Post: #1

Quote:The Senate has cleared a bill aimed at bolstering the Department of Education's ability to investigate anti-Semitic attacks on college campuses.
The proposal, known as the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, passed the upper chamber by unanimous consent two days after it was introduced. It codifies what qualifies as anti-Semitism, using a definition adopted by the State Department.


“This legislation will help the Department of Education investigate incidents of discrimination motivated by anti-Semitism in our schools," Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) said in a statement.

The legislation is backed by Casey, as well as Sens. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.). It still needs to be passed by the House before it can be sent to President Obama's desk.

According to the legislation, when the Department of Education is trying to determine if a crime violates the Civil Rights Act it should "take into consideration the definition of anti-Semitism as part of the Department's assessment."

Scott called the legislation an "important clarification" to help the Department of Education.

"[It] will provide the necessary direction to assist officials and administrators to understand when anti-Semitic activities are occurring, by clarifying exactly what anti-Semitic is," the South Carolina senator added.

The State Department defines anti-Semitism as a "certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The bill has gotten some pushback over concerns that it's unconstitutional, but both Casey and Scott stressed that the legislation isn't meant to infringe upon First Amendment rights.

According to the 2015 FBI crimes report, nearly 53 percent of religiously motivated hate crimes were due to anti-Jewish beliefs.

Post: #2

If it's only in the context of a crime then it isn't any stupider than currently existing concept of hate crimes. Right now the hate crime label gets slapped on every time a white guy punches a black guy in the face, but a muzzie can run around setting synagogues on fire and pissing in yarmulkes and the government will studiously ignore any sort of cultural context.

That said, the fact that hate crimes are only applied in whichever direction is politically correct still makes the concept of hate crime fundamentally unjust.

Post: #3

(12-04-2016 04:13 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  If it's only in the context of a crime then it isn't any stupider than currently existing concept of hate crimes. Right now the hate crime label gets slapped on every time a white guy punches a black guy in the face, but a muzzie can run around setting synagogues on fire and pissing in yarmulkes and the government will studiously ignore any sort of cultural context.

That said, the fact that hate crimes are only applied in whichever direction is politically correct still makes the concept of hate crime fundamentally unjust.

The concept of "hate" crime is unjust to begin with. A crime isn't better or worse because of the motivation or emotions of the person who commits it, and people who try to sell this idea don't really believe in the notion of equally-applied law and order to begin with.

Attempts to erode the law of the land, whether by passing laws that run against the spirit of its constitution, or by criminalising large swathes of the population while being nebulous enough to require selective enforcement, actually accumulate to place a chronic stress on the foundation of a free society. One egregious law properly enforced provides information to the population that can eventually lead to its repeal (acute stress). A thousand unjust, but less obtrusive, laws passed every year will choke the life out of a country (chronic stress).

Laws like this are only slightly less alarming than Supreme Court Justices using their powers to legislate from the bench (and, to be intellectually honest, that goes doubly when you agree with the law they allow, or disagree with the one they strike down). Liberty, separation of powers and equal protection under the law are the best defence against tyranny, and every attempt to erode them should be bitterly resisted.

Post: #4

Ridiculous clickbait title, right down to the question mark at the end. Embarrassing fearmongering. No context, and zero information.

2/10 Would Not Read.

In case anyone is interested, what this bill does is very complicated, and after reading several articles on it I'm still not 100% sure. As near as I can tell, there are laws/regulations banning "anti-semetic hate crimes" on campus already, but the Department of Education hasn't issued a definition for "anti-semitic". So now they're using this one, “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

That's the entirety of it, as much as I can figure. Colleges were already free to define "anti-semitism" in whatever way they wanted to when determining if something was a hate crime, and now they will use this (enormously expansive) definition instead. Nothing has changed in the slightest. This is a do-nothing bill passed by someone who wants to suck up to the Israeli lobby. It is the farthest thing in the world from "banning criticism of Jews."

