Lucky...

On the surface this sounded like a no-brainer but upon further review this is a tough one. The child must stay on life support until after the trial, but the trial should probably be for murder. Can you have a trial like this only to have it re-opened for murder? It really isn't difficult to understand why the father-defendant wants to keep the baby alive for at least a year and a day (+ 1 day to be sure). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_and_a_day_rule This is a legal move, not one of love and caring. Agg Assault or reckless endangerment, etc.... becomes murder if the infant dies within a year and a day under English Common Law, I think most states adhere to this and it may be federal as in SCOTUS. >>>>>>>>>>>> The child must stay on life support until after the trial, but the trial should probably be for murder. If the child stays on life support throughout his trial, it can't be for murder . And the mother, in an understandable fit of anger and revenge, wants teh baby dead soit can be for murder. Isn't the adversary system of justice we have where the state is essentially the victim just wonderful?

It's just a harmless acronym: Cannot Understand Normal Thinking

Win a moral victory? You need 3 things in order to sucessfully sue and collect: - Liability - Damage - Solvent D's OK, so what's the damage? Hurt feelings? WHat court is going to award how much money to this whiney kid? Also, it would be an affirmative defense thatthese punks never wore a flag garb before, assuming that's the case, so they were wearing it to harrass. If you were the VP would you rather face this suit or one where teachers were telling you these punks were flashing around their garb, thumbing their noses at Mexican-Americans and things were getting hot? If I'm the VP I want bright-line rules from either an appellate court or the school district so my ass is covered if shit breaks out due to this kind of stuff. Also, an affirmative defense could be public/student safety; the deprivation of little white punk's not being able to cause shit is trumped by the need forr public safety - if I were an attny I would love to make that arg all day long. So even if it was wrong to deny punk-boys, it was teh lesser of all other evils. How would a jury argue with that? Esp if other students witnessed tey never wore flag-related garb before that day and being able to wear it very other day wasn't good enough; the case is quite clear and student safety is way more important than expression.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100507/ap_on_bi_ge/us_financial_overhaul_markets See, the R's rip the market, the D's try to keep it fair. 3 D's calling for investigation, where are the R's?

In the in terest of fair trading, if there was an error, people need to be made whole agian, not 2 x whole, 3 x whole, etc. Now if there was no error, then let it pay where it sits. Ethical trading is a foreign term for conservatives it seems. I think the RW mind works like this: If you stole the money and got away, it's all legal. The possession rule is right in line with RWers. Sorry to burst yer bubble, pal, but breaking ethics rules in the trading world knows no party lines. Libs are just as guilty as conservs, Repubs just as guilty as Dems. Yea, good one. The R's are well-known for the Robin Hood syndrome. Oh, you mean like Joseph Kennedy Sr. ? Like I said, unethical trading practices know no party lines. It is obvious you are blind to that fact. Contemporarily, as a generalization, Republicans/conservatives couldn't give a rat's ass about people, the Dems currently do. Look at the vetoed children's HC bill, then passed under Obama and the Dem congress. Look at the major HC bill/law and who backed it. FAIL. Your HC raises costs and helps no one except those wanting more power and control in Washington There is failure here, yours If HC is such a tank, then how is it that Canada has basically pulled even with us? Australia has closed the gap. HC serves 2 purposes: - Makes people well - Creates jobs America is such a sociopathic nation that the people only look for the benefit of themselves and not the entire nation, this probably explains a lot of the scandals. Right, I believe in HC for all, you think it s/b exclusive and I'm sick . As I said, America is sociopathic, meaning they just have no conscience. Right, the socislists want HC for all. WOW, and who will win the superbowl, oh Nostradomas? Right now the onus is on the sociopathic party, otherwise it sticks. I agree and let's defund teh military, as it is waaaay too expensive. Oh, we need it? Yea, we need HC too. Have a nice day Until then your squeeling is now heard, have a better day.

Yea I guess. first we have to understand if there was an error or worse, manipulation, then go from there. It will probably stick unless they can prove manipulation.

In the in terest of fair trading, if there was an error, people need to be made whole agian, not 2 x whole, 3 x whole, etc. Now if there was no error, then let it pay where it sits. Ethical trading is a foreign term for conservatives it seems. I think the RW mind works like this: If you stole the money and got away, it's all legal. The possession rule is right in line with RWers. Sorry to burst yer bubble, pal, but breaking ethics rules in the trading world knows no party lines. Libs are just as guilty as conservs, Repubs just as guilty as Dems. Yea, good one. The R's are well-known for the Robin Hood syndrome. Oh, you mean like Joseph Kennedy Sr. ? Like I said, unethical trading practices know no party lines. It is obvious you are blind to that fact. Contemporarily, as a generalization, Republicans/conservatives couldn't give a rat's ass about people, the Dems currently do. Look at the vetoed children's HC bill, then passed under Obama and the Dem congress. Look at the major HC bill/law and who backed it. FAIL. Your HC raises costs and helps no one except those wanting more power and control in Washington There is failure here, yours If HC is such a tank, then how is it that Canada has basically pulled even with us? Australia has closed the gap. HC serves 2 purposes: - Makes people well - Creates jobs America is such a sociopathic nation that the people only look for the benefit of themselves and not the entire nation, this probably explains a lot of the scandals.

