Hispanics are anything from black to native american to white, the Democrats are the ones who decided to make these distinctions. As a general rule, hispanics are viewed as those descended from those who lived in areas colonized by the Spanish and Portuguese, but not those who immigrate to the US from Spain. That means that the majority of hispanics have only a partial ancestory going back to Europe. To be exact, the overwhelming majority of hispanics are descended from native americans rather than from Europeans. Traditionally, the Democrats consider anyone not descended entirely from Northern European ancestors to be non-white (for example, Democrats traditionally do not consider someone descended from Italian immigrants to be white).
That sounds good, except look at it this way. If the DA doesn't want to prosecute the person (for whatever reason), do you really think they are going to do a good job of presenting the evidence? To be perfectly honest, if I was a person who had committed murder and the DA did not want to see me go to jail, I would prefer he prosecute me, because after his easily refuted case was defeated, no one with more interest in convicting me would be able to charge me for that crime. Additionally, and more importantly, if the DA brings charges when they do not have sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction and then two or three years later new evidence surfaces, they will not be able to charge the person again. As a result, if the case automatically goes to trial a significant number of people who might otherwise be convicted will walk because key evidence was not yet known at the time of the original trial.
Your "solution" in this case would not solve the problem you are concerned with and would create other problems at least as great.
Who exactly do you want to decide whether or not there is enough evidence to bring charges, since you do not trust either the DA or the police to make this decision?
Well, considering that the police on the scene thought there was sufficient evidence that Zimmerman acted in self defense to let him go home, it seems likely that there is insufficient evidence to convict Zimmerman with anything regarding this case. The police really dislike when people take the law into their own hands, especially when those people are minorities (were you unaware that Zimmerman is an hispanic?).
Well the question I have is what you expect would have happened had a black guy shot an hispanic guy? Since this is not a case of a "white" guy shooting a black guy, but of an hispanic guy shooting a black guy, or didn't you know that part?
Instead of misdirecting your rage at the local officers, you should be looking at the SYG laws that put a heavy burden of proof on the prosecution...
The Stand Your Ground law does not come into play in this case. Since Zimmerman followed Martin, that completely eliminates the SYG law from being a factor. The only question is, did Zimmerman, as he contends, lose track of Martin and start to return to his car when Martin cold-cocked him and started to pound his head against the ground.
One of the biggest problems with this case is that in its initial report, NBC edited Zimmerman's 911 call to make him sound racist. NBC broadcast the recording edited to sound like this:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black."
The actual 911 conversation went like this:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
Note that Zimmerman only commented on the race of Martin when asked by the 911 dispatcher, whereas the original NBC version makes it sound like Zimmerman thought Martin was up to no good because Martin was black.
No, a trial may not be needed to decide the facts of the case. If the DA does not have sufficient evidence to believe he/she can obtain a conviction, it is a waste of taxpayer resources to bring the case to trial. The information currently available suggests that the DA so believes. We do not have the ability to analyze the evidence well enough to determine whether or not a trial is called for. However, considering the conflicting evidence that is available to us, it seems likely that the DA would be unable to prove criminal behavior on Zimmerman's part.
"Zimmerman really did kill Martin in self defense, because, uh, he says so! Yeah! And Martin was clearly suspicious what with him being black in a mixed race neighborhood and stuff!"
First let me state that I do not know what happened in the confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin (except that it ended with Zimmerman--an hispanic--shooting Martin--a black). However, the current released information is that several witnesses reported that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman was calling for help. Additionally, it was NBC who first reported this in a distorted manner. NBC first broadcast an edited version of Zimmerman's 911 call that had Zimmerman say, “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.” The actual 911 call went like this: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.” 911 operator: “Okay. And this guy, is he white, black, or Hispanic?” Zimmerman: “He looks black.” The actual 911 conversation is much less damning of George Zimmerman than what NBC broadcast.
Isn't that how capitalism is supposed to work? I thought conservatives were all for the free market.
Though personally I still think that news are supposed to be neutral, and that the whole idea that a news outfit can have a political slant is a perversion, regardless of the direction.
Isn't WHAT how capitalism is supposed to work? Yes, conservatives are for the free market, but I am not sure what conservatives have to do with this dispute between liberals.
I am not sure what makes you think that the news is "supposed to be neutral". There has never been a time when there was a news source that did not have a political slant. Reporters have a political opinion. That opinion is going to effect how they report the news. I would much rather know upfront what that opinion is, rather than have the reporter try to pretend that he/she is being objective.
My mistake, I looked up the wrong Richard and got the dates wrong. You are correct about the English version being spoken at the time. Although I still think it probable that Robin Hood was fluent in period French (the language of the nobility).
