CNN: Questions As To Whether Jussie Smollett Faked Attack (1 Viewer)

[Nugget]

Still waiting for them to pass the anti-gravity legislation too.  

Wouldn't anti-lynching fall under the numerous murder laws we have on the books?

This would make lynching a federal crime.  

The Senate passed the bill in Dec. 2018 - No senators voted against it..  The House passed an almost identical bill in Feb 2020 - they changed the title and the resolution number.  It passed 410-4.  

 

[BladeRunner]

This would make lynching a federal crime.  

The Senate passed the bill in Dec. 2018 - No senators voted against it..  The House passed an almost identical bill in Feb 2020 - they changed the title and the resolution number.  It passed 410-4.  

Again, this would fall under all of the murder laws IN EVERY SINGLE STATE that are already on the books.  Why do we need a special law for it when we already got it covered again?

That's akin to passing a law for jaywalking and then passing another law for jaywalking after dark. 

 

[Sparky Big Time]

Again, this would fall under all of the murder laws IN EVERY SINGLE STATE that are already on the books.  Why do we need a special law for it when we already got it covered again?

That's akin to passing a law for jaywalking and then passing another law for jaywalking after dark. 

It's purely posturing.  While it does little to help us as a society the pretense of it is useful as political capital.

 

[Nugget]

Again, this would fall under all of the murder laws IN EVERY SINGLE STATE that are already on the books.  Why do we need a special law for it when we already got it covered again?

That's akin to passing a law for jaywalking and then passing another law for jaywalking after dark. 

There is a history of states refusing to prosecute lynching crimes.  They have tried to pass anti-lynching bills a couple times in the past - 240 tries

But thanks for comparing it to an anti-gravity bill or jaywalking.  

 

[Joe Bryant]

Hope you guys will forgive me! 

Of course. And I apologize for asking here on what you'd written previously. I should have PM'd you to ask. 

 

[BladeRunner]

There is a history of states refusing to prosecute lynching crimes.  They have tried to pass anti-lynching bills a couple times in the past - 240 tries

But thanks for comparing it to an anti-gravity bill or jaywalking.  

Yeah, because anti-lynching is already covered under murder.  WTH? 

My analogy about jaywalking stands and is apt.  There is no need to waste time on virtue signaling.

 

[crackattack]

Yeah, because anti-lynching is already covered under murder.  WTH? 

My analogy about jaywalking stands and is apt.  There is no need to waste time on virtue signaling.

I would think hate crimes would cover it too. Seems odd to add legislation that's covered multiple ways. It's posturing. Anyone who would dare vote against it would be labeled racist. That's all it is.

 

[BladeRunner]

I would think hate crimes would cover it too. Seems odd to add legislation that's covered multiple ways. It's posturing. Anyone who would dare vote against it would be labeled racist. That's all it is.

Ahhhh.....of course.  It's used as a "opposing opinion" conversation stopper.  Should have realized that to begin with. 

 

[Nugget]

I would think hate crimes would cover it too. Seems odd to add legislation that's covered multiple ways. It's posturing. Anyone who would dare vote against it would be labeled racist. That's all it is.

Not all states have hate crime legislation.  And many are updating them.  Georgia passed theirs in 2020 after the Ahmaud Arbery murder.  Texas had no hate crime laws before 2001 and was spurred to action by the James Byrd death.  Wyoming doesn't have hate crime laws, even after Matthew Sheppard was brutally murdered.

This shouldn't be a decisive issue.  The Republican controlled Senate passed it in 2018 and sent it to the Republican controlled house, with a Republican president.  It was written by Tim Scott and Cory Booker.  

I think Jessie Smollett did a disservice to our country and now more people will question real victims.  But I don't think his deception would be reason to back down on anti-lynching legislation.

 

[timschochet]

Of course. And I apologize for asking here on what you'd written previously. I should have PM'd you to ask. 

I appreciate that, but nah. It’s perfectly appropriate to question somebody’s contradictory posts. 

 

[crackattack]

Not all states have hate crime legislation.  And many are updating them.  Georgia passed theirs in 2020 after the Ahmaud Arbery murder.  Texas had no hate crime laws before 2001 and was spurred to action by the James Byrd death.  Wyoming doesn't have hate crime laws, even after Matthew Sheppard was brutally murdered.

This shouldn't be a decisive issue.  The Republican controlled Senate passed it in 2018 and sent it to the Republican controlled house, with a Republican president.  It was written by Tim Scott and Cory Booker.  

I think Jessie Smollett did a disservice to our country and now more people will question real victims.  But I don't think his deception would be reason to back down on anti-lynching legislation.

