Obama's abuses of the Office of the President-(Just for LH)

[FiredMotorCompany]

Thanks to LH, we have a new thread dedicated to how the office of the President has been corrupted by Obama.

While I could agree previous Presidents have been guilty on several occasions of similar abuses, we would just get lost in the weeds fighting the actions of those no longer in office.

And since the current elected office holder is the only one who's feet we can hold to the fire.....or even use as an example we will reject in the next election, let's keep it current.

I also suggest we make note of the slippery slope we'll never be able to climb out of, by way of the fact that allowing any particular abuses today sets a precedence for their replacements.

Tolerating abuses today condones the continuation of those abuses when your team's opponents are in office next time.

---

Let's start with the "selective enforcement of laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President".

What use is there in requiring the Congress to write and pass the language of the law if the President can decide by fiat which elements he deems pleasing to his agenda?

Obamacare......14+ unilateral changes since the start of online sign-ups.

[Langston Hughes]

Thanks to LH, we have a new thread dedicated to how the office of the President has been corrupted by Obama.

 

While I could agree previous Presidents have been guilty on several occasions of similar abuses, we would just get lost in the weeds fighting the actions of those no longer in office.

 

And since the current elected office holder is the only one who's feet we can hold to the fire.....or even use as an example we will reject in the next election, let's keep it current.

 

I also suggest we make note of the slippery slope we'll never be able to climb out of, by way of the fact that allowing any particular abuses today sets a precedence for their replacements.

 

Tolerating abuses today condones the continuation of those abuses when your team's opponents are in office next time.

---

 

Let's start with the "selective enforcement of laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President".

 

What use is there in requiring the Congress to write and pass the language of the law if the President can decide by fiat which elements he deems pleasing to his agenda?

 

Obamacare......14+ unilateral changes since the start of online sign-ups.

 

 

Don't thank me, I did not start it or even ask for it. You are the one who could not stay on topic and went off into the weeds about the Obama. It's all on you, i merely asked if you could return to our discussion, which i guess this letter is the answer.

 

As for getting lost in the weeds, i think that there is a huge amount of hypocrisy in assuming that,especially on fired's part given George W. Bush's extensive claim to power and the authority to defy Congress on over 750 statutes in 125 bills sent to him for signing. I'm sure that we could like further into it. http://www.heal-online.org/hearing_bush.pdf

 

Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.

But with the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override.

Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.

Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/world/americas/30iht-web.0430bush.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (There is a correction to the number of laws written in the story. It is 750 statutes, not laws)

 

 

And it would be totally remiss not to mention that Fired is not looking to frank discussion on the reality of presidential power grabs but rather an Anti-Obama, anti-ACA attack session.

 

 

If anyone would like to see for their self what statments were signed by who and what they felt the Office of the President was able to do there is a link.

 

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php?year=2002&Submit=DISPLAY

 

 

 

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

 

Don't thank me, I did not start it or even ask for it. You are the one who could not stay on topic and went off into the weeds about the Obama. It's all on you, i merely asked if you could return to our discussion, which i guess this letter is the answer.

 

As for getting lost in the weeds, i think that there is a huge amount of hypocrisy in assuming that,especially on fired's part given George W. Bush's extensive claim to power and the authority to defy Congress on over 750 statutes in 125 bills sent to him for signing. I'm sure that we could like further into it. http://www.heal-online.org/hearing_bush.pdf

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/world/americas/30iht-web.0430bush.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (There is a correction to the number of laws written in the story. It is 750 statutes, not laws)

 

 

And it would be totally remiss not to mention that Fired is not looking to frank discussion on the reality of presidential power grabs but rather an Anti-Obama, anti-ACA attack session.

 

 

If anyone would like to see for their self what statments were signed by who and what they felt the Office of the President was able to do there is a link.

