About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

Latest Entries

Actions Menu

Blog Roll

Other Links

Not. One. Reason.
Author: Raine    Date: 07/23/2015 13:10:30

She should not have been taken to jail.

There is not one reason why Sandra Bland should have even been taken out of her car and taken to jail.

My heart breaks for her friends and family. My heart breaks for every person that struggles just to stay alive one day to the next.

My heart breaks for a law enforcement system that is seemingly out of control for so many people that live in this country.

That is all I can say. This woman should not be dead.

Peace.
Raine
 

28 comments (Latest Comment: 07/23/2015 19:38:46 by Scoopster)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati

Add a Comment

Please login to add a comment...


Comments:

Order comments Newest to Oldest  Refresh Comments

Comment by Mondobubba on 07/23/2015 13:27:58
My feelings on this issue amount to this:

This space is currently for rent. Please inquire within.

Comment by Raine on 07/23/2015 13:32:20
Quote by Mondobubba:
My feelings on this issue amount to this:

https://tworiversblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/respect-my-authority.jpeg


The cop got all Cartmen on this woman.
IT's just got to stop.


Comment by BobR on 07/23/2015 13:45:38
That seems a bit flippant Mondo, considering a woman was likely murdered in jail by the cops, who are trying to cover it up by claiming suicide.

Comment by wickedpam on 07/23/2015 13:50:00
Morning

gawd, when did we take the turn from Officer Friendly and Patch the Pony to fear the police they have may not have your best interest at heart?

Comment by Mondobubba on 07/23/2015 13:55:22
Quote by BobR:
That seems a bit flippant Mondo, considering a woman was likely murdered in jail by the cops, who are trying to cover it up by claiming suicide.



I should have clarified, he went into full butt-hurt mode because she was not doing what he was telling her to do. Had he let this slide, this wouldn't have happened. He totally overreacted.

Mondo regrets his error. Please feel free to delete the post, Bobber.

Comment by Raine on 07/23/2015 14:05:08
So what is this I am hearing that the navy man fired a gun at the shooter in Tennessee?

Comment by Scoopster on 07/23/2015 14:18:29
Mornin' all..

Comment by Raine on 07/23/2015 14:24:13




Comment by TriSec on 07/23/2015 14:27:54
Morning, comrades.

It's easier to visualize what the police have become through art. Can somebody see if you can find the 'before and after' Norman Rockwell painting of the runaway boy with a police officer at the lunch counter?

Of course, we've also been at war since roughly 1991, so think about how militarizdd (and de-sensitized) to the whole thing we've become.

You could also read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, particularly the sections about being a 'Good German' and the Nazification of every facet of civilian society.

"Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny".

Comment by Mondobubba on 07/23/2015 14:41:51
Quote by TriSec:
Morning, comrades.

It's easier to visualize what the police have become through art. Can somebody see if you can find the 'before and after' Norman Rockwell painting of the runaway boy with a police officer at the lunch counter?

Of course, we've also been at war since roughly 1991, so think about how militarizdd (and de-sensitized) to the whole thing we've become.

You could also read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, particularly the sections about being a 'Good German' and the Nazification of every facet of civilian society.

"Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny".


Tri, please rein in your propensity to go Godwin, mmkay?

Comment by BobR on 07/23/2015 15:22:08
Quote by Raine:



ok - good on Graham for that. I'll never vote for him, but a modicum of respect is owed.

Comment by BobR on 07/23/2015 15:22:46
Quote by Raine:
So what is this I am hearing that the navy man fired a gun at the shooter in Tennessee?

what Navy man? And where did you hear that?

Comment by BobR on 07/23/2015 15:26:23
Quote by Mondobubba:
Quote by TriSec:
Morning, comrades.

It's easier to visualize what the police have become through art. Can somebody see if you can find the 'before and after' Norman Rockwell painting of the runaway boy with a police officer at the lunch counter?

Of course, we've also been at war since roughly 1991, so think about how militarizdd (and de-sensitized) to the whole thing we've become.

You could also read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, particularly the sections about being a 'Good German' and the Nazification of every facet of civilian society.

"Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny".


Tri, please rein in your propensity to go Godwin, mmkay?

I'd say it's appropriate in this case

Comment by Scoopster on 07/23/2015 15:40:49
Comment by BobR on 07/23/2015 15:46:43

Trump running as an independent is the GOPs worst nightmare - even worse than him running for the GOP nom

Comment by Mondobubba on 07/23/2015 15:50:09
On a lighter note, tomorrow is National Tequila Day.

