New non profiling guidelines coming from Holder

[billethkid]

the perp was 5' 6 " tall.....brown hair....wearing brown shoes and a blue jacket!

[Rags123]

the perp was 5' 6 " tall.....brown hair....wearing brown shoes and a blue jacket!

This hysteria is leading us toward...well, the federal government will decide what is best for your community, not your community.

Practicality will take a back seat and no longer allowlocal communities decide how to enforce LAWS !

I want my police to do whatever it takes to insure that my community is safe.

Color of skin should make a difference in deciding whether you vote and a lot of other things...that is for sure. But not in enforcing the law and keeping us safe.

[JB in TV]

This hysteria is leading us toward...well, the federal government will decide what is best for your community, not your community.

Practicality will take a back seat and no longer allowlocal communities decide how to enforce LAWS !

I want my police to do whatever it takes to insure that my community is safe.

Color of skin should make a difference in deciding whether you vote and a lot of other things...that is for sure. But not in enforcing the law and keeping us safe.

I'm trying to understand your second to last sentence, please explain.

[graciegirl]

I'm trying to understand your second to last sentence, please explain.

I know enough about Rags from reading his posts to know that he did not mean it as any kind of racial bias. Rags is one of the most fair people I have not yet met.

[Tennisnut]

the perp was 5' 6 " tall.....brown hair....wearing brown shoes and a blue jacket!

Are you talking about the 12 year old in Cleveland shot within a few seconds by the police after arriving at the park. That could have been me several years ago. I guess some would consider it unintended consequences of protecting us from all the bad people in this world. I believe in is bad police work.

[billethkid]

Are you talking about the 12 year old in Cleveland shot within a few seconds by the police after arriving at the park. That could have been me several years ago. I guess some would consider it unintended consequences of protecting us from all the bad people in this world. I believe in is bad police work.

I have no idea what the above is about.

My sarcasm has to do with the new guidelines Holder is trying to get approved before he leaves office outlawing profiling.......or as I like to restate his intent, disallowing description of any kind that may be discriminating or incrminating or hurt somebody's feelings or disagree with special interest groups desires (shortened to Do Nothing....more sarcasm!).

[Abby10]

the perp was 5' 6 " tall.....brown hair....wearing brown shoes and a blue jacket!

This is absolutely ridiculous! Just another attempt to hand tie law enforcement officers and make their jobs more difficult. Who are we protecting here with this nonsense? Certainly not the safety of the general public. It will only create an atmosphere which will make our police officers even more impotent than they already are being made by the biased hype of the media. I fear that we are a society on the precipice of a slippery slope.

[gomoho]

billethkid - if you really have no knowledge of this incident in Cleveland I suggest you watch the video and you would better understand why some of us are beginning to ? what the hell is going on. I would provide a link if I knew how - sorry.

[l2ridehd]

I think he is very confused. He is making profiling equal racism. Not the same thing at all. You profile those like the one's who commit the most crimes. That is not racism.

Most terrorists are Muslim. So if you are looking for a terrorist in some specific area based on intelligence, you should use profiling to resolve the problem as fast as possible.

If a cop had decent knowledge that their is coke being snorted at some party and most coke snorters are young white males, than they should use profiling to make the arrest.

If they are looking for a drug dealer in a specific area and the last 20 drug dealers arrested were black, than they should use profiling to solve the problem.

If they are near the border with Mexico and trying to find a person who entered the country illegally, they should use profiling to make the correct arrest.

None of those examples are racism. They are using previously known information to resolve the crime as fast as possible. Which any person of any race who is a law abiding citizen should want and expect from our law enforcement officers.

There are just as many examples of things that should be considered racism, but there is a very distinct difference between racism and profiling. And confusing the two is a huge mistake. Doesn't seem to stop Holder from trying to screw it up. It's almost like he wants to promote riots and race issues.

[Tennisnut]

I have no idea what the above is about.

My sarcasm has to do with the new guidelines Holder is trying to get approved before he leaves office outlawing profiling.......or as I like to restate his intent, disallowing description of any kind that may be discriminating or incrminating or hurt somebody's feelings or disagree with special interest groups desires (shortened to Do Nothing....more sarcasm!).

The young boy's name was Tamir Rice. The video will give you pause and question the current recruiting and training practices of police officers.

[Rags123]

I'm trying to understand your second to last sentence, please explain.

