Let this sink in for a minute...

Stop-and-Frisk Campaign: About the Issue

The NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices raise serious concerns over racial profiling, illegal stops and privacy rights. The Department’s own reports on its stop-and-frisk activity confirm what many people in communities of color across the city have long known: The police are stopping hundreds of thousands of law abiding New Yorkers every year, and the vast majority are black and Latino....

~snip~

In 2002, 97,296 New Yorkers were stopped by the police.
80,176 were totally innocent (82 percent).

~snip~

In 2011, 685,724 New Yorkers were stopped by the police.
605,328 were totally innocent (88 percent).
350,743 were black (53 percent).
223,740 were Latino (34 percent).
61,805 were white (9 percent).
341,581 were aged 14-24 (51 percent).

~snip~

Full post:
http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices

I'll take rational progressives & Democrats who support reasonable gun control measures - even if they happen to be rich - because they're rational progressives & Democrats! Look at the top of the page, bucko, and discover the board you're posting on.

baldguy Sun Jan-30-05 09:31 PM

25. People are harassed, investigated & arrested for their political beliefs.

Edited on Sun Jan-30-05 09:34 PM by baldguy
Held anonymously without charge, trial, or communication with the outside world.

The President's press secretary says that people should watch what they say, or else - and the press is too afraid to say anything.

People are prevented from traveling freely because they are on a gov't list....

And what has "his" army been doing? Why, investigating people for their political beliefs!- a practice you used to decry...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002461812

NYPD Infiltrated and Spied on Liberal Groups

Last edited Fri Mar 23, 2012, 04:18 PM USA/ET

The AP (via CBS) notes that undercover cops went to liberal political groups' meetings, building intel files on activists and protesters.

The newswire says that interviews and docs collected during the investigation "show how police have used counterterrorism tactics to monitor even lawful activities."

The AP points out that the NYPD used these same tactics in 2004, when the department monitored church, environmental, and anti-war groups in the U.S., claiming these policies were necessary to prep for the GOP convention...

But these methods continued far after the convention took place: in 2008, the NYPD's super-secret intel department sent an undercover officer to attend the People's Summit in New Orleans. The project report gathered information on two U.S. activists, journalist Jordan Flaherty and labor organizer Marisa Franco, the AP notes....

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/03/nypd_spied_on_l.php

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57403085/docs-show-nypd-infiltrated-liberal-groups/?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Truth2Tell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-09-08 05:48 PM
Original message
Bloomberg on the Iraq war: some disturbing hints

Buried in a June 23 New York Times piece on Mike Bloomberg receiving a charity award was some interesting reporting on where the mayor stands on the war. Nothing like a nice ground zero photo shoot with Pickles to highlight the patriotic bona fides.

A Mayor Often Ill at Ease, and Usually Muted on Iraq
By Jim Dwyer
June 23, 2007

…In May 2004, a year after the invasion, Mr. Bloomberg served as host to Laura Bush, who had come to New York in an effort to rally support for the war effort. Mrs. Bush visited a memorial for Sept. 11th victims. Standing next to Mrs. Bush, with the Statue of Liberty in the background, Mr. Bloomberg, right, suggested that New Yorkers could find justification for the war at the World Trade Center site, even though no Iraqi is known to have had a hand in the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Don’t forget that the war started not very many blocks from here," he said that day in 2004.

- snip-

… In his speech, Mr. Bloomberg remarked on the sacrifice of soldiers and what he implied was the ingratitude of people opposed to the war.

"We shouldn’t forget that we have young men and women overseas fighting and dying, sadly, so that we can protest," he said. "I sometimes think young protesters don’t realize that their right to protest is not something that they would have elsewhere, and it’s a right that has to be fought for continuously."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/23/nyregion/23about.html?_r=3&oref=regi&ocid=81&incamp=ts:chall_article_trial&headline=A+Mayor+Often+Ill+at+Ease,+and+Usually+Muted+on+Iraq&oref=slogin

baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-05-04 07:36 PM
Original message
Are we safer now that Saddam is in custody?

There are people who acknowledge that Bush lied to America about the Iraq war: lied about Saddam's WMDs, lied about the threat posed by Iraq, lied about the connection to Al Qiada, and lied about the costs involved – both monetarily and in human lives. Yet they still support the war. They say "The overthrow and capture of Saddam Hussein has made America safer and made the world safer. Isn't it better that this homicidal maniac is no longer in power? Isn't it a great step forward in the war on terrorism? Hasn’t Bush made us safer?"

Saddam is now in custody, yes. But, the world is not a safer place. The primary threat from Al Qiada is still there - Bush has done almost nothing to stem the tide of anti-American hatred surging through the Muslim world. Unbelievably, he has even added to it. After the attacks of Sept 11, America had the entire world behind us, willing to support us in nearly anything we did to destroy the Evil Doers that murdered 3000 people. Bush has totally squandered that outpouring of compassion and support. With his arrogance he has alienated our historic allies to the point where they look upon the warnings generated by our intelligence services as a way for the Bush administration to score political points domestically. And they'd be right. For the Bushies there's no distinction between policy and propaganda. The vast array of non-partisan gov't apparatus that has been carefully built up over the last fifty years, which was meant to provide professional, objective analysis on any number of various domestic and foreign areas of expertise. - has been co-opted to solely to support the narrow domestic agenda of the NeoCoservitive-Industrial Complex. And to hell with literally everything else.

Saddam is no longer a threat, yes. But, he wasn't a threat before the invasion. Saddam can no longer hatch plots with Osama. But, he wasn't doing that before the invasion, either. He can no longer indiscriminately murder his people. But, when he was doing that Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr were supporting him; they looked the other way and gave him more arms and money. Also, there have been more Iraqi civilians killed in the last several months since the invasion than in the prior twelve years since the first Gulf war. Iraqi civilians have more to fear from Bush Jr than they did from Saddam.

