Has anyone else in the UK just watched Death Of A President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_a_president)?

It was a rather well made mockumentary, the blend of archive footage mixed with acted scenes worked well. It felt, perhaps, a little slow but all in all it told a valid enough chain of events after the assassination of George W. Bush in 2007. The manipulation of the crime by Dick Cheney to pursue his own anti-Syria agenda seemed plausible. The real food for thought, however, came from the mock interviews, where they offered insight into such tactics as media manipulation, dropping mention of al-Qaeda whenever you want to insinuate someone is the bad guy, and showed an interesting depiction of political prisoners in the US.

I saw it.

It was interesting that Bush was getting his knickers in a twist over North Korea (being they tested a nuclear bomb yesterday) - very timely I thought. In the speech, Bush was on about bombing Korea etc - the usual USA subtle approach.:rolleyes: The killing happened in Chicago - quite fitting really as its the home of US gangsters and the like.

The killing scene was very well done and very believable. As was the over-reaction of the US secret service.:rolleyes: They (the FBI) had 300 suspects detained within 4 hours of the shooting. Then of course they started looking in more detail and found a "foreigner" who they were able to match the evidence to. In other words they did the usual US thing and got a suspect and framed him and found him guilty. As Stu says, one mention of al-Queda and they go into panic mode and the FBI made sure the jury went into the trial with only one possible result. . . . guilty.

It was obvious that he didn't do it, but the US FBI were blinkered to everything else.
The chap who actually did do it, killed himself and there was plenty of evidence that he did it, obviously ignored / covered up by the FBI. The innocent chap was given no rights to appeal, and the real killer was "hushed up".
I got the impression, the FBI felt it was better to have an innocent "foreigner" locked up wrongly, rather than have a guilty American, so that the populace would continue to think all Asian foreigners are bad. Which fits nicely into the current US thinking, like Guantanamo etc.

The reason he (the American) did it was because his son was killed in Iraq (or "eye-rack" as the Americans on the show called it) so he was totally distraught about losing his son and saw Bush as the "killer" of his son and wanted revenge.

They also showed dramatic real footage of innocent people dying and being killed in "eye-rack" - very disturbing.

Dick Cheney taking over was a laugh, given that he is prone to shooting his friends for sport, the first thing he did was over-react and send the USS Nimitz down to "sabre rattle" off the Syria coast. I was thinking who was worse - Dick Cheney or Dan Quail but couldn't decide.

I doubt it'll be shown on US TV - its too near the truth, like Fahrenheit 9/11

I've just read on Stu's link that Hilary Clinton says "I think it's despicable", ""I think it's absolutely outrageous. That anyone would even attempt to profit on such a horrible scenario makes me sick." Hilary babe, take off the rose coloured glasses and see what the US is really doing to the world:rolleyes:

Col

I got the impression, the FBI felt it was better to have an innocent "foreigner" locked up wrongly, rather than have a guilty American, so that the populace would continue to think all Asian foreigners are bad.
By making the assassin an American, it followed the pattern of history in that foreigners don't kill US Presidents, Americans do:


Abraham Lincoln (killed by John Wilkes Booth)
James Garfield (killed by Charles Julious Guiteau)
William McKinley (killed by Leon Frank Czołgosz)
John F. Kennedy (killed by Lee Harvey Oswald)


Must be a thing about guys with triple word names.

By making the assassin an American, it followed the pattern of history in that foreigners don't kill US Presidents, Americans do:


Abraham Lincoln (killed by John Wilkes Booth)
James Garfield (killed by Charles Julious Guiteau)
William McKinley (killed by Leon Frank Czołgosz)
John F. Kennedy (killed by Lee Harvey Oswald)



worse than any of that, don't forget it was an American who killed our John Lennon:mad:

Col

worse than any of that, don't forget it was an American who killed our John Lennon:mad:

Col
Cetainly wouldn't want to put up any American to a Brit.

Has anyone else in the UK just watched
Death Of A President?


Although I'm not in the UK ;) , I did not watch that movie. From what I read, it's not that spectecular as the title make believe. Is there also a book version.
This reminds me of the "all the presidents men" (1976) movie, which was an excellent film.

... our John Lennon

Which part was yours Col :p

Which part was yours Col :p
The part he shared with us - his music:D

Col

I thought you were refering to his '58 Rickenbacker 325 :rolleyes:

IHilary Clinton says "I think it's despicable", ""I think it's absolutely outrageous. That anyone would even attempt to profit on such a horrible scenario makes me sick." Col
Hasn't anyone told her that Hollywood's having a ball on the back `of 9/11?:rolleyes:

worse than any of that, don't forget it was an American who killed our John Lennon:mad:

Col
Which he apparently did so he could be famous. Anyone remember his name? No? :rolleyes:

Mark Chapman

And I only know that becuase its in the news at the moment. He's had his parole denied or something.

