“I wonder if justice is even possible for George Zimmerman”

Lloyd Marcus is doing the wondering from a perspective of wisdom we should all be considering:

ZimmermanWantedForMurderMost Americans desire a fair and just outcome of this tragedy. But, Lord help us if the evidence proves Zimmerman to be innocent. If Zimmerman is ruled not-guilty and allowed to walk, I foresee Rodney King-type riots in the streets. Thus, is Zimmerman’s fate already sealed? Will a jury decide Zimmerman must be declared guilty of something?

While Al Sharpton, New Black Panthers and all of the other racist race-hustling usual suspects clamor for justice for Trayvon Martin, I wonder if justice is even possible for George Zimmerman.

Will political correctness ensure that Zimmerman be found guilty of something regardless of the evidence?

Tragically and frighteningly, we live in a time in which the law and truth appears to be losing relevance in America.

For example. Clearly, the individual mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional. And yet, Obama believes he can bully the Supreme Court to rule in his favor because “he” believes the mandate is a good thing. Ponder that folks, the president is pressuring U.S. Supreme Court justices to bend the truth and the law to suit his desires. Obama, the president who would be King.

For years, Democrats have been trying to abort the thorn-in-the-side stumbling block to their socialistic agenda known as the U.S. Constitution. Who could have imagined deceiving the American people into putting a black Trojan Horse extreme left liberal into the Oval Office would “Git-r-done”?

If Obama successfully forces U.S. Supreme Court justices to succumb to his politically correct interpretation of the law and rule Obamacare constitutional, setting such a precedence could mean so-called “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman is toast. It would mean facts, truth and the law are no longer relevant — only what the people/mob want rules the day.

Regardless if the evidence proves otherwise, Zimmerman will be found guilty of “something” to avoid riots in the streets. We are talking political correctness on steroids.

Folks, I am not saying Zimmerman is innocent. I do not know. I am simply saying in these morally bankrupt times in which we live, I am concerned that facts and truth are becoming irrelevant.

He’s got more and it’s worth your time.

I’m continuously amazed at the positions some are taking on this tragedy.  

One person I know seems to be basing their entire perspective on the basis of the loss felt by Trayvon’s parents.  Time and again, their opinions are prefaced with comments about how they would be feeling if their child had been Trayvon.  An understandable position from a myopic perspective as I’m absolutley positive that the loss is painfully unbearable.

But what if their child was George Zimmerman?  How might they then be feeling about it all?

Differently I would hope as I’m sure the presumption of Zimmerman’s guilt would likely then be replaced by a presumption of innocence that any decent and God fearing parent would have about their own.  And I guess that’s the point of my bemusement as to their perspective.  Zimmerman too has parents.  Zimmerman’s parents are watching their child be described by the media and by those with an agenda as a person they know he is not.  Zimmerman’s parents are watching their son’s life turn upside down and know that things will never again be the same for him or for themselves.

Will justice be served in all this?

I know and trust truth will win out in the end, I hope simply that it wins out in the here and now.  The circumstances however are such that this is highly in doubt.

Shortlink:

Posted by on April 28, 2012.
Filed under Justice, Trayvon Martin.
I blog more regularly at my own place where plain thoughts are delivered roughly. My about page gives you more on who I am.

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
Up to 90% off top rated local fun!
  • Pingback: Brutally Honest

  • http://randysroundtable.blogspot.com/ Randy G

    The only way Zimmerman gets justice is for NBC to pay the man millions for defamation, and Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to walk out into traffic on a freeway.

  • jim_m

    I think the point of some people is definitely to make Zimmerman’s conviction a matter of necessity.  Just like the defense in the OJ Simpson trial made a not guilty verdict a matter of necessity to send a message to the LAPD that the public did not trust them, the left wants to send a message that guilt or innocence is a matter of cultural imperative and not relevant to the individual circumstance.  This was the same message promoted by the Duke faculty in the Duke Lacrosse case.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

    Oh good gracious.  An attack on the AFA even though Scalia won’t read the damn thing and more than likely will take the conservative position.  Meanwhile, let’s ignore how Republicans have essentially become highly hyperpartisan by the mixing of religious conservatives, ad hom attacks, and uniting on attacking Democrats on most positions.  Mix that with Citizens United and what do you get?  Mitt Romney.

    And if you leave the cult? Expect some ridicule because conservatives think that we should go back to the days of Social Darwinism.

    Here’s a suggestion to everyone.  Just once, let’s ignore “oh well the Democrats” or pointing fingers.  What is the core of the conservative argument that actually has substance?  In almost every arena out, the House has effectively won all support they needed.  The House has pushed an austerity plan so lopsided that it has destroyed the nation of America.  The House pushed for the NDAA.  The Senate blocked the Buffett Rule even though it’s Democratically controlled (let’s forget the existence of Blue Dogs).

    And the likes of Alan Simpson, Warren Buffett, or Richard Fischer are ignored.

    So the point:  When will people actually have a debate on issues instead of blaming sides needlessly?

    • jim_m

       Warren Buffet has never been a conservative.  What rock have you been living under?

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        What is “the rock of progressive obduracy”?

      • Guest

        Buffett was Arnold Swarzanegger’s financial advisor as Arnold ran for Governor is the California recall election of Dem governeor Gray Davis back in 2003(?).

        Sounds like he was a Republican. A conservative? Probably not – he seems much too intelligent for that.

        • jim_m

           Buffet strikes me as an independent but definitely a liberal.  I said he was not a conservative so you are trying to argue something I was not claiming.  More proof you are an idiot.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            So are you saying that Robert Fischer (head of Dallas Fed) is not a conservative because he thinks the Big Banks should be broken up?  Or how about Alan Simpson who actually believes in a balanced budget?