 

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php?year=2002&Submit=DISPLAY

 

 

 

Not defending Bush and his actions. But, gee, what chance have we got to get him to "undo" anything, or pressure him to rescind those actions? None. So, go ahead, get all bowed up at Bush for what he did. I may just agree with you on many issues. But, I'd be remiss in not emphasizing your disdain for the man while you are unquestionably Obama's Number One defense attorney here while he continues many of those very same policies and actions.

 

From seating judges during "recess" to Eric Holder, Obama's "At Will" employee selectively deciding which aspect of his job to do and which to ignore.

 

Now, you and I can try to out-piss each other endlessly. But, can you get Clinton to "un-Lewinsky" Monica? He can't do it. And neither can Bush "un-Bush" the actions he took in office.

 

So, go ahead and beat THAT DEAD HORSE. When you get all tired and stuff, let's get back to the idea that a President is elected to "Execute" the laws as they exist, not as he wishes was passed.

Edited January 4, 2014 by FiredMotorCompany

[Langston Hughes]

Not defending Bush and his actions. But, gee, what chance have we got to get him to "undo" anything, or pressure him to rescind those actions? None. So, go ahead, get all bowed up at Bush for what he did. I may just agree with you on many issues. But, I'd be remiss in not emphasizing your disdain for the man while you are unquestionably Obama's Number One defense attorney here while he continues many of those very same policies and actions.

 

From seating judges during "recess" to Eric Holder, Obama's "At Will" employee selectively deciding which aspect of his job to do and which to ignore.

 

Now, you and I can try to out-piss each other endlessly. But, can you get Clinton to "un-Lewinsky" Monica? He can't do it. And neither can Bush "un-Bush" the actions he took in office.

 

So, go ahead and beat THAT DEAD HORSE. When you get all tired and stuff, let's get back to the idea that a President is elected to "Execute" the laws as they exist, not as he wishes was passed.

 

1. you may claim so but it's obvious that your biased and hold against me that i am resigned to the believe that all Presidents will now violate our privacy with the patriot act and other provisions. this has nothing to do with Obama, and i have explained that many times prior.

 

2. While I would prefer to see judges nominated and go through the Senate, perhaps you should start a new topic on the abuses of Senatorial confirmation and holds, where we could discuss the overwhelming amount of holds on presidential nominations. After all you can't hold the office of the president accountable for recess nominations if the Senate won't give "Advice and consent" with a vote. Well, you could and you did, so i'm just going to write that of to typical partisan bias and dislike of Obama as opposed to the office actually abusing power.

 

3. The Justice dept. has long had discretion in what it finds appropriate and what it doesn't. This did not start with Bush or Obama and will continue long after both of them are dead. If your referring to specifics like DADT, unfortunately the previous President has established a lengthy record of signing statements that suggest the office can only act in ways that do not violate the Constitution. Obviously, given the SC's decision Obama was correct in not defending the law because it WAS unconstitutional. Even you would not ask the President to act in an unconstitutional manner would you? If your referring to the NBPP, you do realize that the Justice dept has pretty much had discretion in what fines, fees and sentences it asks for.

 

Any discussion of what is being done would include past actions, the precedents that were set, and as such I don't see them as beating a dead horse.You may long to keep it all about how evil Obama is and how nothing like this has happened before but I see it same shit, different day and president.

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

1. you may claim so but it's obvious that your biased and hold against me that i am resigned to the believe that all Presidents will now violate our privacy with the patriot act and other provisions. this has nothing to do with Obama, and i have explained that many times prior.

 

2. While I would prefer to see judges nominated and go through the Senate, perhaps you should start a new topic on the abuses of Senatorial confirmation and holds, where we could discuss the overwhelming amount of holds on presidential nominations. After all you can't hold the office of the president accountable for recess nominations if the Senate won't give "Advice and consent" with a vote. Well, you could and you did, so i'm just going to write that of to typical partisan bias and dislike of Obama as opposed to the office actually abusing power.