Actually, Robin Hood was a member of the minor nobility (one of the few remaining Anglo-Saxon nobles in a country where the nobility were predominantly Normans). The merry men were all from the yeomanry. So, Robin Hood would probably have spoken French fluently as a second language with Middle English as his primary language (Middle English was fully developed by 1400 and Robin Hood is set in the mid to late 1400s).
Ok, I will give you a factor other than healthcare that effects average life expectancy. In the U.S., if a baby is born alive, yet dies within 24 hours of birth, it is counted as a live birth and thus impacts the life expectancy. In most other nations, such a baby is not counted as a live birth and thus is not calculated into life expectancy. Preventable deaths includes the victims of automobile accidents and violent crime who are dead at the scene, neither of which is a healthcare issue. so what factors other than healthcare influence long term survival rates after being diagnosed with cancer?
Or do you just want to keep up with your "USA sucks!" mindset?
As you can see "whether or not the government pays for healthcare" is not "one of its primary factors"
You say this after a sentence that says that one of the major factors is "who pays the cost". What they mean by that is, do you pay the cost for your medical treatment, or does your government pay the cost. So, yes, using the WHO ranking to argue for the government to pay for healthcare is circular reasoning, since the WHO, everything else being equal, ranks a country where the government pays for healthcare higher than a country where the government does not pay for healthcare.
The fact of the matter is that the 5 year survival rate for someone diagnosed with cancer is higher in the U.S. than in Europe or Canada. That is a measure of quality of healthcare. I am not currently arguing about how affordable healthcare is, but about the quality of healthcare. You are the one who said that countries with government payment for healthcare had better healthcare. You did not say they had more affordable healthcare.
I did not claim conspiracy. I claimed that the WHO uses whether or not the government pays for healthcare as a significant factor in their rankings of a country's health care. That makes using the WHO ranking to argue for the U.S. government to pay for healthcare is circular reasoning. The problem with both of those charts you are using is that there are factors other than quality of healthcare that have a significant impact on those numbers.
On the other hand, the expected five year survival rate of someone diagnosed with a particular serious illness is mostly related to the quality of healthcare they are likely to receive. And in the U.S., that rate is among the top three for just about every serious illness (if not every, but I may have missed some). Here is a link on cancer survival rates: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/07/21/most-cancer-survival-rates-in-usa-better-than-europe-and-canada/
I believe that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the belief that the document is forged. There is no conclusive evidence as to who forged it, but it seems stretching it a bit to believe that not only did the Heartland Institute treat this particular document differently than all of the other documents that were part of preparation for a Board meeting by one of the Board members, but that they did so on a machine that was set to a time zone where they have no offices.
There is sufficient evidence to support the claim that the document is forged and that Peter Gleick was aware that it was forged. As to who forged it, there is no solid evidence, but it seems likely that that was Peter Gleick.
Warren Buffett is a typical rich liberal. He has his, now he wants to make it more difficult for others to get rich.
As I use the term "conservative" and as those who spend time on conservative discussion boards define the term "conservative", conservative means that one supports a limited government as envisioned by the framers of the U.S. Constitution. Both Christopher Buckley and Kathleen Parker have expressed support for a more expansive government than that.
So, the word of an admitted liar is taken as greater value than Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation of the document that is damning is that Peter Gleick created it and scanned it to pdf. There is no evidence of any value that it comes from the Heartland Institute. You are asking the Heartland Institute to prove a negative. That is, you want them to prove that the document in question did not come from them. How are they supposed to do that? You say, by releasing for public view all of their documents. The problem is that there is no reason to believe that you would not argue that they had deleted the "incriminating" document before they released their documents. You have demonstrated that you are willing to believe whatever supports the conclusion you have already reached.
That's right, trust the rankings from an organization that uses whether or not the government pays for healthcare as one of its primary factors in judging how good the healthcare is to determine whether the healthcare in a country where the government does not primarily pay for healthcare is as good as the healthcare in a country where the government does pay for most healthcare. Using the WHO ranking to argue for the U.S. government to pay for healthcare is circular reasoning.
If all they want is money to study to see if there is a relationship between these pesticides and Colony Collapse Disorder, I do not have a problem with that. If, on the other hand, they want to ban the use of these pesticides on the basis of the study they have already done, I have a problem with that.
None of the people in question had ever been slaves. As a matter of fact, the country was well on the way to being desegregated until the Democrats under Woodrow Wilson resegregated the federal goverment.
My argument does not mean I would support businesses that refused to do business with blacks. I merely support their right to do so (I happen to think it is a stupid business decision, as well as being wrong). It is not the government's business who someone chooses to business with (or not).
The countries with universal healthcare have way better care.
Oh, that explains why someone diagnosed with a serious illness in the U.S. has a better long term prognosis than someone diagnosed with the same disease in just about any other country.