            Either you’re trying to protect a crony capitalist system or the notion of who is actually a conservative (in regards to the ideology of conservatism) is somewhat lost on you.

          • jim_m

             Bufffett is a crony capitalist.  WHy do you think that he pushed obama to nix the keystone pipeline?  Because he owns huge trucking interests that would lose value if it were built.

            Why does he push for the estate tax?  Because he earns money on helping people avoid it.

            I didn’t speak about Simpson and Fischer.  Simpson has never been a strong conservative, hence why the left loves him.  And I am not familiar enough with Fischer to comment, but since you seem to like him I would venture that he probably isn’t much of a conservative either.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_UG44B3BSUSA2IKDMLCB2AMJ4OM Porkulus Chopius

            FYI Jim, Buffet owns a railroad (BNSF) that parallels the pipeline, not trucks.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Funny.  Fischer is the conservative that has said the big banks should be broken up.  I find it amazing that the head of the Dallas Fed making such a “bold” decision is met with disdain simply because he actually believes in a balanced budget.

    • Meiji_man

      Did this have ANY-thing to do with the topic, or are you off your meds?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

        It sure as certain did since the quote talks about the AFA.  It’s a pointing finger accusation and a jab at Obamacare while trying to make it seem as if the only problem with Zimmerman is that his case can’t figure out if he was defending his ground.

    • jim_m

       The House has pushed an austerity plan so lopsided that it has destroyed the nation of America.

      Funny how this austerity plan, which was never signed into law by the President is destroying this nation.  One would think that the actual lack of a budget to define and control spending, which has gone on since obama took office, is far more likely to be the cause of what you claim.  It is far more likely that the out of control spending which is actually happening is the cause of the destruction of America than a GOP plan which will never be acted upon.

      You’re a loon.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

        The austerity plan started with the Bush Tax Cuts.  Then Romney supports Paul Ryan’s budget which got Ryan in hot water with the Catholics.  Adding more fuel to the fire, Romney stated that his plan is basically Bush Cuts 2.0. He’s not helping his cause at all.

        And do you honestly think that the Senate would approve a budget even if Obama offered?  You have people like Allen West who thinks the Progressive party members are Communists, believing in this fantasy world of Randian thought where there is no economic mobility except for the super rich.

        Maybe next time you’ll have more to the story than “Oh, Obama didn’t pass the budget that would be stonewalled severely by those that don’t like him”.

        • jim_m

           You really are an idiot.  Cutting taxes so the public keeps their money is austerity?  I seem to recall that those tax cuts came about because we were running a surplus.   How is that austerity when you are running a budget surplus?

          But by all means go ahead and say something stupid in response.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Cutting taxes and giving $400 billion dollars to the oil industry is austerity.  And the Bush tax cuts lead to the 2007-2009 recession.

            Clinton’s raising of taxes caused more job growth than Bush ever did.  Or are you going to spout more nonsense of increasing the tax base like Ryan and Cantor?

          • jim_m

             Clinto enjoyed a high tech bubble economy.  You did not deny that we had a surplus when Bush made the tax cuts, therefore this was not an austerity budget.

            You are lying or you are a fool.  Your choice.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            The Koffman Foundation can explain the tech bubble far better than anyone else.  Even with the tech bubble the rich got 65% of the proceeds. Meanwhile, the rich and affluent received 93% of the proceeds from the 2009 recession.  And yet it hasn’t done a damn thing to fix the economy.

            So either Clinton had a much better notion of what was wrong, or the fact that Bush’s tax cuts sounded great while running a deficit destroyed any hope of a prosperous US.  I’ll let you make your own decision on that.

          • jim_m

             Yeah.   You’re right.  9/11 and the housing collapse had nothing to do with the economy under Bush.  It was all the tax cuts.  You are a simpleton.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Jim, you keep getting more delusional as you make comments that I have not said.  But keep trying, there’s hope for you to come back to reality.

          • retired.military

            Bush tax cuts didnt cause the recession.  The Housing market crash did.  Thanks to laws started by Carter and continued on through Clinton (and Bush had a hand in there as well).

            ALso thanks to Dodd and Barney Fudd protecting Fannie and Freddie.

            You forget that under Bush we had record Tax receipts coming into the treasury but you fail to mention that.    Also things went to hell in a hand basked after Pelosi and Reid took control of Congress in Jan 2007  not that the republicans who spent like drunken sailors helped much.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Bush tax cuts didnt cause the recession.

            Link
            “How did we get into this problem of the big deficit?” Nelson said. “It’s basically a fall-off of revenues and an increase in spending. So you got to correct that imbalance; otherwise you’re not doing real deficit reduction.”

            A review of data from the White House Office of Management and Budget shows that tax revenues did not consistently increase after the Bush tax cuts went into effect.

            In FY 2001, tax revenue in dollars was $1,991.1 billion. For FY 2002 – the first budget of the Bush administration, which went into effect after President George W. Bush signed tax cuts into law in June 2001 – revenue dropped to $1,853.1 billion.

            Bush signed two more tax cuts into law over the next two years. In FY 2003, revenue dropped further, to $1,782.3 billion – about a 10-percent reduction from two years earlier.

            This drop in tax revenue occurred even as economic activity – the nation’s GDP – was continually rising, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data.

            Now in regards to the housing market, you’re right that the third derivative banking affected the country.  That plan had been in effect since the passing of the Community Reinvestment Act.

            What you fail to mention is that the deregulation going on during Bush’s years were systematic of the easing of regulations that had been occurring.  It’s easy to say that this is the fault of the Democrats.  It’s far harder to realize that the GOP has done nothing to reestablish those regulations (Glass-Steagall) that worked for close to 5 decades.

          • jim_m

             Revenue dropped in 2001?  That was the point.   We were running a surplus.  WHat about cutting revenue back so you aren’t stealing the public’s money do you simply not understand?