Then they should pass it. I'm not against it, but it seems redundant to me

 

[John123]

Not all states have hate crime legislation.  And many are updating them.  Georgia passed theirs in 2020 after the Ahmaud Arbery murder.  Texas had no hate crime laws before 2001 and was spurred to action by the James Byrd death.  Wyoming doesn't have hate crime laws, even after Matthew Sheppard was brutally murdered.

This shouldn't be a decisive issue.  The Republican controlled Senate passed it in 2018 and sent it to the Republican controlled house, with a Republican president.  It was written by Tim Scott and Cory Booker.  

I think Jessie Smollett did a disservice to our country and now more people will question real victims.  But I don't think his deception would be reason to back down on anti-lynching legislation.

I don't know about decisive (do you mean divisive?) but there's no reason for such a law:

1)  Lynching isn't a problem in this country.

2)  Murder is illegal, regardless of method.  So, on the off chance someone goes to all the trouble of lynching someone instead of just shooting them dead, that person would still be prosecuted under existing law.

3)  Just the idea of lynching has racial overtones.  We should be focused on an inclusive society, not one where we constantly bring up things that haven't happened in 50-100 years that are perceived to be based on race.

 

[supermike80]

This would make lynching a federal crime.  

The Senate passed the bill in Dec. 2018 - No senators voted against it..  The House passed an almost identical bill in Feb 2020 - they changed the title and the resolution number.  It passed 410-4.  

Dumb.   State Murder crimes cover this.  This is pandering.  Plain and simple.

 

[crackattack]

Dumb.   State Murder crimes cover this.  This is pandering.  Plain and simple.

Yep

 

[John123]

We need to pass a law making it illegal to hit a woman over the head with a club and drag her by the hair back to our mancaves!!!! 

 

[BladeRunner]

We need to pass a law making it illegal to hit a woman over the head with a club and drag her by the hair back to our mancaves!!!! 

Wait...are you saying we DON'T already have one?  WTH?  How will we ever prosecute or convict people who do this crime?

 

[timschochet]

Sometimes the differences between the two sides is so silly. There’s not a single conservative who has posted here who thinks lynching is OK. Their argument is that it’s already covered and this is just a form of pandering. I don’t know if that argument is 90% accurate or 100% accurate or not at all accurate- there seems to be some disagreement about that. But the point is that we all have the same intent, which is good intent, on this issue. And the distinctions between us are so minor- they usually come down to which side appears to win. Seems so asinine to me. 

 

[quick-hands]

I don’t know why I wrote that. It wasn’t a deliberate falsehood but I may have misremembered then, or I’m misremembering now. My memory now tells me that I didn’t hear about this story until it was reported that he might be lying. But maybe that’s wrong. 
 

Mea culpa. Now everybody here will have good reason to think I’m a liar. Hope you guys will forgive me! 

Do you want to be forgiven?

 

[identikit]

I find it interesting that a person who has opinions and opinions about nearly everything (past and present)  has amnesia about a news story that was on virtually every media platform.

Disingenuous, seems to me.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Do you think she was referring to ME? 

In your wildest dreams. 

 

[John123]

Sometimes the differences between the two sides is so silly. There’s not a single conservative who has posted here who thinks lynching is OK. Their argument is that it’s already covered and this is just a form of pandering. I don’t know if that argument is 90% accurate or 100% accurate or not at all accurate- there seems to be some disagreement about that. But the point is that we all have the same intent, which is good intent, on this issue. And the distinctions between us are so minor- they usually come down to which side appears to win. Seems so asinine to me. 

I just want to be clear on this point.  Is there a question in your mind as to whether lynching someone would be covered under current murder laws?  

 

[Nugget]

I just want to be clear on this point.  Is there a question in your mind as to whether lynching someone would be covered under current murder laws?  

Why are they charging the school shooter in MI with terrorism?

 

[parasaurolophus]

I just want to be clear on this point.  Is there a question in your mind as to whether lynching someone would be covered under current murder laws?  

They don't care about that. They want what happened to Jussie to be considered a lynching. Well if it actually happened. 

 

[John123]

Why are they charging the school shooter in MI with terrorism?

Why are you asking me what "they" are doing?  Do I look like a they? 

 

[parasaurolophus]

Why are they charging the school shooter in MI with terrorism?

Because of blatant Islamiphobia of course.  

 

[Nugget]

Why are you asking me what "they" are doing?  Do I look like a they? 

Just wanted to give you a chance to respond.

I just want to be clear on this point.  Is there a question in your mind as to whether lynching someone would be covered under current murder laws?  

