Free Speech Under Attack in NY

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:06 pm

Does that apply to those guys in rodeos who lasso animals ? That's probably covered by the PETA people.
NY has become more of a mess than when I lived there. I see Gov. Spitzer wants to hand out
driver's licenses to illegal aliens--- errr---- undocumented workers.
Jeb Bush mentioned that down here a couple years ago and it went nowhhere fast.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:40 pm

I see Gov. Spitzer wants to hand out
driver's licenses to illegal aliens--- errr---- undocumented workers.

The reason that such plans have been implemented (so far in Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington) and gained support is that refusing DLs to immigrants doesn't reduce the amount of them who drive in this country. Allowing them to become licensed will at least cause them to undergo some training and instruction...and to be documented to a certain degree.

Saying that Spitzer wants to hand them out like a deck of cards really isn't accurate. If you're looking for a cute issue to rail against, why not rage about employers who hand job opportunities out to these folks like a deck of cards, and often necessitate this illegal driving situation in the first place?

OCmike · Post by **OCmike** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:51 pm

The problem with DL's for illegals is that in the USA a DL gives you de facto citizenship. It's accepted as a "national ID card".

Besides, many/most illegals would see it as a scam by whitey to deport them and wouldn't bother signing up in the first place.

In CA they tried to sell this bullshit as a way to require illegals to get car insurance.

What a bunch of crap.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:59 pm

Richard A. Clarke wrote: The United States needs a reliable and secure personal identification system, with appropriate civil liberties protections, to insure that we know who it is that is being allowed in to sensitive facilities and who is engaging in other controlled activities. Such a system will also reduce the billions of dollars of loss annually in identity theft and related fraud. The Real ID Act passed by Congress, if implemented, will form a basis for such a system based on drivers’ licenses.

However, the federal government has not yet issued guidelines to states on how to implement that law. Even when the guidelines are issued, states will have many years to implement them. Some states have already announced their intention to ignore the law because it is an unfunded federal mandate, forcing significant new expenditures on the states. Thus, the fate of the Real ID Act is uncertain.

In the interim, states should act to register immigrants, legal and illegal, who use our roadways as New York is doing. From a law enforcement and security perspective, it is far preferable for the state to know who is living in it and driving on its roads, and to have their photograph and their address on file than to have large numbers of people living in our cities whose identity is totally unknown to the government.

In the longer term, Congress should increase the likelihood that the Real ID Act is implemented nationwide by authorizing the federal government to pay for its incremental costs.

I think Clarke makes a lot of sense there. Your second point is a telling one, though. I don't see the most egregious offenders lining up to be documented by the federal government. The question is, though...what best brings more security to the table? The first thing is to try to understand who is in the country.

warren · Post by **warren** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:08 pm

PSUFAN wrote:
I see Gov. Spitzer wants to hand out
driver's licenses to illegal aliens--- errr---- undocumented workers.

The reason that such plans have been implemented (so far in Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington) and gained support is that refusing DLs to immigrants doesn't reduce the amount of them who drive in this country. Allowing them to become licensed will at least cause them to undergo some training and instruction...and to be documented to a certain degree.

Saying that Spitzer wants to hand them out like a deck of cards really isn't accurate. If you're looking for a cute issue to rail against, why not rage about employers who hand job opportunities out to these folks like a deck of cards, and often necessitate this illegal driving situation in the first place?

OK PSand the U, I'm a meth dealer, so by your reasoning even though dealing meth is illegal I should become licensed, trained and instructed as well as documented to "some certain degree" to lessen the negative ramifacations on the unkowning public.

I mean yes, I'm breaking a Federal Law, but let's at least allow the public to absorb the ass reaming I'm giving them with some vasoline.

Oh, and then rail your ass off against the people who purchase my ICE because they're the problem and me the interloping supplier of said offense should just be slapped on the wrist for supplying a need that everyone knows is for the best.

I dig you as a persona, but I'm guessing PSU didn't offer Logic, Constitutional Law, or Common Sense 1301 or 02.

I grew up in the South Texas Valley and I respect the Mexican culture as well as all of the hard working Latino's, but once they cross the border illegally they're no different than any crack dealer in County lockup.

I'm married to a legally Visa'd (?) English woman, and I'm spending what would be a mortgage on nice home trying to get her a legal work Visa, forget about a Green Card, Naturalization or god forbid the limey get's a DL.