In the in terest of fair trading, if there was an error, people need to be made whole agian, not 2 x whole, 3 x whole, etc. Now if there was no error, then let it pay where it sits. Ethical trading is a foreign term for conservatives it seems. I think the RW mind works like this: If you stole the money and got away, it's all legal. The possession rule is right in line with RWers. Sorry to burst yer bubble, pal, but breaking ethics rules in the trading world knows no party lines. Libs are just as guilty as conservs, Repubs just as guilty as Dems. Yea, good one. The R's are well-known for the Robin Hood syndrome. Oh, you mean like Joseph Kennedy Sr. ? Like I said, unethical trading practices know no party lines. It is obvious you are blind to that fact. They're now saying it was a fatfinger error ordering a selloff of 1000 times more than they meant. 6 months ago you said the market was oversold and that a selloff was looming - 6 months ago. His policies aided in the recovery: stock market, unemp and GDP. Contrast that with your hero's polcies and the result. Look at Clinton's policies, Reagan's policies and the results. Granted it's not 1 for 1, but polciies have some sort of indirect affect on these markets, sometimes a huge direct affect. Look at the Republican depression in 29, Hoover did nothing to save teh banks, the market, jobs, nothing relevant - it will fix itself. Then at the end of his term he signed the biggest tax increase in history, even today. That set the stage for FDR to finish the recovery which took 10 years thx to innaction, the same ainnaction GWB has shown, that Obama didn't repeat. Now you say the pres has nothing to do with the stock market? I'm sure you still do. Absolutley, it's from the Republican gutter to the Democratic recovery. I know, I know, it's just coincidence . Unfortunately the blow came from Europe and maybe an American fatfinger, I guess they owe us that after our Great Republican Recession fucked them so hard. I don't think the market is strong, I think it''s gaining strength or regaining strength from your guy's mess. And sure, teh market can fall any time, GDP can, I just think this recovery speed is probably unprecedented, even faster than teh GD. You claim to trade stocks for a living, you predicted a selloff 6 months aggo, which is a massive amount of time in the stock world, and none until a small selloff now that was triggered by problems outside the US and possibly an stock trader error or was it manipulation? The market is still strong as compared what it was under your guy.

In the in terest of fair trading, if there was an error, people need to be made whole agian, not 2 x whole, 3 x whole, etc. Now if there was no error, then let it pay where it sits. Ethical trading is a foreign term for conservatives it seems. I think the RW mind works like this: If you stole the money and got away, it's all legal. The possession rule is right in line with RWers. Sorry to burst yer bubble, pal, but breaking ethics rules in the trading world knows no party lines. Libs are just as guilty as conservs, Repubs just as guilty as Dems. Yea, good one. The R's are well-known for the Robin Hood syndrome. Oh, you mean like Joseph Kennedy Sr. ? Like I said, unethical trading practices know no party lines. It is obvious you are blind to that fact. Contemporarily, as a generalization, Republicans/conservatives couldn't give a rat's ass about people, the Dems currently do. Look at the vetoed children's HC bill, then passed under Obama and the Dem congress. Look at the major HC bill/law and who backed it. FAIL.

Well, the *should* go back and try to fix it. I guess now they're saying it was a fatfinger, B instead of M for million.

I see your point but, it is all related IMO. Link it all together and it has more power. All in all the whole idea is to attempt to shut those up with whom you do not agree. Label them, make them feel guilty, pass hate crimes laws ECT. use words and ideas against them. And the side that uses this the most are those who feel, not think >>>>>>>>> All in all the whole idea is to attempt to shut those up with whom you do not agree. Or just to stop violence for today. From teh party of, "who cares about that minor 4th deprivation, it's minimal in the light of greater issues" we have the t-shirt squad willing to shed blood over a flag shirt . Talk about hypocritical. Then send those home who threaten violence dude!! But to you I guess it is better to shut those up with whom you do not agree with Ya Lets make the Mexicans happy and screw over those living in the US Wait!! They ARE living in the US going to US schools sucking US dollars Dude A clue See if one can be found here sheesh What you are evidently unable to understand is that I'm not advocating the acts of the VP in a social, "gee I wanna love the flag and beat off all over it" sense, I'm looking at this from a legal liability sense and to expect people here, even some lawyers to get that is apparently too much to ask. The VP was saving his ass, if he knew of trouble-a-brewin and ignored, that's easily gross negligence, his job, etc. He could have been the biggest flag-waver around, even bigger than you and he still should have done this to save his ass. Meanwhile you're attacking this from the perspective of, "The FF are rolling in their graves."