 

3. The Justice dept. has long had discretion in what it finds appropriate and what it doesn't. This did not start with Bush or Obama and will continue long after both of them are dead. If your referring to specifics like DADT, unfortunately the previous President has established a lengthy record of signing statements that suggest the office can only act in ways that do not violate the Constitution. Obviously, given the SC's decision Obama was correct in not defending the law because it WAS unconstitutional. Even you would not ask the President to act in an unconstitutional manner would you? If your referring to the NBPP, you do realize that the Justice dept has pretty much had discretion in what fines, fees and sentences it asks for.

 

Any discussion of what is being done would include past actions, the precedents that were set, and as such I don't see them as beating a dead horse.You may long to keep it all about how evil Obama is and how nothing like this has happened before but I see it same shit, different day and president.

1. So you're good where we're at? Obama can continue to utilize the same policies Bush did? Then quit crying about how bad Bush was. I'm not defending him. And I'm addressing the actions of the guy in office. You can't un-kick a can you kicked down the road. But, you can pick it up and put it where it belongs. That takes leadership and character. Two traits we haven't had in my memory.

 

2. I started the last one. Your turn.

Why give the democrat held Senate the power of Advice and Consent if you ignore them refusing to consent? Just because you (as Obama) don't like the Senate's refusal, doesn't mean the definition od a "recess appointment" is written in smoke. As the courts recently decided. Another instance of the President's imaginative interpretation of the powers of his office.

 

3. Immigration is a particular example. And voter intimidation is another. How come only white on black crime is "hate crime"? And what does "hate" have to do with criminality? Why is the life of a black man, killed by a white, valued higher and the prosecution of the defendant given a more harsh sentence, than any other man? Isn't that contrary to MLK's dream of viewing others by the content of their character and not the color of their skin?

 

4. Precedences set, so there's no use trying to right the wrong that came before? Just add new ones because it was done by the other guy? What a way to strive for the improvement. Your goal is at best, mediocrity.

[Langston Hughes]

1. So you're good where we're at? Obama can continue to utilize the same policies Bush did? Then quit crying about how bad Bush was. I'm not defending him. And I'm addressing the actions of the guy in office. You can't un-kick a can you kicked down the road. But, you can pick it up and put it where it belongs. That takes leadership and character. Two traits we haven't had in my memory.

 

2. I started the last one. Your turn.

Why give the democrat held Senate the power of Advice and Consent if you ignore them refusing to consent? Just because you (as Obama) don't like the Senate's refusal, doesn't mean the definition od a "recess appointment" is written in smoke. As the courts recently decided. Another instance of the President's imaginative interpretation of the powers of his office.

 

3. Immigration is a particular example. And voter intimidation is another. How come only white on black crime is "hate crime"? And what does "hate" have to do with criminality? Why is the life of a black man, killed by a white, valued higher and the prosecution of the defendant given a more harsh sentence, than any other man? Isn't that contrary to MLK's dream of viewing others by the content of their character and not the color of their skin?

 

4. Precedences set, so there's no use trying to right the wrong that came before? Just add new ones because it was done by the other guy? What a way to strive for the improvement. Your goal is at best, mediocrity.

 

1. Your whining about a guy that you don't personally like, much like the rest of conservatives. If it were Romney in office, the guy who got your vote, then you wouldn't be worried.

 

2. They are not refusing to consent, they are individually abusing the consent statute by placing holds and not allowing the whole Senate to consent or not. The Constitution does not give the Senate the individual right to not consent. It's a majority vote, not an individual hold, which is unconstitutional.

 

Since your so worried about OUR FREEDOMS why aren't you upset that Senate republicans are abusing it?

 

3. I don't know that only White on black crime is considered hate crimes. Could you prove that accusation to some extent or even come up with substantial evidence beyond anecdotal? As for voter intimidation, you still whining about the settlement that the Justice dept. reached with the two individuals? And your showing your white grievance side again, since multiple studies have affirmed that Blacks are sentenced more harshly than Caucasians for the same crimes. Isn't that what MLK wanted, that blacks face no institutional racism in the legal system.

