Liberal Forum

The difference between these two incidents?John White was a black man, and the person he killed was white.Joe Horn was a white man, and the people he killed were black.John White was defending his own home and family from the very real threat of people who's stated intention was to do harm to him and his family.Joe Horn was not in any physical danger from the two men who had burglarized his neighbor's home.Did race play a factor?The difference: NY vs Texas

MistyBlue, on 25 March 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:The difference between these two incidents?The difference: NY vs TexasIf Joe Horn (Texas) were black and the two guys he killed were white, he'd be in jail today.

WTF is up with Rick Santorum? First Rick Santorum told us that he didn't want to "make 'blah' people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money," asserting that he did, indeed say "blah," and not "black." And now, Santorum has apparently described then presidential candidate Barack Obama as "the anti-war government 'nig...uh..." Does he have a form of Tourettes that compels him to spit out racial epithets? If in the first instance he did indeed say 'blah' people, to whom was he referring? Boring people? And in the second instance what other word was he going for that starts with the letters N-I-G? Perhaps he was calling Obama a 'niggler' as in someone who is preoccupied with petty details. Obama, the 'anti-war government niggler'. I'm sure that's what he meant.

U.S. Supreme Court rules detainees can be strip-searched without cause.It was a high-profile New Jersey case brought by a proud man who claimed he had been degraded and haunted by the "horrible" experience of being strip-searched twice by Burlington and Essex County jail officials in 2005.On Monday, in an opinion with sweeping implications for the thousands of noncriminal offenders arrested across the country each year, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the civil-rights claim of Albert Florence, ruling that detention centers do not need any suspicion or cause to strip-search a detainee."Maintaining safety and order at detention centers requires the expertise of correctional officials, who must have substantial discretion to devise reasonable solutions to problems," wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy for the courts majority. In a 5-4 decision that split the courts conservative and liberal wings down the middle, the dissenting justices wrote on Monday that a jail should first decide whether there is a reasonable belief a detainee is concealing something on him before forcing that detainee to be strip searched."(T)he seriousness of the offense may be a poor predictor of who has contraband," Kennedy also wrote, as he sought to explain that on the ground-level at the nations rough-and-tumble jails, it would simply be "unworkable" to force officials to determine who may be a "suspicious" smuggler of contraband, and who may not.The case itself was thrust into the national spotlight almost a year ago, when the high court announced that it would hear Florences claim. Litigators and experts realized immediately that the upcoming Supreme Court ruling would set clear national law on an important issue that would likely affect tens of thousands of people in the years to come who would be arrested for minor alleged offenses. Indeed, there had been a split in recent years among the countrys powerful federal appellate courts, with several going against the trend of earlier years ruling that, in their view, the "reasonable suspicion" test was not necessary, and that instead a blanket strip-search rule made the most sense. Florence, of Bordentown and now 36, held a news conference in Newark last April with his outspoken and flamboyant civil rights litigator, Susan Chana Lask, by his side. "Its disgusting, very disgusting," he said through gritted teeth of the two strip-searches hed endured. In one instance, he said in a near whisper, he was even ordered to squat down, expose his anus and cough. Florence was arrested by the state police after his wife was pulled over for speeding and the officer noticed there was a warrant for Florences arrest, based on a supposed unpaid fine.But, in fact, Florence, the father of four children and today a finance manager at a car dealership in Middlesex County, had already paid the fine.In his dissent Monday, Justice Stephen G. Breyer focused, first, on the humiliating invasion of ones privacy that can result from a strip-search. He then cited data from study that he said showed how incredibly rare it was for offenders to actually smuggle drugs, weapons or other contraband into jails on their persons. And he cited "a plethora of recommendations of professional bodies, such as correctional associations" that argue for a reasonable suspicion test before a strip search, while also pointing out that many correctional facilities apply that standard, "including the U.S. Marshals Service, the Immigration and Customs Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs."Meanwhile, Justices John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel Alito Jr. wrote concurring opinions to Kennedys that focused on both the limits of his opinion and the opening for certain exceptions to it. Alito wrote that different standards may apply to people arrested but not placed in the general population of jails. Roberts pointed out that, "Florence was detained not for a minor traffic offense but instead pursuant to a warrant for his arrest, and that there was apparently no alternative, if Florence was to be detained, to holding him in the general population."Reached by phone on Monday, Florences lawyer, Lask, said she was seizing on Roberts' words about "there apparently was no alternative to holding him in the general population," saying that within the next 25 days she and Florence would be petitioning the Supreme Court for a rehearing, during which she would try to show that, factually, Florence should never have been put in the jail after his arrest, but rather shouldve been brought quickly before a magistrate judge."Im going to file a petition for a rehearing; its not over," she said. "Justice Roberts wants an alternative; he says it in his opinion." Lask added, "Theres major factual error thats glaring for everyone they (the justices in the majority) got confused; there was a warrant that didnt justify the strip."She added of her reading of Roberts concurring opinion, "Hes almost saying, For Gods sake, I dont want this to happen to my son.' He wants an alternative Im going to give it to him in a rehearing."Lask also said that Florence was mostly avoiding the media on Monday, but that he was ready for a further fight. She added that when she told him about her idea to petition for a rehearing, he then wrote her an e-mail that she read aloud, in which he called her a "tough cookie" and said "you just put a smile on my face." The private lawyer hired by Burlington County, Brooks DiDonato, said Monday that Burlington officials were "delighted" with the courts ruling. He added that because Florences civil rights claim that had been certified as a class was now defeated, the high courts ruling potentially saved Burlington and Essex County between $10 million and $20 million.Another outrageous 5 to 4 ruling.

