Patty16

It's not pure and simple a scam.... how else do you evaluate students across districts, states etc? The schools down here in the south are generally horrible, and standardized testing shows this to be true. Its also used worldwide for student evaluations etc. The issue in the states is that it has become politicized for various interests whether it be the teachers Fed or coservatives erasing slavery from the history books. Leaving these kinds of decisions to the local level isnt really a good idea, it give too much power to mob rule on teaching cirriculum and the firing of decent teachers. There's a reason American kids are falling behind the rest of the world and it's not because of standardized testing.

As to that part, donated medical waste that would otherwise be incinerated is invaluable to medical research and helps researchers cure and treat diseases. It's been a part of medicine since the beginning of time. Da Vinci dissected corpses in the late 1400s and it goes back even further. I just think those that are anti-choice are taking this and trying to manufacture outrage.

Except they aren't sold for profit, that's the thing. And it's being widely mis-reported in the conservative media in order to distort the issue nad fire up voters. It's accepted practice across all of medicine to be reimbursed for transported donated medical parts and materials, that does not mean it's FOR PROFIT. If you die and you donate your corpse for research, money will change hands, but that does't mean your body was sold for profit. It means certain facilities aren't expected to bear the cost of doing good for medical research. Thus, paying a facilities costs for their donation of a terminated fetus doesn't mean it's for profit. It mean they didn't make OR lose money on the transaction. Some are so blinded by their hatred of the procedure that they willingly ignore that distinction (not you)

Very true, and Hillary (for all her faults) supports women's rights on many issues, and those are issues that women overwhelming support regardless of party affiliation. I think the GOP would be wise to not repeat a Palin, although that's hard. I don't see Carly having any appeal because of her being a woman since she opposes equal pay, maternity leave, right to choose, and so on. Plus i'm not sure super conservative primary voters will allow a woman to win the GOP nomination.

I was trying to leave it as open ended as possible to see how you would interpret it. But i think you're right in that unlike AA who vote overwhelming Dem, the women vote isn't homogeneous. So it might energize some GOP women to come out and vote. However, because primary voters are mostly men and very much more conservative I'm not Carly really has a fair shot. Most women identify and vote Dem, and if it's Hilary v. carly i don't think it's a close election.

As a female, do you think any females would gravitate towards Fiorina just because she is a woman, despite her stance on women's issues? Would there be a surge in women voting like there was for AA voting for Obama?

That's not what that portion of the code says. The money being exchanged is for the costs associated with transportation of tissue. They cannot pay anything related to the abortion itself --- as a way not to incentive-ize the procedure. Also the patient donating the material always always always has to sign a consent form allowing the donation. It's not a criminal enterprise by any stretch of the imagination. You may disagree with abortion and that's fine, but you should know that it's a very small portion of what PP does and millions of low income people rely on PP for services unrelated to abortion.

There isn't any. While she was at HP she laid of tons of people but the company didn't grow profits and it's stock fell 65% and under performed the rest of the tech sector, even taking into account the tech bubble. She also acquired massive amount of debt in the process. So if streamlining and cutting waste means firing thousands of workers, increasing debts, vanishing shareholder value and flat profits, she was great. Although she made sure she was paid a ridiculous comp package.

Yea they should, especially when running for the highest office. It's just like Ben Carson, they really don't have any idea about global issues, and are really just running to drive up appearance fees and book sales.

And rightly so, she was a disaster at HP, and multiple publications have called her one of the worst CEO's of all time. Even if that weren't true, running a business has nothing to do with running a country. As for vs. HRC, i don't think it would be much of a throwdown, a seasoned debater and politician against a disgraced CEO who opposes essentially all womens rights such as equal pay, maternity leave, right to choose etc.

This video is a symptom of the problem we have been discussing. A black guy is shot in the face, the white officer charged with murder. He also lied in his report and had another officer lie to support his story. It doesn't mean this incident was driven by racism, but it's a symptom of the overall problem that blacks get treated diff by law enforcement than whites. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/07/29/prosecutors-to-announce-conclusion-of-probe-into-cincinnati-campus-police-shooting/

That and one party, almost all white, sees no racial issues on any topic, while the other has factions that do throw out the term "racist" a little too liberally (<-- see what i did there). How does one get someone to see there's a racial problem when it's existence isn't acknowledged?

Well i said it was a racist comment which is different than calling him out as a total racist. I trust you understand the difference. I didn't shut him out of any dialogue we were exchanging data and links. And i gave all the background data, and explained that the people and organizations in the legal world acknowledge there's a systemic problem that needs to be addressed. I'm not trying to get him or anyone to admit they're a racist. It was a dialogue about why the rates are different and blaming race by itself as a factor and excuses was thrown in.