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            And bush ran a deficit.  The same thing happened to Reagan when his economic policies caused a deficit in ’81.  What part about reducing taxes and increasing spending can you not understand?

          • jim_m

            Deficit does not mean recession.  Reagan started the greatest economic expansion since the end of WWII.  What about reducing taxes and jump starting the economy do you not understand?

            Letting people and businesses keep their money so they could invest it back into the economy actually worked.

            Your denial if these simple principles is why you are a communist.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Lower taxes does not equate to people reinvesting in their businesses.

            What you’ve just done is allow bankers and CEOs to keep more money in their pockets in tax havens outside the US.  Or does the success of Mitt Romney as a vulture capitalist equate to the good ol’ American way for you?

            Your denial of history and reality marks you as a fascist.

        • retired.military

          Last I checked the dems controlled the Senate.  Of course the dems didnt pass a budget when they had super majorities in the House and Senate.  Last 2 budgets Obama submitted got voted down with NO votes for it.  Obama cant even get dems to support his budgets much less repoublicans.

          “Oh, Obama didn’t pass the budget that would be stonewalled severely by those that don’t like him”.”

          Guess you are talking about Harry Reid there.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Harry Reid is his own bundle of problems.  This is the same guy that sneaked the Patriot Act into a business bill so that it was reimplemented.

    • The_Queen_of_France

       Jay, did I miss your rant about Obamacare being passed without any members of Congress reading it?

      • Meiji_man

        I SAW IT! I SAW IT!

        It was Eloquent, Such Passion! Such Beauty The Ghost of Plato and Socrates were in attendance to proclaim his mastery of the Spoken Word. My GODS man you are cheated of life if you don’t remember his passionate attack on anyone who would pass a bill with out reading it!

        Even Nancy Pelosi almost, (Almost!) felt ashamed about not reading the bill to know what was in it. And Obama? When he heard Jay’s powerful attack upon anyone who would dare hold an opinion about the bill before reading it, well sir even OBAMA was taken aback, muttered to himself about “getting a teleprompter that spoke like that” and then shanked one into the water hazard off the 15th green. Man’s got a power about him.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

        Depends, did you miss the fact that no one read the Patriot Act without reading it?

        • The_Queen_of_France

          I’m guessing you got that from Michael Moore’s movie.  Did you stay long enough to see the scene in which he recorded John Conyers saying “We don’t read most of the bills. Do you really know what that would entail if we read every bill that we passed?”

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson


            Do you really know what that would entail if we read every bill that we passed?”

            A lot fewer bills passed, I think.  Which wouldn’t be a bad thing.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Does it also surprise you to know that most lobbyists propose legislation and Congresscritters are just patsies to the money lobbied about in Washington?

        • jim_m

          no one read the Patriot Act without reading it?

          Why what wonderfully circular reasoning you have Grandma!

          Jay:  the better to look like a doofus with my dear.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            That’s your job Jim.

            Queenie was ridiculing the exact same thing I pointed out.  When Queenie makes a good point, I’ll respond with the same one.  Just like when you go on your ad homs, I show you exactly where you’re wrong while being snarky.

            One of those “squid Pro cuo” things that everyone talks about…

          • jim_m

             I’m just making fun of your inept wording.  Obviously you are too stupid to pick that up.

          • The_Queen_of_France

             “Queenie?”  That’s “Your Majesty” to you.

    • jim_m

       Jay,  You don’t have any idea how idiotic you sound going on about social Darwinism.  This DNC talking point is pure ignorance.

      Social Darwinism has its roots in the ideas espoused by Thomas Mathus (Someone who could be  lest likened to the environmentalist movement and obama’s science czar, Holdren, is an ideological descendent of his) and Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics, something that the left and progressive movement has always believed in (also something that Holdren espouses).

      Social Darwinism is not an ideal of the right.  It is core to the ideology of the left.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

        “Use your money in politics to increase your tax savings while screwing over those that don’t make as much money.”

        Right… Core ideology of the left.  Just like fascism, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism?

        • jim_m

           Given that Immelt is a top obama advisor and GE spends something like a Billion avoiding paying taxes, I’d say yes to all of the above.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            You mean Immelt, the Republican?

            Only fair to understand that if you want to make this bipartisan you should know who is advising the president.

          • jim_m

             I mean Immelt the advisor to obama.  So you complain about crony capitalists but apparently it is OK when they are part of the obama admin.

            You’re a fucking hypocrit

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Nope, you’re not making much sense now.  Now you’ve gone into “temper tantrum mode” where you rail against nothing.

        • retired.military

          Oh you mean like how Buffet does.    Last time I checked he spends thousands paying attornies to avoid taxes and find loopholes (as well as lobbying for them) while talking about how he doesnt pay enough in taxes.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            You’ve explained the Koch brothers.  Buffet is at least trying to influence the system for the better.  I don’t agree with all of his ideology at all, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have sound reasons for why we’re set up for another fall fairly soon.

          • jim_m

             Buffett isn’t trying to influence the system for the better.  He is demagoguing the issues in order to position his companies to make more money. 

            The man claims that people should pay more taxes all the while he hasn’t paid his full tax bill for over a decade now.  You don’t know crap about what you are talking about.  Buffett is just another hypocritical tool of the left and you are too willing to ignore the act that he is everything you protest against in the right wing.  You don’t really give a damn about these ideals you claim to hold or you would not praise Buffett to the skies like you do.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Like I said before Jimbo, I don’t agree with all of Buffett’s policies.  You seem intent on saying he’s wrong about taxes.  Prove it.  You’ve been railing all day.  Show some examples that in this regard, he’s wrong.

          • jim_m

             I’m saying he is self serving about taxes.  However, now that you mention it he is also wrong..

