The annual cost of saving 1,000 US carrier jobs $700,000 versus $3,100,000,000 to Israel for "security aid" annually not including $5,000,000,000 in loan guarantees. Total (unadjusted for inflation) aid to Israel since 1949 $240,000,000,000.
Protected class? Similar to hate crimes where certain groups are more lawfully protected than others.
Are you against hate crime legislation or do you not believe religiously motivated crimes against Jews should constitute a hate crime?
I don't believe any group (religion, race, sexual orientation, overweight, bald, music preference, etc) should have additional protections then others. A crime is a crime. If the laws and or punishment for a crime are "soft" then "harden" them, for everyone. I thought all men/women were equal.
Crime motivation is an entire can of worms I won't bother getting into.
Why should someone of Jewish faith have more protections than a gentile?
Protected class? Similar to hate crimes where certain groups are more lawfully protected than others.
Are you against hate crime legislation or do you not believe religiously motivated crimes against Jews should constitute a hate crime?
I don't believe any group (religion, race, sexual orientation, overweight, bald, music preference, etc) should have additional protections then others. A crime is a crime. If the laws and or punishment for a crime are "soft" then "harden" them, for everyone. I thought all men/women were equal.
Crime motivation is an entire can of worms I won't bother getting into.
Why should someone of Jewish faith have more protections than a gentile?
If you think all men and women are equal, you should be pleased that there are penalties when hate crimes are perpetrated against certain men and women (and children, too) simply because of the religious/cultural group they belong to and for no other reason. That would kind of be the definition of equal, right?
Someone of Jewish faith shouldn't necessarily have "more protections than a gentile". It's just fairly rare that we see someone targeted for hate crimes because they are a "gentile". But guess what? When it does happen, the US targets it pretty hard. They just call it terrorism.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Protected class? Similar to hate crimes where certain groups are more lawfully protected than others.
Are you against hate crime legislation or do you not believe religiously motivated crimes against Jews should constitute a hate crime?
I don't believe any group (religion, race, sexual orientation, overweight, bald, music preference, etc) should have additional protections then others. A crime is a crime. If the laws and or punishment for a crime are "soft" then "harden" them, for everyone. I thought all men/women were equal.
Crime motivation is an entire can of worms I won't bother getting into.
Why should someone of Jewish faith have more protections than a gentile?
The history of hate crime legislation goes back to the Civil Rights era. I'm sure you are well aware that most criminal statutes are at the state level not the federal, and that was especially true in the 60's. Blacks were targeted for being uppity, talking to white women, sleeping with white women, etc. They were beaten, maimed and killed. But the 'trials' were all conducted locally under state statutes. So guess what happened in the South? Of course they were either not prosecuted or found not guilty. So the Federal gov't created hate crime statutes under the Civil Rights Act of 68 at the federal level to allow the Fed AG's to file federal charges and move the trials out of the local areas. Civil Rights violations were critical to stopping the violence against blacks and have been used for gays as well.
Protected class? Similar to hate crimes where certain groups are more lawfully protected than others.
Are you against hate crime legislation or do you not believe religiously motivated crimes against Jews should constitute a hate crime?
I don't believe any group (religion, race, sexual orientation, overweight, bald, music preference, etc) should have additional protections then others. A crime is a crime. If the laws and or punishment for a crime are "soft" then "harden" them, for everyone. I thought all men/women were equal.
Crime motivation is an entire can of worms I won't bother getting into.
Why should someone of Jewish faith have more protections than a gentile?
The history of hate crime legislation goes back to the Civil Rights era. I'm sure you are well aware that most criminal statutes are at the state level not the federal, and that was especially true in the 60's. Blacks were targeted for being uppity, talking to white women, sleeping with white women, etc. They were beaten, maimed and killed. But the 'trials' were all conducted locally under state statutes. So guess what happened in the South? Of course they were either not prosecuted or found not guilty. So the Federal gov't created hate crime statutes under the Civil Rights Act of 68 at the federal level to allow the Fed AG's to file federal charges and move the trials out of the local areas. Civil Rights violations were critical to stopping the violence against blacks and have been used for gays as well.
Protected class? Similar to hate crimes where certain groups are more lawfully protected than others.
Are you against hate crime legislation or do you not believe religiously motivated crimes against Jews should constitute a hate crime?
