(no subject)

[oportet.livejournal.com]

I'm not a liberal, but if I was, I can't imagine what I would have against the Tea Party movement - so hopefully a liberal/democrat could help me out with this.

I understand the movement is made up mostly of conservatives, so wouldn't that either be a good, or at worst, neutral thing for you when elections come around?

Sure, the Tea Party isn't an official party with representatives, but when a big (or the big) election comes around, they'll most likely endorse someone (If they don't, that would fall under neutral). If the person/people they back are Republican, you saw it coming, and you'll pretty much have the same outcome there would have been if the TP never existed (again, neutral result). If the person/people they back aren't Republican, it wouldn't be taking many, if any, votes away from your side - nowhere near the number it would be taking away from Republicans (this would fall under good for you).

Or am I missing something?

Comments

[light-over-me.livejournal.com]

No, we were discussing a scenario in which the law enabled cops to question someone, who happened to be walking down the street, based solely on their race. The law doesn't provide for that, and to do so would be abuse.

It has to be a lawful stop, and there needs to be reasonable suspicion. It has to be more than just someone's random 'hunch' and cannot be based solely on race. Read the bill, the recent items that were clarified.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

*ahem* The law IS abuse, since it's intended for people to be stopped....otherwise there would be no value to this law.


And notice these things were "clarified" only *after* people screamed loud enough.....?