  • ackwired

    Mr. Marcus seems to have gone off the deep end.  He thinks the blacks are discriminating against the whites, that the president is in a position to apply “pressure” on the supreme court, and that there was something deceitful about “putting a black Trojan Horse extreme left liberal into the Oval Office would “Git-r-done”.

    Quite a rant!

    • jim_m

       I suppose it is your ignorant position that blacks cannot discriminate?

      And what exactly do you think obama’s stupid calling out of the Supreme Court at his SOTU address was?  IT was an attempt to pressure the SCOTUS on the issue and let them know that if they ruled against him that they would get more of the same.

      You really are ignorant and naive.

      • Guest

        And you’re pretending crap you make up is fact again.

        You were better off saying “I bet”… or “my guess is”…

        Cause this is bullshit you made up: :IT was an attempt to pressure the SCOTUS on the issue and let them
        know that if they ruled against him that they would get more of the
        same”

        I bet there is medication that would help your schizophrenia. My guess is you’d benefit from that.

        • jim_m

          Prove it was not an attempt to influence the SCOTUS. Explain how it was not intended to change how the court ruled in the future. What was the purpose otherwise? The President have a burning desire to make himself look like an ass?

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Judicial Activism in a conservative court… Hasn’t happened before…  Oh yeah, Chief Justice John Marshall…  Creating the concept of Judicial Review which is not actually in the Constitution.

            And the Dred Scott Case…

            But let’s not forget the good influences of those court cases that actually appeal to all citizens because of Judicial Activism…

            Brown v Board (1954)

            Gideon v Wayright (1961)

            Miranda v Arizona (1966)
            Swan v Charlotte- Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971)

            Death Penalty Unconstitutional (1972) – Republican court ironically…

            Anyway, these cases deal with the rights of the accused and went to form the essence of what the conservatives would become.  Hell, ALEC was formed very soon after the Death Penalty ruling and went on to become the social conservative movement.

            But notice where the current conservative makeup has done their most damage.  They’ve been stripping away the civil liberties established by the courts of the 50s and 60s.  Sure, Roe v. Wade was a lynchpin and at the center of the movement, but you’re trying to tell me that the court hasn’t made up rulings even though they don’t have that power in the Constitution?

            Hell, the south HATED Earl Warren.

            I’m sure a lot of people will not like Chief Justice Roberts after the AFA decision should it be ruled unconstitutional.  We don’t even have to get into the Citizens United decision or the Bush v Gore decision.  It seems more likely our current Supreme Court will are creating their own pushback from their horrid decisions.

            I can see what is going to happen if AFA is thrown out…

            You will now have people that can’t get insurance if they have a preexisting condistion.  Also, you will have kids that can’t be covered on the insurance of their parents.  Effectively, SCOTUS may be setting themselves up for a lot of criticism.

          • iwogisdead

            People with pre-existing conditions are being insured all of the time. Sometimes with increased premiums, sometimes with riders, sometimes through group plans. Throwing out Obumblecare will allow health insurance companies to continue to protect us from the specter of single payer, with all of its horrors.
             
            Obumble could’ve implemented a very simple program which could have provided healthcare for people who can’t afford it (even though poor people are being treated all of the time in hospitals, according to Obumble). But, that’s not what the left wants. The left wants single payer, because they think that more government is better in every aspect of life. That’s the goal of Obumblecare—destroy the health insurance industry, and force us all into government health care, shortening our lives.
             
            But, that doesn’t matter—the real problem with Obumblecare is that it’s unconstitutional. And that’s the name of that tune.
             
            Lefty bitching about judicial review is funny. It’s only been the law for two centuries. If you don’t like it, amend the Constitution. And good luck with that one.

          • jim_m

             Just more ignorant BS from Jay.  People without insurance still get treated in our system.

            What Jay and his communist friends want is free healthcare (or more exactly for everyone else to pay for their health care because Jay and his friends are freeloaders and dead beats).

            Health insurance is supposed to prevent financial difficulty due to health care costs.  Nobody disagrees that it would be nice to make insurance more affordable.  What we disagree with is the government taking over health care and that government can pay for the quality of health care that we get today.

            No socialized system maintains the quality of outcomes that the US has.  Every socialized system rations health care and whether you want to call the death panels or something else they are a mandatory part of socialized medicine.  People die unnecessarily in the system that Jay wants.  Your family members dying unnecessarily is the price Jay demands in order to freeload on the rest of us.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Here’s Jimbo going on and ranting with ad hom attack that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.  He insists that I want free healthcare when all I’ve done is research what the American people want.  Meanwhile, if he’s take 5 seconds to actually talk to someone and back up his own positions, he’d notice that you pay for government services in some way.  Your taxes (local or federal) go into the massive road system to be utilized.  A gross misunderstanding of what government is supposed to do indicates that Jimbo doesn’t see how our American society is becoming worse.  He insists on living in a fantasy world where the Republicans can do no wrong, the Democrats are to blame for everything, and he’s constantly believing that putting Republicans in charge equate to the largest victory since Abraham Lincoln.

            Now check this out…  The US currently has for-profit schools, for-profit hospitals, for-profit prisons , and you’re telling me that if the government is out of the hospitals, suddenly everything is going to be hunky dory? Hello?  

            We have the largest costs for healthcare in the world.  We’ve debated that before.  What you fail to prove all the time (as you needlessly attack me even though I’m not communist) is how your plans work so much better when they’re happening right not. So do me that favor Jim.  Prove the method to your madness.  Prove that getting the government out of healthcare, allowing hospitals and their directors to decide who gets the best healthcare based how much they can afford it will work.

            Also, I think the comparative performance of the US in healthcare has been challenged on numerous occasions and while controversial have found the US HC system lacking for the individual.  So… Where’s the proof that other systems are far worse by comparison?