I don't believe any group (religion, race, sexual orientation, overweight, bald, music preference, etc) should have additional protections then others. A crime is a crime. If the laws and or punishment for a crime are "soft" then "harden" them, for everyone. I thought all men/women were equal.
Crime motivation is an entire can of worms I won't bother getting into.
Why should someone of Jewish faith have more protections than a gentile?
The history of hate crime legislation goes back to the Civil Rights era. I'm sure you are well aware that most criminal statutes are at the state level not the federal, and that was especially true in the 60's. Blacks were targeted for being uppity, talking to white women, sleeping with white women, etc. They were beaten, maimed and killed. But the 'trials' were all conducted locally under state statutes. So guess what happened in the South? Of course they were either not prosecuted or found not guilty. So the Federal gov't created hate crime statutes under the Civil Rights Act of 68 at the federal level to allow the Fed AG's to file federal charges and move the trials out of the local areas. Civil Rights violations were critical to stopping the violence against blacks and have been used for gays as well.
"Are you against hate crime legislation or do you not believe religiously motivated crimes against Jews should constitute a hate crime?"
My answer: I don't believe in protected classes, Jews gentiles, homo hetero, fat skinny, bald lovely locks, a crime is a crime.
Then you know why the crimes need to be prosecuted at the federal level because the state level's ineffective often whether it's jew, black Gentile, etc. Knowing the history of the legislation makes the answer to your question self evident. The law gives the feds teeth that they don't have normally.
Protected class? Similar to hate crimes where certain groups are more lawfully protected than others.
Are you against hate crime legislation or do you not believe religiously motivated crimes against Jews should constitute a hate crime?
I don't believe any group (religion, race, sexual orientation, overweight, bald, music preference, etc) should have additional protections then others. A crime is a crime. If the laws and or punishment for a crime are "soft" then "harden" them, for everyone. I thought all men/women were equal.
Crime motivation is an entire can of worms I won't bother getting into.
Why should someone of Jewish faith have more protections than a gentile?
The history of hate crime legislation goes back to the Civil Rights era. I'm sure you are well aware that most criminal statutes are at the state level not the federal, and that was especially true in the 60's. Blacks were targeted for being uppity, talking to white women, sleeping with white women, etc. They were beaten, maimed and killed. But the 'trials' were all conducted locally under state statutes. So guess what happened in the South? Of course they were either not prosecuted or found not guilty. So the Federal gov't created hate crime statutes under the Civil Rights Act of 68 at the federal level to allow the Fed AG's to file federal charges and move the trials out of the local areas. Civil Rights violations were critical to stopping the violence against blacks and have been used for gays as well.
Protected class? Similar to hate crimes where certain groups are more lawfully protected than others.
Are you against hate crime legislation or do you not believe religiously motivated crimes against Jews should constitute a hate crime?
I don't believe any group (religion, race, sexual orientation, overweight, bald, music preference, etc) should have additional protections then others. A crime is a crime. If the laws and or punishment for a crime are "soft" then "harden" them, for everyone. I thought all men/women were equal.
Crime motivation is an entire can of worms I won't bother getting into.
Why should someone of Jewish faith have more protections than a gentile?
The history of hate crime legislation goes back to the Civil Rights era. I'm sure you are well aware that most criminal statutes are at the state level not the federal, and that was especially true in the 60's. Blacks were targeted for being uppity, talking to white women, sleeping with white women, etc. They were beaten, maimed and killed. But the 'trials' were all conducted locally under state statutes. So guess what happened in the South? Of course they were either not prosecuted or found not guilty. So the Federal gov't created hate crime statutes under the Civil Rights Act of 68 at the federal level to allow the Fed AG's to file federal charges and move the trials out of the local areas. Civil Rights violations were critical to stopping the violence against blacks and have been used for gays as well.
Protected class? Similar to hate crimes where certain groups are more lawfully protected than others.
Are you against hate crime legislation or do you not believe religiously motivated crimes against Jews should constitute a hate crime?
I don't believe any group (religion, race, sexual orientation, overweight, bald, music preference, etc) should have additional protections then others. A crime is a crime. If the laws and or punishment for a crime are "soft" then "harden" them, for everyone. I thought all men/women were equal.
Crime motivation is an entire can of worms I won't bother getting into.
Why should someone of Jewish faith have more protections than a gentile?