Mark Chapman

And I only know that becuase its in the news at the moment. He's had his parole denied or something.

It is also the name of a news reader on Radio 1. I remember him joking when Ringo star was comming in for an interview that it was prob not a good idea for someone called "Mark Chapman" and a ex Beetle to be in the same room...

Mark Chapman

And the Yanks didn't think Lennon important enough to fry Chapman :confused: :rolleyes:

And the Yanks didn't think Lennon important enough to fry Chapman :confused: :rolleyes:He didn't commit the crime in Texas:eek:

And the Yanks didn't think Lennon important enough to fry Chapman :confused: :rolleyes: Does New York have the death penalty??

Does New York have the death penalty??
from 1978 - 1994 The death penalty legislation routinely passed the legislature, but was vetoed by Governors Hugh Carey and Mario Cuomo. The Death penalty was reinstated in 1995 but repealed again in 2004.

Where does the word UNITED come from then?:confused:

Where does the word UNITED come from then?:confused:
www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/index.html


You just can’t comprehend this concept of separation of power.

I had thought to comment on this earlier, but refrained; seeing how it is impossible for you embrace any new thoughts.

Maybe you should read our constitution instead of just calling it a scrap of paper.

The laws written into effect by that scrap of paper provided the framework for the most powerful nation in the world. Maybe you would gain from studying it.

But probably not.

Where does the word UNITED come from then?:confused:easy, there, Killer.:rolleyes:

The Death Penalty is determined on a state by state basis due to the difference in opinion and public sentiment over such a broad socio-political landscape. The total landmass of the UK is not quite as large as the state of Oregon...we have a little more ground to cover.

from 1978 - 1994 The death penalty legislation routinely passed the legislature, but was vetoed by Governors Hugh Carey and Mario Cuomo. The Death penalty was reinstated in 1995 but repealed again in 2004.

Thanks for the detailed info, it explains why Mark Chapman ws not given the death Sentence.

Maybe you should read our constitution instead of just calling it a scrap of paper.

.

It's actually not worth the paper it's written on, it seems that you're only united when there's an ist or issed threat

easy, there, Killer.:rolleyes:

The Death Penalty is determined on a state by state basis due to the difference in opinion and public sentiment over such a broad socio-political landscape. The total landmass of the UK is not quite as large as the state of Oregon...we have a little more ground to cover.
Except that the make up of the UK is more diverse than that of the US, opinions vary from county to county here, what's the problem, don't you have modern communications?:confused: :p

Thanks for the detailed info, it explains why Mark Chapman ws not given the death Sentence.
I think it also fair to point out that being British, John wouldn't have wanted Chapman murdered by the state in revenge for his murder

Except that the make up of the UK is more diverse than that of the US, opinions vary from county to county here, what's the problem, don't you have modern communications?:confused: :pGiven the fact that, just like the UK, public sentiment here differs from county to county, township to township, and essentially geographic to geographic area, haven't you just answered your own question?:rolleyes:

haven't you just answered your own question?:rolleyes:
No, we're United as a nation on most, you wouldn't get murdered by the state in one county here but not in another. In fact you wouldn't get murdered by the state in any county here because the elected government decides national policy.

Might it not also have something to do with the original settlers? Groups of people originally setting up state and looking after their own? For example from the media there were French and Dutch settlers in New Orleans, Italians in New York, Spaniards somewhere near New Mexico etc.

Have you not noticed Rich there is a distinct North/South divide in this country? And the idea of (drat - forgotten the proper word for it now) local area governments has been floated on more than one occasion. Given the choice, Scotland and Wales would be happy to have their own governments with their own laws. Depending on the mood at the time, the area of England north of Birmingham would be happy to have a proper say in the regeneration of housing and so on!

Have you not noticed Rich there is a distinct North/South divide in this country? And the idea of (drat - forgotten the proper word for it now) local area governments has been floated on more than one occasion. Given the choice, Scotland and Wales would be happy to have their own governments with their own laws. Depending on the mood at the time, the area of England north of Birmingham would be happy to have a proper say in the regeneration of housing and so on!

Those are only minor issues Nikky, despite the spin from Bliar and his cronies the government will never cede any real power to the regions, that's why the North East rejected it


Might it not also have something to do with the original settlers? Groups of people originally setting up state and looking after their own? For example from the media there were French and Dutch settlers in New Orleans, Italians in New York, Spaniards somewhere near New Mexico etc.


