow less offensive than me punching an elderly black woman in the face because she did the same thing....

That's fucked up.

Assault should be assault, period. Both crimes (being identical in nature) should carry the same penalty. (Unless, as a society, we're trying to foment the idea of one person's color being "more valuable" than someone else's. Call me silly, but I thought we were trying to avoid that.....)

We can't institute a "conditional" system of justice. It leaves too much open for personal interpretation (READ; it allows investigators to attach an ulterior motive by way of assuming they have a finely honed "sixth sense"). IOW, we both know 99.9999999999999% of the people out there don't possess ESP, so based on simple logic alone, I've concluded that hate crimes are nothing short of charging someone with intent.

Intent is a very different thing when you catch a drug dealer with 16 8-balls of cocaine on his person. That's intent, and if the court subpoenas his phone records, they'll most likely PROVE their case. Not so with regards to some random racial assault (I mean, after all, it could be completely circumstantial).

In short, hate crimes (for the most part) are bullshit.

That was an excellent post, BTW. :)

Why were "hate crime" initiatives brought to the table in the first place? Why not just call assault, assault? It was originally instituted to "protect" minorities (READ; black people) from Senator Byrd types, period.


Okey dokey.

Now; please name whatever instances you are aware of --in the entire history of the United States-- where ""hate crimes" are only perpetrated by racist white people"" has been stated.

By anyone.

It doesn't necessarily need to be said for a reasonable person to recognize that it (in the past) has been a problem. My point wasn't to get into a baseless argument over who's said what. If you choose to see it in a different light, well, then that's your choice. If you disagree with the fact that hate crimes were set up to protect blacks and homosexuals, then so be it.

My problem with hate crimes is simple. To put it in plain-speak: there is nothing new with politicians pandering to special interests (Repubs and Dems alike). **However** - "hate-crime" bills pander in a way that violates the 14th Amendment by creating unequal standing in law. The kicker is, "hate crimes" are almost always based on presumption. If you're okay with that, then this conversation is pointless. If you want to dwell on an ancillary point of mine; IOW, me having said, "I, for one, am tired of hearing how "hate crimes" are only perpetrated by racist white people" - then have at it, Hoss.

In short, hate crimes (for the most part) are bullshit.



I agree with you. Increasing the punishment range based on motive is a questionable practice at best, downright unjust at worst. The good news is that it's practically impossible to prove that a crime is racially-motivated unless someone is actually screaming racial epithets while the crime was commited and no other motive is readily apparent.

A bizarre notion, for sure. For example, if I punch an elderly white woman in the face because she cut in line, it's somehow less offensive than me punching an elderly black woman in the face because she did the same thing....

That's fucked up.

Assault should be assault, period. Both crimes (being identical in nature) should carry the same penalty. (Unless, as a society, we're trying to foment the idea of one person's color being "more valuable" than someone else's. Call me silly, but I thought we were trying to avoid that.....)

We can't institute a "conditional" system of justice. It leaves too much open for personal interpretation (READ; it allows investigators to attach an ulterior motive by way of assuming they have a finely honed "sixth sense"). IOW, we both know 99.9999999999999% of the people out there don't possess ESP, so based on simple logic alone, I've concluded that hate crimes are nothing short of charging someone with intent.

Intent is a very different thing when you catch a drug dealer with 16 8-balls of cocaine on his person. That's intent, and if the court subpoenas his phone records, they'll most likely PROVE their case. Not so with regards to some random racial assault (I mean, after all, it could be completely circumstantial).

In short, hate crimes (for the most part) are bullshit.

That was an excellent post, BTW. :)

I am of the opinion that things that can be reasonably proved to be hate crimes should be charged with more severity. If you disagree, that's your own opinion, but I think most people would agree with me.

The good news is that it's practically impossible to prove that a crime is racially-motivated unless someone is actually screaming racial epithets while the crime was commited and no other motive is readily apparent.
Exactly. If someone did that, I think it's a pretty reasonable to assume that he will do it again.

I am of the opinion that things that can be reasonably proved to be hate crimes should be charged with more severity. If you disagree, that's your own opinion, but I think most people would agree with me.
I have no problem with that. *IF* it can be definitively proven, that is.

I have no problem with that. *IF* it can be definitively proven, that is.
I think where people disagree is what is "definitive". If it makes it through the grand jury, then the trial jury can decide that, just like they do with murder or any other crime.

Do you really want your tax dollars spent that way?

Do you really want your tax dollars spent that way?
I want people who are guilty of assault, whether it was a hate crime or not, tried for their crimes. Don't you?

We can't institute a "conditional" system of justice. It leaves too much open for personal interpretation
It more or less already is. If it weren't, there wouldn't be sentence ranges, nor would a jury not be lawfully-bound to convict if the burden of proof is met. (they aren't, a jury can legally acquit a person just because they like him, or they don't feel that justice would be done, even if the evidence screams for a conviction, and they don't even have to give a reason either)

I want people who are guilty of assault, whether it was a hate crime or not, tried for their crimes. Don't you?
Whoa, horsy!!!

I didn't say - in any way, whatsoever, - that I didn't want a guilty person prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. What I was trying to say is that I don't want a "special" group of people (employed by the US government at our expense) given license to determine whether or not to call an apple an orange. Unless a hate crime can be proven outright (READ; was perpetrated by someone who clearly had NO OTHER MOTIVE), then there's no reason to waste our tax dollars trying to prove otherwise.

Whoa, horsy!!!

I didn't say - in any way, whatsoever, - that I didn't want a guilty person prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. What I was trying to say is that I don't want a "special" group of people (employed by the US government at our expense) given license to determine whether or not to call an apple an orange. Unless a hate crime can be proven outright (READ; was perpetrated by someone who clearly had NO OTHER MOTIVE), then there's no reason to waste our tax dollars trying to prove otherwise.
What I'm saying is that if someone commits an assault that could be a hate crime, and there is no other motive, they should be charged with a hate crime. Maybe it wasn't, and if the defense at the trial can convince the jury that it was just an assault, then they should be sentenced more lightly. What I'm saying is that it's up to the jury to decide.

Fair enough.

Fair enough.
Glad we could reach an agreement on this. :)

See, we had an intelligent and civil discussion. How come some people seem not to be able to do this?

Exactly. If someone did that, I think it's a pretty reasonable to assume that he will do it again.

But do you think it's reasonable to punish someone who beats you up because he doesn't like your clothes less harshly than someone who beats you up because he doesn't like your skin color. Both crimes seem equally morally dispicable to me.

But do you think it's reasonable to punish someone who beats you up because he doesn't like your clothes less harshly than someone who beats you up because he doesn't like your skin color. Both crimes seem equally morally dispicable to me.

I think it's important to note that hate crimes inflict more harm on society. In the article Lungdop posted, the fact that several blacks beat up white women could easily cause more racial conflict between whites and blacks in that neighborhood. This damage done to society is the reason for the small increase in the severity of the crime. It's not an issue of morality, it's an issue of damage inflicted on a social group.

I think it's important to note that hate crimes inflict more harm on society. In the article Lungdop posted, the fact that several blacks beat up white women could easily cause more racial conflict between whites and blacks in that neighborhood. This damage done to society is the reason for the small increase in the severity of the crime. It's not an issue of morality, it's an issue of damage inflicted on a social group.
Thank you, CBL. I completely agree. Hate crimes perpetuate racism against the race of the victim and the race of the assaulter.