          • jim_m

             I am saying that the government wants to control healthcare by dictating what will be paid.  THAT is what the government needs to get out of.

            As to the bullshit links at the end of your comment.  I didn’t get three paragraphs into the first when I saw that their method for declaring that the US system was worse was because it wasn’t socialist enough.  F you.

            Whart matters is not how socialist the health care system is.   What matters is how good the health outcomes are.  I defy you to show me where we are getting that much worse outcomes that anywhere else.

            The discipline where the best data for long term outcomes exists is in oncology and we lead the world in every diagnosis.

            You post a bunch of communist crap about “access” and “equity” that are based on how much does the government steal from one person to pay for someone else.

            And you complain that I call you a communist when you point to studies that show that socialism provides better health care while ignoring whether or not it actually cures people of their diseases.  Free health care while you are dieing is still crappy health care.  But your bullshit studies call it the best. 

            I’d rather have more expensive health care and actually live.  Your ideal would be to have political decisions choose who gets treated.  No thanks.  I don’t think that party members should be treated better than everyone else.

            If socialized medicine is so good why are members of the Canadian government treated outside of their socialized system?  Answer”  Because they don’t trust their own system.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay


             I didn’t get three paragraphs into the first when I saw that their method for declaring that the US system was worse was because it wasn’t socialist enough.

            If the only thing you got out of the links was that, you have more problems and issues to think about than what I’m stating here.  Stop trying to move goalposts.  Answer the question presented.  We have proof that the current healthcare system does not work for everyone as well as being far too expensive compared to other countries.  So where is your proof that a for-profit hospital, making record profits, is providing better healthcare for all instead of just for the rich?

            I defy you to show me where we are getting that much worse outcomes that anywhere else.

            Compared to other countries? The US isn’t even in the top Nineteen.  Looking around one thing comes to mind…  Either a lot of countries are Socialist or you’re trying to use the popular tactic of attacking a person instead of showing evidence of this being good or bad.  Which is it?

            v=I’d rather have more expensive health care and actually live.  

            And you keep right on doing that.  Meanwhile, I’ll campaign for more affordable health care and preventative medicines not lobbied for by those screwing up the system with campaign money.

            Your ideal would be to have political decisions choose who gets treated.

            There you go reflecting again when I’ve said nothing of the sort.

             I don’t think that party members should be treated better than everyone else.

            Then you should be trying to fix the current system that does exactly that.

            You post a bunch of communist crap about “access” and “equity” that are based on how much does the government steal from one person to pay for someone else.

            Ah, Allen West is posting on this site.

            Free health care while you are dieing is still crappy health care.

            Yep, and the US ranks the worst in regards to preventative medicines.  That’s those damn (actual) Commies, those dirty Cubans that have their doctors held in high regard.  Damn liberal bias…

          • jim_m

             Jay,  Every study you cite has as it’s primary measurement how much the government pays for and control access to health care.

            Screw you with your socialist ideology.  Maybe I don’t want to live in a country where the government dictates to me what I can and cannot have.

            You still avoid looking at health care outcomes which are the ONLY measure that matters.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            See below

          • iwogisdead

            Oh, Lord. Jay is the latest of the dimwit lefties to cite these goofy studies as proof that the U.S. healthcare system is bad or something. Again (again, and again), these studies are worthless, since they throw in crap like “equity” in care and other meaningless stuff. I particularly like the story of the woman complaining about her healthcare after she had been cured of cervical cancer by the evil, incompetent, unfair U.S. healthcare system. Good find Jay!!!
             
            Let’s try some, umm, truth:
             
            http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704130904574644230678102274.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular

            A sample:

            The Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology have been awarded to more Americans than to researchers in all other countries combined. Eight of the 10 top-selling drugs in the world were developed by U.S. companies. The U.S. has some of the highest breast, colon and prostate cancer survival rates in the world. And our country ranks first or second in the world in kidney transplants, liver transplants, heart transplants, total knee replacements, coronary artery bypass, and percutaneous coronary interventions.
            We have the shortest waiting time for nonemergency surgery in the world; England has one of the longest. In Canada, a country of 35 million citizens, 1 million patients now wait for surgery and another million wait to see specialists.

          • jim_m

             Canada’s system was ruled by the supreme court in Quebec to violate the Canadian Constitution’s guarantee of a right to access to health care. 

            The ruling:  “Access to a waiting list is not access to health care”

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Alright.  Who can afford it?  I already stated that the studies were controversial and open for debate.  Now where can the average person go to get preventative health care?

          • jim_m

             Look around dumbass.  The average person in the US is actually getting healthcare.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Outsidethe US.

          • retired.military

            last I checked the polls show that most Americans want Obamacare either repealed altogether or the mandate stricken from it.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            I haven’t seen that.  People are polled on Obamacare and they hate it.  That’s the result of the propaganda against it.  But when you ask them about what’s inside, they want the individual parts.  So you’re left with a bill that is hated, but people may need the government to provide certain services.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Folks like mixed drinks – margaritas and mojitos – but give ‘em 6 ounces of everclear and tell them they’ve got to swig it down in one gulp, and they’re not terribly happy about the prospect.

            It’s the dose that makes the poison.

          • jim_m

             Hell, ALEC was formed very soon after the Death Penalty ruling and went on to become the social conservative movement.

            Seriously?  Nobody ever heard of ALEC before the last month or so.  You have spent too much time watching out for black helicopters.

            And who the hell are you to demand that conservatives cannot organize to have their views heard?

            Quit complaining that I call you a fascist when you keep demanding to criminalize conservative political thought.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            ALEC was formed in 1973.  I’m not saying that conservatives can’t organize.  What the hell are you going on about?