Slashdot Mirror
Hispanics are anything from black to native american to white, the Democrats are the ones who decided to make these distinctions. As a general rule, hispanics are viewed as those descended from those who lived in areas colonized by the Spanish and Portuguese, but not those who immigrate to the US from Spain. That means that the majority of hispanics have only a partial ancestory going back to Europe. To be exact, the overwhelming majority of hispanics are descended from native americans rather than from Europeans. Traditionally, the Democrats consider anyone not descended entirely from Northern European ancestors to be non-white (for example, Democrats traditionally do not consider someone descended from Italian immigrants to be white).
That sounds good, except look at it this way. If the DA doesn't want to prosecute the person (for whatever reason), do you really think they are going to do a good job of presenting the evidence? To be perfectly honest, if I was a person who had committed murder and the DA did not want to see me go to jail, I would prefer he prosecute me, because after his easily refuted case was defeated, no one with more interest in convicting me would be able to charge me for that crime. Additionally, and more importantly, if the DA brings charges when they do not have sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction and then two or three years later new evidence surfaces, they will not be able to charge the person again. As a result, if the case automatically goes to trial a significant number of people who might otherwise be convicted will walk because key evidence was not yet known at the time of the original trial.
Your "solution" in this case would not solve the problem you are concerned with and would create other problems at least as great.
Who exactly do you want to decide whether or not there is enough evidence to bring charges, since you do not trust either the DA or the police to make this decision?
Well, considering that the police on the scene thought there was sufficient evidence that Zimmerman acted in self defense to let him go home, it seems likely that there is insufficient evidence to convict Zimmerman with anything regarding this case. The police really dislike when people take the law into their own hands, especially when those people are minorities (were you unaware that Zimmerman is an hispanic?).
Well the question I have is what you expect would have happened had a black guy shot an hispanic guy? Since this is not a case of a "white" guy shooting a black guy, but of an hispanic guy shooting a black guy, or didn't you know that part?
Instead of misdirecting your rage at the local officers, you should be looking at the SYG laws that put a heavy burden of proof on the prosecution...
The Stand Your Ground law does not come into play in this case. Since Zimmerman followed Martin, that completely eliminates the SYG law from being a factor. The only question is, did Zimmerman, as he contends, lose track of Martin and start to return to his car when Martin cold-cocked him and started to pound his head against the ground.
One of the biggest problems with this case is that in its initial report, NBC edited Zimmerman's 911 call to make him sound racist. NBC broadcast the recording edited to sound like this:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black."
The actual 911 conversation went like this:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
Note that Zimmerman only commented on the race of Martin when asked by the 911 dispatcher, whereas the original NBC version makes it sound like Zimmerman thought Martin was up to no good because Martin was black.
No, a trial may not be needed to decide the facts of the case. If the DA does not have sufficient evidence to believe he/she can obtain a conviction, it is a waste of taxpayer resources to bring the case to trial. The information currently available suggests that the DA so believes. We do not have the ability to analyze the evidence well enough to determine whether or not a trial is called for. However, considering the conflicting evidence that is available to us, it seems likely that the DA would be unable to prove criminal behavior on Zimmerman's part.
"Zimmerman really did kill Martin in self defense, because, uh, he says so! Yeah! And Martin was clearly suspicious what with him being black in a mixed race neighborhood and stuff!"
First let me state that I do not know what happened in the confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin (except that it ended with Zimmerman--an hispanic--shooting Martin--a black). However, the current released information is that several witnesses reported that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman was calling for help. Additionally, it was NBC who first reported this in a distorted manner. NBC first broadcast an edited version of Zimmerman's 911 call that had Zimmerman say, “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.” The actual 911 call went like this: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.” 911 operator: “Okay. And this guy, is he white, black, or Hispanic?” Zimmerman: “He looks black.” The actual 911 conversation is much less damning of George Zimmerman than what NBC broadcast.
Isn't that how capitalism is supposed to work? I thought conservatives were all for the free market. Though personally I still think that news are supposed to be neutral, and that the whole idea that a news outfit can have a political slant is a perversion, regardless of the direction.
Isn't WHAT how capitalism is supposed to work? Yes, conservatives are for the free market, but I am not sure what conservatives have to do with this dispute between liberals.
I am not sure what makes you think that the news is "supposed to be neutral". There has never been a time when there was a news source that did not have a political slant. Reporters have a political opinion. That opinion is going to effect how they report the news. I would much rather know upfront what that opinion is, rather than have the reporter try to pretend that he/she is being objective.
My mistake, I looked up the wrong Richard and got the dates wrong. You are correct about the English version being spoken at the time. Although I still think it probable that Robin Hood was fluent in period French (the language of the nobility).
The US can do better. However, government run healthcare is not better.
I agree. I think that dwarves should have a germanic accent. I personally would go with a Swiss German accent.
