zoo22 said:
Law does, and must assign definition to words
Frank Ernest - response said:
The meanings of those words must be taken from the time they were written, not some current shift in meaning.
Well, the word Terrorism actually was first used in regards to a ruling government against their own civilians: "System or rule of terror." Obviously it's changed. I don't know when. I have no problem with the government giving a specific definition of the word and of the way we understand it related to our world. As I've said, I think it's an extremely blurry word, and given current events, I think it warrants a clear definition as it pertains to the US.
Frank Ernest said:
Government does what government does. Necessity has nothing to do with it.
I agree, sometimes Government does sometime find ways to do what it wants to do. When that occurs without the consent of the people, it's wrong. Necessity DOES have everything to do with it. If you don't believe that it was necessary that the government define what the US considers terrorism in the wake of 911, I disagree.
Before cars, there was likely litle need for jaywalking laws. I don't know if they existed, or when they first came into being. I don't really care. (though now I'm kind anterested). I don't think that most people think too much about them, and in a lot of instances, they seem kind of stupid and self-evident. But I'm sure that most people would agree that they're there for a reason. And I have no doubt that the legislation didn't exist until the reason arose, through a specific incident. At that point (maybe when a guy named Jay walked out into a street and caused an accident ;-) ), it became necessary that a definition be put into place in law.
Zoo22 said:
This has turned ugly. No, I would not agree. And I want to make certain that you are not implying in any way that liberals are terrorists, or that they are not anti-terrorist. Because that is what your post seems to be saying. I don't take that lightly. There are both right-wing and left-wing terrorists. In my eyes they are equally despicable.
Frank Ernest - response said:
There's no "seem" about it. Lie-berals are terrorists.
Well, glad you were clear about it. Like I said, I don't take that lightly. You essentially just called me a terrorist, which is not true. Yours is a frightening, extremely dangerous train, without respect towards freedom of speech or thought. It's an insult to me and to much of what America is founded upon. I am not a terrorist, liberals are not terrorists, and I resent the statement. I won't go any further with this part of the discussion, except to say that it is the blind intolerance and hatred your statement expresses that leads to both separatism, and totalitarianism. Perhaps this is what you want. I don't know.
Frank Ernest said:
:cow: The law gives privilege to the mentioned groups and legislates against the not-mentioned groups.
The US Constitution gives clarification to specific groups to form our basis of rights, freedom and equality. It does not, however, favor one group over another through that clarification. Legislation aimed at intimidation targeting an entire, specific group via crime does not legislate against any specific group and does not favor any specific group (even if the intimidating crime was committed in the name of another specific group).
A man of Irish origin kills a man of German origin solely based on the fact that he is of German origin with the intent to instill fear and/or intimidate other people of German origin. The legislation does not favor German origin over Irish origin in any way. Hate crime legislation does not give privilege to one group over another. As our Consitution does not, even though there is clarification of specific groups in our Consitution.
Frank Ernest said:
Try suing a black employer for not hiring enough whites and you'll get the picture.
"Hate crime" legislation has nothing to do with hiring issues. That's a different issue, which is better suited for a different thread. At least bother to understand what we're talking about.
