What was funny about it?1920. 100 years ago.
What was funny about it?1920. 100 years ago.
Does any piece of US law make actions like that legal?The Tulsa City Race Riots of 1921 say hi.
Also the ethnic cleansing campaign, known as Red Summer of 1919 also say hello.
This part is of relevance -Does any piece of US law make actions like that legal?
That you used that example vs the LA race riots, which happened in 1991, which had numerous incidence of what would be classified as "lynching" according to that bill.What was funny about it?
At 6:46 p.m.,[42] Reginald Denny, a white truck driver who stopped at a traffic light at the intersection of Florence and Normandie, was dragged from his semi-trailer truck and severely beaten by a mob of local black residents. The LANS news helicopter piloted by reporter Tur broadcast live footage of the attack. Damian Williams threw a brick at Denny that struck him in the skull, fracturing it in 91 places.[36]
Better not let Lemoenkop near, he'll grab that p... cat.
It is already a crime.This part is of relevance -
(15) To heal past and present racial injustice, Congress must make lynching a Federal crime so our Nation can begin reconciliation.
To the history of lynchings in the early 20th century.
That you used that example vs the LA race riots, which happened in 1991, which had numerous incidence of what would be classified as "lynching" according to that bill.
Funny how the legal system was able to punish the people who did this without the act of congress....![]()
![]()
Just how weak your argument is. Referencing a event that happened 100 years ago to try and justify some junk SJW legislation today.What was funny about it?
Just how weak your argument is. Referencing a event that happened 100 years ago to try and justify some junk SJW legislation today.
We all agree that murder is wrong and already illegal. There's no need to virtue signal that you are against racist lynchings.
I don't think anything Bloomberg has said or does is actually bad. It just plays badly from a Democrat's point of view and thus seems hypocritical.
The bill is symbolic, meant to promote reconcilliation.
TIL that Republicans are SJW's.Just how weak your argument is. Referencing a event that happened 100 years ago to try and justify some junk SJW legislation today.
We all agree that murder is wrong and already illegal. There's no need to virtue signal that you are against racist lynchings.
Quite an interesting view where you want to deflect from the events that forced removal of thousands of black people from their homes and the thousands of lynchings of black people, with a comparison of an assault on one person? Why is that?That you used that example vs the LA race riots, which happened in 1991, which had numerous incidence of what would be classified as "lynching" according to that bill.
Funny how the legal system was able to punish the people who did this without the act of congress....![]()
![]()
No you flippen don't. You literally said that lynching has its place and should not be illegal.We all agree that murder is wrong and already illegal. There's no need to virtue signal that you are against racist lynchings.
Is lynching, in the context as defined with this amendment, a hate crime or not?And it is symbolic of government in wanting a piece of virtue signalling legislation that will do nothing.
Good for the gander, good for the Rietrot
we also don't just lynch innocent people