 

Some advice. don't through MLK in liberals faces because there so many of his quotes that attack a majority of your positions.

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

1. Your whining about a guy that you don't personally like, much like the rest of conservatives. If it were Romney in office, the guy who got your vote, then you wouldn't be worried.

 

2. They are not refusing to consent, they are individually abusing the consent statute by placing holds and not allowing the whole Senate to consent or not. The Constitution does not give the Senate the individual right to not consent. It's a majority vote, not an individual hold, which is unconstitutional.

 

Since your so worried about OUR FREEDOMS why aren't you upset that Senate republicans are abusing it?

 

3. I don't know that only White on black crime is considered hate crimes. Could you prove that accusation to some extent or even come up with substantial evidence beyond anecdotal? As for voter intimidation, you still whining about the settlement that the Justice dept. reached with the two individuals? And your showing your white grievance side again, since multiple studies have affirmed that Blacks are sentenced more harshly than Caucasians for the same crimes. Isn't that what MLK wanted, that blacks face no institutional racism in the legal system.

 

Some advice. don't through MLK in liberals faces because there so many of his quotes that attack a majority of your positions.

1. You are ASSuming a lot. But, since Romney isn't in office, what do you expect to accomplish by fighting a shadow?

 

2. To-ma-to, to-mah-to.

 

3. Can you name 5 white on black hate crimes and five black on white hate crimes in the past ten years? Oh, never mind. You'll feign inability to find a case of black on white crime, while easily citing white on black crime. Suggesting it's whites that are the only one capable of attacking members of another race. And by the accepted definition, "hate crimes" are ONLY white on black, straight on gay, Tea Party members on women, ......

 

4. Throughing MLK at liberals? I actually supported his approach of non-violent social change. And where he did such, I think he accomplished more than he could have with violence, as was often happening at the time. Are you suggesting you don't accept the concept of judging a man by the content of their character, and not the color of their skin, as I do?

[Langston Hughes]

1. You are ASSuming a lot. But, since Romney isn't in office, what do you expect to accomplish by fighting a shadow?

 

2. To-ma-to, to-mah-to.

 

3. Can you name 5 white on black hate crimes and five black on white hate crimes in the past ten years? Oh, never mind. You'll feign inability to find a case of black on white crime, while easily citing white on black crime. Suggesting it's whites that are the only one capable of attacking members of another race. And by the accepted definition, "hate crimes" are ONLY white on black, straight on gay, Tea Party members on women, ......

 

4. Throughing MLK at liberals? I actually supported his approach of non-violent social change. And where he did such, I think he accomplished more than he could have with violence, as was often happening at the time. Are you suggesting you don't accept the concept of judging a man by the content of their character, and not the color of their skin, as I do?

 

1. I'm just going by how you post.

 

2. No, your aware that individual holds are not what the Constitution means, but chose to act like you don't. I say tomato, you say potato.

3. OK, so five will do, but what if I found 657 in 2012? How would you feel about that?

 

Anti-White 657

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2012/tables-and-data-declarations/1tabledatadecpdf/table_1_incidents_offenses_victims_and_known_offenders_by_bias_motivation_2012.xls

 

 

 

In 2012, race was reported for 5,331 known hate crime offenders. Of these offenders:

54.6 percent were white.

23.3 percent were black.

8.8 percent were groups made up of individuals of various races (multiple races, group).

0.9 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander.

0.9 percent were American Indian/Alaskan Native.

11.5 percent were unknown. (Based on Table 9.)

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2012/topic-pages/offenders/offenders_final

 

 

I even found some information on the number of anti-heterosexual hate crimes in 2012.

Sexual-orientation bias

Of the 1,376 victims targeted due to a sexual-orientation bias:

53.9 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-male homosexual bias.

28.6 percent were victims of an anti-homosexual bias.

