Usa Thread

[Bangkoktraveler]

As for as I know the background check only looks at ones criminal background. If you are seeing a psychologist they are not allowed to divulge who is under their care. In Pennsylvania you can have a concealed weapon. I have a childhood friend who is a recovering addict and he has one. Every so often he goes out on a drug binge. So far, he has not been arrested so his permit is still safe. I've pleaded with him for his own safety and others to get rid of his gun. Its amazing you can be a drug addict or technically mentally unstable and can own a gun.

 

While waiting for the facts, it doesn't look good for Zimmerman in my mind. He went after the teenager after being told not to. People who are minding their own business don't normally get into a fight unprovoked. Martin may have been a hot head or a truant but had Zimmerman simply listened it all could have been avoided.

 

Martin has a less than stellar background compared to most.

 

Geraldo has come under fire for saying kids shouldn't be wearing hoodies as it makes them look like criminals. It does to some people but people have a right to wear what they want. My dad wouldn't allow the sagging jeans, tattoos, earrings (although I got my left ear pierced in college). When I went to HS in the suburbs those kids complained cops stopped them if their hair was too long and they wore black concert t shirts, torn jeans and army jackets and smoked cigs.

 

What I think is too much for me personally are members of Congress wearing hoodies in protest.

 

 

In Arizona, if you have a medical marihuana card you can't have a gun.

If you do - they got you!

[Flashermac]

My immediate thought was manslaughter (unnecessary killing). Looks like I'm not the only one.

 

<< Zimmerman was not arrested although ABC News has learned that the lead homicide investigator filed an affidavit urging Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. The prosecutor, however, told the officer to not file the charge because there was not enough evidence for conviction. >>

 

My link

 

 

 

 

 

[Flashermac]

Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law

 

 

The Supreme Court's conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.

 

Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law's controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.

 

The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.

 

"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.

 

Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

 

Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a “wrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted.

 

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.

 

An Obama administration lawyer, urging caution, said it would be "extraordinary" for the court to throw out the entire law. About 2.5 million young people under age 26 are on their parents' insurance now because of the new law. If it were struck down entirely, "2.5 million of them would be thrown off the insurance rolls," said Edwin Kneedler.

 

The administration indicated it was prepared to accept a ruling that some of the insurance reforms should fall if the mandate were struck down. For example, insurers would not be required to sell coverage to people with preexisting conditions. But Kneedler, a deputy solicitor general, said the court should go no further.

 

But the court's conservatives said the law was passed as a package and must fall as a package.

 

The justices are scheduled to meet Wednesday afternoon to debate the law's Medicaid expansion.

 

Back to the drawing board

 

 

 

 

 

[kamui]

Zimmerman followed Martin, which he should not have done. Martin got pissed off and jumped Zimmerman, obviously intending to do him serious injury, which he should not have done. So how does one determine who is to blame? As I said, both are. It should be up to a court of inquiry to determine the guilt, not the press and politicians.

 

 

George Zimmerman Video Outrage: Where Are Injuries From Travyon Fight?

by Jesse Singal Mar 29, 2012 1:42 AM EDT

 

Newly released police video of George Zimmerman reveals none of the injuries he said he received from Trayvon Martin. Jesse Singal on how the footage lays bare the worst, most dangerous tendencies of the Internet—and ourselves.

If the police video of George Zimmerman being taken into questioning shows what it appears to show, if Zimmerman really was devoid of the injuries that had been so feverishly and eagerly recounted by his defenders, then we have on our hands an absolutely catastrophic failure on the part of the media, and one of the most dramatic, devastating examples in recent memory of the Internet’s power to decide “the facts†long before anyone has a clue what they are.

http://www.thedailyb...vyon-fight.html

[BelgianBoy]

[allistar]

Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law

 

 

The Supreme Court's conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.

 

Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law's controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.

 

The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.

 

"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.

 

Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

 

Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a “wrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted.

 

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.

 

An Obama administration lawyer, urging caution, said it would be "extraordinary" for the court to throw out the entire law. About 2.5 million young people under age 26 are on their parents' insurance now because of the new law. If it were struck down entirely, "2.5 million of them would be thrown off the insurance rolls," said Edwin Kneedler.

 

The administration indicated it was prepared to accept a ruling that some of the insurance reforms should fall if the mandate were struck down. For example, insurers would not be required to sell coverage to people with preexisting conditions. But Kneedler, a deputy solicitor general, said the court should go no further.

 

But the court's conservatives said the law was passed as a package and must fall as a package.

 

The justices are scheduled to meet Wednesday afternoon to debate the law's Medicaid expansion.

 

Back to the drawing board

Hardly an unbiased article by a writer for the L.A. Times that has written several articles about the Health Care Law and all of them were about the unconstitutionality of the law. When I saw that he had written an article about Clarance Thomas (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/03/nation/la-na-clarence-thomas-20110703), titled "Being his own man," I know that I could question his motives for writing the current article. By the way, I still think that Kennedy is the swing vote. I didn't see anywhere in Kennedy's questioning that he had tipped off his position on Obamacare. His last quote in the article, if anything, signalled his reluctant in stricking down all of Obamacare. I do, unfortunately, now see it as a 5-4 vote for either for or against the requirement to buy health insurance.

[Bangkoktraveler]

If Obamacare is done away with, will Social Security, Medicare, VA Hospital and Native American health benefits.

[Hugh_Hoy]

I do, unfortunately, now see it as a 5-4 vote for either for or against the requirement to buy health insurance.

 

Ditto here. I'd much prefer to see a 9-0 vote against the requirement...and a 9-0 vote to scrap the entire piece of legislation. Anybody who thinks the court is going to read the entire 2500 pages of legistlation to see what will stand or fall is delusional. Why should the justices do something probably NONE of the legistlators did?

 

HH

[Steve]

In Arizona, if you have a medical marihuana card you can't have a gun.

If you do - they got you!

 

So, its okay to drink any amount of alcohol or take any amount of prescription drugs that can alter your mental state and have a gun but if you smoke pot you can't? Okay, makes sense to me.

[Steve]

With regards to the Trayvon Martin shooting. This has so much scrutiny, I have no doubt we'll get all the facts. Whether or not all the facts will lead to a resolution some of us agree with is another matter entirety.

 

As far as health care. If its voted against by the justices, I think it helps the Dems more than the Republicans. Just my thinking. It removes something the Republicans can argue about. They can say talk about it not being good anyway but it loses its steam because it will no longer affect anyone. Just like how Clinton's defeated health care plan lost its steam as a campaign issue in '96.

 

Health care cost and the distribution of health care is still a matter of national crisis in my opinion. My issues with the Republicans is that if they get the White House they will not address it or only offer token legislation that has no real effect. Dems, good plan or no, at least are trying to address it and see the severity of the issue.