Weren't we the subject of immigration by many races and cultures too?;)

...you wouldn't get murdered by the state in any county here because the elected government decides national policy.The elected government of the state of Orgon has also decided policy on the issue. They govern an area larger than the UK, but because they still fall under the umbrella of US, they don't get the "national" moniker. Don't see why you're having such trouble following this one:confused:

Weren't we the subject of immigration by many races and cultures too?;)

Immigration has still resulted in pockets with their own rules and cultures.
We are a liberal country - accepting almost anyone who wants to come in, and then bending over backwards to accomodate their rules and traditions - at the expense of our own traditional rules and regulations - political correctness went a bit mad.

And maybe the North/South divide is a minor issue - but it's still felt very strongly here.

I'm having some trouble properly articulating what I want to put across. :mad:

Except that the make up of the UK is more diverse than that of the US, :p

By far; your most erroneous assessment to date.

I'm having some trouble properly articulating what I want to put across. :mad:

You might just tell him to pull his head out of his butt. It would have about the same affect.

Except that the make up of the UK is more diverse than that of the US
Umm.... by what standard? Are you talking country of origin, skin color, religion, what?

Umm.... by what standard? Are you talking country of origin, skin color, religion, what?

We Tolerate Rich (mind you you do have GMLWORLDCHUMP)....

not really...some of us know how to use the ignore list:cool:

We Tolerate Rich (mind you you do have GMLWORLDCHUMP)....
Ah, yes. So the UK has adequate services for SMHPCs? (ie., the Severely Mentally Handicapped by Personal Choice) Ours leaves something to be desired; it usually shuffles them off into politics. Sad, really...

not really...some of us know how to use the ignore list:cool:

Am I on your ignor list? I have some pretty radical ideas

Radical ideas and pure rubbish are two different things, hopefully GML has been ignored enough to go away.

Brian

Radical ideas and pure rubbish are two different things, hopefully GML has been ignored enough to go away.

Brian

Are you saying that my post are pure rubish?

Am I on your ignor list? I have some pretty radical ideasof course not. Radical ideas or no, everyone is entitled to their opinions. In fact, I have agreed with you on more than one occasion. Even Rich and Col, despite their entrenchment and sometimes intentional obtuseness:D are at least personally courteous.

It's the general ignorance and stupidity that I have a problem with...quite frankly, those that cannot discuss their issues with civility and a modicum of intelligence should just shut the f**k up:mad:


EDIT:
in retrospect, I suppose I should apologize for my slip into the vernacular, but it's a point that's been bothering me as of late, so I'll leave it none the less.

Umm.... by what standard? Are you talking country of origin, skin color, religion, what?

All of the above and we've posted statistics to prove the point on numerous occasions

And maybe the North/South divide is a minor issue - but it's still felt very strongly here.


The same could be said for the West too Nicky, however despite differences in culture, religion etc we are all governed on major issues by the elected government, the US isn't;)

Are you saying that my post are pure rubish?
Why would you change the habbits of a lifetime, Jenny?:confused:

All of the above and we've posted statistics to prove the point on numerous occasions
Yes, we're all aware that absolutely everything you say is backed up by statstics you've posted on numerous occassions that somehow no one ever notices. I asked for clarification so I could know exactly what you were basing your claim on, because by some of the criteria mentioned you are correct but on others you are obviously wrong.

For example, the UK has a higher percentage of Muslims, Hindis and other non-Christians in the population. It's hard to gauge what meaningful impact this sort of diversity has on UK culture, though, since only about 7% of the UK's citizenry regularly engages in some form of worship as opposed to 41% in the US. So it's true that the UK's population is more religiously diverse but since only a tiny slice of the population actually pays any attention to religion in the first place, one could argue the religious diversity in the US actually has a much larger social and cultural impact. Nevertheless, the raw numbers of diversity are higher in the UK.

On the subject of race/ethnicity, however, the UK looks like a KKK meeting compared to the US:

As of 2001, 7.9% of the UK's population identified themselves as an 'ethnic minority' [...] Along with this, there is a large number of Indians, mainly from northern India, which make up about 2.0% of the population.
In the 2000 census, the country had 31 ethnic groups with at least one million members each, with numerous others represented in smaller amounts. By the federal government's categorization of race, most Americans (80.4% in 2004) are white. These white Americans are mostly European Americans—the descendants of European immigrants to the United States—along with some non-Europeans counted as white in government nomenclature (those with origins in the original peoples of the Middle East and North Africa). To the exclusion of Hispanic-origin European Americans, non-Hispanic whites constituted 67.4% of the population. The non-Hispanic white population is proportionally declining, because of both immigration by, and a higher birth rate among, ethnic and racial minorities. The largest ethnic group of European ancestry is German at 15.2%, followed by Irish (10.8%), English (8.7%), Italian (5.6%) and Scandinavian (3.7%). Many immigrants also hail from Slavic countries, such as Poland and Russia, as well as from French Canada.[83] African Americans, or Blacks, largely descend from Africans who arrived as slaves during the 17th through 19th centuries, and number about 35 million or 12.9% of the population.

