Ohio passes Stand Your Ground bill

[Rigby5]

As for the Zimmerman/Martin shooting, the media DID get it right initially. You just now have it all wrong. It is impossible for Martin to have ambushed Zimmerman, but the other way around.
I agree however that things can be wrong in the media, so it is best to wait.
However, this was a public building, so then is a perfect target for political protest, which makes the shooting far more negative than if someone had been trying to protect private property.

You cannot bust the doors of a public building down and enter it, especially when entering it under normal circumstances requires you to be checked out first. Again, I'm not going to pass judgment on her or the officer until more information comes out.

If Zimmerman attacked Martin, then why no evidence of that? The officer who arrived on the scene testified to the fact that Zimmerman had lacerations on the back of his head, and the back of his jacket was wet and covered with grass. The Martin autopsy report shows no injuries except for a few scraped knuckles indicative of Martin hitting somebody or something. That means there was no way for Zimmerman to attack Martin otherwise there would have been some sign of injury to Martin from such an attack. Also, the knees on Martin's pants were also wet, and his jacket was dry.

According to investigators, forensics showed that Martin had to be shot while he was over Zimmerman.

Now to some logic here: If Martin lived so close, why didn't he just run home since Zimmerman was clearly no match for him? If Martin was worried about Zimmerman, why did he call his girlfriend instead of the police? After all, if he called the police, they could have explained the situation to him. If Zimmerman planned to attack Martin, why did he call the police? If I was going to attack anybody, that's the last thing I would do.

Here is what I think happened: Martin was talking to his girlfriend and told her he ran away from Zimmerman. His girlfriend made a comment on his courage, and Martin felt he had to even the score to save face with her. That's why the girlfriend didn't want to appear in court, so she got a girlfriend or relative of hers to say she was really Travon's girlfriend instead.

"The Trayvon Hoax" Film is now on YouTube for Free, Director says "Enjoy Stay at Home Bonus!"

/PRNewswire/ -- The best-selling film, The Trayvon Hoax: Unmasking the Witness Fraud that Divided America, is now available to watch on YouTube for free for a...

www.prnewswire.com

If Zimmerman had ambushed and confronted Martin, what evidence would you expect?
About the only evidence one would need or want is where it happened?
If it were near the SUV, then Zimmerman may have been just trying to leave.
But it was NOT near the SUV.
The SUV was to the west, near the clubhouse, and the confrontation happens east of the houses to the east.
So Zimmerman continued beyond the row of houses, to the sidewalk Zimmerman knows is the only way out, to the south.
So clearly we have absolute proof Zimmerman planned and implemented a confrontation.

As to Martin's girl friend, clearly now that we know she was under age, the explanation for why she did not want to testify is obvious and understandable.

But the phone being dropped at the point of conflict, shows Martin did not run after Zimmerman. He would have ended the phone call if he had planned a confrontation, not have had it in his hand and dropped it. The fact the phone was dropped indicates Martin had been surprised and likely grabbed by Zimmerman.

 

[Rigby5]

...

Now you are just making things up. You have no evidence that police "often" commit crimes. I think you watch too many television shows. Yes, there are bad cops out there, but they are anomalies, not the standard and eventually get busted themselves.
...

It can not be emphasized enough that police are always historically the main source of crime.
The majority of governments, now and in the past, have always been dictatorships caused by corrupt police.
That is because cops almost always just do what those who sign their paycheck tell them to do.
Which is almost always something wrong.
In fact, the good cop is the rarity, both now and in all of history.

And yet you have zero evidence to support your claim.

Are the majority of governments now and historically dictatorships or not?
Obviously true.

Are all dictatorship created and maintained by virtue of a corrupt police force, like the Gestapo, Savik, Tonton Macque, etc.?
Obviously true.

