USA Politics

Mosh said:
So Zimmerman was found not guilty and was acquitted of all charges. Was very interesting to see how the general perspective of this case turned over time. I'm also interested in what sort of reactions there will be.
Click to expand...

The prosecution fucked up, pure and simple. They overcharged him with Murder 2, when they should've gone with manslaughter from the start. Of course there was no case there for Murder and the jury was to ignorant on what "manslaughter" meant and the state did a horrible job in letting them know what it was. It was never about race, it was about some idiot, over zealous, neighborhood watch idiot who has poor listening and self-defense skills. Seriously. His association had a no-gun policy for neighborhood watch members, yet he had a gun on him. The 911 rep adviced him to not follow him and wait for the cops, he did not, even though he is 25 and heavy set, somehow he was overpowered by a lanky 19 year old, "forcing" him to use his gun, because he felt his life was in danger? From a run of the mill ass whooping? What an idiot. He is directly responsible for this young man's life whether he meant to kill him or not. That is why Manslaughter was the no-brainer charge, but of course the prosecution had to be "tough" and fuck it up with a flimsy at best Murder 2 charge. What a disgrace.
 
They didn't have a case against Zimmerman from day 1. Unless they had incontrovertible proof that Zimmerman shot Treyvon in cold blood, like a video or unanimous witness testimony, Zimmerman has to be found innocent. That's the way the law works.

Sadly, I think they would apply it differently if the racial roles were reversed.

Treyvon had every single right to be in any neighbourhood, on any public street, that he wants. That's the meaning of public. He can also wear anything he wants. The assumption that a black guy shouldn't be somewhere, that he shouldn't dress in a certain way is racist to the very core.
 
LooseCannon said:
They didn't have a case against Zimmerman from day 1. Unless they had incontrovertible proof that Zimmerman shot Treyvon in cold blood, like a video or unanimous witness testimony, Zimmerman has to be found innocent. That's the way the law works.
Click to expand...

No, not "innocent." "Not guilty." Not guilty does not imply innocence, it only proves the prosecution didn't prove it's case regardless of innocence. That's how guilty people go free and innocent people go to jail, by the prosecution proving their case and the jury buying it or not.
 
I am pretty certain there will be a civil case and since the burden of proof is much lower, he probably will get a wrongful death judgement against him .. which will pretty much ensure he will live in near poverty the rest of his life .. but on the good news side for him, he can probably qualify for welfare, an Obama phone, and a health care subsidy.

The Goldman family really nailed OJ in civil court and the dad was there every time OJ so much as picked up a quarter on the sidewalk to collect
 
Pretty much. Not to mention that was the start for a bizarre downward spiral for him, he ended up in prison anyways, but for tax evasion or something like that. Also got in trouble for other crap I don't remember. But I agree, Casey Anthony was also found guilty of lying and whatnot in her Civil case.... it isn't over just yet.
 
You may be right, Bearfan, one can certainly argue that Zimmerman was negligent in creating the whole situation, which could support a wrongful death verdict, but if the jury believes he was getting his ass kicked and feared for his life, the self-defense story might play to a civil jury as much as to a criminal jury, burden of proof notwithstanding. The real issue, however, is whether he could be found civilly liable for an intentional (as opposed to negligent) tort. OJ murdered his ex-wife and Ron Goldman in cold blood. That is considered a willful and malicious injury and therefore the civil judgment against OJ cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. An award of damages for negligent wrongful death, however, could theoretically be discharged in bankruptcy. Plus, as I recall, Florida has pretty favorable homestead laws that would, I am guessing, shield his home from a forced sale to collect the judgment.
 
Rat bastard unions finally seeing the light ... too bad they did not say something earlier before we all got stuck with this.



Here is the full letter, via The Wall Street Journal:

Dear Leader Reid and Leader Pelosi:

When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat. Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.

Like millions of other Americans, our members are front-line workers in the American economy. We have been strong supporters of the notion that all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care. We have also been strong supporters of you. In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision.

Now this vision has come back to haunt us.

Since the ACA was enacted, we have been bringing our deep concerns to the Administration, seeking reasonable regulatory interpretations to the statute that would help prevent the destruction of non-profit health plans. As you both know first-hand, our persuasive arguments have been disregarded and met with a stone wall by the White House and the pertinent agencies. This is especially stinging because other stakeholders have repeatedly received successful interpretations for their respective grievances. Most disconcerting of course is last week’s huge accommodation for the employer community—extending the statutorily mandated “December 31, 2013” deadline for the employer mandate and penalties.

Time is running out: Congress wrote this law; we voted for you. We have a problem; you need to fix it. The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios:

First, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.

Second, millions of Americans are covered by non-profit health insurance plans like the ones in which most of our members participate. These non-profit plans are governed jointly by unions and companies under the Taft-Hartley Act. Our health plans have been built over decades by working men and women. Under the ACA as interpreted by the Administration, our employees will treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens. As such, many employees will be relegated to second-class status and shut out of the help the law offers to for-profit insurance plans.