since only about 7% of the UK's citizenry regularly engages in some form of worship as opposed to 41% in the US.
That's because we worship reality and not fantasy

On the subject of race/ethnicity, however, the UK looks like a KKK meeting compared to the US:


You're talking numbers within specific groups and not the number of different groups. The sheer size of the US distorts any true comparison

You're talking numbers within specific groups and not the number of different groups.
The number of different groups is certainly relevant to the concept of diversity but so is the size of those groups. A hypothetical example:

Country A:
Group 1: 91% of pop.
Group 2: 1% of pop.
Group 3: 1% of pop.
Group 4: 1% of pop.
Group 5: 1% of pop.
Group 6: 1% of pop.
Group 7: 1% of pop.
Group 8: 1% of pop.
Group 9: 1% of pop.
Group 10: 1% of pop.

Country B:
Group 1: 50% of pop.
Group 2: 20% of pop.
Group 3: 12% of pop.
Group 4: 10% of pop.
Group 5: 4.5% of pop.
Group 6: 2% of pop.
Group 7: 1.5% of pop.

Country A has a larger number of distinct groups represented so you could say it is more diverse. Country B, however, has a much higher impact on the whole population from each group other than Group 1, so you could say Country B is more diverse.

I have shown the US has a more even distribution of percentages than the UK. I do not have the precise number of groups for either country available but frankly I would be surprised if it is higher in the UK since I can't think of any particular group who has immigrated to the UK but not the US.

The sheer size of the US distorts any true comparison
Umm... if you can't make a true comparisson between the UK and the US then what did you base your claim on?

since I don't imagine any particular group who would immigrate to the UK but not the US.

I think you'll find that there are a larger percentage of those from the Indian continent here than in the States




Umm... if you can't make a true comparisson between the UK and the US then what did you base your claim on?
The actual number of groups and not the total number of people from different groups and I'm not including Europeans which I suspect you are;)

The actual number of groups and not the total number of people from different groups and I'm not including Europeans which I suspect you are;)

I don't think so because people of European ancestry are considered "white" (unless, of course, they aren't white :rolleyes: ). There was a breakdown within the percentage of the white population as to European origin but they are all still considered part of the 67.4 percent of the non-hispanic whites. ;)

I don't think so because people of European ancestry are considered "white" (unless, of course, they aren't white :rolleyes: ). There was a breakdown within the percentage of the white population as to European origin but they are all still considered part of the 67.4 percent of the non-hispanic whites. ;)
Ah yes your figures are distorted by the huge influx of Mexicans;) :D
again though, that only counts as one group

Ah yes your figures are distorted by the huge influx of Mexicans;) :D
again though, that only counts as one group

That's true, but we still have immigrants from all over. Mexicans and people from other hispanic countries probably make up the largest number right now, but even they have different cultures and traditions based on their different geographic areas. ;)

I think you'll find that there are a larger percentage of those from the Indian continent here than in the States
OK, so which is it? Are you going by size of the groups or the number of groups? You don't get to pick and choose which criteria you use for each group.

The actual number of groups and not the total number of people from different groups and I'm not including Europeans which I suspect you are;)
Actually I'm not, they're counted as "white". Unfortunately, once you drop below a certain percentage of the population you tend to become part of "other". So determining the precise number of ethnic groups is impossible unless you have access to a comprehensive list for both countries and I couldn't find either. Do you have them?

Ah yes your figures are distorted by the huge influx of Mexicans;) :D
again though, that only counts as one group


I bet the Guatemalans, Nicaraguans, Columbians, Peruvians, Costa Ricans, Ecuadorians, Panamanians, Cubans, and many others too numerous to remember would beg to disagree with you.

OK, so which is it? Are you going by size of the groups or the number of groups? You don't get to pick and choose which criteria you use for each group.

Number of groups, you know we couldn't win by size, but then it's not always size that matters, is it?


I couldn't find either. Do you have them?
No, only those spun by the government:eek:

I bet the Guatemalans, Nicaraguans, Columbians, Peruvians, Costa Ricans, Ecuadorians, Panamanians, Cubans, and many others too numerous to remember would beg to disagree with you.
We have them here too, now, what's your point?

That's true, but we still have immigrants from all over. Mexicans and people from other hispanic countries probably make up the largest number right now, but even they have different cultures and traditions based on their different geographic areas. ;)
Yes but I suspect we could break the Indian population here down into separate religions etc., not sure if anyone in statistics does though:confused:

No, only those spun by the government:eek:
So what statistics do you have that you've used to compare the number of ethnic groups in the UK versus the US?