Do it the right way or face the consequences.

If we can't pretect our borders then we might as well blaze.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:32 pm

OCmike wrote:The problem with DL's for illegals is that in the USA a DL gives you de facto citizenship. It's accepted as a "national ID card".

It is? Then why do we have to have passports to get in and out of the country?

Drivers licenses SHOULD be treated as national ID cards. Sadly, that is not the case.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:32 pm

what if a kid uses a hangman's knot when tieing a hook on his fishing line? It's been awhile, but, I think that's what I used to use. Do we lock this kid up for hateful knot tieing?

Fucking monofiliment sucks for knot tieing.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:33 pm

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/ ... -security/

The success of the policy, according to these experts, will rest on the reliability of new technology that Mr. Spitzer wants installed in Department of Motor Vehicles offices to verify the authenticity of passports and other documents that illegal immigrants will be required to submit when applying for licenses. Such documents would be verified through new scanners installed at all Department of Motor Vehicles offices or at a central location by a new unit of specially trained personnel. In addition, under the policy, photo-comparison software will be tested in hopes of keeping people from getting multiple licenses under different names.

Get it? They aren't handing them over DLs scot-free - they're requiring a legal immigration status for the DL (or at least, that's the plan). There's more to this than many erstwhile critics understand.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:49 pm

PSUFAN wrote:I think Clarke makes a lot of sense there. Your second point is a telling one, though. I don't see the most egregious offenders lining up to be documented by the federal government. The question is, though...what best brings more security to the table? The first thing is to try to understand who is in the country.

A national ID card is an afront to our personal liberty, and is a total disgrace, to say the very least.

The U.S. government has NO authority to require it's citizens to be accounted for, and any excuse for such measures is a total load of bullcrap.

If you want to stop illegals you stop them at the point of entry.

Fence, shoot, deport.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 2:04 pm

poppy, at some point, we have to admit that we are living in the 21st century, and not on the set of Gunsmoke.

warren · Post by **warren** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 2:59 pm

PSUFAN wrote:poppy, at some point, we have to admit that we are living in the 21st century, and not on the set of Gunsmoke.

Dude, does the 21st Century circumevent Federal Law?

If you don't agree with the legality of sovereignty and the right to control legal immigration then vote for those whom would change that.

What part of ILLEGAL do you people not understand?

The ILLEGAL immigrants are breaking the law and the ILLEGAL employers of said immigrants are breaking the law.

There is no gray area here. We are a nation founded on laws not on changing with the times or compassion for people that cross our borders, usurp our indigent health care, pay no taxes, flee after commiting felony crime, send most of their money back to their corrupt, third world gov't that doesn't give a shit about their own people and piss them on those of us that have to pay .

Wakey fucking wakey bleeding hearts or your going to lose you lunch faster than you can say rapido compa'.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:08 pm

To repeat - the plan is to require valid immigrant documentation for these DLs.

I agree that we have to clarify our muddled thinking on immigration.

I happen to think that efforts like this are a good place to start...rather than just lining up behind Sean Hannity or whomever and crying like a bitch.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:11 pm

Illegal immigration is off 88's topic.

Let's take it to chat and I'll deliver beatdowns there, per usualm.

ooot .......

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:19 pm

Exactly. If they are indeed illegal, they don't get a DL.

The Whistle Is Screaming · Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:30 pm

That isn't correct PSU, they will be checking the passports or other documents for validity of the ILLEGALS identity, NOT their status (legal or otherwise) to be in this country.

NY used to have the legal immigrants term allowed in the country in bright red on a DL, but that was recently removed.

Most NY'ers don't agree with how the Gov is throwing this at us and most County Clerks (they run the DMV's) say they will not issue DL's to ILLEGAL immigrants.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:33 pm

mvscal wrote:
PSUFAN wrote:Exactly. If they are indeed illegal, they don't get a DL.
Sounds nice...in theory. It never works that way in practice. You live in a backwater. You don't have a fucking clue of what it's like the get overrun by these people. They're like fucking locusts. You fucking blink and hospitals are getting shut down because they can't cover the cost of treating these assholes. Your schools are filled with ignorant peasants who barely speak English. Your jails are busting at the seams with violent felons who shouldn't even be here in the first place.

This is a bad fucking deal.

Are you kidding me? That reads like the history of New York City. In fact it reads like the history of every major east coast city from 1840 to 1929. If your city had a port, you were flooded with immigrants.