The history of hate crime legislation goes back to the Civil Rights era. I'm sure you are well aware that most criminal statutes are at the state level not the federal, and that was especially true in the 60's. Blacks were targeted for being uppity, talking to white women, sleeping with white women, etc. They were beaten, maimed and killed. But the 'trials' were all conducted locally under state statutes. So guess what happened in the South? Of course they were either not prosecuted or found not guilty. So the Federal gov't created hate crime statutes under the Civil Rights Act of 68 at the federal level to allow the Fed AG's to file federal charges and move the trials out of the local areas. Civil Rights violations were critical to stopping the violence against blacks and have been used for gays as well.
Protected class? Similar to hate crimes where certain groups are more lawfully protected than others.
Are you against hate crime legislation or do you not believe religiously motivated crimes against Jews should constitute a hate crime?
I don't believe any group (religion, race, sexual orientation, overweight, bald, music preference, etc) should have additional protections then others. A crime is a crime. If the laws and or punishment for a crime are "soft" then "harden" them, for everyone. I thought all men/women were equal.
Crime motivation is an entire can of worms I won't bother getting into.
Why should someone of Jewish faith have more protections than a gentile?
The history of hate crime legislation goes back to the Civil Rights era. I'm sure you are well aware that most criminal statutes are at the state level not the federal, and that was especially true in the 60's. Blacks were targeted for being uppity, talking to white women, sleeping with white women, etc. They were beaten, maimed and killed. But the 'trials' were all conducted locally under state statutes. So guess what happened in the South? Of course they were either not prosecuted or found not guilty. So the Federal gov't created hate crime statutes under the Civil Rights Act of 68 at the federal level to allow the Fed AG's to file federal charges and move the trials out of the local areas. Civil Rights violations were critical to stopping the violence against blacks and have been used for gays as well.
"Are you against hate crime legislation or do you not believe religiously motivated crimes against Jews should constitute a hate crime?"
My answer: I don't believe in protected classes, Jews gentiles, homo hetero, fat skinny, bald lovely locks, a crime is a crime.
Are you fine with people being fired from a job for their gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation?
No, I'm not fine with someone being wrongfully terminated or a victim of crime based on gender, race, religion, or sexual preference etc etc.
So you believe in legal protections based on a person's class and that there can be consequences for the offender if they offend based on the victim belonging to a particular protected group.
Protected class? Similar to hate crimes where certain groups are more lawfully protected than others.
Are you against hate crime legislation or do you not believe religiously motivated crimes against Jews should constitute a hate crime?
I don't believe any group (religion, race, sexual orientation, overweight, bald, music preference, etc) should have additional protections then others. A crime is a crime. If the laws and or punishment for a crime are "soft" then "harden" them, for everyone. I thought all men/women were equal.
Crime motivation is an entire can of worms I won't bother getting into.
Why should someone of Jewish faith have more protections than a gentile?
The history of hate crime legislation goes back to the Civil Rights era. I'm sure you are well aware that most criminal statutes are at the state level not the federal, and that was especially true in the 60's. Blacks were targeted for being uppity, talking to white women, sleeping with white women, etc. They were beaten, maimed and killed. But the 'trials' were all conducted locally under state statutes. So guess what happened in the South? Of course they were either not prosecuted or found not guilty. So the Federal gov't created hate crime statutes under the Civil Rights Act of 68 at the federal level to allow the Fed AG's to file federal charges and move the trials out of the local areas. Civil Rights violations were critical to stopping the violence against blacks and have been used for gays as well.
"Are you against hate crime legislation or do you not believe religiously motivated crimes against Jews should constitute a hate crime?"
My answer: I don't believe in protected classes, Jews gentiles, homo hetero, fat skinny, bald lovely locks, a crime is a crime.
Are you fine with people being fired from a job for their gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation?
No, I'm not fine with someone being wrongfully terminated or a victim of crime based on gender, race, religion, or sexual preference etc etc.
So you believe in legal protections based on a person's class and that there can be consequences for the offender if they offend based on the victim belonging to a particular protected group.
What contract(s), expectation(s) understanding(s), agreement(s) do you have with every person excluding your employer that could have committed a crime against you?
In a 1998 interview with CBS’ Steve Kroft, Soros admitted that he participated in the confiscation of Jewish property under the Nazi occupation. He also explained that he had no remorse for what he had done, and that if he had not participated, somebody else would have done it anyway.