If you want to have a discussion of the status of hate crime statutes on America's campuses, or their potential for abuse, fine. That's a good subject to talk about. But this kind of ridiculous fear mongering just makes us all look like idiots.

This isn't the fucking Daily Stormer. We don't look for wicked Jewish conspiracies under every bush. Let's try and keep it that way.

Post: #5

I dunno what it is but I'm starting to think nomadbrah may not like jooz that much.

Post: #6

(12-04-2016 06:39 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  Ridiculous clickbait title, right down to the question mark at the end. Embarrassing fearmongering. No context, and zero information.

2/10 Would Not Read.

In case anyone is interested, what this bill does is very complicated, and after reading several articles on it I'm still not 100% sure. As near as I can tell, there are laws/regulations banning "anti-semetic hate crimes" on campus already, but the Department of Education hasn't issued a definition for "anti-semitic". So now they're using this one, “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

That's the entirety of it, as much as I can figure. Colleges were already free to define "anti-semitism" in whatever way they wanted to when determining if something was a hate crime, and now they will use this (enormously expansive) definition instead. Nothing has changed in the slightest. This is a do-nothing bill passed by someone who wants to suck up to the Israeli lobby. It is the farthest thing in the world from "banning criticism of Jews."

If you want to have a discussion of the status of hate crime statutes on America's campuses, or their potential for abuse, fine. That's a good subject to talk about. But this kind of ridiculous fear mongering just makes us all look like idiots.

This isn't the fucking Daily Stormer. We don't look for wicked Jewish conspiracies under every bush. Let's try and keep it that way.

Concede the point about clickbait headline.

There is a good debate here though about restriction of free speech. This sounds very much like German laws on the same subject. "Hatred" is going to be what exactly?

http://reason.com/blog/2016/12/01/propos...ess-act-is

Quote:Unfortunately, the bill also proposes the following as examples of hate crimes:

Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust
Demonizing Israel by blaming it for all inter-religious or political tensions
Judge Israel by a double standard that one would not apply to any other democratic nation

This seems like a big deal to me. This is the German law making it illegal to question the Holocaust.

Post: #7

Nomad, please include links in OP.

I found this: https://www.casey.senate.gov/newsroom/re...reness-act

Quote:The State Department’s definition, shared by the European Union, states, “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Examples include, among other things:

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust
Demonizing Israel by blaming it for all inter-religious or political tensions
Judge Israel by a double standard that one would not apply to any other democratic nation
This act is not meant to infringe on any individual right protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act is supported by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish Federations of North America, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

This is complete infringement of First Amendment rights. Thank god Trump was elected, the Supreme Court is going to throw this trash right out ASAP.

Classic example of Talmudic manipulation and control of powerful institutions. I love how people say Talmudic Jews aren't a big deal. They are the financial and intellectual leaders of the Left. They are the only people in America who believe they can put themselves out of reach of criticism. They hate Free Speech and create bogus ideas like Hate Speech.

These people are extremely dangerous and will kill America if not checked.

Remember, Jews make up 10% of the US Senate despite being only ~2% of the population: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...ng114.html

100% Left-Wing Democrats and the Communist Bernie:

Senate

Quote:(9 Democrats, 1 Independent)

Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Benjamin Cardin (D-MD)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Bernard Sanders (I-VT)
Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)

This means Jews control 20% of the Democrat party in the Senate. They have ten times over-representation relative to their population in the Democrat party within the most powerful law making institution of America.

Post: #8

(12-04-2016 07:34 PM)Rhyme or Reason Wrote:  I dunno what it is but I'm starting to think nomadbrah may not like jooz that much.

If you're not willing to criticize Talmudic Jews, you may as well as spread your asscheeks for the refugees and give your virgin daughters over to the hordes.

Post: #9

I don't understand these laws, so would it be like, if the guy in the video below exchanged the word 'White' for 'Jewish' he'd be accused of Hate Speech and lose his job as a professor at Massachusetts College of Art? Is that what it would be like? His name is Noel Ignatiev and he's the son of jewish immigrants from Russia. So I guess the law must mean for jewish criticism only, I must be dumb because I don't understand why there'd be Hate Speech laws for the Jewish, but not for what this guy is saying here against Whites? Obviously I'm missing something.