            All I’ve shown is that everytime judicial activism occurs, it creates a huge backlash.

          • retired.military

            Like finding rights in the constitution that arent there.  Say umm abortion or umm healthcare. 

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Nineth Amendment.

          • retired.military

            Like finding rights in the constitution that arent there.  Say umm abortion or umm healthcare. 

          • Guest

            Prove it was an attempt to influence the SCOTUS. It’s your claim, it’s your fantasy, prove it’s right or admit that its a fantasy.

            You wont’ be cause you can’t – you made it up.

          • Guest

            (crickets)

            it’s been 22 hours and jimmy is still hiding from the truth…

            No doubt he’s trying to justify “his feelings” elsewhere, all the while avoiding showing any proof behind his BS, but demanding others prove him wrong.

          • jim_m

            Nope.  I just didn’t think hat it warranted wasting my time on a piss ant like yourself.  You came in late and I was engaged with someone else.  You don’t warrant me dropping another conversation to soothe your ego.  Piss off.

            Also posting the same thing twice doesn’t win the argument. I thought we had been over this before with you.

        • GarandFan

           And I’m sure there’s nothing to the ‘enemies list’ currently being put up by the Obamassiah Re-election people, listing those who’ve contributed to Romney.  Too bad they can’t list the names of their supporters who’ve sent in contributions via credit card.  Seeing that all of the verification protocols have been turned off.

          Yep, no pressure there.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Must be a short list since most people can’t donate over millions of dollars in one sitting.

          • jim_m

            The point is that you could make multiple small donations and never have your identity recorded.  That is how obama raised over a billion dollars last time around and there are indications that he got a lot of that from illegal foreign donors.  Why else would he have disabled the security functions n his donation website? 

            This was not an accident. But I noticce that you really don’t give a damn if the left break the law.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            When Karl Rove has received over $1 billion in anonymous funds, and Romney has spent x5 times as much to lock up the nomination, I think that’s much more than Obama raising a few funds and grandstanding on CU.

            Also, you might want to look at which big banks have ditched Obama this time around.  They all support Romney along with pushing for more GOP representation in the House.

            Jim, your entire “leftist” rhetoric is tiresome.  Just stop.  It really makes you look petulant and childish.  Debate the points instead of all of these ad hom attacks.  Of course, if you want to continue, feel free.  You just look rather dumb when you can’t cite sources and must constantly show how misinformed you are when you have nothing more than talking points.

          • jim_m

             Moron.  Romney has not spent $5Billion on his campaign.  You are delusional.

          • retired.military

            “Also, you might want to look at which big banks have ditched Obama this time around”

            Ever heard the term rats deserting a sinking ship.  Obama is in deep deep trouble and everyone with half a brain knows it.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Against Romney?  Who can’t connect with common people?  Keep dreaming.

          • retired.military

            “Also, you might want to look at which big banks have ditched Obama this time around”

            Ever heard the term rats deserting a sinking ship.  Obama is in deep deep trouble and everyone with half a brain knows it.

          • retired.military

            Go to Obama’s website.  Donate $5.  Put in your credit card information and use the name Osame Bin Laden and Iran for information.   Your donation will get accepted even though foreigners arenot supposed to be able to donate to presidential campaigns.   IT was documented that the same thing happened in 2008.

          • jim_m

             Of course it will accept it.  Everyone knows Bin Laden was in Pakistan.

            And, the admin will take money from anyone.  Even our sworn enemies.  Or should that be especially from our enemies?

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            You mean like Ahmadinejad donated to Romney?  Right, I’ll get right on that.

          • retired.military

            Go to Obama’s website.  Donate $5.  Put in your credit card information and use the name Osame Bin Laden and Iran for information.   Your donation will get accepted even though foreigners arenot supposed to be able to donate to presidential campaigns.   IT was documented that the same thing happened in 2008.

      • ackwired

        Jim,

        I already knew that you had gone off the deep end.

  • GarandFan

    Just had the 20 year ‘anniversary’ of the LA riots.   Yep, those folks sure taught everyone a lesson.  Place still looks like Beirut in some areas.  Any guesses as to why businesses won’t move back in?  No matter the outcome of the Zimmerman trial (if there is one); before ‘the stupids’ burn anything else down, better ask themselves if they’re willing to live with the results.

  • UOG

    Rick, this has happened before and will likely happen again and again long after Zimmerman has been reduced to a footnote in history. Was there justice for Richard Jewell? To answer my own question: No. The record was later corrected and there was an attempt at making amends to Jewell, but his opportunity for justice was stolen alway from him when the media raced to crucify the “wanna’be cop” (now where have I heard that accusation made lately? It sounds so familiar).

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/IHVCMU6FHLAL66L2WXAYY2DENQ Robert George

    Its hard to believe that the prosecution want to convict
    when they have improperly charged Zimmerman with Second Degree murder.  This charge falls under two categories Murder
    with a depraved mind and Accomplice Felony murder.  Only the first murder with a depraved mind is
    chargeable.  This means a person is
    killed without any premeditated design by an act imminently dangerous to
    another and evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life.  The proper defense for this is justifiable
    homicide.  The use of deadly force in
    self defense if done while resisting an attempt by someone to kill you or to
    commit a felony against you.  Trayvon was
    pounding Zimmermans head into the sidewalk. 
    This is felony assault capable of killing anyone.  Under self defense law because of the Stand
    Your Ground law Zimmerman was not required to retreat before using deadly
    force.  If the Prosecution was serious
    about getting a conviction they would have charged him with Voluntary Manslaughter.  At least they would not have to prove that
    Zimmerman acted with a “depraved mind” which is impossible because Zimmerman
    was bleeding from the back of his head and his nose.  Thusly he was not acting with disregard to
    human life but rather for his own safety. 
    Further because the Prosecution decided to have trail in the press by
    releasing evidence that should have been saved for court Zimmermans 6th
    amendment right to a fair trial has been violated.  Based on Sheppard vs Maxwell it is not
    ridiculous to sequester an impartial jury that has not already formed an
    opinion about this case.  This is like
    starting a game by throwing an interception and then fumbling the kickoff
    return.  Dumb da dumb dumb dumb.  One more thing.  How do you retreat when someone is on top of
    you pounding your head into the sidewalk? 
    What are you really supposed to try to squirm backwards to get
    away?  Or how about you flip on your
    belly to try and crawl away so the attacker can apply a rear choke or even snap
    your neck like a chicken?  Even a
    complete moron would understand its impossible to retreat once you have been
    grounded.  To do so requires martial arts
    training or at the very least a knowledge of Greco-Roman wrestling.  Of course if ZImmerman were a martial arts
    expert he would not have needed to carry a loaded cannon anyways.