Another outrageous 5 to 4 ruling.Why? Why is it unconstitutional?Where in the Constitution are local police prohibited from doing so?Just curious if you have the slightest pretext of a constitutional argument.

CNN pundit Hillary Rosen created a firestorm when she said, What you have is, Mitt Romney running around the country saying, 'Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues. And when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing.' Guess what: his wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She's never really dealt with the kind of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry about their future.Admittedly the part in bold print was put in a bone-headed way. Obviously Ms. Rosen was talking about working outside the home, but the rest of what Rosen said is absolutely true.Ann Romney has never had to work outside the home to insure the economic survival of her family.She had the luxury of being able to stay home and raise her kids, probably with a lot of paid help, a luxury most women don't have.Of course, even though she admitted that she chose those words poorly, Democrats couldn't throw Ms. Rosen under the bus fast enough.And in the long list of Romney campaign lies, they have falsely identified Hillary Rosen as an 'Obama adviser'.She's not. She works for CNN.It's ironic that I haven't seen the same thing coming from the GOP side, when Republican Congressman Allen West recently said that 78 to 81 Democrat members of congress are Communists.Did any other Republicans denounce his words?No.....of course not.Same as when Rush Limbaugh said those awful things about Sandra Fluke.Democrats cower. Republicans double down. Edited by MistyBlue, 13 April 2012 - 02:46 PM.

Indiana Republicans Pass Law Making it Legal to Kill CopsRepublican Governor Mitch Daniels has signed Senate Enrolled Act 1 into law in Indiana. The new law allows citizens to use deadly force against police officers they think are illegally entering their homes.Earlier this month, Addicting Info reported that the bill had passed the Senate. Republicans say the bill is designed to keep police safe, but Democrats say the bill will lead to the wanton killing of police officers. Rep. Craig Fry, a Democrat, says the bill is going to cause people to die and its too late after somebody dies for a jury to sort it out. Somebodys going to die, whether its a police officer or an individual who thinks a police officer is entering their home unlawfully. People are going to die. Frys colleague, Democratic Rep. Linda Lawson, a former police captain, says the bill would create an open season on law enforcement, and it is opposed by 1,250 state police officers and 14,000 men and women in blue, brown and green. The new law reverses a state Supreme Court ruling that homeowners do not have the right to use force against law enforcement officials who they believe are illegally entering their homes. According to the Evansville Courier Press, an Evansville resident fought a police officer who followed him into his house during a domestic dispute call. The state Supreme Court found that officers sometimes enter homes without warrants for reasons protected by the law, such as pursuing suspects or preventing the destruction of evidence. In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment, the court said. As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance. While announcing his decision to sign the bill into law, Governor Daniels tried to claim that the law doesnt declare an open season on police officers.

It's a damn shame that the cops abused their so-called authority so much that a law allowing homeowners to defend themselves is even needed. Cops should be protecting rights, not violating them.

Tennessee Senate Approves Bill To Warn Students That Hand-Holding Is A Gateway Sexual ActivityLike any state legislature dealing with 8 percent unemployment and thousands of its residents facing disenfranchisement, the Tennessee Senate is targeting the menace of underage hand-holding. Last week, the Senate passed SB 3310, a bill to update the states abstinence-based sex education curriculum to define holding hands and kissing as gateway sexual activities. Just one senator voted against the legislation; 28 voted in favor. Since the bill specifically bans teachers from demonstrating gateway sexual activity, educators would be prohibited from even demonstrating what hand-holding is. Breaking these laws could result in a lawsuit, as Hunter from Daily Kos notes: If your teacher teaches you anything about sex that isnt specifically on the approved curriculum, like demonstrating holding hands for the class instead of quietly talking about the dangers it poses, they can be sued.Misty: Hand holding? Really?This is what they are wasting time on?Still, this anti-hand-holding push may only be the second-worst bill passed in Tennessee this month. Nearly a century after the Volunteer State played host to the Scopes Monkey Trial, the legislature has now enacted a new law allowing educators to teach creationism alongside evolution.Holy crap!