Post: #10

(12-04-2016 10:15 PM)Samseau Wrote:  If you're not willing to criticize Talmudic Jews, you may as well as spread your asscheeks for the refugees and give your virgin daughters over to the hordes.

Not even remotely true.

The refugees flow to the US is stopping soon. Is it because we "criticized Talmudic Jews"? No. It stopped because we built a broad-based coalition that included lots of influential Jews. If Trump had gone up on the podium and started ranting about "Talmudic Jews" we would be looking at Hillary Clinton Presidency and a Republican party with 20 seats in the senate.

I get that a Jew bullied you and shoved a dreidel up your butt when you were in third grade or something. But turning them into a generic boogeyman, possessed of frightening powers and unfathomably wicked intentions, just serves to marginalize you and the people associated with you.

Post: #11

Most of American's are Christians.

Why then, has America's media ignored the ethnic cleansing of Christians in the Middle East and North Africa over the last 8 years then?

Ok, so the Media isn't Christian, it's predominately Jewish.

So, Jew's don't care about Ethnic cleansing of Christians, but do care about being able to bring the perpetrators of the ethnic cleansing to America. (Less than 1% of Syrian refugees to the US are the persecuted Syrian Christians.

I'm sorry, there are lots of great Jewish people, but their collective actions recently have left a lot of Western Christians with a great deal of legitimate grievances.

Acting like these grievances are imagined....it's not going to help your cause of supporting Jews.

Jew's have to be held accountable when they are shitty people just like the rest of us are.

Post: #12

(12-04-2016 10:41 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 10:15 PM)Samseau Wrote:  If you're not willing to criticize Talmudic Jews, you may as well as spread your asscheeks for the refugees and give your virgin daughters over to the hordes.

Not even remotely true.

The refugees flow to the US is stopping soon. Is it because we "criticized Talmudic Jews"? No. It stopped because we built a broad-based coalition that included lots of influential Jews. If Trump had gone up on the podium and started ranting about "Talmudic Jews" we would be looking at Hillary Clinton Presidency and a Republican party with 20 seats in the senate.

Right, this is like saying we shouldn't criticize women or else Trump wouldn't have won.

Rhetoric is not reason. What politicians say in public is different than our strategies to defeat them in private. We know American women are irrational, uninformed voters, and have not been raised properly to be good mothers anymore. You don't need to say that on the campaign trail. Return of Kings helped Trump win the election. Trump never read a single RoK article on the trail.

Quote:I get that a Jew bullied you and shoved a dreidel up your butt when you were in third grade or something. But turning them into a generic boogeyman, possessed of frightening powers and unfathomably wicked intentions, just serves to marginalize you and the people associated with you.

You're suffering from cognitive dissonance and need to attack me in order to maintain your illusion about the harmlessness of Talmudic Jews. It's cool, you'll snap out of it soon

Post: #13

(12-04-2016 11:15 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Right, this is like saying we shouldn't criticize women or else Trump wouldn't have won.

Rhetoric is not reason. What politicians say in public is different than our strategies to defeat them in private. We know American women are irrational, uninformed voters, and have not been raised properly to be good mothers anymore. You don't need to say that on the campaign trail. Return of Kings helped Trump win the election. Trump never read a single RoK article on the trail.

It has nothing to do with the "rhetoric"/"dialectic" distinction that you picked up from Vox. Your argument was that without the desire to root out the wicked "Talmudic Jew", we were doomed to be overrun with refugees. I pointed out that this isn't accurate. The refugee crisis is coming to an end in the states, and the anti-Jewish factions in the states played very little part in it.

Take Richard Spencer and NPI, for example, some of the more prominent writers in the US who discuss what they call "The Jewish Question". Their biggest contribution to getting Trump elected was holding their conference after November 8th. If they'd pulled that luggenpresse/Seig Heil BS in the weeks leading up to the election, he would've lost.

