Jump to content
You, obviously, didn't bother doing any research. In one case I found, a man was verbally threatened by a relative that was inside a car. The man went into his house, got a rifle and came back out and fired three shots into the car. Released on "stand your ground". I found several similar cases on the first page of my search as suggested above. I see you are still tied up on the Zimmerman case but the flaws in the law go far beyond this case. The only significance of the Zimmerman case is the fact that it brought the law into public scrutiny.
Reading editorials and responses, it is obvious that there are heated passions on both sides of the Zimmerman trial. However, whether you believe he should have been found guilty or not guilty, we should all be able to agree that the stand your ground law should be repealed. With a quick google search for: found innocent "stand your ground" -zimmerman (-zimmerman prevents finding his case), I was able to find numerous such cases, some of which the person should have been found innocent but would have under past self defense laws but many others where someone literally got by with murder. In reviewing some of these cases, it becomes obvious that juries have a tendency to give the benefit of doubt to the perpetrator as long as he claims to have been afraid, even when the situation makes it obvious that no immediate threat existed. Let's get behind the overturning of this bad law and stop the bickering over the verdict of the Zimmerman trial.
Of course such words are not "forbidden" in the sense of legality; however, certain words in certain context demonstrate a personal bias by the speaker. Part of that context is the group to which the speaker is a part. If you are not African-American and use the 'n' word, you probably have some racist opinions. This also applies to the use of terms such as those used by Jack in reference to Jesse Jackson. The term "cracker" has an interesting origin - look it up on Wikipedia and check out "Georgia cracker" and "Florida cracker" These were terms applied to native Georgians and Floridians as opposed to people new to the state. When I was growing up, there was a baseball field on Ponce de Leon Avenue in Atlanta. The farm team that played there were the Atlanta Crackers. Only recently has the term "cracker" been warped into a derogatory term by those not raised in the south. It is used by as a derogatory term by Whites also. Though it was probably intended as an insult, I would not consider it to be racist in nature.
I can tell the difference between research data, facts and opinion pieces. I never base my conclusions on opinion pieces which typically, both right and left, include things to get the reader emotionally involved with the conclusions drawn by the author. I also understand the anecdotal quality of an interview with a single ICE enforcer or a single alien not here through legal channels. One thing that everyone (including myself) seem to have failed to mention in the immigration reform debate above is the fact that many of these "illegals" did not voluntarily violate the law. They were brought here by their parents as babies or small children. The choice to violate the law was not theirs. Many don't have any memory of the country or the language from which they came. You mentioned those "released from their pimp" implying that these came voluntarily while we know that many women are kidnapped from one country and smuggled into another while forced into prostitution. While they are in violation of immigration and prostitution laws, they are the victims and the humane approach would be to treat them as victims. Go after the pimps and their clients.
I have discovered that people learn better by doing their own research so I no longer give links. I did take 5 minutes to see how easy it is to find some racist tea party signs and found half a dozen that everyone would understand are racist. A couple so vulgar I would never consider providing a direct link to them. You really should do the research before trying to be condescending. It only demonstrates how little research you actually do.
R, though this is one of your more intelligent writings, you still seem to miss the point which Stu made so eloquently, that many of the problems that illegals out of their home land and into the USA was caused by interference by our government in the affairs of their country. We have propped up dictators and supported governments operating death squads. The only thing that seemed to be expected from these despotic governments was a condemnation of communism. Our current policy towards illegals is very inconsistent. If you are an illegal from Cuba, you get refugee status automatically, but from South American countries or island nations, such status is very difficult to acquire, regardless of the hazards that awaits them upon return to their home land. From our Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident,that all men are created equal,"
Notice no mention of nationality or citizenship requirements. None to be found in the Constitution either. I am not saying that we should allow anyone to enter our country; however, we should examine each case and make some humane judgements prior to deportation. The immigration reform that is currently being debated is only suggesting this review be applied to a relatively small number of the aliens here without appropriate visas. One of my problems with the Obama administration is the fact that INS enforcement has been stepped up and reviews of cases is not ample to insure justice for these people. The Bush administration arguably, may have been to lax on enforcement of immigration laws. While I agree that assuming all that oppose progressive immigration reform are racist, a large number of those in opposition are racist which is clear from the statements that make in comments and on signs when demonstrating with organizations like the Tea Party. To imply that racism should not be a part of the discussion is very naive.
One thing worse than the low information voter is the misinformation voter. With spending on ads misrepresenting the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has far surpassed those for the act. Do some independent research and we find those that do an honest analysis come to the conclusion that the bill will reduce the rate of health care cost increases. For those with poor skills in logic, this means the projected cost of health care without the act would be higher than the cost of health care with the act. Of course improvements could be made to the bill, like including a public option. Medicare has a proven record of more efficient operation than private insurance companies with an overhead cost less than half that of the private sector. Republicans claim to like competition and yet protected the private insurance companies from this competition. Another erroneous point that you seem to believe, very few come here for the purpose of getting health care, especially from countries that offer national health care plans. In fact, many Americans go to other countries for medical procedures, sometimes to acquire services at lower costs, other times for some innovative specialist. Those without insurance are driving up health cost. If they can't afford the premiums, they go to emergency rooms, where they must receive treatment, and the cost is passed on to other patients at the hospital. That makes them freeloaders, I thought you were against freeloaders.
Of course my avatar is a hoax! When I changed to the "Floating rock", I never imagined that anyone would really believe that a rock could float! Interesting how you felt the need to research to see if it was real.
No time now, just a quick question, Are you implying that Martin did not have the right to defend himself against someone that threatened him with a gun? Of course I do not know exactly what happened in the confrontation, but I do know that the 911 operate specifically told Zimmerman not to approach Martin. Further, the attitude portrayed by Martin was to confront Martin. If I was minding my own business and someone armed approached me threatening, I would consider the need to utilize self defense to prevent being shot.
When a church advocates legislation to block homosexual marriage with equal marriage rights, they are trying to force their religious beliefs onto others. When the a church advocates legislation to stop abortions (or encourage disruptive or violent activity toward women's clinics or organizations which help provide abortion services), they are trying to force their religious beliefs onto others. As I said, a church can condemn a homosexual act as a sin, but church members operating a business do not have a right to refuse employment or service based on sexual orientation, just as they do not have that right for persons of other races. However, It is hypocrisy for a church claiming Christianity to accepting divorce while condemning homosexuality.
Strange how you brought forth the Zimmerman case. All indications are, without the media attention and groups like the NAACP, Zimmerman would have gotten away with murder. They just brought forth the evidence, primarily from the 911 recording which demonstrated Zimmerman's racial prejudice. Since then, Zimmerman's lawyers have attempted to smear the reputation of Martin. Publishing things that would not be admitted in the courts. The question is not if Zimmerman is guilty, but rather what level should he be convicted - minimum involuntary manslaughter - maximum first degree murder.
I do not respond on topics that I have not researched. I am very good at math. Not bragging, just stating a fact. Therefore I am confident that the issues to which I give respond that I will be right. This is not elitism, it is taking the time to research which sometimes requires crunching numbers to verify the accuracy of my statements. It is like calling me an elitist because I am sure that 2+2=4.
Last login: Sunday, August 18, 2013