Yesterday, a listener’s son was offended that his school, Klein Collins High School, displayed the Mexican flag prominently. His mother called to complain, and the school wouldn’t return her call. The student took the sign down. The school pitched a fit, reviewed the surveillance tapes, found the student, and suspended him for 3 days. AND he has to pay for the flag. In light of the SF story of students sent home for wearing the AMERICAN flag because it offended the Hispanic students, I thought you’d like to know about a story closer to home. So what do we have here: - Mexican flag was hung on upper deck of school - Kid was offended - Told Mommy - Mommy called school - School didn't get back instantly - Kid took law into his own hands and destroyed flag - School found out who and suspended him and made him pay restitution And this is the rendition from your side, there may be other facts not known. OK, so we have a kid destroying property. This is not, as you say, "allowing Mexican flag to fly over American flag!" They didn't post this flag over an American flag; you're convoluting the issues when they are seperate. Anyway, a kid destroys someone's property and is caught, suspended and pays for it. He and / or his mommy should have gone to the school to complain and see what happens then. The school and it's staff are responsible for the goings on inside the school, if ya don't like it, go sue. You are advocating vigilantism and pretending it's just Americanness. Take this issue to court, if they rubber stamp it, what then? More vigilantism? They would likely establish rules for hanging what flags when and then if you lose, now more vigilantism.

I see your point but, it is all related IMO. Link it all together and it has more power. All in all the whole idea is to attempt to shut those up with whom you do not agree. Label them, make them feel guilty, pass hate crimes laws ECT. use words and ideas against them. And the side that uses this the most are those who feel, not think >>>>>>>>> All in all the whole idea is to attempt to shut those up with whom you do not agree. Or just to stop violence for today. From teh party of, "who cares about that minor 4th deprivation, it's minimal in the light of greater issues" we have the t-shirt squad willing to shed blood over a flag shirt . Talk about hypocritical.

Stop. You lose the debate. Neener-neener, boo-boo. :-r

Or it could be that the white man has been teh devil in so many cases - the list you ignored: - African slaves - American Indians - Women - Chinese - Hawaiians - Japanese-American internment - On and on and on and on........ That is the byproduct of centuries of racial oppression, miscegenation, anhillation, gender oppression, etc. Deal with it, as white males our predecessors have really set the stage for us.

Consistently? When else? I think peace should be held and if sending a couple wise ass punks home for a day averts a riot, so be it. You, OTOH, says let em wear it, let the fighting ensue, bury the dead and prosecute the living. Nice try to flip it. I'm saying to keep the peace, even you go a little further than neccessary. It's a trade off; send some stupid kid home or risk a fight/riot. These dicks were quite obviously inciting and you say kill em all and let the courts/coroner sort em out and you think I'm abhorrent . Tell that to the parents. If it were minorities wearing shirts, gang colors, even sports team garb that could incite I say the same measure is neccessary. See, it's called early intervention to turn the fight from between the students to between teh shitheads and the staff. This often quells any violence when you change parties. Not only are you errant, but your grandstanding is grossly obvious I'm considering you for an Emmy.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conspiracy Really? I don't see any reference to covert in there. A conspiracy can be open and public (overt), sorry to correct you.

Ad hominem Ad hominem Ad hominem.....WTF, outta things to address per the issue so you turn it as a referendum about him???? Trypical. So are they, the process isn't that easy and the fear is that once they apply, they get turned down, now they've identified themselves for deportation. Most aren't politically active, they just want assylum from their mess of a country. Which is ridiculous.

And if he didn't send the kid home, a fight ensued, he would also be an idiot - sounds like he can't win. That's an aggression between the white punks and the school versus an aggression between the white kids and teh Mexicans; quite different. The Mexican kids aren't issuing the mandate, the school is, so let the white kids fight with school admin. No, a war between the white kids and school admin. Riiiiight, they were sending an anti-Meican message. Again, 92% of all communication is non-verbal.