Quote:You're suffering from cognitive dissonance and need to attack me in order to maintain your illusion about the harmlessness of Talmudic Jews. It's cool, you'll snap out of it soon

Since we're stealing ideas from other, more prominent thinkers, here's one for you. "Not an argument."

Post: #14

(12-04-2016 10:10 PM)Samseau Wrote:  This is complete infringement of First Amendment rights. Thank god Trump was elected, the Supreme Court is going to throw this trash right out ASAP.

Classic example of Talmudic manipulation and control of powerful institutions. I love how people say Talmudic Jews aren't a big deal. They are the financial and intellectual leaders of the Left. They are the only people in America who believe they can put themselves out of reach of criticism. They hate Free Speech and create bogus ideas like Hate Speech.

These people are extremely dangerous and will kill America if not checked.

Agree, it's a horrible infringement on free speech. I don't know if Trump's SCOTUS appointments are necessarily going to go against that, we tend to think he's going to do the right thing, but it's not a given.

Quote:Remember, Jews make up 10% of the US Senate despite being only ~2% of the population: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...ng114.html

100% Left-Wing Democrats and the Communist Bernie:

Senate
(9 Democrats, 1 Independent)

Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Benjamin Cardin (D-MD)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Bernard Sanders (I-VT)
Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Zionists have both sides of the isle well covered. Neocons and cucks galore in the Rep. ranks. Murdoch, Koch Bros., Adelson, Asper etc.

Post: #15

delete

Post: #16

(12-04-2016 11:52 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 11:15 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Right, this is like saying we shouldn't criticize women or else Trump wouldn't have won.

Rhetoric is not reason. What politicians say in public is different than our strategies to defeat them in private. We know American women are irrational, uninformed voters, and have not been raised properly to be good mothers anymore. You don't need to say that on the campaign trail. Return of Kings helped Trump win the election. Trump never read a single RoK article on the trail.

It has nothing to do with the "rhetoric"/"dialectic" distinction that you picked up from Vox.

Naw man, this comes from Aristotle. I barely read Vox Day although he seems like he's mostly got his thoughts together.

Quote:Your argument was that without the desire to root out the wicked "Talmudic Jew", we were doomed to be overrun with refugees. I pointed out that this isn't accurate. The refugee crisis is coming to an end in the states, and the anti-Jewish factions in the states played very little part in it.

Only coming to end with Trump, for the time being. It's not like the Left has changed their minds about anything.

The urban Left Talmudic Jews are hilarious, totally fucked in the head, and yet extremely powerful at the same time. Do not underestimate the dedication of these people.

The refugee crisis will resume as soon as Trump is out of power.

Quote:Take Richard Spencer and NPI, for example, some of the more prominent writers in the US who discuss what they call "The Jewish Question". Their biggest contribution to getting Trump elected was holding their conference after November 8th. If they'd pulled that luggenpresse/Seig Heil BS in the weeks leading up to the election, he would've lost.

You seriously think these are the only guys to offer any criticism of Talmudism? They can't even distinguish between Talmudic vs. merely racially Jewish.

American criticism of Jews go way back, at least to Henry Ford, but more recently with the John Birch Society. My personal take is more nuanced than any previous thinkers than I've read so far. A lot of my thoughts were inspired by http://www.heretical.com/. They blame race and fail to see the culture aspect of Talmudism.

That said, while you are correct that the Right has managed to win without dealing with the JQ directly, it's also because they never directly address the topic that it continues to fester and the Left comes back stronger and stronger.

Quote:

Quote:You're suffering from cognitive dissonance and need to attack me in order to maintain your illusion about the harmlessness of Talmudic Jews. It's cool, you'll snap out of it soon

Since we're stealing ideas from other, more prominent thinkers, here's one for you. "Not an argument."

Wasn't providing an argument; but the context.