It's a damn shame that the cops abused their so-called authority so much that a law allowing homeowners to defend themselves is even needed.Cops should be protecting rights, not violating them.And you think this is the answer to cops abusing their authority?You're allowed to shoot them if you believe they are entering your home illegally?Have you ever known a criminal who did not believe that?

CNN pundit Hillary Rosen created a firestorm when she said, Admittedly the part in bold print was put in a bone-headed way. Obviously Ms. Rosen was talking about working outside the home, but the rest of what Rosen said is absolutely true.Ann Romney has never had to work outside the home to insure the economic survival of her family.She had the luxury of being able to stay home and raise her kids, probably with a lot of paid help, a luxury most women don't have.Of course, even though she admitted that she chose those words poorly, Democrats couldn't throw Ms. Rosen under the bus fast enough.And in the long list of Romney campaign lies, they have falsely identified Hillary Rosen as an 'Obama adviser'.She's not. She works for CNN.It's ironic that I haven't seen the same thing coming from the GOP side, when Republican Congressman Allen West recently said that 78 to 81 Democrat members of congress are Communists.Did any other Republicans denounce his words?No.....of course not.Same as when Rush Limbaugh said those awful things about Sandra Fluke.Democrats cower. Republicans double down.Incredibly stupid for Axelrod and Obama to throw Rosen under the bus. God forbid the Democrats shape the terms for themselves to their advantage.Utter bullsh*it to do this to her.

I bow to your intimate knowledge of the thoughts of criminals. The US Constitution lists our right to be secure in our homes, etc, and there shouldn't need to be a law. But, the cops abused it so badly that court cases were piling up with citizens whose rights had been violated, and recent court decisions have made this law necessary The purpose of this law is rein in the cops, not to cut legalize shooting them

Arizona Passes Most Restrictive Anti-Abortion Law in NationYesterday we had a big national discussion about the choices women make in their lives. Ann Romney at one point said right-out, We need to respect the choices that women make. At the end of yesterday, Arizonas female Governor, Jan Brewer, signed a bill banning abortions after 18 weeks and creating a new definition of pregnant. Despite its name, critics derided the Womens Health and Safety Act that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law today as cruel, dangerous, and hostile to womenlikely to deter many Arizona women from seeking an abortion, and to distress those who nonetheless go through with one. Life starts earliest in Arizona, which now defines gestational age as beginning on the first day of a womans last period, rather than at fertilization. In practice, that means the state has banned abortions after about 18 weeks (20 weeks from the last menstruation) except in the case of medical emergencies. While that provision has been much discussed, abortions after that point account for only about 1 percent of the procedures currently performed. The stipulation likely to be most widely felt is what experts are calling an effective shutdown of medication abortions. These nonsurgical abortions are usually performed within the first nine weeks of pregnancy, and account for between 17 and 20 percent of all abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-rights advocacy group. While women often take the pills at clinics and in their homes, the bill now mandates that a medical provider must have hospital privileges within 30 miles of where the procedure takes place. Many times clinics or homes are not within 30 miles of hospitals, and the distance prevents providers from other cities or even states from caring for women, says Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute. Another factor that could contribute to what Nash called a shutdown of medication abortions is that the law requires abortion pills to be administered using outdated protocols, confusing providers and obscuring proper use of the drugs.There will be no sense of irony around this, that the national discussion around womens choices came from the exact same party that promotes restricting womens medical choices. Everyone will just keep having the stupid season discussion they were having. Incidentally, the anti-abortion measures signed into law by Brewer yesterday include a mandatory ultrasound, a 24-hour waiting period, forced education in public schools around adoption and birth, forced advertising in abortion clinics about the dangers of coercion, parental notification and mandatory counseling. Its the smorgasbord of abortion bills. Its the new definition of gestational age, where a woman can now be considered pregnant by the state of Arizona before ever having sex, that threw me. This completely upends the justification of a fetal pain bill, because it draws the line before the arbitrary point accepted by anti-choicers of when the fetus can feel pain. Theres no reason for this provision to be determined in this way except to just chip away at the law a little more. Its almost like someone from an anti-choice group threw it out in a meeting, and everyone laughed, but then they figured, lets give it a shot anyway, and see what happens. But remember, We need to respect the choices that women make.This is why Liberals/Dems say the Republicans are waging a war on women.Not because of their rhetoric, but because of the actual policies they are putting into effect that are harmful to women.And it's not just reproductive rights that are being eroded.Mitt Romney's buddy Gov. Scott Walker has actually repealed Wisconsins Equal Pay Enforcement Act, a 2009 law that offered legal avenues to fight wage discrimination.