The only defense police have is that as corrupt as they easily become, they may also be essential.
For when there are no police, then there can be even more abuses, like lynchings, etc.,
At least police provide more uniformity in social responses.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That is totally and completely impossible.
First of all, we can't tell if Zimmerman continued running or not after he hung up.
But he obviously did NOT at all try to return to his SUV.
The confrontation does not happen in front of building where an address would be, but behind the building. Meaning that Zimmerman has to continue moving east, away from his SUV, to the back of the building, where he knew Martin has to show up eventually.
If what you described were true, then they never would have been in the back yard, away from the street.
Then the confrontation would have been in the front yard, near the street, to the west.
So then clearly it was Zimmerman who was the ambusher who made the confrontation happen.

I said he went to the front of the building to get an address of where he last seen Martin. As Zimmerman told dispatch, he had no idea where Martin went, so there's no way for him to assume where Martin was hiding or if he was long gone. Zimmerman was an out of shape guy. There is no way for even an athletic person to run and not be breathing heavy. They would pass out from insufficient oxygen. Plus there is zero evidence to show that Zimmerman attacked Martin.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Are the majority of governments now and historically dictatorships or not?
Obviously true.

Are all dictatorship created and maintained by virtue of a corrupt police force, like the Gestapo, Savik, Tonton Macque, etc.?
Obviously true.

The only defense police have is that as corrupt as they easily become, they may also be essential.
For when there are no police, then there can be even more abuses, like lynchings, etc.,
At least police provide more uniformity in social responses.

Police don't work for the federal government. They work for the city, county or state depending what field of police work they went into. Troopers and park police work for the state. City police work for the city, and the Sheriff's departments are generally county. The military, CIA, Justice Department and FBI are the only agencies under the federal government.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If Zimmerman had ambushed and confronted Martin, what evidence would you expect?
About the only evidence one would need or want is where it happened?
If it were near the SUV, then Zimmerman may have been just trying to leave.
But it was NOT near the SUV.
The SUV was to the west, near the clubhouse, and the confrontation happens east of the houses to the east.
So Zimmerman continued beyond the row of houses, to the sidewalk Zimmerman knows is the only way out, to the south.
So clearly we have absolute proof Zimmerman planned and implemented a confrontation.

As to Martin's girl friend, clearly now that we know she was under age, the explanation for why she did not want to testify is obvious and understandable.

But the phone being dropped at the point of conflict, shows Martin did not run after Zimmerman. He would have ended the phone call if he had planned a confrontation, not have had it in his hand and dropped it. The fact the phone was dropped indicates Martin had been surprised and likely grabbed by Zimmerman.

Who said anything about the phone being dropped? The timeline shows the call being dropped which means he hung up on her. It's likely he spotted Zimmerman and didn't want to give away his surprise meaning he didn't have time to explain to her why he had to hang up. What evidence would I expect? I would expect some indication that Martin was hit or kicked by Zimmerman, but again, the only injuries were to his knuckles, and I don't know anybody who was attacked by a person hitting their knuckles.

I know Zimmerman was away from his truck. What does that prove? He ran after Martin for a while, after he stopped running, he went to the front of the houses to get an address.

 

[Rigby5]

Moving between the states is a two way road in the sense that along with the liberals moving out of their states there can be the conservatives moving out of there too for more appropriate life. I think that in the future the will be some states where the conservative population will be growing due to such migration.

But, basically, there need to be fundamental changes in order to preserve some things. Changing election laws is one of them. But not the only one, of course.

My opinion that I have been voicing for some time now is we need to divide this country and have two countries instead of one; A line right down the middle from north to south. Conservatives move to the conservative country, liberals to the liberal country, and anybody in between will just have to pick a side.

I would rather save half this country than lose the entire thing. The left went from Democrats to liberals, from liberals to progressives, from progressives to what they now call Socialist Democrats. From there it will go to total Socialism, and eventually Communism. There is no way to stop it as far as I can see. It's growing like a cancer, and once the Democrats are able to make us whites a minority, they will have unchallenged power forever. This is why they are pushing so hard for virtual open borders.

Dividing never works.
Not only is there no natural line of division, but even if you did divide, there would still be a finer line of contention between those within the divides.

