DougH

So after you claimed that an argument I never made was false you aren't going to bother to address my question to you? Keep it classy! "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

I didn't say that minimum wage was the issue here, I only stated that its mere presence alters the market. I never made any conclusion in any direction except for the claim that we are dealing with pure supply and demand is hooey. I also stated that the mere existence of a artifical alternative to a paying job offered by a supplier that doesn't operate at all like a private company means that we aren't dealing with pure supply and demand. Please at least debate what I actually said: Please show me a supplier in the job market that can act like government in short term. -Print money. -Tap endless credit lines with marginal interest costs and no debt covenants. Despite being in terrible fiscal condition in terrible market conditions. -Pay employees without receiving a single direct benefit in return which would be actual work. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

No there is a big difference: it is that little entity that is called the Federal government, who by all rational measures has no costs of input in the short run since they can run up debt on the largest credit line known to man, and print money. I am not saying that the market is completely flawed, that would be as equally as crazy as the argument that you are making that the market is completely open and relies soley on simple supply and demand. Show me another wage supplier that can tap a massive credit line unlimitedly despite being in dire financial condition. Not one single one, when business gets bad the credit dries up (to various degrees) for every business except uncle sam. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

It isn't simple supply and demand because there are outside influences in the market. Any time you have price floors (say minimum wage) or artifical alternatives (say unemployment insurance) you are no longer dealing with simple supply and demand. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

We agree! I don't think there is proof that either of them initiated the attack at this point. Only conflicting accounts and claims. I am happy to let this go through the legal system and will cease instantly argue the devils advocate as soon as there is a timeout on the other side by the race baiters and judge and jury folks that want to table the legal process convict Zimmerman now with no due process, and without the benefit of weighing all of the facts and allegations, not just a selection of the facts and allegations. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Show me the evidence that Treyvon WAS verbally threatened, not that he FELT threatened. Show me the evidence that Treyvon knew the shooter WAS armed. They call it concealed carry for a reason. You can no more prove that Teyvon had knoweldge of the gun that I can prove that Zimmerman kept the gun concealed right until the fatal shot. For all the nonsense talk you made about divisions and partisan lines you sure are playing right in to your own observation. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Don't feed the race baiting trolls. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Either kids shot herself playing with a gun that should have been secured. Or parents shot the kid while handling the gun in unsafe manner while pointed in an unsafe direction. Retarded parents that are irresponsible gun owners! "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

I find it interesting that you decided to author your scenario in the way that you did. Single scenario with a skewed fact pattern that deliberatly ommited other available and conflicting facts. Why not multiple scenarios that consider all of the different conflicting facts/statements of the real event that you are trying to make a parody from? Come up with a multitude of scenarios and present them as a package and I will comment on each of them. I don't want to judge Zimmerman innocent or guilty, that is what a Grand Jury is for. The being said if some one is going to jump the gun and rule him guilty using only facts that agree to their conclusion, I am going to jump in there with the conflicting claims and facts. I would agree that it is a absolute shame that some young man lost his life. I would agree that it is a absolute shame that a mother and father lost their son. I would agree that it is a shame that the shooters life is permanently altered regardless of legal outcome. I would agree that it would have been better if Zimmerman never started the chain of events, but that alone doesn't make him guilty. I will finally agree that there are far too many conflicting claims to play judge and jury and label him guilty or innocent. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

I don't think that has been debated. Those facts alone are not enough to convict Zimmerman of murder or manslaughter with no other supporting evidence. Because of the law in FL they weren't even enough to legally arrest him. Now the legal system needs to go through all of the evidence and determine if the shooting was justified as self defense. Of course we could do away with that legal system and hand him over to the new black panthers. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

He can make up scenarios that loosely relate to current events and so can I. Might as well cover all the angles. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

If he said some words, turned his back to her and walked back to the house she was no longer defending herself. She didn't stand her ground, she covered ground to get back to the ex because she was mad that he called her a bitch. As soon as he walked back to his house she should have called her lawyer and the police, instead she let her anger get the best of her and now she is dead. We have one dead wife, instead of one exhusband charged with violation of a restraining order. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

I like this, fantasy scenario theater. Where is the evidence that Zimmerman had his gun drawn before having Martin sitting on his chest bashing his head? If some one said you're going to die, and then turned there back to me and walked away from me and to their vehicle I would not run back towards them and attack them. I would get my ass out of dodge. Heck I have a CCW permit and I would still put as much distance between themselves and me as possible. Closing the distance after a threat is not a good defense strategy. It is something you would do when your pissed off and angry, but that isn't self defense. That would not be a good stratedgy for survival, regardless of whether the action was legally right or wrong. Of course we don't know what was said between the two. We also don't have proof that Zimmerman said anything threatening, or acted physical before the fatal shot. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

What about a unarmed teen sitting on your chest bashing your head into the pavement? Still not an immediate threat? "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Depends... rumor has it that she didn't like being called names so decided she was sick of Bob's shit and attacked Bob while he was walking back to the appartment. She sucker punched Bob, knocked him down, and repeatedly smashed his head into the curb while saying she was going to kill him. Bob couldn't get her off of him, partly because she was 200 lbs and built like a brick shit house, and Bob was an out of shape slob. After screaming like a girl and nearly unconcious Bob fires his pistol in self defense. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

No no, you can't get them to just confont you. You have to get them to sucker punch you, knock you down, jump on you, and smash your head into a concrete side walk. Then you can shoot them. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

That can't be the case, since Zimmerman is not white. I thought it was being reported that he was Latino. Do you think the law only applied to lighter skinned people shooting darker skinned people? What if lighter skin black shoots a darker skin black? "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

What a waste. There is a reason why they call it Neighborhood WATCH, not Neighborhood Confront. We may never know the full truth. My hunch is that he confronted the teen, continued to follow him. The teen took offense to it, most people would, and they had a fight. Even if it was self defense he never would have been in a position to need to defend himself if he was in his car. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

they used to do it themselves. Why should they miss out on the sale?? There is a whole host of private party sellers that will sell any swinging dick an inappropriate used canopy. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Or maybe he is just observing a trend? If he treats his new black customer no different than a new or existing white customer is it really racist? He is still showing up, and I doubt if he got a good tip he would pretend it didn't happen? I don't think having preconceived notions is racist if you don't act on them. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

What if he concludes that most of his black customers are lousy tippers based on his past experinces. Is that different from concluding all blacks are cheap? "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Was it Felix that had the string of previous "complications" or was it some one else trying to break the records? "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

+1 here. As long as she makes him happy who cares if she is in it for the money. Marriage is a legal contract between two adults anyhow. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

How could we. advise that? You could fly the Katana like garbage, or you could be gods gift to canopy flight? "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

In my opinion, the DZO or club should bear the cost of a re-jump with video. Mistakes happen. If the tandem instructor needs to be retrained retrain him. If the tandem instructor isn't the right stuff fire him. But at the end of the day the instructor is an employee. When things are going great the instructor only gets his pay, he doesn't get a cut of the profit the DZO makes. If you own a business you get all the rewards when things are going great, but you also bear the cost of when your employees drop the ball. I don't like hearing about packers that are made to pay for cutaways, or other costs that are being passed on to employees. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P