zoocrew

That's not stereo-typing but delivering the news of the what the reality shows for the majority.

I doubt those are the rule, but the very small exception. Those would be an enforcement problem, not an indicator of systemic problems.

We really didn't need to be told this but the gap between the wealthy and the typical middle class family is now, officially, huge. In 1962, the gap was 125 times the net worth of median income. Today, it is 255 times. Yet the wealthy and corporations are just always looking out for our interests. My link

I agree. Being on the list means very little. The fact that a doctor is paid could be for research, speaking engagements, or any number of things. Also, the payment could have been in the form of cost offset of travel expenses where the doctor went to the company for a due diligence meeting whereby the doctor met with the researchers to ask questions directly. Or it could have been a situation where the doctor/staff is given a lunch for some face time to explain the new drugs or whatever. The whole point is for disclosure to be given to prevent the very thing that is being assumed by the poste

And yet even today with all the science, people still smoke. Why?

Isn't this an indication that the big money corporations really will shaft customers and employees if given any chance at all? Instead of making this political, why not just admit what it is - an example of corporations doing whatever they can get by with?

Without looking over the chart or getting all the info, I would speculate the urine test was to make certain there were no problems from the strep that was 3 months ago. The symptoms you describe can be a variety of things. Put yourself in the doctor's position: if she didn't do the test and that was the problem, it could be really bad. How does it look to say, "Well, I elected not to do the urine test because I didn't want to subject the patient to an unnecessary $65 but now the $65,000 problem is one that I could have screened for and done something about very early."

There is no evidence that vote fraud is a significant problem. Saying there is over and over doesn't make it so. Prove the fraud. I'm sure TX would love to see your evidence. The deputy lied, plain and simple. This America, not a totalitarian regime.

Which is exactly where the fraud focus should be, e.g., absentee voting, since there is no one even there to make sure only one person is filling out the form. Again, it would take an organized conspiracy of 1000s to do what the Voter ID Laws are aimed, but only a single to commit fraud via the absentee system.

This shows you are being manipulated. The poor this touches make far, far less than you do, if any income at all. These people live in homes where 15 out 20 others live. They live in nursing homes. They move frequently, have no car and get paid in cash. In order to pay that cost to get the ID they have to take a day off. They don't have the various documents. That is why the judges have ruled against these type of laws, generally.

That is flat out not true. You are thinking only like those who are like you. The poor and the elderly have situations that should make it burdensome and the judges have agreed to that end. It is estimated that 11 per cent of all Americas are in the affected group these laws impact.

You have fallen hook line and sinker for the numbers that manipulation. Again, produce the evidence that the fraud exists. Show the significance. It is not there. But we do know without any doubt, that these laws put a burden on the poor, minorities and the elderly that makes it expensive and burdensome.

uSorry about the negative. I meant to click the positive but I messed up. You are correct. These laws are doing nothing but limiting the vote of the poor and minorities so they don't vote for the party they trend to favor. People are bring manipulated by politicians and they don't even care.

Exactly. And there is a reason ID is needed for that since there is VAST AMOUNT OF FRAUD and/or serious risk if there is no positive identification. But when it comes to voting, there is no significant problem with voter fraud.

I disagree. I disagree because the whole Voter ID Laws are solutions in search of a problem. There just isn't anywhere near a significant number of instances where voter fraud has happened. I get the reasons you and others are giving. Not only do I get them, I agree with them. You're absolutely right. The problem is that the implementation of this law is not stopping voter fraud but it is creating significant barriers to many Americans from exercising their right to vote. And since the group that is being targeted is significant and tends to vote a certain way, and since the group crea

That would be the most inefficient means of doing it and would never amount to anything successful. The place where voter fraud is most prevelent would be in absentee ballots where there is no one there to verify anything. But going to the effort to do all the registration and then have different people show up at each polling place for all those names? That would require an organized conspiracy of 1000s, something highly unlikely to be successful without knowledge of it leaking out. Again, absentee ballots is where the fraud would be.

Because we have the records. There were NONE presented in TX as an example. Not one presented by the state when defending its law. Had there been instances where voter fraud was provable, don't you think TX would have presented it since the Justice Department asked for evidence the law was addressing? The former SC elections commission said he NEVER had a single case. Not one. So where are the massive voting fraud cases? My link

But they're not. Where are the instances of voter fraud that would require the Voter ID Laws?

But you're missing the whole point. Why is the Voter ID Law even an issue when there are no cases of voter fraud which the Voter ID Laws address? Sure it has been upheld in GA. But we're not discussing GA but Voter ID Laws in general. The reason the law applies only to some states is, well, a political hissy fit that was used to punish the states that fought the civil rights legislation long ago. Like it or not, it is what it is and, frankly, those states have a long history of circumventing the laws in the past, if not out-and-out ignoring them. That's the way the cards were d

My question is why are the Voter ID Laws even necessary to begin with? There has been no evidence of widespread voter fraud at all. In the TX case, not a single instance of voter fraud was offered to the court. Not one. The former SC elections commissioner said that in all the years he served, there was NEVER a single instance of voter fraud ever. So the question has to be why these laws are being instituted? What problem are they trying to address? Better yet, what party is the author of the Voter ID bills and what party do the poor primarily vote?

But not everyone who moves needs to change their drivers license, especially if they don't have a car. And what of those that move frequently because they are poor? Should they have to pay that $20 each time to get a new ID, when that $20 is a LOT of money who is already poor to begin with. That is a defacto Poll Tax.

But bills do provide another form of showing residency at a particular address when getting the Voter ID. In many states, one of the acceptable forms to show residency is a bill, e.g., power, water or electricity, with your name and address. Many of the poor people can't produce that. And the "respectable job" is exactly the point. All people, whether they have a respectable job or not, have the right to vote. Many of these people are paid in cash, don't have a car and thus no drivers license, and can't afford to take the day off to get that Voter Id, a requirement that becomes a defacto P

Either way, I don't like that any of it ever happened. No parent should have to bury a child. I can't imagine how that mom felt, knowing how I feel about my kids.

Not necessarily. We don't know what all was included in the settlement. There could have been all sorts of changes Disney has to agree to adhere to and, if they don't, the terms can be disclosed and that would be bad, bad news for Disney.

No, it is news because the lawsuit was settled. That is news. The speculation that is going on in this thread about the money-grubbing parents or that Disney was not negligent is pure speculation and is a non-story because there is nothing to support it. We don't know the kids' parents cared more about the money than making the park safe. In fact, if their claims are true, the ONLY way to force Disney to make the changes so the park is safe for other kids was to sue and sue big.