Post: #17

It establishes Jews (even more) as a protected group.
Also, it's intentionally designed to be complicated and to seem as if it will rarely be invoked. Many laws are designed like this, so that they inhibit certain behaviors rather than be called upon to be actually used in a court of law. Another law to be filed away for a rainy day and used selectively against an evil white man being made an example of.

Post: #18

It is pandering to the Israel lobby. Jew Glenn Greenwald explains it for you:

It also does not have any real effect, does not make anything "illegal" or a "crime." Just pandering from Congress, like when they passed a resolution to say the Ottoman Empire's actions with Armenians were "genocide."

The legal texts here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-cong...ll/10/text
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/fs/2010/122352.htm

Aside from that, the Jew hunting is having a bad effect on the forum. The OP said before he is "obsessed with Jews."

I know some high-repped Jewish members have disappeared since I joined. I don't know if they got sick of it, just drifted away to other things, got too busy, or went up Nomadbrah's or Samseau's chimney.

Used to be the forum was about men of all kinds together working to improve themselves, game, travel, and fat shame women.

I have an aversion to bullshit, so I comment about it.

/thread-59357-page-3.html

Also, the oceanfront apartment in Miami Beach or Tel Aviv the Elders of Zion are going to give me.

Post: #19

(12-04-2016 10:15 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 07:34 PM)Rhyme or Reason Wrote:  I dunno what it is but I'm starting to think nomadbrah may not like jooz that much.

If you're not willing to criticize Talmudic Jews, you may as well as spread your asscheeks for the refugees and give your virgin daughters over to the hordes.

Ok... but I'd like to see what percentage of his posts are anti-jooz posts. I'm guessing about 70%.

There's more to life than hating jews, nomsayin?

Post: #20

While this thread seems to be a continuation of the way this thread ( /thread-59357-page-6.html ) seemed to end, at least it's more on-topic to the OP.

For now.

Post: #21

(12-05-2016 05:25 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Ok... but I'd like to see what percentage of his posts are anti-jooz posts. I'm guessing about 70%.

There's more to life than hating jews, nomsayin?

Agreed. I spent a good deal of time reading up on the JQ (being half-Jewish myself) and researching everything there is to know about it. At some point, I had to question if it was self-hate that was driving it or just plain curiosity. I got the main gist of it and by now I can say I am done with this topic (though I'll still pop up to offer my 2 cents occasionally ). I think the reason it comes up on the forum so much is A) this is a US-based forum and B) the US happens to be the epicenter of Jewish power and influence. Their organized efforts have major repercussions here.

Nomad, my advice is try to branch out to other topics. You seem like a bright dude. Overly obsessing on the JQ may lead you down a dark hole...

Post: #22

(12-05-2016 08:02 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 05:25 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Ok... but I'd like to see what percentage of his posts are anti-jooz posts. I'm guessing about 70%.

There's more to life than hating jews, nomsayin?

Agreed. I spent a good deal of time reading up on the JQ (being half-Jewish myself) and researching everything there is to know about it. At some point, I had to question if it was self-hate that was driving it or just plain curiosity. I got the main gist of it and by now I can say I am done with this topic (though I'll still pop up to offer my 2 cents occasionally ). I think the reason it comes up on the forum so much is A) this is a US-based forum and B) the US happens to be the epicenter of Jewish power and influence. Their organized efforts have major repercussions here.

Nomad, my advice is try to branch out to other topics. You seem like a bright dude. Overly obsessing on the JQ may lead you down a dark hole...

I'm not deliberately trying to be a single issue poster, but I can see it comes across like that at the moment. My goal has not been to create hate, but to make everyone aware, that's it. Simple awareness of the real political influences of this group. Not so we can re-enact WW2, but so that we can act with full knowledge on an informed basis.

In any case, there's been some automation posting from my side recently, which is due to having a lot of stuff going on at the moment, so I stick to well known talking points where I can 'contribute'. I hear the judgement of the people though, so might be time for a break and come back with fresh energy.

Post: #23

Roosh mentioned this book in his blog:

A culture of critique - an evolutionary analysis of Jewish involvement in twentieth century intellectual and political movements.

