Free Republic

“This illustration demonstrates a wormhole connecting two black holes.”

It looks a lot like a telephone. That is spooky.

Maybe Alexander G. Bell is stuck in space/time and hanging out w/David Bowman.

Pay the first month, then stop.

“insisting that it’s the Affordable Care Act.”

Then the reply should be “Don’t you mean the ‘UNaffordable Care Act’?”

We still have murder, rape, and robbery too.

Medical “insurance” is actually perceived as insurance, even though it’s mostly used as a third-party coupon-discount.

How many people do you know that say “I want insurance in case of a catastrophe” compared to “I want insurance to bring my medical expenses down.”?

Because of this collective system of paying for given expenses, not risk of expense, it’s actually a microcosm of communism (even before O’care) which is why costs go out of control. Economically, communism has never worked.

To fix medical “insurance”, you have to get rid of what makes it communist, not pile on, which CommieCare does.

“Opponents of the suit don’t deny the plain language of the law”

As the court says, “We don’t rule on the wisdom of the law...”

The free market hasn’t applied to “healthcare” for a long time.

Note the folks getting the stitches didn’t know the cost until they got the bill much later. Most things, you know the price BEFORE you buy.

Maybe if they knew how much it’d be, they’d gone somewhere else, or done it themselves.

People today don’t even know what “insurance” is. The expectation for “medical insurance” is NOT insurance (which would be what you pay to cut your loss on a risk you don’t want realized - as in insuring mail or your car). It’s expected to be a coupon discount on expenses you know you will incur (not risk, but a guarantee of “loss”), i.e., simply a third party payer.

Will they be able to fine the chimp when it craps on the sidewalk?

If a “croat” is a race, then so is an “american”.

Next time Bob sees america bashing in a french newspaper, he should sue them for damages.

That way he can get some of his fine money back.

Ignore the guy that can’t read English so doesn’t understand the difference between “question” and “complaint”.

The insurance question could be something to rule you out as a candidate but may not be. If it is, it’d obviously be cost.

It could simply be an indication to them as to whether or not they need to have insurance info w/them at an interview, or to synch up HR schedules if another person provides that info.

Nevertheless, I wouldn’t sweat it. If you’re really curious, ask a manager at a branch one day - anonymously.

Moving out of NY isn’t good enough.

Just think of all that 401k money you have earning commission on wall street and taxes in NYC...

“When you’re slapped you’ll take it and like it!”

A good line to have handy. Too bad the commie-in-chief wouldn’t dare say such a thing to Iranians.

What, exactly, does race have to do with religion?

Shouldn’t they get a “religious discrimination” note if they don’t go?

You can always claim 5th ammendment protection when asked those questions.

Typical commie response. Akin to forced starvation in the Soviet bloc.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

Never heard the end of that one.

I wonder if there are two possible probs w/answering “no” to this question, if you do actually have them:

1) If they cross ref w/your state information, such as registration or CC permits, will it be used to deny converage because you lied on your app? Remeber, part of nazi care is increased record keeping.

2) Govt will use the data, as a minimum, for statistical purposes. If stats show 99% of folks don’t have guns in their home, tyrants will use it as an excuse to put gun control legislation forward, because it’ll “only impact” a small segment of the population.

If I am ever asked this I will answer “none of your f’n business” and file the appropriate lawsuit depending on what happens next.

“mysterious because they’re rarely caught”

Actually, that would make them “elusive”.

There’s no lie here, people just misunderstood what was meant by the word “Act”.

Usually, “Act” means law, in the context of bills that come out of congress.

However, in the case of obamacare, “Act” means something like “skit”, as in a magician may have a “pull a rabbit out of a hat ‘act’”.

So, an “affordable care” act is just that, an illusion that you will get care and that it will be affordable.

The reality is you will die waiting in line unless you have enough of a wad, or political influence, to bribe your Dr., just like in the old U.S.S.R.

Welcome to the U.S.S.A!

Nice until the feds get wind of it.

I believe cancelled debt is counted as income so there are tax implications for the recipient of this generosity.

“Sorta like taxes. “

Exactly what I thought when I heard her say this.

Just goes to show why direct taxation was originally unconstitutional unless done to everyone in the same proportion (flat tax).

These little snits vote for all sorts of gov programs, not because those programs are really needed, but because they think they don’t have to pay for it.

Funny thing is, if this is turned into full subsidy, meaning payment is done through taxes, no one would notice!

Sort of like if we didn’t have tax withholding and everyone had to write a check at the end of the year, we’d have a revolution.

As it stands now, when folks get a refund, many folks think they didn’t pay any taxes.

Got to laugh if I wasn’t crying so hard.

““The word racist is truly hurtful,” he told The Huffington Post on Tuesday. “It’s not who I am. It’s not who I ever was. It’s just not fair. It’s just not right.”