In the school shooting scenario, the DA found that the murder chargers weren't enough for the damage the shooter caused.  Lynching someone is more than just a murder - it is usually done in public and to send a message to cause fear.   Median sentence for murder in the US is less than 14 years.  

 

[Nugget]

Because of blatant Islamiphobia of course.  

I have not heard about the shooter targeting Muslims.  

 

[John123]

Just wanted to give you a chance to respond.

In the school shooting scenario, the DA found that the murder chargers weren't enough for the damage the shooter caused.  Lynching someone is more than just a murder - it is usually done in public and to send a message to cause fear.   Median sentence for murder in the US is less than 14 years.  

Well I guess we're lucky the school shooter didn't lynch anyone then. 

 

[timschochet]

I just want to be clear on this point.  Is there a question in your mind as to whether lynching someone would be covered under current murder laws?  

Not really no. But a few other people have argued that it’s different between states. So I’m not 100% certain, but I’m a lot closer to the conservative POV on this one. But I don’t much care either way. 

 

[John123]

Not really no. But a few other people have argued that it’s different between states. So I’m not 100% certain, but I’m a lot closer to the conservative POV on this one. But I don’t much care either way. 

Many crimes have different penalties in different states.  That's the whole concept of state's rights.  But there should be no doubt that a lynching would be illegal and prosecuted in ANY state.

 

[timschochet]

Many crimes have different penalties in different states.  That's the whole concept of state's rights.  But there should be no doubt that a lynching would be illegal and prosecuted in ANY state.

Seems like a reasonable statement. So the proposed federal law would be overkill, redundant. So what? Does it harm anything? (I’m just not sure why people are bothering to debate this- on either side.) 

 

[BladeRunner]

Seems like a reasonable statement. So the proposed federal law would be overkill, redundant. So what? Does it harm anything? (I’m just not sure why people are bothering to debate this- on either side.) 

I can reverse this logic and say to you if it's not a big deal and doesn't harm or add anything, why do it in the first place?  Which is the whole point that it's a waste of time and does nothing but make a bunch of people feel like they've earned 100 Virtue PointsTM.

 

[John123]

Seems like a reasonable statement. So the proposed federal law would be overkill, redundant. So what? Does it harm anything? (I’m just not sure why people are bothering to debate this- on either side.) 

The feds have been trampling state's rights for a long time.  Unless there's something that NEEDS federal involvement, like interstate traffic, I'll ALWAYS side with state's rights. 

 

[timschochet]

The feds have been trampling state's rights for a long time.  Unless there's something that NEEDS federal involvement, like interstate traffic, I'll ALWAYS side with state's rights. 

OK? But surely there’s some other issue to argue about that might be slightly more important? 

 

[John123]

OK? But surely there’s some other issue to argue about that might be slightly more important? 

You're probably the last person on this board who should be suggesting to others what they should be discussing. 

 

[Summer Wheat]

The more I read posts and responses it seems like "real diversity" and "Real peace" among "all" is truly a pipe dream now.   

We have fake hate crimes, we have real hate crimes, we have media obsessed with saying what race did or did not commit the crime against another race.  

I truly believe the media and politicians play a huge role in this effort to divide us. Why?  I wish I knew.
 

 

[timschochet]

You're probably the last person on this board who should be suggesting to others what they should be discussing. 

Maybe. Won’t stop me though. 
 

 

[timschochet]

The more I read posts and responses it seems like "real diversity" and "Real peace" among "all" is truly a pipe dream now.   

We have fake hate crimes, we have real hate crimes, we have media obsessed with saying what race did or did not commit the crime against another race.  

I truly believe the media and politicians play a huge role in this effort to divide us. Why?  I wish I knew.
 

It’s not a pipe dream. We have real diversity already. 

 

[jon_mx]

I don't know about decisive (do you mean divisive?) but there's no reason for such a law:

1)  Lynching isn't a problem in this country.

2)  Murder is illegal, regardless of method.  So, on the off chance someone goes to all the trouble of lynching someone instead of just shooting them dead, that person would still be prosecuted under existing law.

3)  Just the idea of lynching has racial overtones.  We should be focused on an inclusive society, not one where we constantly bring up things that haven't happened in 50-100 years that are perceived to be based on race.

There have been more fake white on black lynching in the last few years than real ones. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

OK? But surely there’s some other issue to argue about that might be slightly more important? 

It was important enough to be addressed in the 5th amendment and important enough that SCOTUS carved out an exception for this type of thing.  But it's not important enough to talk about in our magic football forum?