Despite Grace's kind words below....err....above , I mean if racial profiling is what is necessary to protect my family and my neighbors then so be it.

I do not want to be a victim because the police for some reason were not allowed to approach, describe or otherwise deal with a criminal.

If that is racist, then so be it. Frankly all those on here who are always calling race....they would agree or they are not telling the truth.

[golf2140]

In MO and NY it was a big black guy doing something Illegal. So Holder suggests we look for a small white guy ?????????????????

Watch the 6:00 P.M. news and see who we should be looking for !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[graciegirl]

I think he is very confused. He is making profiling equal racism. Not the same thing at all. You profile those like the one's who commit the most crimes. That is not racism.

Most terrorists are Muslim. So if you are looking for a terrorist in some specific area based on intelligence, you should use profiling to resolve the problem as fast as possible.

If a cop had decent knowledge that their is coke being snorted at some party and most coke snorters are young white males, than they should use profiling to make the arrest.

If they are looking for a drug dealer in a specific area and the last 20 drug dealers arrested were black, than they should use profiling to solve the problem.

If they are near the border with Mexico and trying to find a person who entered the country illegally, they should use profiling to make the correct arrest.

None of those examples are racism. They are using previously known information to resolve the crime as fast as possible. Which any person of any race who is a law abiding citizen should want and expect from our law enforcement officers.

There are just as many examples of things that should be considered racism, but there is a very distinct difference between racism and profiling. And confusing the two is a huge mistake. Doesn't seem to stop Holder from trying to screw it up. It's almost like he wants to promote riots and race issues.


If there weren't people like you who use words to make sense of things in this day and age, I would lose all hope.

[janmcn]

This is absolutely ridiculous! Just another attempt to hand tie law enforcement officers and make their jobs more difficult. Who are we protecting here with this nonsense? Certainly not the safety of the general public. It will only create an atmosphere which will make our police officers even more impotent than they already are being made by the biased hype of the media. I fear that we are a society on the precipice of a slippery slope.

The guidelines announced today by Attorney General Eric Holder only apply to federal cases. That is the extent of his scope of authority, not local or state or municipal law enforcement officers. Racial profiling has been banned in this country since 2003.

[Villages PL]

the perp was 5' 6 " tall.....brown hair....wearing brown shoes and a blue jacket!

Perp? Could you explain more about what this thread is about?

[sunnyatlast]

When the feds and their enablers demonize and tie the hands of local law enforcement under the guise of mass-stereotyped "racism", they create a zone ripe for federal police control to grab even more power over arrests, prosecutions, and evidence.

An example is that the WH and Holder are promoting federally funded use of police video body cameras whose recordings can be either released, or withheld, by the federal agency proposing to fund them with federal tax monies.

Example of what can happen:

Suppressing internal dissent

During the Cold War, the KGB actively sought to combat "ideological subversion"�anti-communist political and religious ideas and the dissidents who promoted them, which was generally dealt with as a matter of national security in discouraging influence of hostile foreign powers.

After denouncing Stalinism in his secret speech On the Personality Cult and its Consequences in 1956, head of state Nikita Khrushchev lessened suppression of "ideological subversion". As a result, critical literature re-emerged, including the novel One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (1962), by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who was code-named PAUK ("spider") by the KGB.

After Khrushchev's deposition in 1964, Leonid Brezhnev reverted the State and KGB to actively harsh suppression; house searches to seize documents and the continual monitoring of dissidents became routine again. To wit, in 1965, such a search-and-seizure operation yielded Solzhenitsyn manuscripts of "slanderous fabrications", and the subversion trial of the novelists Andrei Sinyavsky and Yuli Daniel; Sinyavsky (alias "Abram Tertz"), and Daniel (alias "Nikolai Arzhak"), were captured after a Moscow literary-world informant told KGB when to find them at home."
KGB - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGB#Suppressing_internal_dissent)

[bimmertl]

Wow, used to be opinions became facts on this site. Now sarcasm has become factual to some. Perhaps the actual guidelines might help.

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/pages/attachments/2014/12/08/use-of-race-policy.pdf

[Rags123]

The guidelines announced today by Attorney General Eric Holder only apply to federal cases. That is the extent of his scope of authority, not local or state or municipal law enforcement officers. Racial profiling has been banned in this country since 2003.


You are absolutely correct in what you say !!!!

Want to be they filter down ? QUICKLY !