Perhaps, but that comment crossed the line. Opinions like that are typically driven by ignorance, (i don't mean stupidity) but a lack of knowledge of that facts and exposure to AA's and inner city people and it's exacerbated by certain news outlets with 90%+ white viewership seeking to reinforce the audience's already held views. I would assume in the field? I know the view is not uncommon. Let me ask it this way, if this topic came up at work and that comment was made to a black person and they filed a complaint, what would happen?

I know lots of people feel that way, but could you actually say that in a professional setting? And just because many have that opinion, or express it nicely, doesn't take away from the fact of what it is. Polite racism is still what it is. For example I work in the legal world, and if we were discussing reformation of sentencing etc and said something along those lines would I have a job much longer?

I agree with your main point. But when someone says blacks needs to stop making excuses, it's a racist comment, and wouldn't be acceptable almost anywhere by any definition. But you said his was mainstream, I'm curious as to where that is mainstream and be permissible language?

I strongly disagree, there's been a concerted effort to re-label racist opinions as just opinions across the board. Way too easy to just muddy the waters on what the word mean Sure, go ahead and say any of those things at work and see what happens. Or if a politician said something along those lines. Those are both generally seen as racist things.

No one is arguing, or has in the thread, that any of the issues are that those incarcerated are actually innocent, black or white. You've intimated that blacks are more criminal like and that helps explain the numbers, you've also argued that they need to stop making excuses. That certainly has some strong racial overtones. You're severely undervaluing the nature of the system and how it creates those numbers.

Those two aren't mutually exclusive. But someone saying blacks are just looking for excuses when virtually all organizations connected to legal systems are advocating reform comes pretty close to any definition.

Showing multiple studies indicating that the system in unfair to blacks and your response is that they need to stop making excuses isn't me playing the racist card. It's you having a rather prejudicial racial response to overwhelming data and information that you simply don't "agree" with.

Right. Its not a conspiracy theory, its shown by evidence many times over. Your prejudices are getting in way of you understanding that rationally.

It's harsh and sounds kinda racist. Like I said, the system is stacked and I've provided data to show that, yet you boil it down to the bolded? Essentially they need to stop complaining ? All those non-partisan organizations disagreeing with you are really just trying to help blacks look for excuses right? Do you read what you type before you hit post?

well said. Crime is also concentrated in cities bc...................that's where more people live. Like D4rk said, black people don't commit more crime bc they're black. However, in some parts of the country, blacks are over ten times more liekly to actually get arrested for a suspected offense than a white person. Countless studies show that for the same offense blacks are more likely to: 1) be arrested in the first place, and 2) be convicted 3) receive a longer sentence than a similarly situated white person If you still believe in light off the foregoing that black just are more criminal, then so be it. But the people who deal in the criminal justice system, countless bar associations including criminal lawyers on both sides, researchers, federal sentencing commissions etc. all disagree with you and your position. Again, this isnt a policy debate as much as it is a fact, blacks get unfair treatment and it should be fixed. Every piece of evidence supports this. Those arguing that well they just do more crime are simply trying to shift the debate away from real reform.

Riiiiiight. ""The study, carried out by the Guardian, found black offenders were 44% more likely than white offenders to be sentenced to prison for driving offences, 38% more likely to be imprisoned for public disorder or possession of a weapon and 27% more likely for drugs possession."" AND "Offenders from ethnic minorities are more likely than their white counterparts to be sentenced to prison for certain categories of crimes, "" http://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/nov/25/ethnic-variations-jail-sentences-study Blacks go to jail/prison more often than whites for the same crime too. That is why so many non-partisan organizations are trying to reform prison and the crimanal systems, because everyone recognizes this is a problem with the system! But keep believing that blacks are just more criminal than whites, and that they get a fair shake when they get arrested for minor offenses.

Yes im sure you can, but that channel with all it's flaws, isn't in the routine of doing what Fox News, no one else does it. Again, Fox News in study after study shows their viewership is the least informed by what's actually going on in the world, believing things that aren't true. They are simply not comparable in scope or effect to any other news outlet. And there's a reason its viewed as a clown show by anyone outside the US. You can't go one hour without something being put up there that's not just an opinion it's just not true. And that nugget about ODonnell is a little off, he's right about Trump. He's worth way less than he says he is per yesterday's news. I've always seen this to be such a weird polling anomoly, since whilte polling shows that to be true, more people vote Dem every year than Repub. yes more people vote D in congressional years, Dems just dont win seats bc of districts etc. I'm talking raw # of votes. In the past 20 years, every presidential election except for one had more people voting for Dem, but if you poll them you don't necessarily get that outcome. Is it that many people identify as Rep but vote Dem or Dem voting people dont identify as Dem..........