What could happen in emoticons:



Comment by Will in Chicago on 07/23/2015 16:04:38
Quote by BobR:

Trump running as an independent is the GOPs worst nightmare - even worse than him running for the GOP nom


Run, Donnie, run!! Be free!! (Help the GOP go the way of the Whigs.)

Raine, this whole situation stinks like a fish left out in 100 degree heat. At what point was Sandra Bland told the reason for her arrest? There are a lot of questions about this case.

I was raised to respect police officers. Now, I am wary of them as too many strike me as people who should no more have a badge, a gun and authority than a petulant toddler.

Comment by Mondobubba on 07/23/2015 17:29:39
Wowser! Man-on-Dog really doesn't understand civcs.

Santorum told Maddow that the Supreme Court overstepped its authority with its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, saying that the Court “is not the superior branch of government.” He added that Congress could pass a law banning same-sex marriage.

Maddow informed him that it couldn’t, but he insisted that “it’s clear from our founding documents, that the Congress has a right to say what’s constitutional. The president has a right to say what’s constitutional. And that’s part of the dynamic called checks and balances.”

“You’re fundamentally wrong on civics,” Maddow replied. “If there’s a question as to the constitutionality of a law, it gets adjudicated. And the second syllable of that word means it gets decided in the judiciary — the Supreme Court decides whether or not a law is constitutional.”


Comment by BobR on 07/23/2015 17:44:58
Quote by Mondobubba:
Wowser! Man-on-Dog really doesn't understand civcs.

Santorum told Maddow that the Supreme Court overstepped its authority with its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, saying that the Court “is not the superior branch of government.” He added that Congress could pass a law banning same-sex marriage.

Maddow informed him that it couldn’t, but he insisted that “it’s clear from our founding documents, that the Congress has a right to say what’s constitutional. The president has a right to say what’s constitutional. And that’s part of the dynamic called checks and balances.”

“You’re fundamentally wrong on civics,” Maddow replied. “If there’s a question as to the constitutionality of a law, it gets adjudicated. And the second syllable of that word means it gets decided in the judiciary — the Supreme Court decides whether or not a law is constitutional.”

I am so sorry I missed this last night. I will have to watch the video when I get home this evening

Comment by Mondobubba on 07/23/2015 18:09:55
Quote by BobR:
Quote by Mondobubba:
Wowser! Man-on-Dog really doesn't understand civcs.

Santorum told Maddow that the Supreme Court overstepped its authority with its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, saying that the Court “is not the superior branch of government.” He added that Congress could pass a law banning same-sex marriage.

Maddow informed him that it couldn’t, but he insisted that “it’s clear from our founding documents, that the Congress has a right to say what’s constitutional. The president has a right to say what’s constitutional. And that’s part of the dynamic called checks and balances.”

“You’re fundamentally wrong on civics,” Maddow replied. “If there’s a question as to the constitutionality of a law, it gets adjudicated. And the second syllable of that word means it gets decided in the judiciary — the Supreme Court decides whether or not a law is constitutional.”

I am so sorry I missed this last night. I will have to watch the video when I get home this evening



Yeah, I am going have to that myself. Frothy has been a Congress-critter and Senator, a member of both chambers of the legislative branch, a lawyer and he still doesn't understand that there are three co-equal branches of government? The hell. His only two years older than I am. I know he learned this in junior high school US history. I'm gonna just throw this out here, he's stupid. Not wilfully ignorant, not disingenuous, STOOPID. How do you not know this?

Comment by Raine on 07/23/2015 18:25:58
OMg, I got about 6-7 inches of my hair chopped today! Getting ready to be all dahlled up for the wedding on SAturday.


Comment by livingonli on 07/23/2015 18:26:31
Quote by Mondobubba:
Quote by BobR:
Quote by Mondobubba:
Wowser! Man-on-Dog really doesn't understand civcs.

Santorum told Maddow that the Supreme Court overstepped its authority with its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, saying that the Court “is not the superior branch of government.” He added that Congress could pass a law banning same-sex marriage.

Maddow informed him that it couldn’t, but he insisted that “it’s clear from our founding documents, that the Congress has a right to say what’s constitutional. The president has a right to say what’s constitutional. And that’s part of the dynamic called checks and balances.”

“You’re fundamentally wrong on civics,” Maddow replied. “If there’s a question as to the constitutionality of a law, it gets adjudicated. And the second syllable of that word means it gets decided in the judiciary — the Supreme Court decides whether or not a law is constitutional.”

