HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » tulipsandroses » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Thu Oct 19, 2017, 03:21 PM
Number of posts: 4,904

Journal Archives

Free Rayshaun on the Roku Channel. Excellent. I am sure the Blue Lives Matter Folks will be pissed

I don't know if the Roku Channel is available to those that don't have a Roku TV. Roku now has original content.
Laurence Fishburne stars in Free Rayshaun.

These series are a bit different from what you may be used to. Each episode is only 10 minutes or less - but you can watch them back to back with 2-3 commercials. So to me it comes across as a full length movie, with commercials.

Apparently Roku bought Quibi which was meant to deliver movie quality content to cell phones - which is why the episodes are shorter in length than regular tv episodes.

I am10 episodes in, so I don't know how this ends yet. It almost never ends well for a black man being pursued by cops so I have a feeling it doesn't end well. But will have to finish watching

In any event, says a lot about the current state of policing in America.
Posted by tulipsandroses | Mon May 31, 2021, 12:39 PM (0 replies)

Hillary Clinton takes on conspiracy theorists in new 'Borat' series


Hillary Clinton is confronting what she calls a "painfully false" and "hurtful" conspiracy theory about her, with the help of none other than the movie character Borat.
The former secretary of state appears in an episode of Sacha Baron Cohen’s Amazon Prime series “Borat’s American Lockdown & Debunking Borat,” which debuted Tuesday.


That episode sets the stage for the other six, each of which addresses a specific myth Holleman and Russell believe, tells the story of how the disinformation originated and spread, and then has experts talk directly with the men in an attempt to better educate them.

“The myths and misinformation they shared with Borat fuel a dangerous rhetoric that is tearing apart societies in front of our eyes,” Cohen says in the introduction of the series.

The final episode addresses Clinton and a conspiracy theory involving blood libel, the supposed ritualistic drinking of children’s blood.
Posted by tulipsandroses | Fri May 28, 2021, 06:18 AM (1 replies)

Is Dejoy still messing with the mail?

Paid for expedited shipping for item from Canada - item must be refrigerated. I paid the extra to have the company pack it in dry ice. It was supposed to arrive today. Last update was on Saturday. It left Canada on Thursday. Arrived in the US on Fri and has been sitting in CA since that time. Regular mail has already arrived today. Just tried to call USPS customer service. Wait time is over an hour.

This is just ridamdiculous.
Posted by tulipsandroses | Mon May 17, 2021, 04:41 PM (18 replies)

More proof that republicans are trash - John Oliver discusses black hair

Excellent presentation by John Oliver.

If you don't want to watch the whole thing. Skip to the 18 minute mark- That's where the trash/racist republican appears. I am sure he thinks he's not racist.

Posted by tulipsandroses | Tue May 11, 2021, 01:45 AM (3 replies)

Old case floating the net about 6 yr old charged after picking a flower

Charged with injury to property.

This story is making the rounds on the internet. Apparently its 13 yrs old. Nonetheless, what the hell kind of country are we living in that would charge a kindergartener or first grader for picking a flower? WTF? WTF, WTF????

The fact that its 13 yrs old should not lessen the shock.

A recent report out of North Carolina is receiving national attention for spotlighting a case revolving around a six-year-old boy who was forced to appear in court for allegedly picking a tulip from a yard at his bus stop.

Bridges’ damning report also notes that—between 2015 and 2018—nearly 7,300 complaints were filed against children between the ages of 6 and 11. And of those complaints, 47 percent were against Black children, despite the fact that just 22 percent of the state’s population is Black, while 70 percent is white.

Thankfully, many social justice groups and other organizations—the National Juvenile Justice Network chief among them—are pushing hard for the age for juvenile proceedings (like the one that forced a 6-year-old boy to appear before a judge) to be raised.


Who the fuck calls the police on a 6 yr old? Seriously? What kind of soul less pitiful excuse of a human being are you?

Original story

The 6-year-old dangled his legs above the floor as he sat at the table with his defense attorney, before a North Carolina judge.

He was accused of picking a tulip from a yard at his bus stop, his attorney Julie Boyer said, and he was on trial in juvenile

court for injury to real property.

"Should a child that believes in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy be making life-altering decisions?" asked New Hanover County Chief District Court Judge Jay Corpening.


Posted by tulipsandroses | Wed May 5, 2021, 09:51 PM (2 replies)

Billy Porter throws shade at Kaitlyn Jenner

Billy Porter depicts California's response to Kaitlyn Jenner's announcement she's running for governor.

Posted by tulipsandroses | Mon May 3, 2021, 09:53 PM (9 replies)

This case highlights the absurdity of qualified immunity - SC decision on shooting of Amy Hughes

Ali Velshi talked about this case on his show this morning:

The case started in 2010 when three police officers responded to a 911 call reporting that a woman had been seen acting erratically by hacking at a tree with a knife.

They saw Sharon Chadwick standing in the driveway of a house. A second woman, Amy Hughes, emerged from the house, holding a kitchen knife. She stopped six feet from Ms. Chadwick.
Although the officers did not know it, the two women were roommates. Ms. Hughes was not moving, spoke calmly, held the knife at her side and made no aggressive movements.

Ms. Chadwick later said that she did not feel threatened and that Ms. Hughes had appeared composed.
The officers drew their guns and told Ms. Hughes to drop the knife, but it is not clear that she heard them. Officer Andrew Kisela opened fire, shooting Ms. Hughes four times.
Screaming and bleeding, Ms. Hughes asked, “Why’d you shoot me?”
She survived and sued the officer for using excessive force.


The Supreme Court Gives Police a Green Light to ‘Shoot First and Think Later’

The Supreme Court just ruled that a police officer could not be sued for gunning down Amy Hughes. This has vast implications for law enforcement accountability. The details of the case are as damning as the decision. Hughes was not suspected of a crime. She was simply standing still, holding a kitchen knife at her side. The officer gave no warning that he was going to shoot her if she did not comply with his commands. Moments later, the officer shot her four times.

As Sotomayor argued in dissent, the court’s decision in Kisela v. Hughes means that such “palpably unreason­able conduct will go unpunished.” According to seven of the nine Justices, Hughes’ Fourth Amendment right to not be shot four times in this situation is less protected than the officer’s interest in escaping accountability for his brazen abuse of authority. According to Justice Sotomayor, “If this account of [the officer’s] conduct sounds unreasonable, that is because it was. And yet, the Court ... insulates that conduct from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity.”
In 1982 it meant that “a reasonable person would have known” an action was unlawful. Fast forward to 2010 and “clearly established” meant that “every ‘reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.’” The difference between “a” and “every” may seem technical, but, as Dean Chemerinsky and the late Judge Stephen Reinhardt explained, this change marks the difference between a measured fair notice standard under which it was possible to hold law enforcement accountable and what we have now: a system that “protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”

Qualified immunity has become a misnomer. It should be called what it is, as Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg did in their dissent from last week’s opinion. It is an “absolute shield.”

Posted by tulipsandroses | Sat May 1, 2021, 10:42 AM (1 replies)
Go to Page: 1