[billethkid]

the way I look at it is....profiling is a technique used to identify potential perpetrators.

If in fact the profile includes stating white, black, brown or yellow what is the big deal?

The big deal is Holder, Sharpton, Obama, et al do not want to see the fact that a black may be pegged as the likely suspect. They know the numbers....they know the percentages....they know the odds of a black person being in the profile....they want this eliminated.

Unfortunately I have become a seasoned dis-beleiver of ANYTHING these folks promote because it is usually not for the greater good or safety or protection.
Classic example.......illegal immigration and the selected or no enforcement of laws already on the books.
In my experience the actions being taken are in fact devious because they fail the test of serving the greater good and safety of we the people of America.

They have earned this distrust and in some cases disrespect!!But that is me and how I feel about what is happening!!

[Bogie Shooter]

This hysteria is leading us toward...well, the federal government will decide what is best for your community, not your community.

Practicality will take a back seat and no longer allowlocal communities decide how to enforce LAWS !

I want my police to do whatever it takes to insure that my community is safe.

Color of skin should make a difference in deciding whether you vote and a lot of other things...that is for sure. But not in enforcing the law and keeping us safe.

What does this mean??

[Rags123]

What does this mean??

As I re read this, I am sorry...not clear.

I mean that the color of your skin should never prevent you from voting, for example, but to me it is not something to avoid in crime prevention or apprehension of criminals or suspects.

Sorry for not being clear !

[Tennisnut]

Attorney General Eric Holder, who has long spoken out against racial profiling, has been under pressure from civil- rights and civil-liberties groups to broaden rules put in place in 2003 that banned profiling based on race and ethnicity. The new guidelines will also prohibit profiling based on national origin, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

The new guidelines have nothing to do with race or ethnicity. The previous administration addressed those issues. It is readily apparent that those guidelines have not been followed and are being ignored by those who are empowered to enforce the law.

[rubicon]

The guidelines announced today by Attorney General Eric Holder only apply to federal cases. That is the extent of his scope of authority, not local or state or municipal law enforcement officers. Racial profiling has been banned in this country since 2003.

The federal government via many of its agencies from the IRS to the EPA Justice Department, to Energy Dept have for the last six years made attempts to garner control from states not to mention Congress. So anything the federal government does now is met by me with skepticism . I also include the Federal Reserve here.

As to profiling it all depends on whose ox is being gored, isn't it.

In the 1950's there were communist infiltrating the federal government but those guilty feigned indignation.

Around the same time the mob was being investigated by AG Bobby Kennedy and they feigned indignation It occurred with the neo-nazi, blacks muslims, etc

What's a cop to do? Is a cop suppose to say please don't take this wrong since you are a ----- because I am not profiling but I couldn't help notice people stop their cars you visit them and then they drive away...not that I am complaining mind you but we have had complaints about drug trafficking here . I also notice that bulge in your jacket pocket that is likely your snack because i would want to accuse you of packing heat as it might be upsetting to you

[billethkid]

Attorney General Eric Holder, who has long spoken out against racial profiling, has been under pressure from civil- rights and civil-liberties groups to broaden rules put in place in 2003 that banned profiling based on race and ethnicity. The new guidelines will also prohibit profiling based on national origin, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

The new guidelines have nothing to do with race or ethnicity. The previous administration addressed those issues. It is readily apparent that those guidelines have not been followed and are being ignored by those who are empowered to enforce the law.

I must be confused then. If one cannot use race in the profiling or a suspect how can the new guideline be said to have nothing to do with race or ethnicity.

If a black woman were assaulted by a white man, under the new guidelines she would not be able to identify the perp as white.....and the law enforcement would not be able to say they are looking for a white guy....etc????

Hence my sarcasm in the opening post!!!!

The actions being taken have everything to do with racism in all it's ugliness!

[Tennisnut]

I must be confused then. If one cannot use race in the profiling or a suspect how can the new guideline be said to have nothing to do with race or ethnicity.

If a black woman were assaulted by a white man, under the new guidelines she would not be able to identify the perp as white.....and the law enforcement would not be able to say they are looking for a white guy....etc????

Hence my sarcasm in the opening post!!!!

The actions being taken have everything to do with racism in all it's ugliness!

It is apparent from the above comments that several posters have failed to to read the guidelines and assumed that identification of persons of interest by physical characteristics is forbidden by the guidelines. The guidelines are provided below if you like to comment on those portions you disagree and provide constructive suggestions.