But your premise is flawed. I can agree with you that larger and more centralized government becomes less responsive and more corrupt, as big money gains increasing influence. But that is not communism, socialism, progressives, liberalism, etc. That is right wing capitalism. Communism, socialism, progressive, and liberal imply more local and less central. They imply things being more collective, communal, cooperative, etc., which all imply local. That is because only local communities can decide what they need the most, such as a public harbor, utilities, health care, etc.
Look at health care in particular.
Obviously current heathcare is badly broken, both in high costs and low quality. But that is because large corporate entities have taken it over, buying out all the little health care providers, like hospitals and clinics. It is the monopolies, price fixing, excluding access, etc., that make it so bad.
Socialism is how you regain some local control and provide some competition to reduce prices and increase quality.

 

[Rigby5]

Are the majority of governments now and historically dictatorships or not?
Obviously true.

Are all dictatorship created and maintained by virtue of a corrupt police force, like the Gestapo, Savik, Tonton Macque, etc.?
Obviously true.

The only defense police have is that as corrupt as they easily become, they may also be essential.
For when there are no police, then there can be even more abuses, like lynchings, etc.,
At least police provide more uniformity in social responses.

Police don't work for the federal government. They work for the city, county or state depending what field of police work they went into. Troopers and park police work for the state. City police work for the city, and the Sheriff's departments are generally county. The military, CIA, Justice Department and FBI are the only agencies under the federal government.

Local police are always subservient to the federal government.
Examples of local police working under federal mandates include Prohibition, the War on Drugs, federal 3 Strikes laws, federal gun control laws like the 1993 assault weapons ban, etc.

But I agree they are not supposed to.
The local police should have priority over federal forces, and local police should arrest federal forces that abuse the rights of locals.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Local police are always subservient to the federal government.
Examples of local police working under federal mandates include Prohibition, the War on Drugs, federal 3 Strikes laws, federal gun control laws like the 1993 assault weapons ban, etc.

But I agree they are not supposed to.
The local police should have priority over federal forces, and local police should arrest federal forces that abuse the rights of locals.

Local police are paid by local taxpayers so they only do local work. They don't and can't have jurisdiction over the federal government.

 

[Rigby5]

If Zimmerman had ambushed and confronted Martin, what evidence would you expect?
About the only evidence one would need or want is where it happened?
If it were near the SUV, then Zimmerman may have been just trying to leave.
But it was NOT near the SUV.
The SUV was to the west, near the clubhouse, and the confrontation happens east of the houses to the east.
So Zimmerman continued beyond the row of houses, to the sidewalk Zimmerman knows is the only way out, to the south.
So clearly we have absolute proof Zimmerman planned and implemented a confrontation.

As to Martin's girl friend, clearly now that we know she was under age, the explanation for why she did not want to testify is obvious and understandable.

But the phone being dropped at the point of conflict, shows Martin did not run after Zimmerman. He would have ended the phone call if he had planned a confrontation, not have had it in his hand and dropped it. The fact the phone was dropped indicates Martin had been surprised and likely grabbed by Zimmerman.

Who said anything about the phone being dropped? The timeline shows the call being dropped which means he hung up on her. It's likely he spotted Zimmerman and didn't want to give away his surprise meaning he didn't have time to explain to her why he had to hang up. What evidence would I expect? I would expect some indication that Martin was hit or kicked by Zimmerman, but again, the only injuries were to his knuckles, and I don't know anybody who was attacked by a person hitting their knuckles.

I know Zimmerman was away from his truck. What does that prove? He ran after Martin for a while, after he stopped running, he went to the front of the houses to get an address.

Wrong.
He could not have "spotted" Zimmerman if as you claim, Zimmerman was going back to his SUV.
And the phone call was not hung up.
The phone was simply dropped on the ground.
The proof of that is that the batter was totally dead by the time the police found it on the ground.
If Travon had deliberately ended the conversation, then the phone would have been turned off and pocketed, not dropped on the ground while still broadcasting.

{...
The phone provides a link to one of the prosecution’s most important witnesses, a 16-year-old Miami girl who told investigators that she was on the phone with Martin in the minutes leading up to the shooting.