Sirfindafold · Post by **Sirfindafold** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:37 pm

BSmack wrote:Are you kidding me? That reads like the history of New York City. In fact it reads like the history of every major east coast city from 1840 to 1929. If your city had a port, you were flooded with immigrants.

Fortunately, during those times we had a government that forced those people to acclimate, not sponge the system.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:19 pm

PUSFAN wrote: Allowing them to become licensed will at least cause them to undergo some training and instruction...and to be documented to a certain degree.

Why the fuck would they bother with that?

They drive without bothering to get licenses NOW & face no consequences, what the fuck makes you think they give the slightest shit about getting documented?

You know what the fuck a wetback does when they get pulled over? Nothing. If the cop doesn't speak spic, he lets him go because an arrest is a waste of fucking time & effort. If the cop does speak spic- same thing.

Wanna know what the wetback does if-errrr, WHEN he runs into somebody? He gets out & runs away- it's way cheaper than buying car insurance. If he's hurt & can't run away, he lets Whitey take him to the emergency room for free medical treatment.

God, G0d & g0D forbid the accident is your fault. In that case, just hand over your wallet, credit cards, checkbook & car & house keys and save yourself the lawyer's fees.

You've held some pretty fucking stupid notions, PUS and this one's gotta be in the top 3.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:24 pm

Richard A. Clarke wrote:Such a system will also reduce the billions of dollars of loss annually in identity theft and related fraud.

Beware of politicians telling outright lies.

The last Real ID Act created the most ripe environment for ID theft the world has ever seen.

But listen to the politicians when they say they need to get even deeper into "real ID"... since it went so fucking swimmingly last time.

Three cheers for BIG GOVERNMENT!!! WOOHOO!!!!!

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:26 pm

Dinsdale wrote: Beware of politicians telling outright lies.

Used to be you could tell a politician was lying when his lips were moving.

Nowadays they can lie & drink a glass of water at the same time

warren · Post by **warren** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:28 pm

poptart wrote:Illegal immigration is off 88's topic.

Let's take it to chat and I'll deliver beatdowns there, per usualm.

ooot .......

I don't know where the heck you guy's chat and if I failed to comprehend that 88's comment was on giving legal immigrants DL's then I fail to see the neccesity for an argument.

However, I'm home alone, sans wife and am ready to recieve said "beatdown" at any time.

Just make it simple for poor little white boy, if you please.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:36 pm

mvscal wrote:Importing Mexico's poverty

Three words that should be chanted from the rooftops every time some complete fucking dumbass tries to cloud this very basic issue.

As far as the original thread topic -- isn't it about time we start sending the PC spin doctors to the gallows?

The article says that the law forbids using a noose as a symbol "in a threatening manner."

I have an extremely hard time believing that NY doesn't already have several laws on the books covering threatening people -- sometimes they call it "assault," sometimes they call it "menacing".... but I've yet to hear of any state or jurisdiction where it's actually legal the seriously threaten someone.

So, NY needs an additional law to reiterate laws that are already on the books and I'm sure have been enforced literally hundreds of thousands of times... why?

Because in this day and age of dysfunctional government, it's easier to drum up support by acting the PC schill than to actually do your job and improve your state.

BTW -- Poptart has become one of the more RACKable fuckers here as of late.

Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:41 pm

warren wrote:I'm married to a legally Visa'd (?) English woman, and I'm spending what would be a mortgage on nice home trying to get her a legal work Visa, forget about a Green Card, Naturalization or god forbid the limey get's a DL.

Are you a US citizen, warren? I thought that when she married a US citizen, she gained US citizenship. Or does your status as a convicted felon and registered sex-offender negate that option?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:45 pm

Dinsdale wrote:So, NY needs an additional law to reiterate laws that are already on the books and I'm sure have been enforced literally hundreds of thousands of times... why?

I'm sure the new law has penalties that are stiffer than a simple misdemeanor assault or menacing charge.

The Whistle Is Screaming · Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:49 pm

Dinsdale wrote:So, NY needs an additional law to reiterate laws that are already on the books and I'm sure have been enforced literally hundreds of thousands of times... why?

Because we're special, try and remember this Din, it isn't a right to live in NY, it is a privilege!

