Firefighter stabbed

[mrkun]

Originally posted by: mobobuff

Originally posted by: mrkun

Originally posted by: mugs

beloved patriot may not even be an offensive term where they come from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/beloved patriot

In Central America, the word is not pejorative, merely used to refer to a person from North America

That's why I asked what types of Hispanics are prevalent in that area of Boston. Mexicans typically use the word "gabacho" rather than "beloved patriot."

Do either of you think that matters? Do you think semantics plays any important part in the fact that they said "We don't need _______ here." and then chased and stabbed him?

If I hated black people, and saw a black person in a predominately white area of the neighborhood, and said to him "We don't need any African Americans here." and then stabbed him, it wouldn't be a racially motivated attack?

I was trying to make the point that there's a strong possibility they weren't Mexicans.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

IMO, when a gang member gets arrested they should have all their tattoos removed with a branding iron, "loser" branded onto their forehead, thrown in a solitary cell, and forced to watch kids shows for 14 hours/day. That'll keep people from wanting to glorify this crap.

Just because you and six of your friends can beat up and stab some guy that is just trying to buy an f'ing sandwich doesn't make you a badass.

 

[lokiju]

Originally posted by: TehMac

police are not classifying the incident as racially fueled

 

[mrkun]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
You better also enjoy the right to criticize them now, since the senate is going to vote on the sedition bill soon, and all your presumed internet rights are going to fly out the window with the rest of the rights you lost in the last 7 years to the fake war on terror. The real terror is already here, and it's crossing the border near you, and has been all along. Taking away rights of those who legally live here and have to tolerate this illegal crap hasn't stopped a single thing. Except freedom.

Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Thoughts, Blogs, Books and Free Speech Across America

The link you posted is inaccurate. It says that the House passed the law already which isn't true at all; the bill hasn't even been introduced in the House. What they passed was House Resolution 1955. Resolutions are not law. The actual bill is SB 1959 which is still in committee in the Senate; it hasn't even been debated yet. I agree that this is serious stuff and that people should take action against it now, but it's not as close to becoming law as it's made out to be. And then there's still the Supreme Court to deal with if it does become law. As an aside, does this legislation sound particularly British to anyone else?

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: mrkun

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
You better also enjoy the right to criticize them now, since the senate is going to vote on the sedition bill soon, and all your presumed internet rights are going to fly out the window with the rest of the rights you lost in the last 7 years to the fake war on terror. The real terror is already here, and it's crossing the border near you, and has been all along. Taking away rights of those who legally live here and have to tolerate this illegal crap hasn't stopped a single thing. Except freedom.

Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Thoughts, Blogs, Books and Free Speech Across America

The link you posted is inaccurate. It says that the House passed the law already which isn't true at all; the bill hasn't even been introduced in the House. What they passed was House Resolution 1955. Resolutions are not law. The actual bill is SB 1959 which is still in committee in the Senate; it hasn't even been debated yet. I agree that this is serious stuff and that people should take action against it now, but it's not as close to becoming law as it's made out to be. And then there's still the Supreme Court to deal with if it does become law. As an aside, does this legislation sound particularly British to anyone else?

Link for Bill Progress 1955 & 1959

 

[mrkun]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
Link for Bill Progress 1955 & 1959

As I said, 1955 is a resolution, not a bill; and 1959 (the actual bill) is still in committee and hasn't been looked at by either full house of Congress.

 

[Taejin]

the "we don't want no beloved patriot here" comment is ironic, because a large portion of americans are going "we dont want no hispanic immigrants here" (illegal, I guess)

 

[Auric]

Ironically, the firefighter's life was likely saved because he sought refuge from his alleged assailants at Engine 5 on Saratoga Street - the station house he's assigned to.

So the guy is usually by threatened co-workers? Maybe he's just a prick.

It just doesn't add up, I tell you.

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: mrkun

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
You better also enjoy the right to criticize them now, since the senate is going to vote on the sedition bill soon, and all your presumed internet rights are going to fly out the window with the rest of the rights you lost in the last 7 years to the fake war on terror. The real terror is already here, and it's crossing the border near you, and has been all along. Taking away rights of those who legally live here and have to tolerate this illegal crap hasn't stopped a single thing. Except freedom.

Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Thoughts, Blogs, Books and Free Speech Across America

The link you posted is inaccurate. It says that the House passed the law already which isn't true at all; the bill hasn't even been introduced in the House. What they passed was House Resolution 1955. Resolutions are not law. The actual bill is SB 1959 which is still in committee in the Senate; it hasn't even been debated yet. I agree that this is serious stuff and that people should take action against it now, but it's not as close to becoming law as it's made out to be. And then there's still the Supreme Court to deal with if it does become law. As an aside, does this legislation sound particularly British to anyone else?