And finally, even though non-profit plans like ours won’t receive the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they’ll be taxed to pay for those subsidies. Taken together, these restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable, and will undermine the health-care market of viable alternatives to the big health insurance companies.

On behalf of the millions of working men and women we represent and the families they support, we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.

We believe that there are common-sense corrections that can be made within the existing statute that will allow our members to continue to keep their current health plans and benefits just as you and the President pledged. Unless changes are made, however, that promise is hollow.

We continue to stand behind real health care reform, but the law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans including the members of our respective unions.

We are looking to you to make sure these changes are made.

James P. Hoffa
General President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Joseph Hansen
International President
UFCW

D. Taylor
President
UNITE-HERE
 
They're not complaining about the core of the ACA, though, more about some of the effects of it - and only some. They're right in saying minor changes could be made to fix their complaints while keeping most of Obamacare intact. They're also complaining about the implementation delay, so I'm not really sure that this actually supports that unions are "coming around", more like they are asking for "tweaks to fix the problems".

They are, of course, absolutely correct when they say that some employers are reducing hours - notably, employers without collective bargaining agreements. I have to respect the various unions for talking about this, because it doesn't really affect them, just other workers. How Congress should respond? By mandating that shifting employees to part time for the purpose of skirting ACA regulations be illegal.

(I actually believe that the government should regulate that employers offer full-time work where practical more than not, or that a certain percentage of work done must be done by full-time workers, but that's neither here-nor-there.)

The points they make about the non-profit plans are very valid. That's why the insurance companies LOVE Obamacare - it's going to kill a lot of the smaller exchanges and force people to go to a for-profit system. I do not believe this is a bad thing in itself - obviously, I think a nationalized health care system is intrinsically better in every way, but if you want to have a for-profit system, that needs to be the system for efficiency's sake. It will, however, take a lot of adjusting. Unions are conservative organizations for their members, and they don't like making changes, which is the core of the rest of their complaint.

I guess my overall summary here is..."meh."
 
Changing employment law and the basis of how Obamacare would be partially funded is not a minor change. The bottom line is despite how long they spent working on this law, it was done so poorly that there have already been changed, delays in implementation, part of it thrown out by the court, and "unintended" consequences that anyone with half a brain could have intended
 
The former is something that they missed. The latter is not a major change, either - but they won't make the change, because this is intended. Like I said, that's part of the point of Obamacare - to kill not-for-profit exchanges and force everyone to go with a for-profit insurer. As for the first, like I said, I don't really like it much, and I agree they missed something. I also think that the end result is still better than what came before.
 
That has yet to be seen ... in the short term, the number of people that are going to sign up for this will be minimal, costs in general for insurance have been going up, the ObamaCare bronze plan that is being offered for most people is a total piece of crap plan at a pretty high cost, and this will be yet another pressure on people's incomes ... especially hourly workers who tend to be lower income.

Even though I am opposed to national health care for a variety of reasons, that would have been better than this mess. But Obama showed zero leadership in pressing for that, or really anything beyond send him some bill and he would sign it. Presidents of both parties have gotten much more concise legislation pushed through Congress with much smaller majorities or even minorities in Congress.

He is lucky he has Biden for a VP, because Obama has showed little interest in engaging Congress ... Democrats or Republicans
 
2 problems with Stevie

1) Stand your ground was not Zimmerman's defense, he argued plain old self defense
2) How would he even know if is was in Florida or not :)
 
Yea I have a few problems with this. For just one example, why punish your fans for something they have little to no control over? For all he knows his audience is people who are against the law.

Sorry, I don't like when music is turned into a political agenda.
 
Same here, it is okay I guess for bands that are 100% political bands (or close to it), but stuff like this makes me shake my head. Why should I give a shit what some musician or actor says about some issue.
 
Right, I don't listen to these musicians because I agree with their political beliefs. I don't have as much of a problem if they want to give their opinion on an issue, or be a role model or whatever, but saying he refuses to play in Florida until that law goes away? All that does is alienate a portion of your audience.
 
I am not saying this is the case with Wonder, but I get the impression many of them do it to say something controversial and get their name in the news. There are certainly some that really think out their positions and even if I disagree with them, I respect the fact that they are not just talking out of their ass or saying something that at best belongs on a bumper sticker
 
I get the feeling that Stevie actually believes what he is saying, he's always seemed like a genuine person, and for that much I respect him. The problem isn't so much that I disagree with his stance (which I do) but the way he's presenting it. I also feel like this is completely inappropriate at a concert. I don't go to concerts to hear the musicians go off on some political rant. Maybe I can let it slide at a Rage Against The Machine concert, but Stevie Wonder? No way. Dave Mustaine is another good example of this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top