So what statistics do you have that you've used to compare the number of ethnic groups in the UK versus the US?


The thing is, if 3 people and their dog move to the UK it changes the stats.

Obviously there is no way to make any kind of comparison.

Before any immigration from a particular group would make a statistical dent in the US population it would constitute a key minority in the UK.

Brief synopsis

Table 1 Residents born inside and outside the UK by ethnic group
Ethnic group % born in UK % born outside UK
White 87.2 12.8
Black Caribbean 53.2 46.8
Black African 35.7 64.3
Black Other 84.1 15.9
Indian 36.4 63.6
Pakistani 45.1 54.9
Bangladeshi 35.0 65.0
Chinese 25.5 74.4
Other Asian 20.7 79.3
Other 53.3 46.7
All ethnic groups 78.3 21.7

Brief synopsis

Table 1 Residents born inside and outside the UK by ethnic group
Ethnic group % born in UK % born outside UK
White 87.2 12.8
Black Caribbean 53.2 46.8
Black African 35.7 64.3
Black Other 84.1 15.9
Indian 36.4 63.6
Pakistani 45.1 54.9
Bangladeshi 35.0 65.0
Chinese 25.5 74.4
Other Asian 20.7 79.3
Other 53.3 46.7
All ethnic groups 78.3 21.7

So? the list for the US would be 10 times that long.

You should try to defend something else, you're losing this one hands down.

not really...some of us know how to use the ignore list:cool:
Yes, like Bush ignored the warning from Europe that a terrorist attack on the US was imminent, are you going to bury your head in the sand too? :rolleyes:

So? the list for the US would be 10 times that long.

You should try to defend something else, you're losing this one hands down.
Josey wake up, we've already concluded that it's the number of different groups and not the total numbers that we're discussing, try and stay with us:rolleyes:

The Death Penalty is determined on a state by state basis due to the difference in opinion and public sentiment over such a broad socio-political landscape. The total landmass of the UK is not quite as large as the state of Oregon...we have a little more ground to cover.
Australia has a similar land mass to USA (but far less people... I think there's about the same in the whole country as there is in London :eek: ), and important issues such as death penalty are decided by the federal government.
State gov has their say in "lesser" issues, and then local council puts its 2 cents in too...

Interestingly, the state of Western Australia almost wasn't included when Australia became a Federation (and then a Nation).

A question for the US citizens,

if (in theory) the federal government in the US wanted to abolish the death penalty, throughout the states, could it do it, if so how? – would it have to amend the constitution?

if (in theory) the federal government in the US wanted to abolish the death penalty, throughout the states, could it do it, if so how? – would it have to amend the constitution?The general rule concerning Federal Preemption is the Supremacy Clause which essentially allows that in the absence of a Federal Law, State Law rules. The federally mandated 55mph speed limit was repealed, which then placed the onus of speed limit determination on the individual states. If the Federal Government mandates no executions, it is irrelevant what state laws are on the books since they are superceded by federal law.

The general rule concerning Federal Preemption is the Supremacy Clause which essentially allows that in the absence of a Federal Law, State Law rules. The federally mandated 55mph speed limit was repealed, which then placed the onus of speed limit determination on the individual states. If the Federal Government mandates no executions, it is irrelevant what state laws are on the books since they are superceded by federal law.

So if the federal govement repealed the death penalty the individual states would autmatically not have the option of the death penalty..

So if the federal govement repealed the death penalty the individual states would autmatically not have the option of the death penalty..no, the Federal Government would actually have to enact a law specifically stating no death penalty. In the absence of a Federal Law, State Law rules, so there would actually have to be a Federal Mandate preventing the death penalty.

Brief synopsis

Table 1 Residents born inside and outside the UK by ethnic group
Ethnic group % born in UK % born outside UK
White 87.2 12.8
Black Caribbean 53.2 46.8
Black African 35.7 64.3
Black Other 84.1 15.9
Indian 36.4 63.6
Pakistani 45.1 54.9
Bangladeshi 35.0 65.0
Chinese 25.5 74.4
Other Asian 20.7 79.3
Other 53.3 46.7
All ethnic groups 78.3 21.7
So.... you're making a comparisson between two countries based on numbers from only one country? Hmmmmm....

After digging around, here's the closest comparison I could find:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_England_from_the_2001_United_Kingd om_census
This article discusses the Demographics of England as presented by the United Kingdom Census in 2001.