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/pages/attachments/2014/12/08/use-of-race-policy.pdf

[graciegirl]

That is what is so hurtful to me. The Federal government is supposed to be protecting ALL of us. Not some of us. AND I would start with the law abiding ones first, if I were King.

[sunnyatlast]

Posted by Rubicon:
"What's a cop to do? Is a cop suppose to say please don't take this wrong since you are a ----- because I am not profiling but I couldn't help notice people stop their cars you visit them and then they drive away...not that I am complaining mind you but we have had complaints about drug trafficking here . I also notice that bulge in your jacket pocket that is likely your snack because i would want to accuse you of packing heat as it might be upsetting to you.."


This is exactly how absurd they're trying to make local law enforcement look. And so, when local law enforcement looks like laughingstocks undeserving of an ounce of respect, "somebody will have to step in".

Enter federal law enforcement and its increased control.

[gomoho]

Gracie - actually the new guidelines protect everyone. Profiling by gender or sexual orientation is now illegal. Personally I didn't know there were gender or sexual orientation specific crimes going on. This is nothing but a bunch of crap flowing out of Holder's mouth so people believe he is doing something.

George Bush is responsible for making racial profiling illegal. Been in place for a long time and can't say if it has helped our not. But this stuff Holder said he started working on in 09 and he considers one of the major contributions of his tenure are a joke. Goes to show you he is as worthless as we all suspected.

[Tennisnut]

That is what is so hurtful to me. The Federal government is supposed to be protecting ALL of us. Not some of us. AND I would start with the law abiding ones first, if I were King.

I totally agree and that's why persons of all color are peacefully demonstrating for protection for ALL and condemning those that are violating the premise of peaceful demonstration.

No one has specific comments on the text of the new guidelines?

[graciegirl]

I totally agree and that's why persons of all color are peacefully demonstrating for protection for ALL and condemning those that are violating the premise of peaceful demonstration.
No one has specific comments on the text of the new guidelines?

Did you miss the fires and the looting part?

[Tennisnut]

Did you miss the fires and the looting part?

No, did you miss those that were peacefully demonstrating condemning those were not demonstrating in a peaceful way. Not all demonstrators are up to no good just as not all cops are bad or good cops. However, there are some who overstep the boundaries of good decency and should be brought to justice.

[JB in TV]

Despite Grace's kind words below....err....above , I mean if racial profiling is what is necessary to protect my family and my neighbors then so be it.

I do not want to be a victim because the police for some reason were not allowed to approach, describe or otherwise deal with a criminal.

If that is racist, then so be it. Frankly all those on here who are always calling race....they would agree or they are not telling the truth.

As I re read this, I am sorry...not clear.

I mean that the color of your skin should never prevent you from voting, for example, but to me it is not something to avoid in crime prevention or apprehension of criminals or suspects.

Sorry for not being clear !

NOW I understand. Thanks for clearing it up! :clap2:

[Gary7]

I hope everyone can take the time to read the guidelines in the link posted by Tennisnut in post #25.
If you read the entire 12 pages (which includes 17 examples), then I would hope that you may consider that this law is fine. It states that law enforcement can profile on specific cases such as crime, homeland security, etc ... however, they cannot, as an example, profile people in a routine traffic stop just because they want to profile a certain segment of the population.

A one-sentence excerpt:
"In conducting all activities other than routine or spontaneous law enforcement
activities, Federal law enforcement officers may consider race, ethnicity, gender,
national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity only to the extent
that there is trustworthy information, relevant to the locality or time frame, that
links persons possessing a particular listed characteristic to an identified
criminal incident, scheme, or organization, a threat to national or homeland
security, a violation of Federal immigration law, or an authorized intelligence
activity."

[Tennisnut]

I hope everyone can take the time to read the guidelines in the link posted by Tennisnut in post #25.
If you read the entire 12 pages (which includes 17 examples), then I would hope that you may consider that this law is fine. It states that law enforcement can profile on specific cases such as crime, homeland security, etc ... however, they cannot, as an example, profile people in a routine traffic stop just because they want to profile a certain segment of the population.

A one-sentence excerpt:
"In conducting all activities other than routine or spontaneous law enforcement
activities, Federal law enforcement officers may consider race, ethnicity, gender,
national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity only to the extent
that there is trustworthy information, relevant to the locality or time frame, that
links persons possessing a particular listed characteristic to an identified
criminal incident, scheme, or organization, a threat to national or homeland
security, a violation of Federal immigration law, or an authorized intelligence
activity."