I am so sorry I missed this last night. I will have to watch the video when I get home this evening



Yeah, I am going have to that myself. Frothy has been a Congress-critter and Senator, a member of both chambers of the legislative branch, a lawyer and he still doesn't understand that there are three co-equal branches of government? The hell. His only two years older than I am. I know he learned this in junior high school US history. I'm gonna just throw this out here, he's stupid. Not wilfully ignorant, not disingenuous, STOOPID. How do you not know this?

Hey, he did admit that smart people would never vote for him.

Comment by Mondobubba on 07/23/2015 18:52:00
Rambling on this more. My brother would constantly have to explain this to the ignorant -ass rednecks who worked at the armed security company he used to work for in Nebraska. I can almost excuse them. Almost, they were dumb-asses who most likely were finger banging their girlfriends under the bleachers when they should have been in civics class. Santorum went to college, got an MBA AND law school, where they have classes in ya know, constitutional fricking law.

Comment by BobR on 07/23/2015 18:53:20
Quote by Mondobubba:
Quote by BobR:
Quote by Mondobubba:
Wowser! Man-on-Dog really doesn't understand civcs.

Santorum told Maddow that the Supreme Court overstepped its authority with its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, saying that the Court “is not the superior branch of government.” He added that Congress could pass a law banning same-sex marriage.

Maddow informed him that it couldn’t, but he insisted that “it’s clear from our founding documents, that the Congress has a right to say what’s constitutional. The president has a right to say what’s constitutional. And that’s part of the dynamic called checks and balances.”

“You’re fundamentally wrong on civics,” Maddow replied. “If there’s a question as to the constitutionality of a law, it gets adjudicated. And the second syllable of that word means it gets decided in the judiciary — the Supreme Court decides whether or not a law is constitutional.”

I am so sorry I missed this last night. I will have to watch the video when I get home this evening



Yeah, I am going have to that myself. Frothy has been a Congress-critter and Senator, a member of both chambers of the legislative branch, a lawyer and he still doesn't understand that there are three co-equal branches of government? The hell. His only two years older than I am. I know he learned this in junior high school US history. I'm gonna just throw this out here, he's stupid. Not wilfully ignorant, not disingenuous, STOOPID. How do you not know this?

Either that or he knows better on an intellectual level, but he's pushing this because it matches his beliefs. Not that that would be any better.

Comment by TriSec on 07/23/2015 19:04:15
Trisec's excersice and cutback routine is reChing a breaking point today. GIVE ME DONUTS, AND NOBODY GETS HURT.

Comment by Mondobubba on 07/23/2015 19:20:04
Quote by BobR:
Quote by Mondobubba:
Quote by BobR:
Quote by Mondobubba:
Wowser! Man-on-Dog really doesn't understand civcs.

Santorum told Maddow that the Supreme Court overstepped its authority with its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, saying that the Court “is not the superior branch of government.” He added that Congress could pass a law banning same-sex marriage.

Maddow informed him that it couldn’t, but he insisted that “it’s clear from our founding documents, that the Congress has a right to say what’s constitutional. The president has a right to say what’s constitutional. And that’s part of the dynamic called checks and balances.”

“You’re fundamentally wrong on civics,” Maddow replied. “If there’s a question as to the constitutionality of a law, it gets adjudicated. And the second syllable of that word means it gets decided in the judiciary — the Supreme Court decides whether or not a law is constitutional.”

I am so sorry I missed this last night. I will have to watch the video when I get home this evening



Yeah, I am going have to that myself. Frothy has been a Congress-critter and Senator, a member of both chambers of the legislative branch, a lawyer and he still doesn't understand that there are three co-equal branches of government? The hell. His only two years older than I am. I know he learned this in junior high school US history. I'm gonna just throw this out here, he's stupid. Not wilfully ignorant, not disingenuous, STOOPID. How do you not know this?

Either that or he knows better on an intellectual level, but he's pushing this because it matches his beliefs. Not that that would be any better.


That would be even worse if you ask me.

Comment by Mondobubba on 07/23/2015 19:22:01
Ed Schultz is out, Chuck Effing Todd is getting the time slot.

What the hell, MSNBC? Chuck Todd? CHUCK TODD??

Comment by Scoopster on 07/23/2015 19:38:46
Show All

Rev 3.7; Copyright � 2007-2017 by BobberBlogs