Minutemen may sue Columbia, claim attack on them was a "hate crime"

[wiin]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
my source for most of this info Right wing blog

Dude, does any of your information NOT come from a right wing blog?! Jesus tapdancing christ, get some better sources. As for the minutemen, what a bunch of freaking babies. "Hate Crime." Puh-lease. Waaaaa! Cry me a river... :brokenheart:

Dude, was this story carried by the MSM? Not that I know of. The only way to find the truth is to get it from sources like Powerlineblog and Newsmax. As for the "Hate Crime", well,the left have been using this for a looonnngggggggggggg time. You say or do something, the left will cry "Hate Crime" or "Racist" or "homophobic". I guess you just couldn't handle it when it is being used against your side.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: extra
...

Some of the ideas, like building the wall, seem like a good idea. I'm all for having a wall for keeping people out. HOWEVER the wall starts to sound scarier when you take into account that it can also be used to KEEP US IN .

And it starts to sound a lot less useful when you consider that it won't even come close to blocking off border crossings.

There are lot better ways to deal with the issue, but they aren't as big and flashy, and don't appeal to idiots, quite like throwing up a big wall.

We need to do everything to combat the problem. A wall helps, so build the damn thing. You can stop with the mantra of how a wall isn?t a perfect end all to the situation because before we get a perfect solution we?ll all be speaking Spanish.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: wiin

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
my source for most of this info Right wing blog

Dude, does any of your information NOT come from a right wing blog?! Jesus tapdancing christ, get some better sources. As for the minutemen, what a bunch of freaking babies. "Hate Crime." Puh-lease. Waaaaa! Cry me a river... :brokenheart:

Dude, was this story carried by the MSM? Not that I know of. The only way to find the truth is to get it from sources like Powerlineblog and Newsmax. As for the "Hate Crime", well,the left have been using this for a looonnngggggggggggg time. You say or do something, the left will cry "Hate Crime" or "Racist" or "homophobic". I guess you just couldn't handle it when it is being used against your side.

Let's just see how WRONG you are. MSM coverage:

LA Times
NY Times
Fox News
SF Chronicle
CNN

As for the OP's "story" what new information has come to light? Let's see: One guy claims he was called a name. Oooooh, definitely a hate crime there. We've got a nazi youth member commenting on the incident. Ooooh, that's where I wanna get my news from too! A wannabe nazi! Excellent, I see where this is going. Then watchoo got? An unrelated article at the WSJ complaining about the same incident involving the minutemen. No news there. CBS decided not to air a hateful and frankly stupid comment about 5 innocent girls who were gunned down right after the incident happened. Oh go figure. Surely there's a conspiracy! And what else? Streisand? The View? Who cares? What does that have to do with the Minutemen?

Aside from your accecdotal hate crime usage stats, which you apparently pulled straight from your ass, I've never used the phrase "hate crime" on these forums. Ever.

I'm still mystified as to how there was a "hate crime" committed, yet given how wrong you are, I certainly don't want to hear the explanation from you.

 

[marincounty]

Columnist Larry Elder interviewed Jim Gilchrist and Marvin Stewert from the Minutemen and it seems that are talking to a law firm about suing the University and the protestors from last weeks stage rushing

Isn't it special how these wimpy right-wingers want to file a lawsuit? I thought that was only for trial lawyer supporting evil liberals?

And I am really impressed at how the Republicans have stopped all of the illegals from entering the country-not.
Now it appears they may not even fully fund their 700 mile wall. I hope you all feel as secure as I do.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Let's just see how WRONG you are. MSM coverage:

LA Times
NY Times
Fox News
SF Chronicle
CNN

As for the OP's "story" what new information has come to light? Let's see: One guy claims he was called a name. Oooooh, definitely a hate crime there. We've got a nazi youth member commenting on the incident. Ooooh, that's where I wanna get my news from too! A wannabe nazi! Excellent, I see where this is going. Then watchoo got? An unrelated article at the WSJ complaining about the same incident involving the minutemen. No news there. CBS decided not to air a hateful and frankly stupid comment about 5 innocent girls who were gunned down right after the incident happened. Oh go figure. Surely there's a conspiracy! And what else? Streisand? The View? Who cares? What does that have to do with the Minutemen?