As for the "new" law, consider the attention span of a typical NY lawmaker, it isn't much different from most of the poster here. They don't want to scroll past page 1 to find a law, so they hit the "New Topic" button and make a new one.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:53 pm

I will yield to the many good points that have been made. Spitzer is up against a lot of fairly solid skepticism with this plan. However, I find the contention that he wants to "hand out DLs" to be pretty baseless.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:59 pm

BSmack wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:So, NY needs an additional law to reiterate laws that are already on the books and I'm sure have been enforced literally hundreds of thousands of times... why?
I'm sure the new law has penalties that are stiffer than a simple misdemeanor assault or menacing charge.

So, see if I've got this right...

NY is trying... excuse me while I pause a moment to ponder this...

NY is proposing a law to make it a worse crime to threaten a black person than people of any other ethnic group?

I'm not familiar with the Constitution of NY, but I'll go way out on a limb and take a guess that there's an amendment that deals with this in it.

If I was a citizen of NY, I'd be trying to start the wheels turning to not only expose the legislation for what it is, but to start the impeachment process for the legislator who has flagrantly violated state law, which has resulted in additional taxpayer expense, pass or fail.

The Whistle Is Screaming · Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:08 pm

Dinsdale wrote: NY is proposing a law to make it a worse crime to threaten a black person than people of any other ethnic group?.

Not quite, it covers all people, but only if threatened by things that only a black person would feel threatened by.

Dinsdale wrote:I'm not familiar with the Constitution of NY, ..

What is this Constitution of NY you speak of?

sin,
NY State Legislators & Senators

Dinsdale wrote:If I was a citizen of NY, I'd be trying to start the wheels turning to not only expose the legislation for what it is, but to start the impeachment process for the legislator who has flagrantly violated state law, which has resulted in additional taxpayer expense, pass or fail.

Sorry again Dins, but wasting tax payer money is what they do best. Can't punish them for trying their hardest.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:12 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
BSmack wrote:I'm sure the new law has penalties that are stiffer than a simple misdemeanor assault or menacing charge.
So, see if I've got this right...

NY is trying... excuse me while I pause a moment to ponder this...

NY is proposing a law to make it a worse crime to threaten a black person than people of any other ethnic group?

I'm not familiar with the Constitution of NY, but I'll go way out on a limb and take a guess that there's an amendment that deals with this in it.

If I was a citizen of NY, I'd be trying to start the wheels turning to not only expose the legislation for what it is, but to start the impeachment process for the legislator who has flagrantly violated state law, which has resulted in additional taxpayer expense, pass or fail.

You're a funny guy. Impeaching a State Legislator?

BTW: I'm also certain that the law does not specifically state that an element of the crime is for the person on the receiving end of the noose to be black.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:17 pm

BSmack wrote:BTW: I'm also certain that the law does not specifically state that an element of the crime is for the person on the receiving end of the noose to be black.

Dang... I don't even live in NY, but I read the article.

Newsflash (not really, since it's old news, as per 88's article) -- one of the bill's sponsors outwardly stated that the intent was to battle "racism."

Freaking tears, Jerry.

Someone proposes fighting racism by offering certain ethnic groups "extra special" protections under state law?

Kettle, pot, black... all that good stuff.

Remember -- there's nothing wrong with racism in this country. Matter of fact, it's encouraged... so long as it's directed at white men, who are not afforded "equal protection under law.".

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:15 pm

Here's the law that is being amended.

§ 240.31 Aggravated harassment in the first degree.
A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the first degree when
with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, because
of a belief or perception regarding such person's race, color, national
origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability
or sexual orientation, regardless of whether the belief or perception is
correct, he or she:
1. Damages premises primarily used for religious purposes, or acquired
pursuant to section six of the religious corporation law and maintained
for purposes of religious instruction, and the damage to the premises
exceeds fifty dollars; or
2. Commits the crime of aggravated harassment in the second degree in
the manner proscribed by the provisions of subdivision three of section
240.30 of this article and has been previously convicted of the crime of
aggravated harassment in the second degree for the commission of conduct
proscribed by the provisions of subdivision three of section 240.30 or
he or she has been previously convicted of the crime of aggravated
harassment in the first degree within the preceding ten years; or
3. Etches, paints, draws upon or otherwise places a swastika, commonly
exhibited as the emblem of Nazi Germany, on any building or other real
property, public or private, owned by any person, firm or corporation or
any public agency or instrumentality, without express permission of the
owner or operator of such building or real property; or
4. Sets on fire a cross in public view.
Aggravated harassment in the first degree is a class E felony.