I bow to your intimate knowledge of the thoughts of criminals.No need to get snarky.The US Constitution lists our right to be secure in our homes, etc, and there shouldn't need to be a law.But, the cops abused it so badly that court cases were piling up with citizens whose rights had been violated, and recent court decisions have made this law necessaryThe purpose of this law is rein in the cops, not to cut legalize shooting themPardon me for not having much faith in the wording of these types of laws that allow the use of deadly force.As we have seen with the 'Stand Your Ground' laws, they can be quite vague and open to much misinterpretation, and criminals have been able to take advantage of that fact.So the next time a police officer enters the wrong house when executing a warrant (which has been known to happen) I guess it's okay to blow him/her away, because either he/she or someone in the department made a mistake.Ooops. Sorry you're dead officer.

So the next time a police officer enters the wrong house when executing a warrant (which has been known to happen) I guess it's okay to blow him/her away, because either he/she or someone in the department made a mistake.Ooops. Sorry you're dead officer.When was the last time an officer of the law was a direct and clear threat to your life?

This is why Liberals/Dems say the Republicans are waging a war on women.That's funnyThe only people mentioned in your story is two republican women.You can't stand the idea that a woman might disagree with you on policy, so you ratchet up the rhetoric and accuse them of "war"No need to get snarky.Pardon me for not having much faith in the wording of these types of laws that allow the use of deadly force.As we have seen with the 'Stand Your Ground' laws, they can be quite vague and open to much misinterpretation, and criminals have been able to take advantage of that fact.So the next time a police officer enters the wrong house when executing a warrant (which has been known to happen) I guess it's okay to blow him/her away, because either he/she or someone in the department made a mistake.Ooops. Sorry you're dead officer.Of course you won't remember the story of the Lima Ohio cops who raided the wrong house and shot the young mother who was holding her baby, but things like this happen every day.The police have no responsibility for their mistakes, if indeed they are mistakes.They are immune from civil suit, and when they shoot someone they aren't even required to make a statement until after 48 hours.When your door comes crashing in, followed by several men dressed in black with their faces hidden, why shouldn't the lawful owner of the property be allowed to open fire?Why aren't cops held to the simple standards of our constitution?Why shouldn't cops be protecting our rights instead of violating them?

MistyBlue, on 13 April 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:This is why Liberals/Dems say the Republicans are waging a war on women.That's funnyThe only people mentioned in your story is two republican women.You can't stand the idea that a woman might disagree with you on policy, so you ratchet up the rhetoric and accuse them of "war"I'm accusing Republicans of a war on women, not because they disagree with me on policy, but because they are passing laws in many states that roll back the rights that women fought for.It's not my imagination. It's actually happening.I've cited many examples of it right here in this thread.Of course you won't remember the story of the Lima Ohio cops who raided the wrong house and shot the young mother who was holding her baby, but things like this happen every day.The police have no responsibility for their mistakes, if indeed they are mistakes.They are immune from civil suit, and when they shoot someone they aren't even required to make a statement until after 48 hours.When your door comes crashing in, followed by several men dressed in black with their faces hidden, why shouldn't the lawful owner of the property be allowed to open fire?Why aren't cops held to the simple standards of our constitution?Why shouldn't cops be protecting our rights instead of violating them?Like I said, I have no trust in the people writing these laws.There is no public demand for such laws.They are being instituted at the behest of ALEC and the NRA.Many legislators are being bankrolled by them.I thought they were supposed to work for us.