In an interview recorded by an attorney for Martin’s family and ABC News, she said a man was following Martin, that he was scared, that he asked, ” ‘What are you following me for?’ ” and she heard the man say, ” ‘What are you doing around here?’ ”

The phone then went dead, she said.
...}

Key piece of evidence in Trayvon Martin case remains locked

ORLANDO, Fla. - Despite all the investigation, public outrage and scrutiny over the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, at least one major piece of evidence

www.jacksonville.com

The indications are the prosecutor deliberately left the phone out of evidence in order to get Zimmerman off.

As to indications of Zimmerman aggression, bruises do not show up if a person dies before they have a chance to collect blood.

Again, the confrontation happened to the east of the buildings and the street they were on, in their backyards. That is the opposite direction of the SUV that had been parked by the clubhouse, to the west.
The addresses were to the west on the main street, towards the SUV.
The confrontation happened in the backyards, to the east, away from the addresses and SUV.

 

[Rigby5]

Local police are always subservient to the federal government.
Examples of local police working under federal mandates include Prohibition, the War on Drugs, federal 3 Strikes laws, federal gun control laws like the 1993 assault weapons ban, etc.

But I agree they are not supposed to.
The local police should have priority over federal forces, and local police should arrest federal forces that abuse the rights of locals.

Local police are paid by local taxpayers so they only do local work. They don't and can't have jurisdiction over the federal government.

Wrong.
Police often do federal work, such as catching illegal immigrants, enforcing alcohol and drug federal laws, etc.
The local police do whatever the feds tell them to, usually.
And they should not.

The local police most certainly DO have jurisdiction over the federal government.
The authority of all levels of government come from the individuals they protect, so since local police have more specific knowledge of who and why they should act to protect, then they should clearly have much higher jurisdiction. For example, there are still federal drug arrests in states where the drug has been legalized. That is wrong. Local jurisdiction clearly must have priority under the general legal principles. The feds can't even point out whose rights they are defending at all.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Dividing never works.
Not only is there no natural line of division, but even if you did divide, there would still be a finer line of contention between those within the divides.

But your premise is flawed. I can agree with you that larger and more centralized government becomes less responsive and more corrupt, as big money gains increasing influence. But that is not communism, socialism, progressives, liberalism, etc. That is right wing capitalism. Communism, socialism, progressive, and liberal imply more local and less central. They imply things being more collective, communal, cooperative, etc., which all imply local. That is because only local communities can decide what they need the most, such as a public harbor, utilities, health care, etc.
Look at health care in particular.
Obviously current heathcare is badly broken, both in high costs and low quality. But that is because large corporate entities have taken it over, buying out all the little health care providers, like hospitals and clinics. It is the monopolies, price fixing, excluding access, etc., that make it so bad.
Socialism is how you regain some local control and provide some competition to reduce prices and increase quality.

Dividing works great. It's works great in areas that are divided today; much better than those that are together. You can't put hyenas and lion in the same cage. One will eventually kill the other.

I can't think of a better environment than never having to put up with Democrats ever again; living in a country where most people think like me, or close to it. Much less crime, no worries about higher taxes or no jobs around, no threat to owning or using firearms for self-defense, nobody telling my daughter in school she must share a dressing or restroom with weirdos in dresses, no more complaining about the environment, much less federal government to control our lives, a respect and adherence to our Constitution, having real jails again where it would be a place everybody feared, open worship of God and Jesus, and if it's my side chosen for the Republicans, my property value would double or more once the Democrats leave. It would be fantastic.

As for our healthcare, it's government who ruined it. Medicare and Medicaid often pay only 2/3 of the bill. Hospitals and doctors have to recoup that money somewhere, and that somewhere is private pay and private insurance by raising prices. Because of malpractice, doctors and facilities have to pay so much for protection. This leads to defensive medicine. Years ago you went to a family doctor who could treat most of your problems. Today, if you have an ear ache, your family doctor sends you to an ear and throat specialist. If it's muscle pain, you go to an orthopedic specialist. If it's a problem with your eye or eyes, they send you to an optometrist. Your family doctor is nothing but a referral agent because he or she is too scared to treat you for anything you can sue their insurance company for. Even some nurses have to carry malpractice.