The amendment will add a part 5 to the current law.

Etches, paints, draws upon or otherwise places or displays a noose,
commonly exhibited as a symbol of racism and intimidation, on any building
or other real property, public or private, owned by any person, firm
or corporation or any public agency or instrumentality, without express
permission of the owner or operator of such building or real property.

Please feel free to show where this law specifically mentions the race of the victim.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:29 pm

BSmack wrote:
Etches, paints, draws upon or otherwise places or displays a noose,
commonly exhibited as a symbol of racism and intimidation, on any building
or other real property, public or private, owned by any person, firm
or corporation or any public agency or instrumentality, without express
permission of the owner or operator of such building or real property.
Please feel free to show where this law specifically mentions the race of the victim.

Are you really this fucking stupid?

Tell you what -- why don't YOU specifically list other ethnic groups that see a noose as a "symbol of racism"?

And what race were the victims of the recent rash of noose-threats univer5sally mambers of, which is quite obviously what inspired this legislation?

Take your time.

Another thing I find particularly disturbing --

Sets on fire a cross in public view

What if my religious beliefs celebrate the burning of a cross as a ritual of worship? Someone else's "right to not be offended" supercedes my Rights under the First Amendment?

Unvelievably offensiveand if allowed to stand, paints a sas, sad picture of New Yorkers as a group. I guess we're down to 49 states in the Union now.

Adelpiero · Post by **Adelpiero** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:41 pm

dont worry about your local goverment giving the illegals drivers licenses, Illinois is doing that for all of them. Illegals get licenses like its candy there

OCmike · Post by **OCmike** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:09 pm

PSUFAN wrote:Exactly. If they are indeed illegal, they don't get a DL.

Under the proposal from the People's Republic of CA Legislature, the only thing required to get a driver's license was a Metricula Consular (sp?) card. In case you don't know, the MC card is pretty much the most easily forged document on the planet. You walk in, give them a name and a birthdate and the messican gov't hands you a card.

Anyway, under CA's proposed plan, the entire PURPOSE was to get driver's licenses for illegals.

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:22 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Etches, paints, draws upon or otherwise places or displays a noose,
commonly exhibited as a symbol of racism and intimidation, on any building
or other real property, public or private, owned by any person, firm
or corporation or any public agency or instrumentality, without express
permission of the owner or operator of such building or real property.
Please feel free to show where this law specifically mentions the race of the victim.

Are you really this fucking stupid?

Tell you what -- why don't YOU specifically list other ethnic groups that see a noose as a "symbol of racism"?

And what race were the victims of the recent rash of noose-threats univer5sally mambers of, which is quite obviously what inspired this legislation?

Take your time.

Another thing I find particularly disturbing --

Sets on fire a cross in public view
What if my religious beliefs celebrate the burning of a cross as a ritual of worship? Someone else's "right to not be offended" supercedes my Rights under the First Amendment?

Unvelievably offensiveand if allowed to stand, paints a sas, sad picture of New Yorkers as a group. I guess we're down to 49 states in the Union now.

If you're going to take offense to those provisions, what about this one?

Etches, paints, draws upon or otherwise places a swastika, commonly
exhibited as the emblem of Nazi Germany, on any building or other real
property, public or private, owned by any person, firm or corporation or
any public agency or instrumentality, without express permission of the
owner or operator of such building or real property;

As the statute expressly states, the swastika is "commonly exhibited as the emblem of Nazy Germany." And in our collective consciousness, it has become precisely that. So why would this behavior be made illegal? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which group was targeted most conspicuously by the Nazis. So, why is it that you would be disturbed by statutory provisions which apparently are designed to give heightened protection to blacks, yet be okay with the same provisions for Jews? Or was that merely an oversight on your part?

Btw, I agree with your conclusion about this particular legislation, albeit for a slightly different reason. To me, this smacks of a "hate crimes" law. The problem I have with "hate crimes" are that they aim to penalize a particular strain of thought. That strikes me as rather Orwellian, and at a minimum, dangerously close to violating the provisions of the First Amendment. Like it or not, the First Amendment protects some pretty odious opinions, and that is as it should be. As morally repugnant as I find hatred on grounds of race and/or religion to be, hate crimes laws are even worse.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:51 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:As the statute expressly states, the swastika is "commonly exhibited as the emblem of Nazy Germany." And in our collective consciousness, it has become precisely that. So why would this behavior be made illegal? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which group was targeted most conspicuously by the Nazis. So, why is it that you would be disturbed by statutory provisions which apparently are designed to give heightened protection to blacks, yet be okay with the same provisions for Jews? Or was that merely an oversight on your part?