 

[RCon]

It was important enough to be addressed in the 5th amendment and important enough that SCOTUS carved out an exception for this type of thing.  But it's not important enough to talk about in our magic football forum?

Might I suggest a compromise?  Perhaps we could limit it only to the off-season?

 

[djmich]

 So the proposed federal law would be overkill, redundant. So what? 

Sounds like a great way to run a country.

 

[Philo Beddoe]

Sounds like a great way to run a country.

The “So what?” Party. 

 

[crackattack]

It would be nothing more then a "feel good" law. If there's one thing we know about democrats, feelings trump necessity. . Pandering 101.

 

[GordonGekko]

The more I read posts and responses it seems like "real diversity" and "Real peace" among "all" is truly a pipe dream now.  

Separate the country into three sections.

A place for hard line Conservatives to live. A place for woke liberals to live. A place in the middle where people who aren't aligned to politics at all can live.

Everyone can run their area as they see fit based on their voting blocks. If you have a large group of people with close to the same value system, then the focus can be on practical problem solving in that framework. Most of the conflict now exists between which value systems get to be on top and for how long and at what cost.

There's an argument to be made that widespread functional governance is not possible for 340 million people all at once in what is seen as a "modified Democracy"

You want the truth that's just not going to be politically correct? Take a woke radical leftist like a Rashida Tlaib and put her in charge of her own section of new age hard liberal bending on socialism uptopia and I'm pretty sure most of the people die. You can't have functional governance if there are zero police and every shootout is responded to with social workers reading from a sternly worded cue card.

As for hard line Conservatives, it will probably be an eye opener in that without value wars, there actually needs to some kind of focus on the closer subtext in how a society needs to function in terms of ideals. The question of what kind of ideal world is possible isn't a bad one, it's just insane when it's taken ahead of functional governance, which is the hallmark of the radical left.

And when enough people die,  there will be peace. Give people exactly what they think they want and then they've got nothing to complain about. Most people here are parents. Well the teenager starts to rebel and shouts "You aren't the boss of me!" OK , kid, go leave this house and go pay your own rent, buy your own food and struggle to earn a living and deal with the tedious and ugly tension of dealing with everyone you won't like because you don't have much choice.

When you give people what they say and think they want, they soon realize it's not all rainbows and unicorns. What do teenagers want? The freedom of no responsibility with the benefit of someone else taking all the ugly responsibility that they don't want because it's just pure grind.

That's the problem with radical woke cancel culture leftists. They encompass the mindset of the most responsible teenager in any household in the most privileged parts of America.

Conservatives and Republicans should throw that "rebel" out and let them fend for themselves.

Rashida Tlaib can't scream racism and bigotry when her new world utopia is now full of other double or even triple minorities. And when the stores are shut down and the lights don't turn on and when the water stops running and people start to realize you can't use woke for shelter, nor food, nor basic necessity, then that's when people will start dying. Then people understand no one is coming to save them.

Peace is achieved when the radical left are given EXACTLY what they want. Just far away from everyone else. At a certain distance, you can't hear the cities burning or people begging for food or safety. If you are far enough away, you won't notice bodies being stacked on top of each other and that it won't be from some murky group of pseudo white supremacists. It will be this utopia feeding upon itself.

We live in a society where "politically divorced" people are still forced to live together in close proximity. Many of you are divorced. Did any of you want to still live with your ex after the fireworks and pure bloodshed? So stop having those people live together. Problem solved. Just like many of you felt like you were given a 2nd chance at life, even after being financially destroyed in the process, to just cut free of your ex wives.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

You should forgive them because their error wasn’t intentional.  

Oh CMON!

 

[Summer Wheat]

It’s not a pipe dream. We have real diversity already. 

Oh we have real diversity, just not the utopia version. We have diversity just because many groups are here.  will they ever actually totally assimulate with each other?  Doubtful

I work at a huge company and have been in a few different places.  Other than mandatory meetings where everyone is there i see the same thing everywhere.  Blacks eat and hang pretty much with blacks, asians with asians, hispanics with hispanics, whites with whites and so forth.   Of course there a few crossovers here and there. Just not very much.

Never seen blacks and asians associate. I have seen white and blacks, and white and hispanics hang out a little but not like everyone does with their own.

Is that good or bad I don`t know.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Seems like a reasonable statement. So the proposed federal law would be overkill, redundant. So what? Does it harm anything? (I’m just not sure why people are bothering to debate this- on either side.) 

Seems you have answered your own question already. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

Jussie Smollett hasn't done any damage to future victims. 

There have already been multiple fake stories after Jussie that got lapped up. 

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

Reenactment of Juicy Smollett hoax hate crime