So, if a white assistant principal told the hispanic kids they couldn't wear a Mexican flag, it would be racist. But if the hispanic assistant principal tells the white kids they can't wear the American flag, he couldn't be racist? Really? Really? I love how everyone thinks only white males are prejudiced and everyone else is virtuous. That assertion alone is prejudiced. Maybe you missed that day in histroy class where they talked about: - African slaves - American Indians - Women - Chinese - Hawaiians - Japanese-American internment - On and on and on and on........ Now I hate that I am held accountable for my predecessor white males, but this isn't a tit-for-tat issue. IOW's a balck calling me cracker doesn't have the same sting as me calling him, "boy." Don't be mad at your local black guy, be pissed at your predecessors 5 and 10 generations back. Oh gosh golly, I lose . I've made a vast generalization, that's how racism works. Obama is milado yet he is deemed a black man. Tiger woods is deemed a black man, yet he is approximately half black, half Asian. Many/most American anglos have a degree of American Indian and other races within them. This is not an exact science and your predecessors may have immigrated in the late 1800's for all I know and were not part of the slavery game. They may have denounced black / white desegregation and been real great people. But ya see, racial issues generalize, the peple involved don't stop to check lineage, blood quantum or personal political/social positions. It's us vs them; let's fight. So no, I'm not wrong, I'm interpreting racial issues as the rest of the world does; by appearance. You want to play some semantic game, even tho it may be true that your specific predecessors didn't subscribe to racial issues. No, I think it's acceptable to interpret racial issues as society does. Here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Like_Me It's about a white male who becomes black by appearance and engages life like this. He's a white male thru and thru, but is perceived as a black male by all who see him. So you are trying to take an issue that is vastly generalized by pretty much all of society, yet you want to draw a specific line; it just doesn't work that way. Another example of generalization is a Proff I had at University, he immigrated from Italy over a decade ago and earned his JD, PhD. He looks totally like a Mexican-American, has a sharp accent and is confused for a Mexican all the time. Another kicker is that he is perceived as a white since he's from W.E. so he cannot enjoy any affirmative Action programs, yet is racially profiled as a Mexican. So you're looking for some exacting interpretation while society just genralizes as they see someone, they identify that person as a white, black, mexican, Asian, etc. You accuse me of a non-sequitur and showing prejudicial thinking, then you perform an ad hominem, so you are at best hypocritical. You, being a conservative, does all he can to avoid the issues and turn this against theposter in strawman fashion. If you care to actually address what I wrote, here it is: Maybe you missed that day in histroy class where they talked about: - African slaves - American Indians - Women - Chinese - Hawaiians - Japanese-American internment - On and on and on and on........ Now I hate that I am held accountable for my predecessor white males, but this isn't a tit-for-tat issue. IOW's a balck calling me cracker doesn't have the same sting as me calling him, "boy." Don't be mad at your local black guy, be pissed at your predecessors 5 and 10 generations back.

In the in terest of fair trading, if there was an error, people need to be made whole agian, not 2 x whole, 3 x whole, etc. Now if there was no error, then let it pay where it sits. Ethical trading is a foreign term for conservatives it seems. I think the RW mind works like this: If you stole the money and got away, it's all legal. The possession rule is right in line with RWers. Exactly. They've replaced the human component with automated computer trading programs executing buy/sell based on protective stops and buy orders. One computer triggers a massive sell as 62.5 which pushes it to 62.4. That triggers another computer to sell and pushes it to another large sell trigger at 62.3 and so on down the line. If it was a NASDAQ glitch fine, otherwise the trades need to stand. Or if it was a glitch in any system, not a planned manipulation, but a bonafide glitch in any system, restore it to the way it was before today and start over.

In the in terest of fair trading, if there was an error, people need to be made whole agian, not 2 x whole, 3 x whole, etc. Now if there was no error, then let it pay where it sits. Ethical trading is a foreign term for conservatives it seems. I think the RW mind works like this: If you stole the money and got away, it's all legal. The possession rule is right in line with RWers. Sorry to burst yer bubble, pal, but breaking ethics rules in the trading world knows no party lines. Libs are just as guilty as conservs, Repubs just as guilty as Dems. Yea, good one. The R's are well-known for the Robin Hood syndrome.

In the in terest of fair trading, if there was an error, people need to be made whole agian, not 2 x whole, 3 x whole, etc. Now if there was no error, then let it pay where it sits. Ethical trading is a foreign term for conservatives it seems. I think the RW mind works like this: If you stole the money and got away, it's all legal. The possession rule is right in line with RWers.

DAMN those colonists! They should have stayed in England! Then we wouldn't have all these issues to banter over in SC! I didn't neccessarily say they shouldn't have come, they should have been less exploitive about it. And perhaps they shouldn't have stolen this country from teh Ameican Indians. Of course there was no specific organized Indian tribe this land belonged to, so I'm not sure how I feel about that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP8nGNbk7oQ I'd make em change their clothing too; wouldn't you? Hillarious. \Actually I likethis one better http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOVrSEVU5fY&feature=related And no, the chicks in the angel wings don't need to change their clothing.