Oh, there's a massive freaking oversight, alright...

It's just not on "my part."

Actually, I'll try and explain, even though I'm really sitting here aghast that I have to explain this to a lawyer...

OK, Terry... Now, I'd like you to read very slowly. Feel free to follow along with your finger underneath the words as you read, as this will surely help you understand them thar big words in front of you...

Ready?

Good.

Etches, paints, draws upon or otherwise places a swastika, commonly
exhibited as the emblem of Nazi Germany, on any building or other real
property, public or private, owned by any person, firm or corporation or
any public agency or instrumentality, without express permission of the
owner or operator of such building or real property

Uhm...

Hello?

Earth to Terry and New York...

Actually, fuck you, you miserably moronic lawyer stupid fuck. Figure it out yourself.

At some point, impeachment becomes much too slow a process, at which point citizens' militias have a Right to remove these "legislators" from their positions by force.

IF I was a Nyer, I'd be offended alright. And it would have nothing to do with swastikas. It would have to do with A) such an egregeous waste of legislative time and taxpayer money, and B) I'd be pretty fucking PISSED MOTHEFUCKING OFF that the State Bar Association was doing such a piss-poor job of weeding out the complete morons from their ranks.

Jeebuz, dude, I can't even believe you typed that.

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:04 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:As the statute expressly states, the swastika is "commonly exhibited as the emblem of Nazy Germany." And in our collective consciousness, it has become precisely that. So why would this behavior be made illegal? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which group was targeted most conspicuously by the Nazis. So, why is it that you would be disturbed by statutory provisions which apparently are designed to give heightened protection to blacks, yet be okay with the same provisions for Jews? Or was that merely an oversight on your part?

Oh, there's a massive freaking oversight, alright...

It's just not on "my part."

Actually, I'll try and explain, even though I'm really sitting here aghast that I have to explain this to a lawyer...

OK, Terry... Now, I'd like you to read very slowly. Feel free to follow along with your finger underneath the words as you read, as this will surely help you understand them thar big words in front of you...

Ready?

Good.

Etches, paints, draws upon or otherwise places a swastika, commonly
exhibited as the emblem of Nazi Germany, on any building or other real
property, public or private, owned by any person, firm or corporation or
any public agency or instrumentality, without express permission of the
owner or operator of such building or real property

Uhh, no, no oeversight on my part, since I actually read this first:

BSmack wrote:The amendment will add a part 5 to the current law.

Etches, paints, draws upon or otherwise places or displays a noose,
commonly exhibited as a symbol of racism and intimidation, on any building
or other real property, public or private, owned by any person, firm
or corporation or any public agency or instrumentality, without express
permission of the owner or operator of such building or real property

Where did I see that language before? Bueller? Class? Anyone?

Yet you were jumping all up and down about this provision, but not a peep about the prohibition against swastikas. Ponderous.

Uhm...

Hello?

Earth to Terry and New York...

Actually, fuck you, you miserably moronic lawyer stupid fuck. Figure it out yourself.

At some point, impeachment becomes much too slow a process, at which point citizens' militias have a Right to remove these "legislators" from their positions by force.

IF I was a Nyer, I'd be offended alright. And it would have nothing to do with swastikas. It would have to do with A) such an egregeous waste of legislative time and taxpayer money, and B) I'd be pretty fucking PISSED MOTHEFUCKING OFF that the State Bar Association was doing such a piss-poor job of weeding out the complete morons from their ranks.

Struck a nerve, I see. Noted.

And damn, dude, I even offered you an out. A simple "good catch, Terry, I didn't see that before" would've taken care of it.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:36 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Struck a nerve, I see. Noted.

And damn, dude, I even offered you an out. A simple "good catch, Terry, I didn't see that before" would've taken care of it.

That's gonna leave a mark.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:42 pm

Dude...

Please tell me you didn't just drop a "HA! You kicked my ass! That gives me BODE!!!!"

Nice fucking work, TerryinKChester.

OK... I'll type really slowly, for the benefit of any New Yorkers who might be reading...