    • Brucehenry

      What’s with the Ginsbergian spacing?

      • jim_m

         it’s a cut and paste job.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/IHVCMU6FHLAL66L2WXAYY2DENQ Robert George

    For anyone who doubts you can die from getting your head slammed into a sidewalk here is a link to a case where a fella in Canada died from having his head slammed into the sidewalk.  http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2012/04/17/Canadian-gay-activist-slain/UPI-74321334688720/ Why is it wrong to practice self defense if your are half white?  Does that mean if you are full white you should never defend yourself if a minority is trying to kill you?  

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

    @jim_m723:disqus 
    This coming from someone who believes that Paul Ryan’s plan is the best thing for the country. Right, get right on it.  You still haven’t shown any study that disproves anything shown in my links.  All you’re doing is the Allen West notion of ad hom attacks.

    • jim_m

       Say what you want. I have proved the point on healthcare because you just changed the subject and abandoned the field.

      all your links pointed to rankings that depended upon how socialized the health care system was.  How health care is paid for is not a measure of how good the health are provided is. I want the system that delivers the best care.  That’s what we have.

      You have not shown a single ranking that addressed quality of care without measuring socialism as important or more important.  The socialism is irrelevant.  You whine that I call you a communist while you demand that socialism is the standard by which we should measure health care.  Sorry, but when socialism is your overriding goal (at the expense of the system actually working) you sound like a communist to me.  You are also a freaking idiot.

      More than one person has come on here and old you that these socialism measurements are bunk.  They measure the political desirability of the program nothing more.

      • Guest

        You dont “prove” anything without proof.

        Claiming you’ve won because in your opinion someone else hasn’t proven you wrong to your own satisfaction is the hallmark of the Narcissistic personality disorder of an egomaniac.

        In Jim’s fasntasy world everything he makes up is the truth if someone can’t prove him wrong to his own satisfaction… and of course no amount of evidence that he’s wrong will convince him… so he’s always King of his little fantasy world. He’s always 100% right. he makes up crap out of whole cloth, believes it to be so… (because he doesn’t read and do research on his own) and you can’t convince him otherwise.

        • jim_m

           Sorry that you come late to the show.  I have been here for years and have had this argument over and over again.  I haveworked in health care for over 2 decades and know the differences between the US system and socialized medicine first hand.  The studies that Jay put up all use measures of “access” and government subsidy to determine what systems are “best”. 

          The fact remains that if you want to determine who produces better health outcomes the answer is the US.  THe fantasy is that you can achieve even comparable results with anything else.  If socialized medicine was so great you wouldn’t have to shove it down our throats like the fascist that you are.

          • jim_m

             Please surprise us all by providing the study that shows hat the US had worse outcomes from diagnosis.  I have posted multiple studies showing tat the US is far ahead of the world in several areas.  In fact the US is so far ahead in some areas that it begs the question of whether insurance is relevant seeing as how more people survive certain cancers than have insurance.

            When it comes to health care the one and only question of significance is whether or not you live.  If you want to get colon cancer in canada by the time the finally get around to treating you there will only be a ~40% chance of survival.  In the UK if you have prostate cancer you have a 77% chance of survival compared to 98% in the US.  Yet you would call both of those systems better (and in fact ranking systems have rated them so) because they provide more “equity” in determining who gets treated.  That’s socialism and it’s an excuse for failure.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            Jim, you’re using anecdotal evidence that is not backed by facts at all.  It’s the same as trying to get a straight answer from Adjoran.  Sure, sometimes he’s wrong, but then he goes on this wild tangent of hating “the left” that marks him as the equivalent of an Alex Jones for those that agree with him.

            The main thing I’ve done is put up studies that show the best healthcare irregardless of the system utilized.  I can’t help it if they happen to come from socialist countries (though Japan being rated highly and it’s not socialist is another issue…).

            What you continuously harp on is that the outcomes matter the most.  This is false.  People in the US are foregoing healthcare.  In other words, the people without health insurance is rising.  That’s more risks of diseases going untreated.  That’s higher risks of people dying from epidemics that are controlled and prevented.

            So it seems that you’ll continue down the path that doesn’t provide a straight answer here. 

            Also, I’ve yet to see the study that says the US’ healthcare is affordable to all.  The largest example against you is Anna Brown.  Be sure to explain how a woman dies in jail when she complained about a bad leg in a hospital.

          • jim_m

             I’m not using anecdotal evidence.  If 98% of prostate cancer patients are alive at 5 years that is statistical.  You don’t even know what the difference is between anecdotal and statistical.  Dumbass.

          • jim_m

             You complain that people forgo treatment.  That is simply false.  At some point people are identified as having the disease if they don’t survive then that makes the statistics look worse.  Nobody is excluded from cancer survival data because they don;t get cancer therapy.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            The evidence you state is anecdotal because you have shown nothing to back it up.  It becomes factual when you have sources to back it up.  You’ve done nothing to do so, opting instead to say “I know this for a fact”.