Actually, Robin Hood was a member of the minor nobility (one of the few remaining Anglo-Saxon nobles in a country where the nobility were predominantly Normans). The merry men were all from the yeomanry. So, Robin Hood would probably have spoken French fluently as a second language with Middle English as his primary language (Middle English was fully developed by 1400 and Robin Hood is set in the mid to late 1400s).
Ok, I will give you a factor other than healthcare that effects average life expectancy. In the U.S., if a baby is born alive, yet dies within 24 hours of birth, it is counted as a live birth and thus impacts the life expectancy. In most other nations, such a baby is not counted as a live birth and thus is not calculated into life expectancy. Preventable deaths includes the victims of automobile accidents and violent crime who are dead at the scene, neither of which is a healthcare issue. so what factors other than healthcare influence long term survival rates after being diagnosed with cancer?
Or do you just want to keep up with your "USA sucks!" mindset?
As you can see "whether or not the government pays for healthcare" is not "one of its primary factors"
You say this after a sentence that says that one of the major factors is "who pays the cost". What they mean by that is, do you pay the cost for your medical treatment, or does your government pay the cost. So, yes, using the WHO ranking to argue for the government to pay for healthcare is circular reasoning, since the WHO, everything else being equal, ranks a country where the government pays for healthcare higher than a country where the government does not pay for healthcare.
The fact of the matter is that the 5 year survival rate for someone diagnosed with cancer is higher in the U.S. than in Europe or Canada. That is a measure of quality of healthcare. I am not currently arguing about how affordable healthcare is, but about the quality of healthcare. You are the one who said that countries with government payment for healthcare had better healthcare. You did not say they had more affordable healthcare.
I did not claim conspiracy. I claimed that the WHO uses whether or not the government pays for healthcare as a significant factor in their rankings of a country's health care. That makes using the WHO ranking to argue for the U.S. government to pay for healthcare is circular reasoning. The problem with both of those charts you are using is that there are factors other than quality of healthcare that have a significant impact on those numbers.
On the other hand, the expected five year survival rate of someone diagnosed with a particular serious illness is mostly related to the quality of healthcare they are likely to receive. And in the U.S., that rate is among the top three for just about every serious illness (if not every, but I may have missed some). Here is a link on cancer survival rates: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/07/21/most-cancer-survival-rates-in-usa-better-than-europe-and-canada/
I believe that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the belief that the document is forged. There is no conclusive evidence as to who forged it, but it seems stretching it a bit to believe that not only did the Heartland Institute treat this particular document differently than all of the other documents that were part of preparation for a Board meeting by one of the Board members, but that they did so on a machine that was set to a time zone where they have no offices.
There is sufficient evidence to support the claim that the document is forged and that Peter Gleick was aware that it was forged. As to who forged it, there is no solid evidence, but it seems likely that that was Peter Gleick.
Warren Buffett is a typical rich liberal. He has his, now he wants to make it more difficult for others to get rich.
As I use the term "conservative" and as those who spend time on conservative discussion boards define the term "conservative", conservative means that one supports a limited government as envisioned by the framers of the U.S. Constitution. Both Christopher Buckley and Kathleen Parker have expressed support for a more expansive government than that.
So, the word of an admitted liar is taken as greater value than Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation of the document that is damning is that Peter Gleick created it and scanned it to pdf. There is no evidence of any value that it comes from the Heartland Institute. You are asking the Heartland Institute to prove a negative. That is, you want them to prove that the document in question did not come from them. How are they supposed to do that? You say, by releasing for public view all of their documents. The problem is that there is no reason to believe that you would not argue that they had deleted the "incriminating" document before they released their documents. You have demonstrated that you are willing to believe whatever supports the conclusion you have already reached.
That's right, trust the rankings from an organization that uses whether or not the government pays for healthcare as one of its primary factors in judging how good the healthcare is to determine whether the healthcare in a country where the government does not primarily pay for healthcare is as good as the healthcare in a country where the government does pay for most healthcare. Using the WHO ranking to argue for the U.S. government to pay for healthcare is circular reasoning.
If all they want is money to study to see if there is a relationship between these pesticides and Colony Collapse Disorder, I do not have a problem with that. If, on the other hand, they want to ban the use of these pesticides on the basis of the study they have already done, I have a problem with that.
Even simpler plan, round all prices up to the next $.05 increment...profit.
The particular mix of metals is pretty much unique to pennies, so they will know exactly where the ingot came from.
None of the people in question had ever been slaves. As a matter of fact, the country was well on the way to being desegregated until the Democrats under Woodrow Wilson resegregated the federal goverment.
My argument does not mean I would support businesses that refused to do business with blacks. I merely support their right to do so (I happen to think it is a stupid business decision, as well as being wrong). It is not the government's business who someone chooses to business with (or not).
The countries with universal healthcare have way better care. Oh, that explains why someone diagnosed with a serious illness in the U.S. has a better long term prognosis than someone diagnosed with the same disease in just about any other country.