I am going to begin reading it soon. Of course, as you grow older and wiser, you begin to question why the world is what it is, although I think this topic will take a lot of reading to begin to comprehend better.

Jewish dominance over the rest is surreptitious and with a tightly controlled mass media, one can hardly even come across places to have a rational discussion about this.
Leaving aside the various legislative responses to anti-Semitism or hate speech/crime, there is no doubt that a special set of rules in various facets of life, seems to apply to people who are identified as Jewish. Of course a starting point to understanding the so-called 'Jewish question' is pondering what machinations a group of people who are in the minority everywhere, yet wield extraordinary monetary and political power, would rely on to entrench their position, whilst still being careful to never be widely acknowledged as the dominant group in a society? What type of relationship would this group have with White natives in the Western world, let alone other races?

Post: #24

(12-05-2016 05:19 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  It is pandering to the Israel lobby.

This is not pandering, this is complete domination from a group that is 2% of the population. Your cognitive dissonance on this question is showing again.

Quote: Jew Glenn Greenwald explains it for you:

It also does not have any real effect, does not make anything "illegal" or a "crime." Just pandering from Congress, like when they passed a resolution to say the Ottoman Empire's actions with Armenians were "genocide."

And why wouldn't it get passed in the House before Obama signs it? It will be law very soon.

Also, comparing the "hate crimes" of Swastikas being painted on Synagogues (which are almost certainly false flag attacks since they are in overwhelmingly blue states) to the actual genocide of Armenians which murdered millions, is one of the most laughable (and disgusting) things you've said on this topic so far. Talk about a false equivalency: this is hardcore hamsterization.

Quote:Aside from that, the Jew hunting is having a bad effect on the forum. The OP said before he is "obsessed with Jews."

I can't speak for OP, but the sanctimony here has much worse effect on the forum than any amount of "Jew hunting" (i.e. fair criticism of Talmudic Jews).

If someone can provide a legitimate source, and a logical argument, then it should not be above criticism.

Your irrational defense of Jews continues despite the beat down I'm giving you in my Future of America thread. The beatings will continue until rationality improves

Quote:I know some high-repped Jewish members have disappeared since I joined. I don't know if they got sick of it, just drifted away to other things, got too busy, or went up Nomadbrah's or Samseau's chimney.

Of course, you also completely fail to mention the Jews who come out to affirm what I've said:

/thread-59357...pid1450400

Selective choosing of evidence is also cognitive dissonance.

Quote:Used to be the forum was about men of all kinds together working to improve themselves, game, travel, and fat shame women.

So why can we criticize women but not Talmudic Jews?


As for NomadBrah:

I certainly don't spend more than 10% of my time on the JQ. While it is a very important topic, you should still be spending 50% of your time on Health, Wealth, and Women. The next 30% on intellectual pursuits (because one cannot know what to do unless they are informed, and this includes the JQ), and 20% on God and Neighbor (both the JQ and politics are included in this: our Neighbors are affected most by politics).

I have to say I would prefer to spend much less time on the Talmuds, but it's amazing at all of the brainwashed sheep that come out of the woodwork whenever you include even the slightest criticism of Talmuds. Combating the sheep is what takes up the most time, actual learning of the Talmuds can be done less than 3% of a man's time.

Other than not posting a link in the OP, I thank NomadBrah for posting this thread and bringing attention to the fact that Talmudic Jews are trying to bring a crackdown on free speech.

Post: #25

(12-04-2016 06:07 PM)Ocelot Wrote:  ...
The concept of "hate" crime is unjust to begin with. A crime isn't better or worse because of the motivation or emotions of the person who commits it, and people who try to sell this idea don't really believe in the notion of equally-applied law and order to begin with.
...

I agree on your principle with a detail revision. We do change verdicts and sentencing based on pre-meditation or not, or whether a person is crazy, etc. Motivation and intention does matter.

The problem is using race as a proxy for motivation and intention. Hate crimes aren't based on motivation and intention, they're specifically based on race (or sexual preference?).