            Try again Jimbo.

  • Hugh_G

    Regarding this debate (don’t know how it morphed from Zimmerman) about alleged affordable health care here in the good old U S of A. My wife is a breast cancer survivor. Declined by Blue Cross and Blue Shield. Eligible for HIP Iowa high risk pool. Premium is $600 + per month with a $5000 deductible with terrible coverage and lousy prescription benefits. 

    If you want to pay say about $450 per month the deductible
     is $10,000.

    Tell me about affordable health care here in the good old U S of A. My wife and I are fortunate we can pay for it. Talk to someone who earns 10 bucks an hour with a pre-existing condition and ask them how “affordable” their health care is.

    • herddog505

      Let me preface my remarks with a heartfelt congratulations that your wife made it through and best wishes for her continued good health.

      Now…

      1.  What are the breast cancer survival rates in other countries?  What were they here a decade or two ago?  If they’ve improved (pretty sure that they have), to what do we owe that?

      2.  It think that the key word in your statement is “survived”.  I presume that, like most cancer victims, your wife endured a long and expensive course of treatment.  Who paid for that?  For most people, it’s an insurance company.  In other words, people in the United States tend to pay a fraction of the actual cost of their health care, even in cases where the prognosis is bad and / or the treatment is extremely expensive.

      My father has had three heart attacks plus various operations for such things as pacemaker installation and replacement.  This did not bankrupt my parents; they did not lose their house, have to cash in their retirement, or anything else as they had (and continue to have) insurance coverage.  My father showed me the bill for ONE of his procedures; it was (IIRC) about the equivalent of a year of my pay.  His share was a tiny fraction of that.

      My wife has diabetes.  We have had no problem getting health insurance for her even after she was diagnosed; we pay about $20 / mo for her prescription meds and the usual copays for her doctor’s visits (which includes various specialists).

      So, yes: I’ll tell you about affordable health care in our country.

      If you want more, become acquainted with ER personnel: doctors, nurses, orderlies, etc.  They will be happy to tell you about the massively expensive care that people get in the ER even when the hospital KNOWS that the patient can’t (or won’t) pay for it.

      I don’t claim that health care in the United States is cheap; it isn’t.  But I do say that for the incredible, life-saving procedures and drugs that are widely available (the ones that saved my father and your wife and allow my wife to live a normal life without having to inject insulin into herself a few times each day as my grandfather did), the vast majority of Americans pay a pittance.

      • Hugh_G

        Thanks for the good wishes for my wife, I really appreciate that.

        We paid a considerable amount and continue to do so.

        My point is very simple. My wife and I can afford a $5000 deductible with a $600 + premium. Not many people can do that. In order to be able to afford the insurance at $400+ per month for some the deductible is $10,000. Now I understand that’s not the norm. Unless you have a pre-existing condition, which many folks do.

        • herddog505

          Yes, it’s not the norm.
           
          It would be of some interest to know:
           
          1.  How much the average American actually pays for health CARE;
           
          2.  How many Americans haven’t got health INSURANCE (libs like to confuse insurance with care);
           
          3.  How many Americans haven’t got health insurance because of a preexisting condition.
           
          Part of the problem is the word “affordable”.  What does it mean?  Does it mean:
           
          — “It is absolutely more that I can pay; I will not be able to afford food, clothing, or housing if I have to pay it”;
           
          — “It’s more than I can conveniently pay; I will have to significantly alter my lifestyle if I have to pay it”, or;
           
          — “It’s more than I want to pay”?
           
          What was hinted at (heaven knows that MiniTru wasn’t going to look into the question very hard) during the debate over ObamaCare was that a large number of Americans, especially younger, healthy Americans, didn’t WANT to pay for health INSURANCE simply because they didn’t need to.  Yes, it’s good idea, but they preferred to spend their money on other things.  In other word, it was NOT more than they could afford; it was simply more than they wanted to pay.  O’ course, the left (dishonest as always) turned lack of INSURANCE into lack of CARE.

          • Hugh_G

            You had me interested unit “…the left…dishonest as always..

            Nice talking to you. Thanks again for the thoughts re my wife.

          • herddog505

            You’re welcome.  Good luck to you both.

          • herddog505

            You’re welcome.  Good luck to you both.

          • Hugh_G

            You had me interested unit “…the left…dishonest as always..

            Nice talking to you. Thanks again for the thoughts re my wife.

        • herddog505

          Yes, it’s not the norm.
           
          It would be of some interest to know:
           
          1.  How much the average American actually pays for health CARE;
           
          2.  How many Americans haven’t got health INSURANCE (libs like to confuse insurance with care);
           
          3.  How many Americans haven’t got health insurance because of a preexisting condition.
           
          Part of the problem is the word “affordable”.  What does it mean?  Does it mean:
           
          — “It is absolutely more that I can pay; I will not be able to afford food, clothing, or housing if I have to pay it”;
           
          — “It’s more than I can conveniently pay; I will have to significantly alter my lifestyle if I have to pay it”, or;
           
          — “It’s more than I want to pay”?
           
          What was hinted at (heaven knows that MiniTru wasn’t going to look into the question very hard) during the debate over ObamaCare was that a large number of Americans, especially younger, healthy Americans, didn’t WANT to pay for health INSURANCE simply because they didn’t need to.  Yes, it’s good idea, but they preferred to spend their money on other things.  In other word, it was NOT more than they could afford; it was simply more than they wanted to pay.  O’ course, the left (dishonest as always) turned lack of INSURANCE into lack of CARE.

  • Pingback: Florida v. Zimmerman: What's the Big Deal? - Page 31 (politics)