“I was expressing the views of what I think some people in the Tea Party held”

Typical lefty a-hole. Finds labeling someone racist as hurtful, yet doesn’t hesitate to falsely accuse others of it.

Good to know you can lie on the app. If I have to do this, I guess I should say I’m 26 (cutoff for being on parent’s insurance).

Having other folks in the car can be distracting too, so we should ban carpools and get rid of those HOV lanes.

Good luck w/that.

It’ll be a purely german internet until someones runs a cable to a router with other internet traffic.

Even if they somehow shun all other internet traffic in the country, separate-network security solutions usually don’t hold up very long.

Try applying for liability insurance. You get the high-risk, or no insurance at all, if you hire felons.

And the commenter is just that too you know. If there is no duty on the part of the poster to provide relevant facts, there is no such duty on the commenter either.

If you want “informed” comments, try starting an “informed” article. You can elaborate on the 300 limit by following your original post with a comment of your own.

I’m not asking for babysitting, only people who can read english:

“Not enough info in the linked story to make a call here, at least for me”

Bye, troll.

“there is no excuse for being unaware of the facts.”

Which is why I said:

“Not enough info in the linked story to make a call here, at least for me.”

If you knew this from the start, why didn’t you answer my first question:

“Was the cop just walking by, saw a kid playing w/a toy gun in his yard, told him to drop it and fire? Was he on a robbery call?”

If there’s no excuse for being unaware of the facts, what’s the excuse of the original poster for not providing them?

The article you link to makes it seem more like the cop’s to blame and would have been a better lead for this thread.

But I guess I shouldn’t say that because there may be other facts I may be unaware of...

“Notwithstanding any of the foregoing though...”

There is no information in the article concerning the ROE of the department in question, so I don’t see how you can blame “the policy”. Even if the jurisdiction has been sued in the past, it’d be like saying that because murder still occurs in the U.S., that murder is “policy” or legal.

Also, I don’t agree that the article makes the case for a “tenuous record”.

It indicates a false report in 96 where the partner got fired and not the officer in question here. So he’s to blame for his partner?

It also indicates that “Last week, area resident Jeff Westbrook came forward to say ...” which is interesting, but nothing about charges filed in that situation.

So, his partner getting busted 17 years ago and someone coming up to talk to a reporter investigating this is hardly what I’d call a tenuous record.

The other blurb in there about a 24 million verdict concerns another case won by the lawyer pressing this one.

There is also nothing in that article concerning 10 rounds fired. I count 2. When it says he continued to fire after the kid dropped, that “continue to fire” could simply be the second shot.

It seems to me this article is deliberately written to arouse anger without revealing the critical facts. If there had been 10 rounds fired, why not mention it?

As far as the tragedy of shooting an innocent 13 year old, I agree, but had this not been an innocent 13 year old, I wouldn’t have as much sympathy.

Now we know where bloomberg went for a job. How long before 16oz drinks are out?

“And by SRPD and deputy Gelhaus rules if you flinched ..”

NOT what the story said. If the story was changed as you describe above, I would agree that the cop is at fault.

That doesn’t change the fact that the story, as given, doesn’t have enough info to place blame.

And you never did answer my question of what would you do.
So what would you do if YOU asked someone to drop their weapon and they turned to face you w/weapon in hand?

Not baloney and actually true medically.

The synchronized motor control required to turn is not possible in a reflex.

When Doc taps your knee it kicks out in reflex. If you slap him for it, it’s a conscious decision, even if made quickly.

p.s., I have never “turned reflexively” in my life.

The only “reflexive” reaction I’ve experienced to loud words or noises is more of a cringe.

The turning comes later, and quite consciously.

“The implication is that if you were on your own property holding a weapon”

I don’t march around my property w/weapon in hand like a kid playing soldier. If I did do such a ridiculous thing and heard someone say to drop it, I’d stop and say “who’s there and why are you here?”

If the one asking had wanted to shoot me, they could’ve done so w/o warning.

So speaking, instead of turning w/weapon in hand, would be the option I choose.

“double tap is now out”

If you don’t know you hit, I can imagine firing more.

Again, I don’t think there’s enough info in the story to surely side with either party.

However, once firing begins, you can conclude that it doesn’t cease until the perceived conflict is over.

Whether the cop was justified or not, I really have no idea.

While firing, it’d be easy to see someone drop, not so easy to see which way they’re facing.

Smaller target, obscured by smoke, short time frame.

Try it sometime and you’ll know what I’m talking about.

“What does that say to you???”

Maybe it’s you who’s not reading. From my post:

“The cop may not have known immediately that he hit the kid on the first shot and thought the kid was dropping to minimize target size, hence, the ass shot.”

I’ve only fired at a range. When I do, vision down the barrel is obscured from the smoke, though I can see obvious movement. I imagine that if I were firing at someone, just seeing a body drop would not make me think the conflict was over, for the reason I indicate in my first post.

