Minorities do make up a lopsided percentage of the prison population.
Posted By: Zauber on 2005-10-01
In Reply to: The whole comment stems from the fact... - SM
But just stating that as a fact which is self-evident pays no attention whatsoever to the root causes of minority tension in our nation, nor address the fact that rich people with their various crimes tend to be well-connected enough to keep their butts out of jail, thus disproportionately skewing the prison statistics. Many more reasons can be advanced to explain the sad state of America's penal system, but none of that matters in the subject at hand.
Bennett's conclusion (as a member of the wealthy, advataged and least-likely-to-go-to-prison-for-his-crimes club) is that mass genocide would solve our crime problems.
Don't you realize how frightening that is?
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
because of lopsided media
nm
In our community minorities ARE the
You may not like those facts but that is the facts around here. They are the gang related group around our town. They love to hang their tennis shoes on the power lines to show this is their neighborhood to other gangs.
Sorry you think Obama will help the middle class but if you're in the 31K to 63K income range, you will be taxed or did you choose to ignore his voting on that back in March? He tried to get you good darling!
Minorities get all the breaks
so that might not be a bad thing. ;-)
In which United States do minorities
Please elighten, oh wise one.
In which United States do minorities
Please elighten, oh wise one.
I am SO TIRED of minorities playing victim!
So the black firemen totally SUCKED on the test. Maybe they didn't study as hard. Or they weren't as smart to begin with. Or they got loaded the night before the big test. Who cares why the stunk on the test. The fact was they STUNK! I'm sure a lot of WHITE firemen sucked at it, too.
But, instead of people saying, gee, those guys sucked on the test, they decided to pretend like there was something wrong with THE TEST instead of the guys who sucked at it. For no other reason than a bunch of hard-working WHITE GUYS did better than the majority of other people.
Yet another example of how this country bends over backwards to help minorities. They don't want EQUAL rights - they want RIGHT-OF-WAY - as in - clear the decks, let the 'special cases' go to the front of the line.
It's pure and utter BS. Typical of the lunatics on the left to defend such racism, while still maintaining their oh-so-precious "victim" status.
The percentage I saw was not all that impressive...
considering his income, and for someone who so wants to spread the wealth. I understand that you are not concerned nor alarmed by him. That's fine. To each his own. But I am concerned and alarmed. I guess we leave it at that.
Equal percentage is right, I think....nm
nm
Sigh. They pay a higher percentage because they
thousands of times more wealth than each average Joe (and I DO NOT mean the plumber). We have a progressive tax system here, American as apple pie, and Obama only wants to adjust the rate back to where it was were 8 years ago....no socialist subversion in that. We all managed to survive the economic boom of the 90s, after all.
Furthermore, before pronoucing any judgements on this issue, check out the disparities in the (here comes that CAPITALIST phrase again) distibution of wealth in the US. If you do not want to research this yourself, just say so and I will post that information for the UMPTEENTH time.
Now, before you go off, Wikipedia is not the Communist Manifesto. Go to the link and scroll down a little better than halfway and read the section on the United States. If you are in the middle class, the information there will make your blood boil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth
it's a lot higher percentage than McCain's - nm
x
Start with yourself - did you donate and what percentage?
Bet that is a big no, and $0. Seeing as you're so into helping others who cannot because of no fault of their own.
I don't think anyone on this board ever said we should not help the handicapped who cannot help themselves. Most people here whether they are liberal or conservatives have compassion. It's the ones who can help themselves, who are physically and mentally able to get jobs but they won't because it's easier to sit at home and receive that welfare check. By all means I am not saying everyone on welfare can get a job, but there are a good percentage of those that can (and pay taxes to help those who can't), but why should they when they are getting it for free. And now it will be even easier for them to get something for nothing.
Not everybody is only out for ourselves and screw everyone else. I donate money to a charitable cause - an Indian reservation in Arizona to help provide food and water to them. I wish I could donate more or to more charities, but I'm a one-income three person family, and I send money to my family back east who are having a hard time, which leaves me with nothing left over. Do I want government to take more taxes from me - no way....let me decide for myself which charities I want to donate to.
Not sure what the beef is here. I do not agree that we all are out for only ourselves, but in these economic times and people out of work and losing everything, how can you expect them to want government to take more money out in taxes.
So, I may be misinterpreting this message. Are you for the government taxing us more, or are you just mad at GW and his administration and want to vent. While your venting you should vent about what the Clintons did on their way out to include taking everything not nailed down not only in the WH but also on Air Force One.
What percentage of homes are owned by
Does anyone have numbers?
If someone makes 100 mill a year, you think $20K earner should pay same percentage?
that's just kookoo
more blacks in prison...why?
Your post is a racist post. Tell me, why do blacks make up the majority in prison? Could it be bad cops sending innocent black people to prison..you bet..could it be no opportunites for blacks, you bet..Your statement trying to defend Bennetts undefensible comments make me wonder.