As the saying goes, only a fool would expect a person that created a problem to have a solution for it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If Zimmerman had ambushed and confronted Martin, what evidence would you expect?
About the only evidence one would need or want is where it happened?
If it were near the SUV, then Zimmerman may have been just trying to leave.
But it was NOT near the SUV.
The SUV was to the west, near the clubhouse, and the confrontation happens east of the houses to the east.
So Zimmerman continued beyond the row of houses, to the sidewalk Zimmerman knows is the only way out, to the south.
So clearly we have absolute proof Zimmerman planned and implemented a confrontation.

As to Martin's girl friend, clearly now that we know she was under age, the explanation for why she did not want to testify is obvious and understandable.

But the phone being dropped at the point of conflict, shows Martin did not run after Zimmerman. He would have ended the phone call if he had planned a confrontation, not have had it in his hand and dropped it. The fact the phone was dropped indicates Martin had been surprised and likely grabbed by Zimmerman.

Who said anything about the phone being dropped? The timeline shows the call being dropped which means he hung up on her. It's likely he spotted Zimmerman and didn't want to give away his surprise meaning he didn't have time to explain to her why he had to hang up. What evidence would I expect? I would expect some indication that Martin was hit or kicked by Zimmerman, but again, the only injuries were to his knuckles, and I don't know anybody who was attacked by a person hitting their knuckles.

I know Zimmerman was away from his truck. What does that prove? He ran after Martin for a while, after he stopped running, he went to the front of the houses to get an address.

Wrong.
He could not have "spotted" Zimmerman if as you claim, Zimmerman was going back to his SUV.
And the phone call was not hung up.
The phone was simply dropped on the ground.
The proof of that is that the batter was totally dead by the time the police found it on the ground.
If Travon had deliberately ended the conversation, then the phone would have been turned off and pocketed, not dropped on the ground while still broadcasting.

{...
The phone provides a link to one of the prosecution’s most important witnesses, a 16-year-old Miami girl who told investigators that she was on the phone with Martin in the minutes leading up to the shooting.

In an interview recorded by an attorney for Martin’s family and ABC News, she said a man was following Martin, that he was scared, that he asked, ” ‘What are you following me for?’ ” and she heard the man say, ” ‘What are you doing around here?’ ”

The phone then went dead, she said.
...}

Key piece of evidence in Trayvon Martin case remains locked

ORLANDO, Fla. - Despite all the investigation, public outrage and scrutiny over the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, at least one major piece of evidence

www.jacksonville.com

The indications are the prosecutor deliberately left the phone out of evidence in order to get Zimmerman off.

As to indications of Zimmerman aggression, bruises do not show up if a person dies before they have a chance to collect blood.

Again, the confrontation happened to the east of the buildings and the street they were on, in their backyards. That is the opposite direction of the SUV that had been parked by the clubhouse, to the west.
The addresses were to the west on the main street, towards the SUV.
The confrontation happened in the backyards, to the east, away from the addresses and SUV.

I could not find any other source making the same claims about his cell phone. Other outlets including ABC and CNN (six months after your article was written) revealed it was Zimmerman's lawyers who got into his cell phone and wanted to use pictures and texts to show Martin was a violent person, and that he had very heated discussions with witness number 8. There were also pictures of a gun and dope. The prosecutor fought against the contents being submitted to the court as evidence and wanted it prohibited from being released to the media. Nothing about the phone being dropped to the ground or a dead battery.

You can make assumptions that Martin had injuries that blood couldn't get to, but I'm sure the doctors that performed the autopsy would have been able to find it if they were there. What we know for sure is that Zimmerman suffered from several abrasions in the back of the head, a broken nose, which resulted in two black eyes, and his doctor also treated him for some minor back injuries after the attack. We know that the only injuries to Martin were the scraped knuckles and nothing else.

We know that Zimmerman did the right thing by calling the police to report a suspicious character. We know that after he lost sight of Martin, he stopped running and continued his phone call with the police for about another minute. We know Martin was staying there and had more than ample time to run back to that house. We know Martin made no attempt to call the police. We also know the reason Martin was there in the first place is because his mother couldn't handle him any longer, and sent him to live with his father and his girlfriend. It was his fathers girlfriends house he was living at. That action came because of yet another school suspension.