* Ethnicity
o White: 90.9%
o Indian: 2.1%
o Pakistani: 1.4%
o Mixed: 1.4%
o Black Caribbean: 1.1%
o Black African: 0.9%
o Chinese: 0.4%
o Black Other: 0.2%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
According to the Census Bureau, as of 2005, America's racial composition is:

* White American, 80.4%, or about 238.3 million, (the definition of White includes people of European, North African, West Asian, and Central Asian (e.g., Turkic) ancestry; and Hispanic people who are White or reported "some other race" in the 2000 census)
* Black or African American 12.8% or 37.9 million,
* Asian American 4.2% or 12.4 million,
* American Indian 1% or 2.9 million
* Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0.2% or 0.6 million,
* Two or more races 1.5% or 4.5 million

The figures above include people who declare mixed race or multiracial ancestry, and/or who identify themselves as Hispanic. As of the 2000 Census, U.S. federal law defines Hispanic to indicate any person with an ancestral connection to Spain (for most Hispanic Americans, the connection is indirect, through Latin America). The category includes Sephardic Jews, and speakers of Ladino are classified with Spanish speakers in the U.S. Census.

* Hispanics of any race 14.1% or about 41.8 million

Josey wake up, we've already concluded that it's the number of different groups and not the total numbers that we're discussing, try and stay with us:rolleyes:



A “different” group would consist of less people in the UK. So the stats are off. Obviously you didn't read my post.

After digging around, here's the closest comparison I could find:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_England_from_the_2001_United_Kingd om_census
This article discusses the Demographics of England as presented by the United Kingdom Census in 2001.

* Ethnicity
o White: 90.9%
o Indian: 2.1%
o Pakistani: 1.4%
o Mixed: 1.4%
o Black Caribbean: 1.1%
o Black African: 0.9%
o Chinese: 0.4%
o Black Other: 0.2%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
According to the Census Bureau, as of 2005, America's racial composition is:

* White American, 80.4%, or about 238.3 million, (the definition of White includes people of European, North African, West Asian, and Central Asian (e.g., Turkic) ancestry; and Hispanic people who are White or reported "some other race" in the 2000 census)
* Black or African American 12.8% or 37.9 million,
* Asian American 4.2% or 12.4 million,
* American Indian 1% or 2.9 million
* Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0.2% or 0.6 million,
* Two or more races 1.5% or 4.5 million

The figures above include people who declare mixed race or multiracial ancestry, and/or who identify themselves as Hispanic. As of the 2000 Census, U.S. federal law defines Hispanic to indicate any person with an ancestral connection to Spain (for most Hispanic Americans, the connection is indirect, through Latin America). The category includes Sephardic Jews, and speakers of Ladino are classified with Spanish speakers in the U.S. Census.

* Hispanics of any race 14.1% or about 41.8 million





Those are two different charts: one is race the other is race/origin.

I can’t believe this discussion hasn’t been conceded yet (by the British of course). This is so obviously a discussion on the interpretation and corruption of statistics that it surpasses all logic.

Statistics can be interpreted to show whatever you want them to show. Any politician (or their spin doctor) can tell you that :)

Those are two different charts: one is race the other is race/origin.

I can’t believe this discussion hasn’t been conceded yet (by the British of course). This is so obviously a discussion on the interpretation and corruption of statistics that it surpasses all logic.

It reminds me of the war of 1812. They just don't seem to get it.

It reminds me of the war of 1812. They just don't seem to get it.Maybe if they remember that the total composition is more akin to the entirety of Europe...

...and then consider how well that whole EU thing is working for them:rolleyes:

Joe, did you just quote and respond to yourself? :confused: :p ;)

It reminds me of the war of 1812. .

We just wanted to give you an excuse to paint the president's office and give it a snappy name.:D

Brian

no, the Federal Government would actually have to enact a law specifically stating no death penalty. In the absence of a Federal Law, State Law rules, so there would actually have to be a Federal Mandate preventing the death penalty.

Thanks..
why did Prohibition have to be an amendment to the constitution and not just a law passed banning alcohol?

Thanks..
why did Prohibition have to be an amendment to the constitution and not just a law passed banning alcohol?It is the responsibility of the Federal Courts to interpret the Constitution and thereby make Federal Law. Without a judicial ruling by a Federal Court, there cannot be a Federal Law. Essentially, someone, (in the case of prohibition, the Woman's Christian Temperance Union and/or the Prohibition Party for example) would have to bring action against a manufacturer/distributor of "intoxicating alcoholic beverages" and the Federal Court would have to interpret the Constitution to mean prohibition was the original intent of the system. Since no possible connection could be made, an amendment was necessary to bring prohibition in to being. Even though the 18th amendment enacted prohibition and set precedence, the subsequent repeal by the 21st amendment negates any further interpretations along those same lines.