I think Bush should go to PRISON.
nm
a federal prison where we pay taxes
to feed her, clothe her and provide her with medical care. She ought to be extricated to her own country. I wonder what the Mexican feds would do with her. I don't feel sorry for these people. They were in the wrong in the first place by sneaking into this country. They deserve whatever they get. As for the unborn child, if the mother wasn't so selfish, she would put the child up for adoption in the US where people who could afford to love and raise that child right would have the opportunity to.
He refused to be released from prison...
because there were men who had been there longer than he had and he felt using his dad's clout to get him out was wrong for those men, and it was, and that takes the kind of courage and integrity Barack Obama can only dream about.
How can you say he never regretted it? Does Obama regret throwing a friend and mentor, the man who baptized his children, under the bus for his political career? This is a man you should trust? Hello??
You're right--that's why noone ever goes to prison for murder. nm
nm
A mainland *supermax* prison
would be quite a change to the gitmo detainees. but it would also provide one benefit they don't have now, access to new recruits for jihad. unless they are sequestered from all other prisoners, these men will be enlisting other convicts to their cause. conversion to islam is rampant in our prison system. giving these terrorist suspects the opportunity spread their form of radical islam to other convicts, who might actually be released from prison, would be a big mistake.
Halliburton will build new prison on Guantanamo
Halliburton subsidiary gets $30 million to build new Guantanamo prison
ASSOCIATED PRESS
11:28 a.m. June 17, 2005
WASHINGTON – A subsidiary of Houston-based Halliburton has been awarded a $30 million contract to build an improved 220-bed prison for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Pentagon announced.
Kellogg Brown and Root Services Inc. of Arlington, Va., is to build a two-story prison that includes day rooms, exercise areas, medical bays, air conditioning and a security control room, according to the Pentagon. It is to be completed by July 2006.
Congress previously approved the funding for the construction job. Some members, along with human rights groups, are now calling for Guantanamo to close because of reports of prisoner abuses there and because the foreign detainees are being held indefinitely with no charges filed.
KBR beat out two other bids for the job, the Pentagon said.
"The future detention facility will be based on prison models in the U.S. and is designed to be safer for the long-term detention of detainees and the guards," according to a statement provided by a Pentagon spokesman. "It is also expected to require less manpower to operate."
The new prison building, called Detention Camp {PI:EF}6, will replace some of the older facilities at the Navy base, which officials say are not adequate for holding prisoners for the long term.
The total contract could be worth up to $500 million through 2010, the Pentagon said. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic, in Norfolk, Va., is the contracting agency.
About 520 prisoners from the Bush administration's war on terrorism are held at Guantanamo. Already, $110 million has been spent on construction there, and the prison costs about $95 million a year to operate.
White House officials have said there are no plans to close the facility because the detainees being held there are too dangerous to release while the war on terror continues.
Report: 1 in 31 U.S. adults in prison system
Updated: 8:07 p.m. ET Nov. 2, 2005
WASHINGTON - Nearly 7 million adults were in U.S. prisons or on probation or parole at the end of last year, 30 percent more than in 1995, the Justice Department said Wednesday.
That was about one in every 31 adults under correctional supervision at the end of 2004, compared with about 1 in 36 adults in 1995 and about 1 adult in every 88 in 1980, said Allan J. Beck, who oversaw the preparation of the department’s annual report on probation and parole populations.
Beck attributed the overall rise in the number of people under correctional supervision to sentencing reforms of the 1990s. The nation’s incarcerated population has been increasing for more than 30 years, with sharp growth in the last decade.He said crime rates have fallen in recent years, which helps account for slower growth among people on probation — those allowed to live in the community with some restrictions rather than being incarcerated.
The number of people on probation in 2004 grew by 6,343 to about 4.2 million in 2004, the report said.
Nearly 50 percent of all probationers at the end of last year were convicted of a felony. Twenty-six percent were on probation for a drug-law violation, and 15 percent for driving while intoxicated, said the annual Justice Department report.
Racial imbalance persists in probation
Whites made up 56 percent of the probation population and only 34 percent of the prison population, according to Wednesday’s report and another Justice Department report released last month.
“White people — for whatever reason — seem to have more access to community supervision than African Americans and Hispanics,” said Jason Ziedenberg, executive director of the Justice Policy Institute, which promotes alternatives to incarceration. He called probation a cheaper and more effective form of rehabilitation.
Blacks, he noted, comprised 30 percent of probationers and 41 percent of prisoners at the end of 2004. Hispanics made up 12 percent of the probation population and 19 percent of the prison population
Parolees grew fastest among those under correctional supervision. They are criminal offenders who rejoin society with restrictions for a time after they complete a prison term.
Number of parolees grows
The adult parole population grew 20,230, or 2.7 percent, during the year, more than twice the average annual increase of 1.3 percent since 1995, the report said. The total number of parolees at the end of 2004 was 765,355.
Beck said a late 1990s spike in prison populations is now showing up in the number of parolees, as the number of prisoners released rises.
The parole population grew during 2004 in 39 states, with double-digit growth in 10 states, led by Nebraska’s 24 percent increase. The number of people on parole decreased in nine states and didn’t change in Maine.
About 187,000, or 39 percent of discharged parolees went back to prison or jail in 2005. While the number has grown, the rate has held relatively stable since 1995, when 160,000, or 39 percent of discharged parolees returned to incarceration.