 

[Batcat]

It may well have been self defense. When I was 17 I thought I was a lot tougher than I actually was.

My problem is Zimmerman called the cops to report a suspicious individual and then left his vehicle to pursue Trayvon Matin. He should have just left the cops resolve the situation rather than play hero.

If you have a concealed weapons permit and carry, it is wise to remember that if you go looking for trouble it often will find you.

To some point I agree, but somebody following you is no reason to attack them after they've stopped.

If Zimmerman had simply called the police and went on his way we would not be discussing this today.

 

[Rigby5]

Dividing never works.
Not only is there no natural line of division, but even if you did divide, there would still be a finer line of contention between those within the divides.

But your premise is flawed. I can agree with you that larger and more centralized government becomes less responsive and more corrupt, as big money gains increasing influence. But that is not communism, socialism, progressives, liberalism, etc. That is right wing capitalism. Communism, socialism, progressive, and liberal imply more local and less central. They imply things being more collective, communal, cooperative, etc., which all imply local. That is because only local communities can decide what they need the most, such as a public harbor, utilities, health care, etc.
Look at health care in particular.
Obviously current heathcare is badly broken, both in high costs and low quality. But that is because large corporate entities have taken it over, buying out all the little health care providers, like hospitals and clinics. It is the monopolies, price fixing, excluding access, etc., that make it so bad.
Socialism is how you regain some local control and provide some competition to reduce prices and increase quality.

Dividing works great. It's works great in areas that are divided today; much better than those that are together. You can't put hyenas and lion in the same cage. One will eventually kill the other.

I can't think of a better environment than never having to put up with Democrats ever again; living in a country where most people think like me, or close to it. Much less crime, no worries about higher taxes or no jobs around, no threat to owning or using firearms for self-defense, nobody telling my daughter in school she must share a dressing or restroom with weirdos in dresses, no more complaining about the environment, much less federal government to control our lives, a respect and adherence to our Constitution, having real jails again where it would be a place everybody feared, open worship of God and Jesus, and if it's my side chosen for the Republicans, my property value would double or more once the Democrats leave. It would be fantastic.

As for our healthcare, it's government who ruined it. Medicare and Medicaid often pay only 2/3 of the bill. Hospitals and doctors have to recoup that money somewhere, and that somewhere is private pay and private insurance by raising prices. Because of malpractice, doctors and facilities have to pay so much for protection. This leads to defensive medicine. Years ago you went to a family doctor who could treat most of your problems. Today, if you have an ear ache, your family doctor sends you to an ear and throat specialist. If it's muscle pain, you go to an orthopedic specialist. If it's a problem with your eye or eyes, they send you to an optometrist. Your family doctor is nothing but a referral agent because he or she is too scared to treat you for anything you can sue their insurance company for. Even some nurses have to carry malpractice.

As the saying goes, only a fool would expect a person that created a problem to have a solution for it.

I disagree.
When you try to divide, you can never do it completely.
There are still always some remnants, and they are going to be discriminated against even worse.
And in general, the divided more homogeneous groups become even less tolerant or flexible.
Like when India divided between Hindi and Moslem. A total disaster.

Dividing between democrats and republicans can't work because if nothing else, only about half the people even are democrats or republicans. There are lots of independents, like Green Party, Libertarians, Democratic Socialists, etc. And there certainly are no geographical boundaries. All neighborhoods have some wealthy, who tend to be republican, and some poor, who tend to be democrats. If you were to divide them, then while the crime may go with the democrats because they tend to be poor, that is also where most of the cheap labor is going to go. There will be no one to work at fast food places in the republican side of the divide.
No more complaining about the environment will mean no more environment to complain about.