I'm accusing Republicans of a war on women, not because they disagree with me on policy, but because they are passing laws in many states that roll back the rights that women fought for.It's not my imagination. It's actually happening.I've cited many examples of it right here in this thread.Can't you see that you are waging war against other women?If you want to do that, fine. But don't presume you are fighting for ALL women, while you are attacking women your own self.Like I said, I have no trust in the people writing these laws.There is no public demand for such laws.They are being instituted at the behest of ALEC and the NRA.Many legislators are being bankrolled by them.I thought they were supposed to work for us.Wrong. there is public demand for this law. If I had time I would dig you up the case. Lews had a thread about it I believe.The Indiana Supreme Court ruled against a homeowner who opened fire on masked men who kicked in his door with no warning and who refused to identify themselves as law officers, effectively violating the citizen's right to be secure in his home, etc.The men were police officers and it's against the law to shoot cops in Indiana, period.This law is a direct result of the public outcry against that decision.You can blame it on ALEC (whoever that is) and the NRA all you want.Everybody knows Liberals have to have a demon to hate on, and it's their turn in the pickle barrel.Bottom line is, folks are proud to belong to groups like the NRA, and when you vilify them you're vilifying your fellow citizens. And you guys vilify every group that opposes you, from radio broadcasters to politicians, to grassroots organizations, to even your fellow women.It's especially funny how you announce the republican war on women by attacking two republican women yourself.

Can't you see that you are waging war against other women?If you want to do that, fine. But don't presume you are fighting for ALL women, while you are attacking women your own self.I'm attacking women? I thought I was attacking Republican policies.Please show me where I attacked any woman.You previously said that the only people mentioned in my story were two Republican women, and now it seems you're accusing me of attacking them. First....I didn't write the article, and second the article quoted Ann Romney as saying, 'We need to respect the choices that women make', and mentioned that Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona signed a bill banning abortions after 18 weeks.Are those the attacks to which you refer? Wrong. there is public demand for this law. If I had time I would dig you up the case. Lews had a thread about it I believe.The Indiana Supreme Court ruled against a homeowner who opened fire on masked men who kicked in his door with no warning and who refused to identify themselves as law officers, effectively violating the citizen's right to be secure in his home, etc.The men were police officers and it's against the law to shoot cops in Indiana, period.This law is a direct result of the public outcry against that decision.If the officers did not identify themselves, then I agree he had a right to open fire on them.There was no public demand for all these 'Stand Your Ground' laws that are being passed in many states.People have always had a right to defend themselves.The 2005 Florida law was the ALEC/NRA model for these laws.You can blame it on ALEC (whoever that is) and the NRA all you want.If you don't know what ALEC is, you should, since they are pushing their agenda on all of us.The public is finally getting wise to it.Everybody knows Liberals have to have a demon to hate on.....Talk about projection. LOLEver heard of ACORN or Planned Parenthood? George Soros? Sandra Fluke?Bottom line is, folks are proud to belong to groups like the NRA, and when you vilify them you're vilifying your fellow citizens. And you guys vilify every group that opposes you, from radio broadcasters to politicians, to grassroots organizations, to even your fellow women.And we all know that conservatives never villify anyone like young women who testify before Congress, or young unarmed men who get shot, right? The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) describes itself as the largest membership association of state legislators, but over 98% of its revenue comes from sources other than legislative dues, primarily from corporations and corporate foundations. After the 2010 congressional midterm elections, ALEC boasted that among those who won their elections, three of the four former state legislators newly-elected to the U.S. Senate are ALEC Alumni and 27 of the 42 former state legislators newly-elected to the U.S. House are ALEC Alumni. (A full list of the Congressional freshmen who are ALEC alums can be found here.) ALEC is not a lobby; it is not a front group. It is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, behind closed doors, corporations hand state legislators the changes to the law they desire that directly benefit their bottom line. Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on all nine ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve model bills. They have their own corporate governing board which meets jointly with the legislative board. (ALEC says that corporations do not vote on the board.) They fund almost all of ALEC's operations. Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovationswithout disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills. ALEC boasts that it has over 1,000 of these bills introduced by legislative members every year, with one in every five of them enacted into law. ALEC describes itself as a unique, unparalleled and unmatched organization. It might be right. It is as if a state legislature had been reconstituted, yet corporations had pushed the people out the door. Learn more at ALECexposed.org. ALECs agenda extends into almost all areas of law. Its bills undermine environmental regulations and deny climate change; support school privatization; undercut health care reform; defund unions and limit their political influence; restrain legislatures abilities to raise revenue through taxes; mandate strict election laws that disenfranchise voters; increase incarceration to benefit the private prison industry, among many other issues.http://www.sourcewat...xchange_CouncilALEC has been in the news lately as many corporations are now choosing to sever their ties with ALEC and their radical agenda.Mars, Inc. Makes EIGHT Corporations To Leave ALEC Edited by MistyBlue, 13 April 2012 - 05:27 PM.

Bottom line is, folks are proud to belong to groups like the NRA, and when you vilify them you're vilifying your fellow citizens.It works both ways Chuck.Don't act like Conservatives don't love to villify Liberal groups and Liberals in general.The NRA is no longer the great organization whose primary goal it was to sponsor firearm safety training courses and promote training and education in marksmanship.