Thanks..
why did Prohibition have to be an amendment to the constitution and not just a law passed banning alcohol?
That's a good question and I'm having a tough time finding a definitive answer but here's my educated guess: the federal government (ie., Congress) only gets to make laws concerning the topics specifically assigned to it by the Constitution. Everything else is controlled by the individual states. My guess is at the time Congress did not have the power to simply make a law governing the sale and consumption of liquor, so they had to change the Constitution.

As to exactly why a Federal law wouldn't have done the trick, I just don't know.

Joe, did you just quote and respond to yourself? :confused: :p ;)


Yup, I'm trying to mimic reality. One of the voices or another is always answering it self. It gets damned confusing.

That's a good question and I'm having a tough time finding a definitive answer but here's my educated guess: the federal government (ie., Congress) only gets to make laws concerning the topics specifically assigned to it by the Constitution. Everything else is controlled by the individual states. My guess is at the time Congress did not have the power to simply make a law governing the sale and consumption of liquor, so they had to change the Constitution.

As to exactly why a Federal law wouldn't have done the trick, I just don't know....am I on someone's ignore list:confused:

That's a good question and I'm having a tough time finding a definitive answer but here's my educated guess: the federal government (ie., Congress) only gets to make laws concerning the topics specifically assigned to it by the Constitution. Everything else is controlled by the individual states. My guess is at the time Congress did not have the power to simply make a law governing the sale and consumption of liquor, so they had to change the Constitution.

As to exactly why a Federal law wouldn't have done the trick, I just don't know.


I think you and Bodi have it almost correct.

First off I don’t believe the courts have any thing to do with “making” law, they (higher courts) exist to review and interpret its constitutionality.

So congress; in anticipation of a considerable national challenge to the laws associated with prohibition, opted to amend the constitution.

Actually it was quite an amazing feat when you consider that it takes a super majority in congress and ratification by, I believe, 60 percent of the states.

This is so obviously a discussion on the interpretation and corruption of statistics that it surpasses all logic.
Only your logic Jenny:rolleyes:

First off I don’t believe the courts have any thing to do with “making” law, they (higher courts) exist to review and interpret its constitutionality.Technically, Federal Law only exists once precedence is established, not by the Amendment itself. That precedence, of cource, must be made in accordance with an interpretation of the Constitution. So a verdict must be handed down in accordance with the new Amendment before Federal Law is established through precedence.

Actually it was quite an amazing feat when you consider that it takes a super majority in congress and ratification by, I believe, 60 percent of the states.brother, h'aint that the truth!:eek:

Actually it was quite an amazing feat when you consider that it takes a super majority in congress and ratification by, I believe, 60 percent of the states.

Not very amazing when you consider that Bush has had the right to hapeus corpus removed at a whim:rolleyes:

Not very amazing when you consider that Bush has had the right to hapeus corpus removed at a whim:rolleyes:

habeas corpus - A writ (court order) that is usually used to bring a prisoner before the court to determine the legality of his imprisonment. Someone imprisoned in state court proceedings can file a petition in federal court for a "writ of habeas corpus," seeking to have the federal court review whether the state has violated his or her rights under the US Constitution.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Constitution protects "We the people". Non-citizens do not fall under the auspices of the Constitution. I believe you want to complain about the violations of the Geneva Convention...get it right man!:p

...am I on someone's ignore list:confused:
No, I just started making my post before yours appeared. I felt it was different enough not to delete.

Technically, Federal Law only exists once precedence is established, not by the Amendment itself. That precedence, of cource, must be made in accordance with an interpretation of the Constitution. So a verdict must be handed down in accordance with the new Amendment before Federal Law is established through precedence.
I don't think this is true. Any law Congress passes is Federal law whether or not the judiciary reviews it. Further, the judiciary does not have the power to review an ammendment. Judicial review can only determine whether a law is constitutional or not; an ammendment is part of the Constitution so it is impossible to be unconstitutional.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Constitution protects "We the people".
Not according to this site
http://www.tidewaterfordemocracy.com/?q=node/view/144

No, I just started making my post before yours appeared. I felt it was different enough not to delete.whew!...had me worriedI don't think this is true. Any law Congress passes is Federal law whether or not the judiciary reviews it. Further, the judiciary does not have the power to review an ammendment. Judicial review can only determine whether a law is constitutional or not; an ammendment is part of the Constitution so it is impossible to be unconstitutional.you misunderstood (or I'm not being succinct)...I was not implying that the judiciary has the ability to evaluate, enact, or overturn an amendment. (this is from the back of the gen-ed archives and I'd have to do some digging to be certain so if you can prove otherwise, please do) What I was trying to get at is that an amendment is not a law but that Federal Law is created by precedent or by a ruling of the Supreme Court as to their interpretation of the established framework. Perhaps if I'm feeling industrious(:o ), I'll dig further. As to the judiciary review:
Since the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review of congressional enactments, the Court's exercise of it is something of a usurpation. It is not known whether the framers of the Constitution opposed judicial review, but...[the Supreme Court's] legal power to review acts of Congress has not been seriously questioned since 1803

and while I'm on the subject, Rich:...in 1867, Congress's distrust of southern courts led it to confer on federal courts the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners already tried or being tried in state courts...This writ gives state prisoners a second channel toward Supreme Court review in case their direct appeal from the highest state court fails. The writ of habeas corpus is discretionary.a. last I checked, Guantanamo Bay was not a State, and b. it's discretionary anyway.