And I disagree entirely about health care.
Insurance companies add NOTHING at all to health care and instead not only skim off 30%, but deliberately encourage high provider charges so that every one needs insurance even more.
The government did not at all harm health care with medicare. Medicare pays more than enough, and no doctor is required to take medicare patients. The government is responsible for the screw up, but that was by allowing employer benefits to have tax exemptions in 1957. That is when insurance companies took over and did all that harm, by deliberately inflating prices, making every one prepay, preventing individuals from being able to control costs or quality, etc.
The fact the rest of the world pays half what we do for health care, means we are over paying and our providers over charging. It is not like we get better quality health care. The rest of the modern world get much better health care than we do.

 

[ESay]

And I disagree entirely about health care.
Insurance companies add NOTHING at all to health care and instead not only skim off 30%, but deliberately encourage high provider charges so that every one needs insurance even more.
The government did not at all harm health care with medicare. Medicare pays more than enough, and no doctor is required to take medicare patients. The government is responsible for the screw up, but that was by allowing employer benefits to have tax exemptions in 1957. That is when insurance companies took over and did all that harm, by deliberately inflating prices, making every one prepay, preventing individuals from being able to control costs or quality, etc.
The fact the rest of the world pays half what we do for health care, means we are over paying and our providers over charging. It is not like we get better quality health care. The rest of the modern world get much better health care than we do

So, what is the solution? The government funded healthcare?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I disagree.
When you try to divide, you can never do it completely.
There are still always some remnants, and they are going to be discriminated against even worse.
And in general, the divided more homogeneous groups become even less tolerant or flexible.
Like when India divided between Hindi and Moslem. A total disaster.

Dividing between democrats and republicans can't work because if nothing else, only about half the people even are democrats or republicans. There are lots of independents, like Green Party, Libertarians, Democratic Socialists, etc. And there certainly are no geographical boundaries. All neighborhoods have some wealthy, who tend to be republican, and some poor, who tend to be democrats. If you were to divide them, then while the crime may go with the democrats because they tend to be poor, that is also where most of the cheap labor is going to go. There will be no one to work at fast food places in the republican side of the divide.
No more complaining about the environment will mean no more environment to complain about.

And I disagree entirely about health care.
Insurance companies add NOTHING at all to health care and instead not only skim off 30%, but deliberately encourage high provider charges so that every one needs insurance even more.
The government did not at all harm health care with medicare. Medicare pays more than enough, and no doctor is required to take medicare patients. The government is responsible for the screw up, but that was by allowing employer benefits to have tax exemptions in 1957. That is when insurance companies took over and did all that harm, by deliberately inflating prices, making every one prepay, preventing individuals from being able to control costs or quality, etc.
The fact the rest of the world pays half what we do for health care, means we are over paying and our providers over charging. It is not like we get better quality health care. The rest of the modern world get much better health care than we do.

And yet our northern hospitals are filled with Canadian patients. My sister who works at the Cleveland Clinic for many years can testify to that.

In the past some places have stopped taking new government patients because of the loss. That's why when you see health facilities close down, it's usually in lower income neighborhoods where most of the clientele are on those programs. There are not enough private insured patients to make up the loss. Then you have government insisting on more and more red tape. When I was in the business, we used to have weekly meetings, and many times it was for new paperwork that the government required. It was like our office girls were getting new training every month. Government wanted X form, so they'd order boxes of X forms, and then in two months, they got rid of X forms and switched to Y forms. We had to throw out boxes of X forms and buy the new ones. As for insurance companies, health insurance is the lowest profit insurance. Life, health, auto, home are much more profitable.

The Democrats don't want a completely government run system. If we had a government run system, then nobody could actually get sued. Trial lawyers donate big bucks to the Democrat party come election time.

If we can't divide the country into two, then we divide it into three; one for those Independents. It would work because it's certainly not working the way it is now. It can't get much worse, and I don't want to see the entire country fall to Communism.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If Zimmerman had simply called the police and went on his way we would not be discussing this today.

Probably not. But on the other hand, if Martin didn't attack Zimmerman, he'd probably be alive today too; in prison? Likely, but at least he'd be alive.

 

[Preacher]

It affects minorities more they claim....would that be because minorities commit more crime? Yes, that would be the reason.