Sorry Gary7, but I do not think many will read it since it was written by Eric Holder who many hold in contempt.

[Barefoot]

I hope everyone can take the time to read the guidelines in the link posted by Tennisnut in post #25.
If you read the entire 12 pages (which includes 17 examples), then I would hope that you may consider that this law is fine. It states that law enforcement can profile on specific cases such as crime, homeland security, etc ... however, they cannot, as an example, profile people in a routine traffic stop just because they want to profile a certain segment of the population.

A one-sentence excerpt:
"In conducting all activities other than routine or spontaneous law enforcement activities, Federal law enforcement officers may consider race, ethnicity, gender, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity only to the extent that there is trustworthy information, relevant to the locality or time frame, that links persons possessing a particular listed characteristic to an identified criminal incident, scheme, or organization, a threat to national or homeland security, a violation of Federal immigration law, or an authorized intelligence activity."

"Trustworthy information" seems a debatable term. Who decides whether information was trustworthy, the media, law enforcement, the public?

[gomoho]

I hope everyone can take the time to read the guidelines in the link posted by Tennisnut in post #25.
If you read the entire 12 pages (which includes 17 examples), then I would hope that you may consider that this law is fine. It states that law enforcement can profile on specific cases such as crime, homeland security, etc ... however, they cannot, as an example, profile people in a routine traffic stop just because they want to profile a certain segment of the population.

A one-sentence excerpt:
"In conducting all activities other than routine or spontaneous law enforcement
activities, Federal law enforcement officers may consider race, ethnicity, gender,
national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity only to the extent
that there is trustworthy information, relevant to the locality or time frame, that
links persons possessing a particular listed characteristic to an identified
criminal incident, scheme, or organization, a threat to national or homeland
security, a violation of Federal immigration law, or an authorized intelligence
activity."


Ok, I'll ask again - what will this accomplish that the ban against racial profiling in 03 by Bush hasn't? This nonsense about gender and sexual orientation has nothing to do with anything. How is this anything more than just grandstanding by Holder? trying to appease the base he is on this?

[Rags123]

Sorry Gary7, but I do not think many will read it since it was written by Eric Holder who many hold in contempt.

So, you have read it in its entire and agree with all of it ? I dont and since you mentioned it, could you refer me to some links or posts to substantiate what you say about contempt for Mr Holder.

Thanks

[graciegirl]

So, you have read it in its entire and agree with all of it ? I dont and since you mentioned it, could you refer me to some links or posts to substantiate what you say about contempt for Mr Holder.

Thanks

That would be me saying I thought Eric Holder was stirring the racial pot.

I think this country has gone back decades in race relations in the last couple of months. I don't know who to blame but I have some favorites.

[Rags123]

That would be me saying I thought Eric Holder was stirring the racial pot.

I think this country has gone back decades in race relations in the last couple of months. I don't know who to blame but I have some favorites.

TENNISNUT said "MANY. hold in contempt" No disrespect but you are not many !!

Oh, and even those who have been supporters of the equal rights movement agree with you, but my question was the word MANY !!

[Gary7]

"Trustworthy information" seems a debatable term. Who decides whether information was trustworthy, the media, law enforcement, the public?

The word trustworthy appears eight times in the article and I believe that the article answers your question. To correctly interpret the guidelines, I think IMHO it is best to read the entire 12 pages of the document.

[billethkid]

the contempt for Holder spearing is reminiscent of sniping that border personal attacks that got the political forum closed......totally uncalled for.

Comments on the new rules. In the end it was not clear to me why the rules were being changed.....like it or not as I have stated earlier I have no respect or confidence for the people making changes in and continuing to promote selective law enforcement, thus to graying what is right or wrong resulting in more confusion for law enforcement to do what, when and where to enforce whatever.

Why not simply enforce the rules and laws on the books? There is that controverial word again.......ENFORCE!!!!!!

[Gary7]

Ok, I'll ask again - what will this accomplish that the ban against racial profiling in 03 by Bush hasn't? This nonsense about gender and sexual orientation has nothing to do with anything. How is this anything more than just grandstanding by Holder? trying to appease the base he is on this?