12.7 percent were victims of an anti-female homosexual bias.

3.0 percent were victims of an anti-bisexual bias.

1.9 percent were victims of an anti-heterosexual bias. (Based on Table 1.)

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2012/topic-pages/victims/victims_final

 

 

4. At least your an equal opportunity grammar Nazi. Kudos.

 

No, I was referring to the other things that King stood for and the things he spoke out about, which include

 

I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective — the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income.

—from the chapter titled "Where We Are Going"

 

 

“Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary.”

~Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

 

You only want to embrace race along the lines of the white grievance attitude, suggesting that I couldn't find any hate crimes against whites. Another King quote fits your attitude on race in America.

 

Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Edit: You have consistently posted that you test you beliefs and modify them if you find they are wrong, but If you challenge me to find 5 cases of anti-white hate crimes and I find over 600 hundred how hard did you test your belief before challenging me? Not at all is what i'm going with.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2014 by Langston Hughes

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

 

1. I'm just going by how you post.

 

2. No, your aware that individual holds are not what the Constitution means, but chose to act like you don't. I say tomato, you say potato.

3. OK, so five will do, but what if I found 657 in 2012? How would you feel about that?

 

 

 

I even found some information on the number of anti-heterosexual hate crimes in 2012.

 

4. At least your an equal opportunity grammar Nazi. Kudos.

 

No, I was referring to the other things that King stood for and the things he spoke out about, which include

 

 

 

 

You only want to embrace race along the lines of the white grievance attitude, suggesting that I couldn't find any hate crimes against whites. Another King quote fits your attitude on race in America.

 

Edit: You have consistently posted that you test you beliefs and modify them if you find they are wrong, but If you challenge me to find 5 cases of anti-white hate crimes and I find over 600 hundred how hard did you test your belief before challenging me? Not at all is what i'm going with.

 

 

 

 

 

You offer a lot of data that was NOT what I asked for. Try again.

 

But, I still ask why a life taken or assaulted by anyone against anyone, is or should be treated differently because "hate" is attributed to the "offender's" mindset at the time?

 

I've never heard of a "love murder" or "love crime" in as much as someone inflicts harm intentionally and with malice aforethought, against someone they love and care about.

Rather, hate, or other emotions or lack thereof, are irrelevant to the crime committed. With the exception of accidental or unintended actions and results. (And I think we can agree to exempt acts of love in the name of ending suffering with love as the motivation, or insanity where rational thinking or awareness of one's actions and their results leaves the offender incapable of understanding.)

 

What I object to, for any race, sex, creed, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc...., is the implication of "hate" makes the victim's life or injury more valuable in terms of criminal prosecution.

 

Black on white, or white on black. A crime against either is the same crime, or you are evoking the concept of 3/5's of a person, where lacking the "Hate" aspect values the victim somewhat less of a person relative to the victim of a "hate crime" valued more highly, i.e., 5/5's of a person, essentially.

 

 

This was a deep rabbit hole. We can move on after you have your rebuttal. I'll let it stand pat.

[Langston Hughes]

You offer a lot of data that was NOT what I asked for. Try again.

 

But, I still ask why a life taken or assaulted by anyone against anyone, is or should be treated differently because "hate" is attributed to the "offender's" mindset at the time?

 

I've never heard of a "love murder" or "love crime" in as much as someone inflicts harm intentionally and with malice aforethought, against someone they love and care about.

Rather, hate, or other emotions or lack thereof, are irrelevant to the crime committed. With the exception of accidental or unintended actions and results. (And I think we can agree to exempt acts of love in the name of ending suffering with love as the motivation, or insanity where rational thinking or awareness of one's actions and their results leaves the offender incapable of understanding.)

 

What I object to, for any race, sex, creed, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc...., is the implication of "hate" makes the victim's life or injury more valuable in terms of criminal prosecution.

