Interesting I've never heard of ALEC...sounds like they need a bit more publicity. From a serious source instead of a talking cartoon gun.

ALEC is the nationwide conservative organization behind almost every single nationally-infamous state law since 2010. Arizona's SB1070? Check. All those anti-union bills that popped up in the midwest? Check. Personhood amendments? Check. Forced ultrasound bills? Check. Now it appears they're behind "Stand Your Ground" too.

But basically, remember how all this stuff seemed to be popping up literally everywhere the GOP took control of the state-level government in 2010? Turns out that wasn't a coincidence, it was (as the saying goes) enemy action.
>> ^Yogi:

Interesting I've never heard of ALEC...sounds like they need a bit more publicity. From a serious source instead of a talking cartoon gun.

It's hard to google for it and not get tons of stuff about Alec Baldwin, but here's the Bill Moyers blog on it, which includes a link to Paul Krugman's NYT article on it:

http://billmoyers.com/2012/03/28/what-does-walmart-have-to-do-with-trayvon-martin/

What the left seems to forget in their haste to blame conspiracies/corporations is, no matter who funds what, nothing can stand without the support of public opinion.

It's simply not possible for the left (or a large chunk of it) to believe people really want guns for self-defense, border security, rewarding only legitimate paths to citizenship, unions that aren't bailed out by taxpayer monies and health care reform that (a) a majority actually wants and (b) follows the Constitution.

>> ^quantumushroom:

What the left seems to forget in their haste to blame conspiracies/corporations is, no matter who funds what, nothing can stand without the support of public opinion.
It's simply not possible for the left (or a large chunk of it) to believe people really want guns for self-defense, border security, rewarding only legitimate paths to citizenship, unions that aren't bailed out by taxpayer monies and health care reform that (a) a majority actually wants and (b) follows the Constitution.


This would make sense if there was no such thing as the manufacture of consent or the conditioning of the human mind. We as a public are terrified of everything, we're so much more scared of everything stupid than any other countries people as a whole. It's not coming from nothing, it's our media...turn off the TV.

Kids these days with the iPhones and the rockem' sockem' robots have forgotten how to use google.

>> ^NetRunner:

It's hard to google for it and not get tons of stuff about Alec Baldwin...

The problem is, you had every single one of those things before the bills I rattled off.

Those bills were about letting people kill with impunity, giving the police the ability to say "papers please" to anyone without a warrant or probable cause, abolishing public-sector unions entirely, and using State AG offices as tool of national political activism by trying to undo a Congressional battle you already lost.

After all, if you're so sure it's unpopular, why not just wait until the people give you the votes in Congress to just repeal it? Why try and go the 5-4 judicial activism route?

>> ^quantumushroom:

It's simply not possible for the left (or a large chunk of it) to believe people really want guns for self-defense, border security, rewarding only legitimate paths to citizenship, unions that aren't bailed out by taxpayer monies and health care reform that (a) a majority actually wants and (b) follows the Constitution.

The stand your ground law isn't the problem. Zimmerman wasn't standing his ground, he was pursuing Martin. There is an exception in the Florida "stand-your-ground" law:

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Agree with this argument. Although I think SYG is rather crazy if both people can be seen as standing their ground, but only the survivor of the outcome gets to claim protection under it.


>> ^jimnms:

The stand your ground law isn't the problem. Zimmerman wasn't standing his ground, he was pursuing Martin. There is an exception in the Florida "stand-your-ground" law:

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.