Aside from your accecdotal hate crime usage stats, which you apparently pulled straight from your ass, I've never used the phrase "hate crime" on these forums. Ever.

I'm still mystified as to how there was a "hate crime" committed, yet given how wrong you are, I certainly don't want to hear the explanation from you.

Deal you see to be unable to understand the reason behind the creation of this thread.
1. Despite what you claim above, I don't think any of the stories you link to mention the lawsuit aspect of this story.

2. This thread is about a broader trend, which is tendency of the left to try and shut down the speech of people who they don't agree with.
Besides the Minute Men part, there are three other attempts by the left to shut down people they don't agree with mentioned in the Journal piece.
1. The rushing of the stage at Columbia.
2. CBS puts on a segment by a father who lost a son at Columbine and the CBS blog goes wild with comments asking "what made them put this man on TV"
3. Barbra Streisand yelling at a man who asked a simple "what is this, a fund raiser" question when she started going on with her kooky leftist views.
4. Rosie trying to shout down Elizabeth and claiming that Elizabeth was "shouting", which everyone says she was not.

Add to this the many times congress has tried to pass the "hush Rush" bill over years and years which would essentially force radio stations to provide some kind of "balance" to their schedule. (Imagine if Congress asked the New York Times to allow the right to publish news stories that fit their views in order to balance out the liberal views normally seen there)

Also, look at our own little happy forum where people exchange insults and accuse others of being "hacks" "shills" and "paid party members"

There is a definite problem with the left and their attempts to shout down anyone who they do not agree with.

BTW: I understand why you have such a hard time comprehending my OP. Since in your reply you say "decided not to air a hateful and frankly stupid comment about 5 innocent girls who were gunned down right after the incident happened" If you had actually read the OP correctly you would have known that there was not ONE mention of the Amish incident anywhere in it. The CBS part actually aired BEFORE the Amish shooting.

And what ?hate crime usage stats? are you talking about?

Let me help you understand what a hate crime is: From wikipedia : Hate crimes (also known as bias crimes) are violent crimes, hate speech or vandalism, motivated by feelings of enmity against an identifiable social group.
Violence, check. Hate speech, check. Vadalism, check. Feelings of enmity, check.
Looks like we have all the elements of a hate crime to me.

 

[senseamp]

Minutemen, your minute of fame is up. Columbia's legal counsel will eat you alive.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
There are lot better ways to deal with the issue, but they aren't as big and flashy, and don't appeal to idiots, quite like throwing up a big wall.

Such as?

I haven't seen your party proposing anything.

I wasn't aware that I had my own party...

I've said this MANY times before, but it's worth repeating. My alternative to putting up a wall is to combat the root causes of illegal immigration, a very lax enforcement of rules regarding employing illegals and a difficult immigration process that makes bypassing it attractive. My proposed solution is to enforce rules against employing illegals, perhaps making the penalties stiffer if warranted...but basically make it a lot less attractive to employ illegals. However, since not all illegals are gang-bangers, and DO contribute a lot to the economies of many states, I also want policies that would make it easier for LEGAL immigrants to make it here and find work. One idea that I like is to grant work visas to people attempting to immigrate legally (this would NOT apply to current illegal aliens, they'd have to go home and start the process) and relax the minimum wage rules and tax burdens for the period of the visa while they are working towards becoming citizens. This allows for a pool of low cost labor and a way for immigrants to grab a toehold in this country while working towards something better.

I think this is how the current system works. Your idea is the reason for the big attraction of illegals. They work for the lowest possible wage because a $1/hr to them is like $10/hr to someone that is a US born citizen. It isn't people here in the US don't want to work doing the typical "illegal" work but you can't expect someone to live in the US on minimum wage.