OK, NYers... are you, in all seriousness, going to sit there and tell me there's no existing laws that deal with HANGING SPRAY PAINT ON A BUILDING YOU DON'T OWN?

Is that really what you're selling here?

I catch you tagging my shit, you better fucking HOPE there's a cop around. If I actually had any black neighbors (mexicans scared them off), and I caught you hanging a noose on their porch, I'd use it to drag you behind the bumper of my truck.

But anyhoo...

Doesn't it bother you that you legislators are exhibiting incompetence on so many different levels?

A) The legislation is VERY CLEARLY racist. It's not intended to target everyone with harsher penalties... while the language is veiled(rather freaking poorly), it's quite clear what ethnic group it targets. And yes, the word "targets" is quite appropriate. If this precedent is acceptable to you, you're a fucking idiot. How about when they come for you? Because once that ball starts rolling, history has proven over and over that it will gain speed.

And don't try to tell me that NY doesn't have a Constitutional Amendment that expressedly forbids such legislation... I'm pretty sure I could google it in about 4 seconds, if you like -- no one should even speak of laws that regulates behavior of one specific ethnic group, regardless whether the poorly-written laws name that specific ethnic group or not.

Do you favor enacting legislation for anyone who commits a crime while listening to hip-hop? How about extra penalties for anyone caught commiting crime while wearing a do-rag?

Those laws would actually be less ethnically-targetted than the bullshit NY is selling.

B) Does it bother you that the legislators are wasting valuable session time passing laws that already exist? Because I'll bet my last dollar and my bookmark to Google that they have laws against spray-painting ANYTHING on a building that doesn't belong to you. And of course, lost in this stupidity is the fact you're apparently free to display all the swastikas and nooses you like, so long as you own the building.

So, establishing that it's illegal to put graffitti on another person's building, and establishing you can paint whatever the fuck you like on the side of your own building was some novel freaking precedent in NY?

Really?

Or, is the precedent here that certain behaviors that are overwhelmingly peculiar to a certain ethnic group should be punished more harshly than similar behaviors frequently committed by members of different ethnic groups?

Where is most tagging done?

In "inner cities."

Memebers of which ethnic group are responsible for the majority of the tagging?

That would be young black males (with Honorable Mention going to Hispanics).

So, even though the illegal behavior is more more common among members of a certain athnic group, someone has the gall to suggest harsher penalties fo members of an ethnic group that are several times less likely to engage in such behavior to start with?

If I was an African American living in NY, I would find this extremely disturbing.

Geez... I am DAMN PROUD to be an American. And unlike most, I actually had/have a choice in the matter. And while I sit here celebrating every moment that I have the priviledge of being an American, the stupid fucks of NY are seceding from the USA, since their behavior is so radically unAmerican, NYers should be barred from travelling freely in the United States until they reestablish their American Values.

NY, your are a disgrace to this nation. Fuck, I'm glad your state issues aren't my problem (nor should they be, in a Free Republic). I can guarantee you they wouldn't let that racist crap last one minute around here, and whoever didn't laugh at the bill just spent theitr last session in Salem... and our bleeding heart politics are FUCKED UP. I'll thank my lucky starts they're not THAT fucked up. Fucked up enough that they want to put a Right to Pay Taxes in the state constitution, but not so fucked up as to propose state-sponsored racism.

And frankly, ANYONE who is on board with this needs to take a good long look at how badly the PC Police have brainwashed them.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:28 pm

Dinsdale wrote:Dude...

Please tell me you didn't just drop a "HA! You kicked my ass! That gives me BODE!!!!"

No, he dropped a "You don't know what the fuck you're talking about!" blast on your ass.

All things considered, the NYS Legislature is about the worst Legislative body in the United States. Yea, they like to play the nanny state role. Tell me you knew? But of all the things they fuck up on a regular basis (and there are plenty), I'm not going to waste a lot of time or energy getting riled up over their attempt to get people to behave like human beings towards each other.

I'm just happy that when they passed this law they didn't throw in a tax to pay for stepped up enforcement. Better yet, were they truly intent on screwing we the taxpayers over, they would have called for the creation of a quasi public corporation to oversee enforcement of the new law to be headed by a panel of 9 commissioners paid a salary of 75,000 per year and staff commensurate to their "needs" to meet quarterly to review and assess progress of enforcement and to be funded via the issuance of taxpayer backed 30 year bonds.