“So then I guess you missed this part:”

No, I didn’t.

Had the kid began to turn to me w/weapon in hand, I would’ve fired.

Note, the article doesn’t say how FAST he turned. Was he slowly turning, putting his hands up as in “I surrender” or did he spin with weapon forward as in “Your gone sucka”.

Which is why I said:

“Not enough info in the linked story to make a call here, at least for me.”

What would you do?

“Just talk about reducing spending.”

BINGO!

But that “boring” stuff, doesn’t make the news. Only controversy does. Plus, with controversy, you keep the folks distracted so they don’t watch where the money’s going.

It’s how BOTH Dems and Repubs have been bilking the system to their own advantage.

The desire to get these types out is what makes me like the TP.

“You need to educate yourself on this story.”

I read the story and indicated my opinion is based solely on what’s in it. I wasn’t interested in trying to hunt down police reports and court records because I’ve done so in the past and too often found that when critical details were left out of a story (like how the cop and kid came to meet each other) they were left out for a reason - to mislead.

I stand by my opinion on the first shot. Turning w/a weapon in your hand points it in the cops direction. I don’t believe the rule is that cops have to wait for a round to go off.

Holding a weapon is not enough to fire. Bringing it to bear is.

Again, w/no other info, I would’ve fired myself in that situation, but I’m not a cop.

Not enough info in the linked story to make a call here, at least for me.

Was the cop just walking by, saw a kid playing w/a toy gun in his yard, told him to drop it and fire? Was he on a robbery call? Who knows.

Based on what’s reported, I don’t see a prob w/the cop firing if he orders to drop and the kid begins to turn. He could’ve been turning to fire. The cop may not have known immediately that he hit the kid on the first shot and thought the kid was dropping to minimize target size, hence, the ass shot.

Citizen review board seems like a nice idea though. I agree w/the constitutional concept of not having a standing military, which is what our police force seem to have effectively become.

Interesting, but somehow, the DNC manages not only to pander to their base, but to get things they want done.

Maybe RNC would win more if they started doing this instead of blaming their base for not being in the middle.

In the spirit of “it’s a government of the people, by the people and for the people” how is it the people’s fault that they don’t “serve” a political party. It’s supposed to be the other way around. The RNC may want to take more of a “customer is always right” approach.

Can you imagine a store owner complaining that customers don’t see the wisdom of purchasing a product over another, and stridently keeps it on the shelf though folks aren’t buying it enough to make a profit?

Also, the 6% vote for the libertarian candidate would not necessarily translate to a +6% for Cuccilnelli if the other candidate was off the list. In that case, it could be that those 6% would stay home.

“Where have I convicted a civilian? Please be specific. “

In your first post:

“So does the plaintiffs court records. “

Which implies the civilian is at fault because he had a prior record.

“Read this again; Then why do so many here convict the cops on the word of a perp, his lawyer or the media? “

Because there are too many people like you who convict the civilian on the word of a cop, his lawyer or the media.

“lives may have been risked by “shocking” decisions “

Decisions such as establishing socialized medicine....

“Once the truck had stopped, the teenager refused to turn it off and revved the engine.

Six shots were fired into the truck by the officer with two shots killing the 19-year-old, according to the medical examiner.”

I think they shot too early. If he tried to drive away after stopping that’s one thing (because he already rammed a car, etc.). Not following an order to turn the motor off is not a reason to shoot. Even if he sat there until the thing ran out of gas, the only harm would’ve been the cops had to wait. Maybe they couldn’t wait to buy their smokes either.

“that it came from Japan is a likely theory, but there are other options”

I’m going to write “I’m from Mars” on all my trash now.

Ok, I’ll tell you the point.

In a nutshell, the book is saying because bavarian catholics made up such a high percentage of the population, there must be something about that area/religion that makes them nazis. Hence, catholics/bigotry equal. Bad.

Also, purported “good people” demonstrate hypocrisy when the do bad things.

But if bigotry is bad, why would you blame all catholics for what some catholics have done? This would belie your own bigotry.

It is this argument that fails in court, not mine. I guess if one or two soldiers act up in Abu Graib prison, this means the entire US military is bad right? I mean, it’s not like that’s the ONLY abuse of authority exhibited by the military, yes? In fact, you can find throughout history abuses by folks in the military, can’t you?

In addition, by claiming that the bigotry of some catholics is bad and using it to justify bigotry against catholics, you have now entered the realm of hypocrisy, for which you are also condemning those sanctimonious church folk.

The reality is is that the nazi’s were the problem. The countries or religious makeup of them were irrelevant.

There may have been 85% catholic population in bavaria, but what makes up 100% of the nazi party are SOCIALISTS.

That’s where the real problem is and what the author is subconsciously trying to hide.

Socialists have killed far more people than “religious” folk have.

Yet, you want to ignore that don’t you?