 

Black on white, or white on black. A crime against either is the same crime, or you are evoking the concept of 3/5's of a person, where lacking the "Hate" aspect values the victim somewhat less of a person relative to the victim of a "hate crime" valued more highly, i.e., 5/5's of a person, essentially.

 

 

This was a deep rabbit hole. We can move on after you have your rebuttal. I'll let it stand pat.

 

Your a liar.

 

You first made the statement that hate crimes is only white on black.

 

 

3. Immigration is a particular example. And voter intimidation is another. How come only white on black crime is "hate crime"? And what does "hate" have to do with criminality? Why is the life of a black man, killed by a white, valued higher and the prosecution of the defendant given a more harsh sentence, than any other man? Isn't that contrary to MLK's dream of viewing others by the content of their character and not the color of their skin?

 

 

And since you didn't like or agree with my answer you then asked me for 5 hate crimes by blacks against whites.

 

 

3. Can you name 5 white on black hate crimes and five black on white hate crimes in the past ten years? Oh, never mind. You'll feign inability to find a case of black on white crime, while easily citing white on black crime. Suggesting it's whites that are the only one capable of attacking members of another race. And by the accepted definition, "hate crimes" are ONLY white on black, straight on gay, Tea Party members on women, ......

 

 

 

I showed that you are wrong so..

 

Edited January 6, 2014 by Langston Hughes

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

Your a liar.

 

You first made the statement that hate crimes is only white on black.

My "statement" was more a question.

 

How come only white on black crime is "hate crime"? And what does "hate" have to do with criminality?

A question. See the question mark at the end of the sentence?

 

There is a distinction you overlook to try to call me a liar.

 

I asked the question because the press and public opinion is that "hate crime" is primarily applied to "white on black" much more frequently, if not nearly exclusively, than "black on white". I have not asserted hate crime is only white on black. Only the coverage and application of the statutes. And the Justice Department is reluctant to apply the statute to "black on white". Your data did not address race #1 vs. race #2.

[Langston Hughes]

My "statement" was more a question.

 

A question. See the question mark at the end of the sentence?

 

There is a distinction you overlook to try to call me a liar.

 

I asked the question because the press and public opinion is that "hate crime" is primarily applied to "white on black" much more frequently, if not nearly exclusively, than "black on white". I have not asserted hate crime is only white on black. Only the coverage and application of the statutes. And the Justice Department is reluctant to apply the statute to "black on white". Your data did not address race #1 vs. race #2.

 

 

It's too late to walk back your views and attempt to call them public opinion. You've been caught advancing a bias here and you should stop being disingenuous about it. Face it, your advancing the typical conservatives white grievance machine.

3. Immigration is a particular example. And voter intimidation is another. How come only white on black crime is "hate crime"? And what does "hate" have to do with criminality? Why is the life of a black man, killed by a white, valued higher and the prosecution of the defendant given a more harsh sentence, than any other man? Isn't that contrary to MLK's dream of viewing others by the content of their character and not the color of their skin?

 

 

 

3. Can you name 5 white on black hate crimes and five black on white hate crimes in the past ten years? Oh, never mind. You'll feign inability to find a case of black on white crime, while easily citing white on black crime. Suggesting it's whites that are the only one capable of attacking members of another race. And by the accepted definition, "hate crimes" are ONLY white on black, straight on gay, Tea Party members on women, ......

 

 

After reposting these quotes i find there's a few things we still need to discuss.

 

1. You were wrong, I do not/did not/have not and will not suggest that it's only whites. I expect that you'll retract that.

 

2. You have some serious white grievance issues. Stop with the poor white guy routine. Not only is it intellectually dishonest, but the more and more you keep at it, the more you sound like you have some tolerance issues.

 

3. I found 600 statistical examples of Blacks being charged with hate crimes. That's more than 5. Be a man and own up that you were wrong.

 

4. Prove to me that the FBI is hesitant to charge blacks with hate crimes. Don't give me your Hard out there for a white guy ASSumptions, prove it. Preponderance of evidence not statement of belief.