Link for Bill Progress 1955 & 1959

BTW, where did I imply it was a law, anyhow? I noticed the emphasis added. The point is it might well be a law soon, me thinks, not that it was a law NOW.

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: mrkun

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
You better also enjoy the right to criticize them now, since the senate is going to vote on the sedition bill soon, and all your presumed internet rights are going to fly out the window with the rest of the rights you lost in the last 7 years to the fake war on terror. The real terror is already here, and it's crossing the border near you, and has been all along. Taking away rights of those who legally live here and have to tolerate this illegal crap hasn't stopped a single thing. Except freedom.

Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Thoughts, Blogs, Books and Free Speech Across America

The link you posted is inaccurate. It says that the House passed the law already which isn't true at all; the bill hasn't even been introduced in the House. What they passed was House Resolution 1955. Resolutions are not law. The actual bill is SB 1959 which is still in committee in the Senate; it hasn't even been debated yet. I agree that this is serious stuff and that people should take action against it now, but it's not as close to becoming law as it's made out to be. And then there's still the Supreme Court to deal with if it does become law. As an aside, does this legislation sound particularly British to anyone else?

Link for Bill Progress 1955 & 1959

BTW, where did I imply it was a law, anyhow? I noticed the emphasis added. The point is it might well be a law soon, me thinks, not that it was a law NOW.

Because, again, you're an idiot.

READ what he wrote: "The link you posted is inaccurate. It says that the House passed the law already which isn't true at all; the bill hasn't even been introduced in the House."

He never said anything about you stating it's a law. He pointed out that the link is inaccurate.

 

[sonambulo]

Originally posted by: mrkun

Originally posted by: mugs

beloved patriot may not even be an offensive term where they come from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/beloved patriot

In Central America, the word is not pejorative, merely used to refer to a person from North America

That's why I asked what types of Hispanics are prevalent in that area of Boston. Mexicans typically use the word "gabacho" rather than "beloved patriot."

Brazilians, hands down although they are South American and not technically hispanic. There are huge populations of Columbians and Dominicans here as well.

MS13? My buying days are behind me but from what I hear there aren't a lot of them up here.

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: mrkun

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
You better also enjoy the right to criticize them now, since the senate is going to vote on the sedition bill soon, and all your presumed internet rights are going to fly out the window with the rest of the rights you lost in the last 7 years to the fake war on terror. The real terror is already here, and it's crossing the border near you, and has been all along. Taking away rights of those who legally live here and have to tolerate this illegal crap hasn't stopped a single thing. Except freedom.

Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Thoughts, Blogs, Books and Free Speech Across America

The link you posted is inaccurate. It says that the House passed the law already which isn't true at all; the bill hasn't even been introduced in the House. What they passed was House Resolution 1955. Resolutions are not law. The actual bill is SB 1959 which is still in committee in the Senate; it hasn't even been debated yet. I agree that this is serious stuff and that people should take action against it now, but it's not as close to becoming law as it's made out to be. And then there's still the Supreme Court to deal with if it does become law. As an aside, does this legislation sound particularly British to anyone else?

Link for Bill Progress 1955 & 1959

BTW, where did I imply it was a law, anyhow? I noticed the emphasis added. The point is it might well be a law soon, me thinks, not that it was a law NOW.

Because, again, you're an idiot.

READ what he wrote: "The link you posted is inaccurate. It says that the House passed the law already which isn't true at all; the bill hasn't even been introduced in the House."

He never said anything about you stating it's a law. He pointed out that the link is inaccurate.

AND OUR FORUM :evil: SHAT OUT ANOTHER GLISTENING INTERNET TURD AND IT TURNED TO GOLD, AND IT WAS GOOD! Till it clogged up his toilet.

The link said the LAW passed the house, not that it was a LAW, LikeGenius. I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, when you are in a rush to thread crap rather than crap your golden pants.

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: mrkun

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
You better also enjoy the right to criticize them now, since the senate is going to vote on the sedition bill soon, and all your presumed internet rights are going to fly out the window with the rest of the rights you lost in the last 7 years to the fake war on terror. The real terror is already here, and it's crossing the border near you, and has been all along. Taking away rights of those who legally live here and have to tolerate this illegal crap hasn't stopped a single thing. Except freedom.

Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Thoughts, Blogs, Books and Free Speech Across America

The link you posted is inaccurate. It says that the House passed the law already which isn't true at all; the bill hasn't even been introduced in the House. What they passed was House Resolution 1955. Resolutions are not law. The actual bill is SB 1959 which is still in committee in the Senate; it hasn't even been debated yet. I agree that this is serious stuff and that people should take action against it now, but it's not as close to becoming law as it's made out to be. And then there's still the Supreme Court to deal with if it does become law. As an aside, does this legislation sound particularly British to anyone else?

Link for Bill Progress 1955 & 1959

BTW, where did I imply it was a law, anyhow? I noticed the emphasis added. The point is it might well be a law soon, me thinks, not that it was a law NOW.

Because, again, you're an idiot.

READ what he wrote: "The link you posted is inaccurate. It says that the House passed the law already which isn't true at all; the bill hasn't even been introduced in the House."

He never said anything about you stating it's a law. He pointed out that the link is inaccurate.

AND OUR FORUM :evil: SHAT OUT ANOTHER GLISTENING INTERNET TURD AND IT TURNED TO GOLD, AND IT WAS GOOD! Till it clogged up his toilet.

The link said the LAW passed the house, not that it was a LAW, LikeGenius. I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, when you are in a rush to thread crap rather than crap your golden pants.

You are retarded.

You "BTW, where did I imply it was a law, anyhow? "

He NEVER said you implied it was a law. He was speaking about the link. Show me his post where he said you talked about it being a law. WOW, it's called comprehension.

You: "The link said the LAW passed the house, not that it was a LAW"
It: "It's a new law called the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act"

He was speaking on the wording of the article, NOT you, jackass. The world doesn't revolve around you and he never implied that you said it was a "law".

Go clean your whitewalls.

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: mrkun

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
You better also enjoy the right to criticize them now, since the senate is going to vote on the sedition bill soon, and all your presumed internet rights are going to fly out the window with the rest of the rights you lost in the last 7 years to the fake war on terror. The real terror is already here, and it's crossing the border near you, and has been all along. Taking away rights of those who legally live here and have to tolerate this illegal crap hasn't stopped a single thing. Except freedom.

Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Thoughts, Blogs, Books and Free Speech Across America

The link you posted is inaccurate. It says that the House passed the law already which isn't true at all; the bill hasn't even been introduced in the House. What they passed was House Resolution 1955. Resolutions are not law. The actual bill is SB 1959 which is still in committee in the Senate; it hasn't even been debated yet. I agree that this is serious stuff and that people should take action against it now, but it's not as close to becoming law as it's made out to be. And then there's still the Supreme Court to deal with if it does become law. As an aside, does this legislation sound particularly British to anyone else?

Link for Bill Progress 1955 & 1959

BTW, where did I imply it was a law, anyhow? I noticed the emphasis added. The point is it might well be a law soon, me thinks, not that it was a law NOW.

Because, again, you're an idiot.

READ what he wrote: "The link you posted is inaccurate. It says that the House passed the law already which isn't true at all; the bill hasn't even been introduced in the House."

He never said anything about you stating it's a law. He pointed out that the link is inaccurate.

AND OUR FORUM :evil: SHAT OUT ANOTHER GLISTENING INTERNET TURD AND IT TURNED TO GOLD, AND IT WAS GOOD! Till it clogged up his toilet.

The link said the LAW passed the house, not that it was a LAW, LikeGenius. I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, when you are in a rush to thread crap rather than crap your golden pants.

You are retarded.

You "BTW, where did I imply it was a law, anyhow? "

He NEVER said you implied it was a law. He was speaking about the link. Show me his post where he said you talked about it being a law. WOW, it's called comprehension.

You: "The link said the LAW passed the house, not that it was a LAW"
It: "It's a new law called the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act"

He was speaking on the wording of the article, NOT you, jackass. The world doesn't revolve around you and he never implied that you said it was a "law".

Go clean your whitewalls.

Yawn. You must think the world actually revolves around you the way you like to thread crap and insult posters. He had linked to my statement, and I simply misunderstood his reference. We can't all be so anal like you about grammar, can we? So are you now the official grammar police who carry a wet blanket? I must have missed that promotion from forum janitor.

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
Yawn. You must think the world actually revolves around you the way you like to thread crap and insult posters. He had linked to my statement, and I simply misunderstood his reference. We can't all be so anal like you about grammar, can we? So are you now the official grammar police who carry a wet blanket? I must have missed that promotion from forum janitor.

I'm pointing out your inability to comprehend simply subject matters. It has nothing to do with grammar? Ok? It's just fun to toy with you because you whine so much about it.