Protected class? Similar to hate crimes where certain groups are more lawfully protected than others.
Are you against hate crime legislation or do you not believe religiously motivated crimes against Jews should constitute a hate crime?
I don't believe any group (religion, race, sexual orientation, overweight, bald, music preference, etc) should have additional protections then others. A crime is a crime. If the laws and or punishment for a crime are "soft" then "harden" them, for everyone. I thought all men/women were equal.
Crime motivation is an entire can of worms I won't bother getting into.
Why should someone of Jewish faith have more protections than a gentile?
The history of hate crime legislation goes back to the Civil Rights era. I'm sure you are well aware that most criminal statutes are at the state level not the federal, and that was especially true in the 60's. Blacks were targeted for being uppity, talking to white women, sleeping with white women, etc. They were beaten, maimed and killed. But the 'trials' were all conducted locally under state statutes. So guess what happened in the South? Of course they were either not prosecuted or found not guilty. So the Federal gov't created hate crime statutes under the Civil Rights Act of 68 at the federal level to allow the Fed AG's to file federal charges and move the trials out of the local areas. Civil Rights violations were critical to stopping the violence against blacks and have been used for gays as well.
"Are you against hate crime legislation or do you not believe religiously motivated crimes against Jews should constitute a hate crime?"
My answer: I don't believe in protected classes, Jews gentiles, homo hetero, fat skinny, bald lovely locks, a crime is a crime.
Are you fine with people being fired from a job for their gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation?
No, I'm not fine with someone being wrongfully terminated or a victim of crime based on gender, race, religion, or sexual preference etc etc.
So you believe in legal protections based on a person's class and that there can be consequences for the offender if they offend based on the victim belonging to a particular protected group.
What contract(s), expectation(s) understanding(s), agreement(s) do you have with every person excluding your employer that could have committed a crime against you?
Going back to your original point, a crime is a crime. The problem is that crimes committed against certain classes of citizens were not prosecuted because the bias extended to the judges, prosecutors and even the juries. So a federal law was created to enable the Justice Department to pick up prosecution where local prosecution would not. It's that simple.
Now if you want to argue that AGs are abusing the law by tacking on additional charges to murders, assaults, etc, when the perp is already being aggressively prosecuted, I can buy that argument. There are many cases today of over zealous prosecutors tacking on as many charges as possible to ring up years like it's a pinball game. Here's a great example: http://www.thedailychronic.net/2014/36539/texas-teen-no-longer-faces-life-in-prison-for-pot-brownies/
But to argue that this country has NEVER needed such laws or that they may not be needed in the future ignores our history and the world's history of persecution against gays, blacks and yes...some would say Jews have been persecuted before.
I wonder if I were to wear a #fireuptheovens t shirt to a community room in a Jewish synagogue or community center, would I be verbally assaulted? I know, let me print one up, put it on and wear a go pro live streaming to facefuck or twatter and see what happens. Pimps and hos, ho, ho, ho.
Protected class? Similar to hate crimes where certain groups are more lawfully protected than others.
Are you against hate crime legislation or do you not believe religiously motivated crimes against Jews should constitute a hate crime?
I don't believe any group (religion, race, sexual orientation, overweight, bald, music preference, etc) should have additional protections then others. A crime is a crime. If the laws and or punishment for a crime are "soft" then "harden" them, for everyone. I thought all men/women were equal.
Crime motivation is an entire can of worms I won't bother getting into.
Why should someone of Jewish faith have more protections than a gentile?
The history of hate crime legislation goes back to the Civil Rights era. I'm sure you are well aware that most criminal statutes are at the state level not the federal, and that was especially true in the 60's. Blacks were targeted for being uppity, talking to white women, sleeping with white women, etc. They were beaten, maimed and killed. But the 'trials' were all conducted locally under state statutes. So guess what happened in the South? Of course they were either not prosecuted or found not guilty. So the Federal gov't created hate crime statutes under the Civil Rights Act of 68 at the federal level to allow the Fed AG's to file federal charges and move the trials out of the local areas. Civil Rights violations were critical to stopping the violence against blacks and have been used for gays as well.
"Are you against hate crime legislation or do you not believe religiously motivated crimes against Jews should constitute a hate crime?"
My answer: I don't believe in protected classes, Jews gentiles, homo hetero, fat skinny, bald lovely locks, a crime is a crime.
Are you fine with people being fired from a job for their gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation?