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

 

It's too late to walk back your views and attempt to call them public opinion. You've been caught advancing a bias here and you should stop being disingenuous about it. Face it, your advancing the typical conservatives white grievance machine.

 

 

After reposting these quotes i find there's a few things we still need to discuss.

 

1. You were wrong, I do not/did not/have not and will not suggest that it's only whites. I expect that you'll retract that.

 

2. You have some serious white grievance issues. Stop with the poor white guy routine. Not only is it intellectually dishonest, but the more and more you keep at it, the more you sound like you have some tolerance issues.

 

3. I found 600 statistical examples of Blacks being charged with hate crimes. That's more than 5. Be a man and own up that you were wrong.

 

4. Prove to me that the FBI is hesitant to charge blacks with hate crimes. Don't give me your Hard out there for a white guy ASSumptions, prove it. Preponderance of evidence not statement of belief.

1. I wasn't charging you personally with that.

 

3. You win. Maths tell us that 600 is more than 5. But, you didn't supply the 5 cases I asked for. Only the blanket of 600 "examples of Blacks being charged with hate crimes.". Not the five black on white "hate crimes". Keep looking.

 

4. Prove to me the FBI charges blacks with "hate crimes against whites".....as I asked originally.

[BlackHorse]

 

Your a liar.

 

 

 

Still can't get that word figured out can you?

[cal50]

 

 

Still can't get that word figured out can you?

 

 

[Langston Hughes]

 

 

Still can't get that word figured out can you?

 

Psssst.... Stop obsessing.

[Langston Hughes]

 

 

[Langston Hughes]

1. I wasn't charging you personally with that.

 

3. You win. Maths tell us that 600 is more than 5. But, you didn't supply the 5 cases I asked for. Only the blanket of 600 "examples of Blacks being charged with hate crimes.". Not the five black on white "hate crimes". Keep looking.

 

4. Prove to me the FBI charges blacks with "hate crimes against whites".....as I asked originally.

 

1. Than don't ask me about what you ASSume to be true then?

 

3. You are aware that the likelihood of finding individual cases through media accounts is impossible. I don't have the type of aggregate feed for that and i'm not going to spend days looking through media to find it.

 

Instead i give you this...It should satisfy your complaint. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hc0309.pdf

 

Black offenders were responsible for 395 of all hate crimes against white victims. page 9.

 

Table 2.

Annual average for hate crime incidents and victimizations, 2003-2009

Total hate crimes 179,300

 

Table 9

Characteristics of hate crime victims, 2003-2009

White 61%

Table 10

Victims’ account of suspected hate crime motivation, by race/Hispanic origin, 2003-2009

White Race 55%

Table 13

Race and Hispanic origin of victims and race of offenders, by type of violent victimization, 2003-2009

White victim Black offender 39%

 

 

So caucasians accounted for 61% of all victims, which annual average would be 109,373 victims and they were victimized by Blacks 39% of the time, giving us a yearly average of 42,665 crimes against whites by Blacks. between 2003 and 2009.

 

Strangely enough even though Blacks have fewer incidents against them, the rate of Black victims to white offenders is higher at 57%. Hispanics find that White people commit hate crimes against them at an even higher rate of 69%.

 

Both blacks and whites have more problems with their own race in non-hate crimes.

 

So you have 42,665 reported hate crimes against Whites by by Blacks and 13,826 reported hate crimes against Blacks by Whites. Again that's a lot more than 5.

 

Now i'll expect that you'll go into some half assed rant about why don't we see it on the news and to that i offer that the news is not an accurate reflection of anything, but sensationalism. Both black on white, and white on black crime get much more coverage than similar race on race crime which is more likely to happen. Whites are victimized 73% of the time by their own race and blacks 83% of the time.

 

What's the next white grievance your going to air?

