TBD

[RatBastard]

The French and Polish armies had quite a few guns.  A lot of good it did them.

Guns are banned in Chicago, lots of good that is doing...

[RatBastard]

OK folks guess my opinion on this...

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/soccer-dirty-tackle/greek-midfielder-giorgos-katidis-banned-nazi-salute-goal-174344969--sow.html

haven't read the article but based on the title i feel like you would want to support him becuase you are pro-nazi salutes but won't since he is greek.

Besides if I were 'pro-nazi' I would be all in favor of a gun ban since that is EXACTLY how they were able to do what they did.  Also, what do you have against Greeks (other than their horrible food)?

Greek food is awesome.  My favorite restaurant is Black Olive in Baltimore.  Awesome greek seafood restaurant. 

I'm not so much into olives and cheese. 

[RatBastard]

So no one is willing to actually watch the video and make a reasoned and well thought out response?  Oh well, here goes.

As silly as almost all kickball (oops soccer) celebrations are anyway, I would have never even thought that what he did was a 'nazi salute' and even with the article stating that the writer or governing bodies thinking it was, I can see maybe that it resembles it.

The problem I have is the whole 'thought police' mentality.  Rarely is any law that is based upon the INTENT of the accused a valid law.  There is no way to PROVE what someone's INTENT was.

Its akin to the whole 'hate crime' thing.  The prevailing PC thought process is that just because a crime is committed upon a person of a protected class, it is by definition a 'hate crime'.  So if a person were to mug someone that is a member of one of many protected classes, they get more charges because it is automatically a hate crime.  Hell the dude may have simply been SOL and needed to feed his family.  What we need to do is stop passing all these laws that specifically protect individuals or groups.  Example e need to get rid of any law that says things like you cannot base hiring on race, gender, weight, eye color, etc and make one law that covers it all that simply says you cannot base hiring on anything that is not relevant to the job.  I am absolutely 100% sure that the point I am making will go way over the head of many but it is completely valid.


SOOOOOOOO, I don't agree with the stupid ruling banning this guy, but has nothing at all to do with nazis or other foolishness.

[James Ford]

But poor black people aren't.

The French and Polish armies had quite a few guns.  A lot of good it did them.

Guns are banned in Chicago, lots of good that is doing...

[RatBastard]

But poor black people aren't.

The French and Polish armies had quite a few guns.  A lot of good it did them.

Guns are banned in Chicago, lots of good that is doing...

Wow how racist can one person be?  Hey at least you realize it isn't the guns doing the killing!

[vansmack]

The prevailing PC thought process is that just because a crime is committed upon a person of a protected class, it is by definition a 'hate crime'.  So if a person were to mug someone that is a member of one of many protected classes, they get more charges because it is automatically a hate crime. 

This is absolutely false.

Committing a crime on a member of a protected class is not automatically a hate crime.

Committing a crime on someone because they are a member (or perceived member) of a protected class is a hate crime.

Don't confuse the two.

[chaz]

But poor black people aren't.

The French and Polish armies had quite a few guns.  A lot of good it did them.

Guns are banned in Chicago, lots of good that is doing...

Wow how racist can one person be?  Hey at least you realize it isn't the guns doing the killing!

Okay Martin Luther King.  We get your point.

[RatBastard]

The prevailing PC thought process is that just because a crime is committed upon a person of a protected class, it is by definition a 'hate crime'.  So if a person were to mug someone that is a member of one of many protected classes, they get more charges because it is automatically a hate crime. 

This is absolutely false.

Committing a crime on a member of a protected class is not automatically a hate crime.

Committing a crime on someone because they are a member (or perceived member) of a protected class is a hate crime.

Don't confuse the two.

The law still fails.

  1) There should be NO groups treated differently by being deemed protected.

  2) You are still ASSuming you know the reason the person committing a crime did so (except in the case that the individual expressly states that this is the reason).  Even in this case, any crime against ANYONE based on what 'group' of society they are a member of should be treated equally.  No group should get special or different treatment.

[azaghal1981]

The RB pwnage in here is all kinds of excellent.
Diarrhea Planet will take over the world and rightfully so but SXSW is still a big stupid corporate mess.
Papa John's is not food.
Walkies is killing it in here.
Guns do, in fact, kill people.
Starbucks is, in fact, an authenticity shop and not a coffee shop.
I have, in fact, said not-so-flattering things about Barack Obama, Al Sharpton, Chris Matthews and Ed Schulz in this thread.

See you guys in another five pages!
Or in the two or three threads I do frequent.

[grateful]

Here.

http://www.justupthepike.com/2013/03/come-get-your-wheaton-plaza-t-shirt.html

[Jaguar]

Interesting. I know a few people who could use these.

Single magic mushroom 'can change personality'

[atomicfront]

The prevailing PC thought process is that just because a crime is committed upon a person of a protected class, it is by definition a 'hate crime'.  So if a person were to mug someone that is a member of one of many protected classes, they get more charges because it is automatically a hate crime. 

This is absolutely false.

Committing a crime on a member of a protected class is not automatically a hate crime.

Committing a crime on someone because they are a member (or perceived member) of a protected class is a hate crime.

Don't confuse the two.

The law still fails.

  1) There should be NO groups treated differently by being deemed protected.

  2) You are still ASSuming you know the reason the person committing a crime did so (except in the case that the individual expressly states that this is the reason).  Even in this case, any crime against ANYONE based on what 'group' of society they are a member of should be treated equally.  No group should get special or different treatment.

What do you know??? You don't like beer, olives, or cheese.  How can anyone not like all three of these glorious foods?  It makes your opinion on other subjects irrelevant.

[Jaguar]

I love Greek food. One of my favorite cuisines. Could seriously use a nice trip to Ikarus in Greek Town which is in Baltimore. That's my favorite place. Have yet to find any other Greek restaurant that comes close, not that I've tried them all.

[RatBastard]

Guns do, in fact, kill people.

100% INNACURATE.

I have NEVER seen nor heard of any inanimate object killing anyone or anything.  PEOPLE kill people.  Your inane statement that they do is proof positive that none of what you post anywhere is to be given an iota of credibility.  Then again, it is always the liberal attitude to NEVER take responsibility for one's own actions and try to find someone or something else to blame for everything up to and including your total failure in life thus leading to your concept that other people who made better choices in life should be forced to pay your way.

[RatBastard]

The prevailing PC thought process is that just because a crime is committed upon a person of a protected class, it is by definition a 'hate crime'.  So if a person were to mug someone that is a member of one of many protected classes, they get more charges because it is automatically a hate crime. 

This is absolutely false.

Committing a crime on a member of a protected class is not automatically a hate crime.

Committing a crime on someone because they are a member (or perceived member) of a protected class is a hate crime.

Don't confuse the two.

The law still fails.

  1) There should be NO groups treated differently by being deemed protected.

  2) You are still ASSuming you know the reason the person committing a crime did so (except in the case that the individual expressly states that this is the reason).  Even in this case, any crime against ANYONE based on what 'group' of society they are a member of should be treated equally.  No group should get special or different treatment.

What do you know??? You don't like beer, olives, or cheese.  How can anyone not like all three of these glorious foods?  It makes your opinion on other subjects irrelevant.

Oh I LOVE alcohol, unfortunately it does not love me.  Just because I do not drink (any more) does not mean I don't like it.