No, I'm not fine with someone being wrongfully terminated or a victim of crime based on gender, race, religion, or sexual preference etc etc.
So you believe in legal protections based on a person's class and that there can be consequences for the offender if they offend based on the victim belonging to a particular protected group.
What contract(s), expectation(s) understanding(s), agreement(s) do you have with every person excluding your employer that could have committed a crime against you?
Your question in response to my question is oddly worded, but I engage in a contract with anyone that provides services to the public, and that contract is that I can't be denied services based on me being a part of a protected class.
Protected class? Similar to hate crimes where certain groups are more lawfully protected than others.
Are you against hate crime legislation or do you not believe religiously motivated crimes against Jews should constitute a hate crime?
I don't believe any group (religion, race, sexual orientation, overweight, bald, music preference, etc) should have additional protections then others. A crime is a crime. If the laws and or punishment for a crime are "soft" then "harden" them, for everyone. I thought all men/women were equal.
Crime motivation is an entire can of worms I won't bother getting into.
Why should someone of Jewish faith have more protections than a gentile?
The history of hate crime legislation goes back to the Civil Rights era. I'm sure you are well aware that most criminal statutes are at the state level not the federal, and that was especially true in the 60's. Blacks were targeted for being uppity, talking to white women, sleeping with white women, etc. They were beaten, maimed and killed. But the 'trials' were all conducted locally under state statutes. So guess what happened in the South? Of course they were either not prosecuted or found not guilty. So the Federal gov't created hate crime statutes under the Civil Rights Act of 68 at the federal level to allow the Fed AG's to file federal charges and move the trials out of the local areas. Civil Rights violations were critical to stopping the violence against blacks and have been used for gays as well.
"Are you against hate crime legislation or do you not believe religiously motivated crimes against Jews should constitute a hate crime?"
My answer: I don't believe in protected classes, Jews gentiles, homo hetero, fat skinny, bald lovely locks, a crime is a crime.
Are you fine with people being fired from a job for their gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation?
No, I'm not fine with someone being wrongfully terminated or a victim of crime based on gender, race, religion, or sexual preference etc etc.
So you believe in legal protections based on a person's class and that there can be consequences for the offender if they offend based on the victim belonging to a particular protected group.
What contract(s), expectation(s) understanding(s), agreement(s) do you have with every person excluding your employer that could have committed a crime against you?
Going back to your original point, a crime is a crime. The problem is that crimes committed against certain classes of citizens were not prosecuted because the bias extended to the judges, prosecutors and even the juries. So a federal law was created to enable the Justice Department to pick up prosecution where local prosecution would not. It's that simple.
Now if you want to argue that AGs are abusing the law by tacking on additional charges to murders, assaults, etc, when the perp is already being aggressively prosecuted, I can buy that argument. There are many cases today of over zealous prosecutors tacking on as many charges as possible to ring up years like it's a pinball game. Here's a great example: http://www.thedailychronic.net/2014/36539/texas-teen-no-longer-faces-life-in-prison-for-pot-brownies/
But to argue that this country has NEVER needed such laws or that they may not be needed in the future ignores our history and the world's history of persecution against gays, blacks and yes...some would say Jews have been persecuted before.
Is there any more of a protected class then our fine officers?
Protected class? Similar to hate crimes where certain groups are more lawfully protected than others.
Are you against hate crime legislation or do you not believe religiously motivated crimes against Jews should constitute a hate crime?
I don't believe any group (religion, race, sexual orientation, overweight, bald, music preference, etc) should have additional protections then others. A crime is a crime. If the laws and or punishment for a crime are "soft" then "harden" them, for everyone. I thought all men/women were equal.
Crime motivation is an entire can of worms I won't bother getting into.
Why should someone of Jewish faith have more protections than a gentile?
The history of hate crime legislation goes back to the Civil Rights era. I'm sure you are well aware that most criminal statutes are at the state level not the federal, and that was especially true in the 60's. Blacks were targeted for being uppity, talking to white women, sleeping with white women, etc. They were beaten, maimed and killed. But the 'trials' were all conducted locally under state statutes. So guess what happened in the South? Of course they were either not prosecuted or found not guilty. So the Federal gov't created hate crime statutes under the Civil Rights Act of 68 at the federal level to allow the Fed AG's to file federal charges and move the trials out of the local areas. Civil Rights violations were critical to stopping the violence against blacks and have been used for gays as well.