upon further rumination, I remembered the remainder of the argument on Constitution vs. Federal Law. If you consider the Constitution to be a set of laws, there are far too many loopholes created by both the evolution of society and the basic number of permutations to human activity. Therefore, the Constitution must be considered a set of guidelines by which the judiciary creates precedents, based upon their interpretation of the Constitution, which then are considered Federal Law. In the instance of Abortion, there is no portion of the Constitution which implicitly states that a woman may or may not have an abortion, but the Roe vs. Wade decision established a precedent based upon other personal freedoms which are implicitly granted by the Constitution.

OK...I'm done bloviating:o

You're kind of right and wrong at the same time. Both the Constitution and judicial pecedent are part of federal law (as are statutes, administrative rules, and executive orders). Judicial review interprets the Constitution because the Constitution can never cover absolutely every situation. So in a way it is used as a guide. But it is also the supreme law. Everything in it is 100% legally binding and no law can ever contradict it.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Constitution protects "We the people". Non-citizens do not fall under the auspices of the Constitution. I believe you want to complain about the violations of the Geneva Convention...get it right man!:p

I see, so the statement that America is the bastion of freedom, democracy and human rights is nothing more than a myth?:confused:

Isn't the banning of smoking in public etc. a violation of the civil liberties guaranteed by your constitution?

I see, so the statement that America is the bastion of freedom, democracy and human rights is nothing more than a myth?:confused:

Isn't the banning of smoking in public etc. a violation of the civil liberties guaranteed by your constitution?



As to the first statement (which was written as a question to make you look smart) obviously learning is beyond your capacity.

For the second, that’s under debate right now, and as you might expect in tobacco growing states like Virginia we are behind the nation in enacting laws to promote abstinence in public.

I see, so the statement that America is the bastion of freedom, democracy and human rights is nothing more than a myth?:confused: Weren't you complaining before about the US trying to impose it's rules onto other parts of the globe?:confused: Make up your mind:p
Isn't the banning of smoking in public etc. a violation of the civil liberties guaranteed by your constitution?Actually the quandary is not so much whether or not people have the right to smoke, but whether or not their right to smoke outweighs the ensuing infringement of innocent bystander's right to breathe fresh air and not second-hand smoke.

Weren't you complaining before about the US trying to impose it's rules onto other parts of the globe?:confused: .
Well of course, that's just one of the reasons of course:rolleyes:

Actually the quandary is not so much whether or not people have the right to smoke, but whether or not their right to smoke outweighs the ensuing infringement of innocent bystander's right to breathe fresh air and not second-hand smoke
I see, so what about the rights of those who constantly end up dead at the point of a gun and where's the freedom and civil rights logic behind the latest proposal to ban certain cooking oils?

I see, so what about the rights of those who constantly end up dead at the point of a gunI'm not completely certain on this one, but I believe that if you end up dead you can only do it once...
where's the freedom and civil rights logic behind the latest proposal to ban certain cooking oils?I don't know. I suppose a case could be made that the establishments in question are not completely forthcoming in the disclosure of what nasty, synthetic, crud they're trying to feed their customers. Personally, if you want to harden your arteries and commit slow suicide, be my guest. The government doesn't have the right to dictate that sort of thing, IMHO.

I see, so what about the rights of those who constantly end up dead at the point of a gun
Quite simply, the Constitution does not guarantee the right to smoke so a law can change it relatively easily. The Constitution does gaurantee the right to own a gun, so no law can ever change that. The Constitution itself can be changed, but a lot more people have to agree for that to happen. Rather than a simple majority needed to pass a bill, two thirds of both the House and the Senate must pass an amendment and on top of that 38 states need to ratify it.

I watched this last night, I quite enjoyed it all the events seemed reasonably believable. Especially the bit about going after a suspect without the proper evidence. I can imagine the pressure to catch someone who assassinated any President to be immense.

Whilst I think the film needed to name Bush as the president rather than a fictional character, I do understand why some people did not like it, I did find it a little unnerving, (and I am not a fan of Bush).