COLUMBUS, Ohio—Gov. Mike DeWine on Monday signed a controversial “stand your ground” bill that would eliminate Ohio’s “duty to retreat” before using force in self-defense. Senate Bill 175, fast-tracked through the Ohio General Assembly last month by DeWine’s fellow Republicans, will make Ohio the 36th state to no longer require people to retreat before they can justifiably hurt or kill someone in self-defense.

The governor had previously hinted that he would veto SB175, saying he first wanted lawmakers to pass his package of gun reforms that they sat on for more than a year. But in a release sent Monday afternoon, the governor stated that the measure removes an “ambiguity in Ohio’s self-defense law.”

Until now, under Ohio law, people have been justified in using deadly force in self-defense so long as they aren’t the aggressor, believe they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and are in their home or vehicle. The new law, which takes effect in 90 days, removes the “home or vehicle” requirement, and instead states that the defendant need only be in a place where they lawfully have the right to be.

But Democrats, along with some Senate Republicans, have sharply criticized the bill, saying (among other things) that it would result in more violence and death -- particularly against minorities.

“Only cowards would pass and sign a bill that has been proven to disproportionately harm Black people,” said House Minority Leader Emilia Sykes, an Akron Democrat, in a statement. “Only cowards would support a bill that allows people to shoot first and ask questions later. The blood of the lives lost from the signing and passage of this bill rest solely on those who supported it.”

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signs ‘stand your ground’ bill

Gov. Mike DeWine on Monday signed a controversial “stand your ground” bill that would eliminate Ohio’s “duty to retreat” before using force in self-defense.

www.cleveland.com

My state now joins the others with common sense to pass this law which empowers the victims and weakens the criminal element. This bill has been around for several years. Before it was voted on, the Trayvon Martin incident came up, and they felt it better to put it in the drawer. But it's back stronger than ever because this also disables the attacker or their family from suing the victim when deadly force is used. We have had that protection in our homes and cars since the Republicans passed the Castle Doctrine, but not it applies just about anywhere.

As expected, the Democrats are telling us of the doom and gloom that will follow, but of course, every advancement we made to empower the victim had the same claims, yet none came true.

Outside of Cleveland.com (The Cleveland Plain Dealer) it's not being reported by our local news agencies. Gee, I wonder why.
[/Q

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It affects minorities more they claim....would that be because minorities commit more crime? Yes, that would be the reason.

And they have the gall to actually say it too.

 

[2aguy]

Bullshit, there are only 3 streets in that little complex so that is some bullshit.

What difference does that make? It doesn't matter if there were two streets or twenty. He was behind the buildings and didn't know the address. So he continued to walk to the front of the building to get the address, walked back, and that's when the little hood attacked him.

So of he jumped out and attacked how did he exchange words with him before the attack?

In a hostile situation what person has a gun on them and when they come face to face with the person they are following pulls out their cellphone.

I don't even understand what you're asking here. What does the cellphone have to do with it. Zimmerman was going to this truck to drive to the store. As a CCW holder, he had his gun with him which was a common thing for him to do. He spotted Martin and called the police as a suspicious character who fit the description of suspects who were breaking into homes in that complex.

Totally wrong.
It is clear from the maps that Zimmerman ran to get in front of Martin, to cut him off.
Martin delayed once out of sight, by making a cellphone call to his girl friend.
Not something a person in ambush would have done.

Zimmerman could not have gotten an address where he went, between the back yards of the houses.

Zimmerman is lying with this "enactment".
The dispatcher never asked for him to tell them where Martin went, and he did not drive the SUV away as he claimed. We heard his heavy breathing, so he was running, not driving. Zimmerman is a liar. He is lying because it was illegal for him to run around in front of Martin and cut him off like he did.
We know where the SUV was left, and we know the shooting happened far away from it.
So Zimmerman was not going back to the SUV as he claimed.

Dipshit.........I watched the trial.....Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle when he was violently attacked by martin.......

If you had watched the trial, the liar on the witness stand testified that martin lost Zimmerman in the complex......he then went back to attack Zimmerman, you doofus.

Zimmerman was walking back to meet the police you idiot.