"Are you against hate crime legislation or do you not believe religiously motivated crimes against Jews should constitute a hate crime?"
My answer: I don't believe in protected classes, Jews gentiles, homo hetero, fat skinny, bald lovely locks, a crime is a crime.
Are you fine with people being fired from a job for their gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation?
No, I'm not fine with someone being wrongfully terminated or a victim of crime based on gender, race, religion, or sexual preference etc etc.
So you believe in legal protections based on a person's class and that there can be consequences for the offender if they offend based on the victim belonging to a particular protected group.
What contract(s), expectation(s) understanding(s), agreement(s) do you have with every person excluding your employer that could have committed a crime against you?
Going back to your original point, a crime is a crime. The problem is that crimes committed against certain classes of citizens were not prosecuted because the bias extended to the judges, prosecutors and even the juries. So a federal law was created to enable the Justice Department to pick up prosecution where local prosecution would not. It's that simple.
Now if you want to argue that AGs are abusing the law by tacking on additional charges to murders, assaults, etc, when the perp is already being aggressively prosecuted, I can buy that argument. There are many cases today of over zealous prosecutors tacking on as many charges as possible to ring up years like it's a pinball game. Here's a great example: http://www.thedailychronic.net/2014/36539/texas-teen-no-longer-faces-life-in-prison-for-pot-brownies/
But to argue that this country has NEVER needed such laws or that they may not be needed in the future ignores our history and the world's history of persecution against gays, blacks and yes...some would say Jews have been persecuted before.
Is there any more of a protected class then our fine officers?
Is there a rash of alleged crimes against officers not being prosecuted? If so, then I agree. If not, then no, not necessary.
UK MEP — "I'm not sure whether Putin tried to influence the US Presidential race. But I'm damned sure that Obama tried to influence the UK Referendum."
UK MEP — "I'm not sure whether Putin tried to influence the US Presidential race. But I'm damned sure that Obama tried to influence the UK Referendum."
UK MEP — "I'm not sure whether Putin tried to influence the US Presidential race. But I'm damned sure that Obama tried to influence the UK Referendum."
Comments
https://www.google.com/amp/s/beyoungandshutup.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/the-us-government-overthrew-these-five-countries-leaders-youll-never-guess-what-happened-next/amp/
https://www.google.com/amp/foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/20/mapped-the-7-governments-the-u-s-has-overthrown/amp/
Trujillo
Mobutu
Batista
Pinochet
Duvalier
passing the magic wand!
https://archive.is/TElku
https://archive.is/FM067
https://archive.is/Oq2g1
Protected class? Similar to hate crimes where certain groups are more lawfully protected than others.
Good thing I woke up 3 years ago and joined the Green Party.
Total (unadjusted for inflation) aid to Israel since 1949 $240,000,000,000.
Doesn't matter what race the person is.
I thought all men/women were equal.
Crime motivation is an entire can of worms I won't bother getting into.
Why should someone of Jewish faith have more protections than a gentile?
Someone of Jewish faith shouldn't necessarily have "more protections than a gentile". It's just fairly rare that we see someone targeted for hate crimes because they are a "gentile". But guess what? When it does happen, the US targets it pretty hard. They just call it terrorism.
"Are you against hate crime legislation or do you not believe religiously motivated crimes against Jews should constitute a hate crime?"
My answer: I don't believe in protected classes, Jews gentiles, homo hetero, fat skinny, bald lovely locks, a crime is a crime.
Now if you want to argue that AGs are abusing the law by tacking on additional charges to murders, assaults, etc, when the perp is already being aggressively prosecuted, I can buy that argument. There are many cases today of over zealous prosecutors tacking on as many charges as possible to ring up years like it's a pinball game. Here's a great example: http://www.thedailychronic.net/2014/36539/texas-teen-no-longer-faces-life-in-prison-for-pot-brownies/
But to argue that this country has NEVER needed such laws or that they may not be needed in the future ignores our history and the world's history of persecution against gays, blacks and yes...some would say Jews have been persecuted before.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/284790-nigel-farage-obama-helped-force-brexit
http://time.com/4382299/barack-obama-brexit-referendum-entrepreneurship-summit/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/13/the-long-history-of-the-u-s-interfering-with-elections-elsewhere/?utm_term=.31046c08e61f