 

 

4. I don't have to disprove your radical theories. You have to prove them to us. Your the one claiming that the justice dept has a bias, so provide more than anecdotal evidence and I'll see if i can offer a viable criticism. That's what happens in peer review correct? I am your peer on this forum so give your best shot, don't just tell us your crazy theories and ask us to do the leg work. that's fucking lazy and half assed.

 

Edit: The Justice Dept only pursued 200 hate crimes in 2012 so if it's hard to say that they are biased one way or another in pursuing hate crimes, as given the raw numbers of reported crimes each year they are generally inclined to let state and local authorities handle them cases. That small of a sample is not an adequate amount to judge their eagerness or reluctance to do certain things.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Langston Hughes

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

1. Than don't ask me about what you ASSume to be true then?

 

3. You are aware that the likelihood of finding individual cases through media accounts is impossible. I don't have the type of aggregate feed for that and i'm not going to spend days looking through media to find it.

 

Instead i give you this...It should satisfy your complaint. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hc0309.pdf

 

 

So caucasians accounted for 61% of all victims, which annual average would be 109,373 victims and they were victimized by Blacks 39% of the time, giving us a yearly average of 42,665 crimes against whites by Blacks. between 2003 and 2009.

 

Strangely enough even though Blacks have fewer incidents against them, the rate of Black victims to white offenders is higher at 57%. Hispanics find that White people commit hate crimes against them at an even higher rate of 69%.

 

Both blacks and whites have more problems with their own race in non-hate crimes.

 

So you have 42,665 reported hate crimes against Whites by by Blacks and 13,826 reported hate crimes against Blacks by Whites. Again that's a lot more than 5.

 

Now i'll expect that you'll go into some half assed rant about why don't we see it on the news and to that i offer that the news is not an accurate reflection of anything, but sensationalism. Both black on white, and white on black crime get much more coverage than similar race on race crime which is more likely to happen. Whites are victimized 73% of the time by their own race and blacks 83% of the time.

 

What's the next white grievance your going to air?

 

 

4. I don't have to disprove your radical theories. You have to prove them to us. Your the one claiming that the justice dept has a bias, so provide more than anecdotal evidence and I'll see if i can offer a viable criticism. That's what happens in peer review correct? I am your peer on this forum so give your best shot, don't just tell us your crazy theories and ask us to do the leg work. that's fucking lazy and half assed.

 

Edit: The Justice Dept only pursued 200 hate crimes in 2012 so if it's hard to say that they are biased one way or another in pursuing hate crimes, as given the raw numbers of reported crimes each year they are generally inclined to let state and local authorities handle them cases. That small of a sample is not an adequate amount to judge their eagerness or reluctance to do certain things.

Thank you for responding to my question. And BTW, where's the apology from you for falsely accusing me of "lying"?

[Langston Hughes]

You did lie. No apology is going to be offered.

[FiredMotorCompany]

You did lie. No apology is going to be offered.

Now you don't like lying!

 

And you seem to think calling me a liar absolves you from your adoration of your lying King. As if I have any effect on your wellbeing and power over anyone. But the CIC is held to a lower standard than me on the interwebz, as you oft allude to.

Edited January 9, 2014 by FiredMotorCompany

[Langston Hughes]

Now you don't like lying!

 

And you seem to think calling me a liar absolves you from your adoration of your lying King. As if I have any effect on your wellbeing and power over anyone. But the CIC is held to a lower standard than me on the interwebz, as you oft allude to.

 

My support for Obama has nothing to do with the lies you tell here. That and the fact that he is not here telling lies in posts directed at me, you are. If Obama came here under a screen name and told me the same lies that you did, i would call him a liar too.

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

My support for Obama has nothing to do with the lies you tell here. That and the fact that he is not here telling lies in posts directed at me, you are. If Obama came here under a screen name and told me the same lies that you did, i would call him a liar too.

You could be him.

[Langston Hughes]

You could be him.

 

But i'm not.

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

But i'm not.

Says a liar?