There have been many cases where law enforcement officers have profiled a gender (e.g., women) and sexual orientation (e.g, gay) without any justifiable reason. A crime was not committed yet the officer stopped and arrested the person on a crime that was not real ... only because the officer profiled the community.

The 17 examples in the article can give you an overview of how these injustices can occur.

Some people may think the officer has all the right in the world to stop someone because the officer has an affinity to arrest someone who does not meet his personal liking. Some people may think that not allowing the officer to do this is "nonsense" ... I think think that we can better use the officer in our community than that.

There are too many people who still have prejudices in this country in my opinion.

[TexaninVA]

Ok, I'll ask again - what will this accomplish that the ban against racial profiling in 03 by Bush hasn't? This nonsense about gender and sexual orientation has nothing to do with anything. How is this anything more than just grandstanding by Holder? trying to appease the base he is on this?

I think you've analyzed it correctly

[TexaninVA]

The word trustworthy appears eight times in the article and I believe that the article answers your question. To correctly interpret the guidelines, I think IMHO it is best to read the entire 12 pages of the document.

To equate "trustworthy" with a group of senior leaders who have proven to be all but trustworthy seems both humorous and ironic ...

[Tennisnut]

To equate "trustworthy" with a group of senior leaders who have proven to be all but trustworthy seems both humorous and ironic ...

All I know is that I have lot more trust in our leaders and faith in the direction in this country than I did six years ago. The fact that we can question authority in open way that would be unthinkable in many countries around the world is to be commended.

[MarkinMd]

In 34 years of police work in Baltimore County I worked approximately 60 percent of that time in the hours of darkness. Most of the time I couldn't tell the race or gender of the person I conducted a traffic stop on until I approached the vehicle on foot. One time I stopped a vehicle simply to let the operator know he had left an extra set of keys hanging from his trunk lock. I didn't want to see the person lose his keys. It just so happened to be a high ranking member of a neighboring jurisdiction. He exited his vehicle in full uniform (Major) and proceeded to act like a total jerk. I let him vent and he threatened to call my Captain and Internal Affairs. He was convinced I stopped him because he was African American. I respectfully advised him to call anyone he liked and gave him my name and ID number (required). I then informed him why I stopped him and pointed to the keys hanging from his trunk. I explained I didn't want someone to lose their keys. He then looked embarrassed and tried to laugh off his little tirade. I walked away and he wanted to shake hands with me, I refused and said I don't shake hands (not required) with people that stereotype others. He got my message.

[Rags123]

All I know is that I have lot more trust in our leaders and faith in the direction in this country than I did six years ago. The fact that we can question authority in open way that would be unthinkable in many countries around the world is to be commended.

Those who are in the know and have covered the last six years disagree quite dramatically, the last being Ann Compton who is retiring.

And cannot wait until the hearings tomorrow and Mr Gruber gets his chance.

And on the subject of the thread.....what is the last we heard on Fast and Furious ?

[JB in TV]

TENNISNUT said "MANY. hold in contempt" No disrespect but you are not many !!

Oh, and even those who have been supporters of the equal rights movement agree with you, but my question was the word MANY !!

I didn't write the post that you are referring to, but perhaps the "MANY" that is being commented on referrs to the House of Representatives? Wasn't Holder held in contempt for not providing documents requested by the House?

[Rags123]

I didn't write the post that you are referring to, but perhaps the "MANY" that is being commented on referrs to the House of Representatives? Wasn't Holder held in contempt for not providing documents requested by the House?

Sure....that is not a dead issue at all....I was under the impression that the MANY referred to by TENNISNUT was in reference to TOTV, and not the general malaise that surrounds that office at present.

[TexaninVA]

All I know is that I have lot more trust in our leaders and faith in the direction in this country than I did six years ago. The fact that we can question authority in open way that would be unthinkable in many countries around the world is to be commended.

Yes, a lot more trust. If you like your health care plan, you can keep it etc. I won't go through all the examples but let's simply say there is a seemingly endless supply, except it's an unwanted gift.

As far as questioning authority, if you're referring to Ferguson or Berkeley or "die ins" in Macys, or stopping traffic on the bridge when people are commuting to work, or to the upcoming CIA "Torture Report" I've noticed a trend. Many of our friends (ie not necessarily you) on one side of the spectrum recoil at the idea of American Exceptionalism, except IMHO when it seems to weaken America further or somehow drive us further apart. Topic for a separate thread so I'm just making a note for now.