Bush has been distracted from his primary purpose as Commander-In-Chief - that is to protect American citizens from harm. His main objective as Commander-In-Chief should be to fight the very real terrorist threat which America and the civilized world must face together. But the NeoConservitive-Industrial Complex has other ideas. They've been planning the Iraq War for the last ten years with PNAC. The drums for war were beaten by the Right-Wing media. The fires of hatred for the Arab world were fanned by the "Christian" conservatives. War-profiteering corporations needed a pliable gov’t to involve with their ghoulish trade. The manufacturing of a war fell right in with their needs. And Bush is beholden to all of these groups for his current position....

....My response:

In regards to James F. Cornwell's letter of Aug 30: If Mr Bush wished to protect the America, he would have only attacked those who posed a threat – al Qaeda and their sponsors in Saudi Arabia. He would have enlisted the aid of our best allies - such as France and Germany who have long endured the threat of fundamentalist terrorism. The fact is Mr Bush and his cronies planned on attacking Iraq from the start of his administration, and only needed a reason palatable to ill-informed
Americans and ill-informed media to do so. The attacks of Sept 11 gave him that reason, and Bush has referenced them at every occasion to justify his invasion & continual occupation of Iraq. Even through Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing nothing nothing to do with Sept 11.

Mr Bush is due for criticism because he has simply failed as a President. His actions threaten the security of the United States. He has ignored the advice of, and demoted, fired or dismissed employees of the federal government and military who, with their vast experience and expertise, had warned him repeatedly of the folly of unnecessarily occupying an Islamic country like Iraq. He coddles our enemies and their supporters. He has alienated the very allies we need to fight the fundamentalist terrorists. And in doing so he has had people investigated, arrested & detained without trial or charge - merely for their political views. Smells like fascism to me.

One can wonder why, if he believes in his Glorious Leader's cause, Mr Cornwell isn't in Iraq serving in uniform instead of ensconced in the relative safety of "liberal" New York University? Or if he and the supporters of the war are willing pay the cost of it themselves (now about $30,000 each)? Or if he believes, as some in the right-wing punditry have stated, that his hosts in New York City behaved as cowards on Sept 11 while they were being attacked - and while Mr Bush failed in his duty to protect them - simply because that city is deemed to be too "liberal"?

The simple, moral and honorable solution to Mr Bush's Iraq Quagmire is to withdraw. We should pay reparations to the Iraqi people for committing the crime of invading their country. (This would be much less costly than occupying the country.) Allow them to employ themselves to rebuild their country - without lining the pockets the Republican middlemen in Halliburton and Bechtel.

As Clarence Page reminded us - a critic of the President once said "Victory means having an exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." If this was true when Gov Bush said it about Pres Clinton's policy in a low-level conflict like Bosnia, it is even more applicable about Pres Bush in a full-blown war like Iraq.

friendly_iconoclast
60. I can't speak for GSC, but I'm certainly voting Obama in November.

Last edited Tue Mar 20, 2012, 01:26 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
Thing is, the President has been more pro-gun in action (as opposed to rhetoric) than Mittens.
So a single-issue pro-gun voter would have to 'go Obama'!

friendly_iconoclast Sun Mar 25, 2012, 06:10 PM

Question for DUers: Do you hate the NRA so much you'll ally with Michael Bloomberg?

Note: This is a repost from GD, where it was locked. Unsurprisingly there were a few replies in the affirmative

I'll state right off the bat that I'm not thrilled with the NRA personally, because I'm about 90% sure that despite their proclaimed non-
partisan stance, they are in fact a right-wing political movement with a big gun club, like I stated here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117222584

"Why I'm not going to rejoin the NRA just yet."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117222584#post50

"No point in donating money to people that piss on the President, while accepting Mitt's AWB."...

The "we" you're rooting for - and claim to be part of - isn't the Democratic Party.

It never has been.

---

Every time a union gets busted - The NRA wins (along with the gun manufacturers they represent).

Every time abortion is outlawed, and every time gender discrimination is legalized - The NRA wins.

Every time gay rights are outlawed - The NRA wins.

Every time funding for science education is cut or eliminated - The NRA wins.

Every time teaching Biblical creationism is made mandatory at the expense of evolutionary science - The NRA wins.

Every time free speech is curtailed - The NRA wins.

Every time hate speech is promoted & the truth is suppressed - The NRA wins.

Every time Fox News goes on the air - The NRA wins.

When the Citizens' United decision was announced - The NRA won.

When Bush was appointed as President - The NRA won.

When Trayvon Martin was gunned down in cold blood and when his murderer George Zimmerman walked free - The NRA won.

Every time a Republican candidate wins, and every time a Democratic candidate loses - The NRA wins.

And every time the NRA wins THE GOP WINS.

The NRA stands against everything you claim to support - except for guns.

---

People who reduce everything to a single issue - and consistently support the GOP on that issue over the Democratic Party - are Republicans, no matter what other issues they claim to support.

You see, according to Mayor Bloomberg, he and his mayoral colleagues are focused on results. It’s the rest of the politicians who are screwing things up.

“At the state or federal level, that’s where the real problems are. You see it particularly in American government at the moment where they are just unable to do anything, and yet, the mayors of this country still have to deal with the real world,” said Mayor Bloomberg.

Mayor Bloomberg closed by expressing the desire for someone with real, executive experience to arrive on the scene and change things in Washington.

“Unfortunately, people at the federal level or the state level typically spend their whole lives in politics, and they’ve never been an executive and it shows,” Mayor Bloomberg said.