The total number of people incarcerated in the United States grew 1.9 percent in 2004 to 2,267,787 people, according to the report released last month.
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Barney Frank in prison, is that that what you'd call
x
Germany seek charges against Rumsfeld for prison abuse sm
Friday, Nov. 10, 2006
Exclusive: Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse
A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the outgoing Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo
By ADAM ZAGORIN
Just days after his resignation, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The plaintiffs in the case include 11 Iraqis who were prisoners at Abu Ghraib, as well as Mohammad al-Qahtani, a Saudi held at Guantanamo, whom the U.S. has identified as the so-called 20th hijacker and a would-be participant in the 9/11 hijackings. As TIME first reported in June 2005, Qahtani underwent a special interrogation plan, personally approved by Rumsfeld, which the U.S. says produced valuable intelligence. But to obtain it, according to the log of his interrogation and government reports, Qahtani was subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation and other controversial interrogation techniques.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that one of the witnesses who will testify on their behalf is former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the one-time commander of all U.S. military prisons in Iraq. Karpinski — who the lawyers say will be in Germany next week to publicly address her accusations in the case — has issued a written statement to accompany the legal filing, which says, in part: It was clear the knowledge and responsibility [for what happened at Abu Ghraib] goes all the way to the top of the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld .
A spokesperson for the Pentagon told TIME there would be no comment since the case has not yet been filed.
Along with Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Tenet, the other defendants in the case are Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone; former assistant attorney general Jay Bybee; former deputy assisant attorney general John Yoo; General Counsel for the Department of Defense William James Haynes II; and David S. Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Senior military officers named in the filing are General Ricardo Sanchez, the former top Army official in Iraq; Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the former commander of Guantanamo; senior Iraq commander, Major General Walter Wojdakowski; and Col. Thomas Pappas, the one-time head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib.
Germany was chosen for the court filing because German law provides universal jurisdiction allowing for the prosecution of war crimes and related offenses that take place anywhere in the world. Indeed, a similar, but narrower, legal action was brought in Germany in 2004, which also sought the prosecution of Rumsfeld. The case provoked an angry response from Pentagon, and Rumsfeld himself was reportedly upset. Rumsfeld's spokesman at the time, Lawrence DiRita, called the case a a big, big problem. U.S. officials made clear the case could adversely impact U.S.-Germany relations, and Rumsfeld indicated he would not attend a major security conference in Munich, where he was scheduled to be the keynote speaker, unless Germany disposed of the case. The day before the conference, a German prosecutor announced he would not pursue the matter, saying there was no indication that U.S. authorities and courts would not deal with allegations in the complaint.
In bringing the new case, however, the plaintiffs argue that circumstances have changed in two important ways. Rumsfeld's resignation, they say, means that the former Defense Secretary will lose the legal immunity usually accorded high government officials. Moreover, the plaintiffs argue that the German prosecutor's reasoning for rejecting the previous case — that U.S. authorities were dealing with the issue — has been proven wrong.
The utter and complete failure of U.S. authorities to take any action to investigate high-level involvement in the torture program could not be clearer, says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a U.S.-based non-profit helping to bring the legal action in Germany. He also notes that the Military Commissions Act, a law passed by Congress earlier this year, effectively blocks prosecution in the U.S. of those involved in detention and interrogation abuses of foreigners held abroad in American custody going to back to Sept. 11, 2001. As a result, Ratner contends, the legal arguments underlying the German prosecutor's previous inaction no longer hold up.
Whatever the legal merits of the case, it is the latest example of efforts in Western Europe by critics of U.S. tactics in the war on terror to call those involved to account in court. In Germany, investigations are under way in parliament concerning cooperation between the CIA and German intelligence on rendition — the kidnapping of suspected terrorists and their removal to third countries for interrogation. Other legal inquiries involving rendition are under way in both Italy and Spain.
U.S. officials have long feared that legal proceedings against war criminals could be used to settle political scores. In 1998, for example, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet — whose military coup was supported by the Nixon administration — was arrested in the U.K. and held for 16 months in an extradition battle led by a Spanish magistrate seeking to charge him with war crimes. He was ultimately released and returned to Chile. More recently, a Belgian court tried to bring charges against then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for alleged crimes against Palestinians.
For its part, the Bush Administration has rejected adherence to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on grounds that it could be used to unjustly prosecute U.S. officials. The ICC is the first permanent tribunal established to prosecute war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity.
Well, it keeps the population down
and lesbians don't spread HIV. Also, (see my other post) nobody leaves the toilet seat up. There's no fight over the TV remote, which is used only for selecting a channel someone actually wants to watch. Additonally (and this is a big plus in my book) there are none of them little tiny hairs that are left in the bathroom sink after a guy shaves. Nobody opens a cupboard door for a split second, closes it and yells, 'Honey, where's the ........?'
When you want to indoctrinate a population...
you start with children and youth. Socialism 101.
US population replacing itself.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/World/Story/STIStory_352004.html
March 19, 2009
40% babies out-of-wedlock
Behind the number is both good and bad news. While it shows the US population is more than replacing itself, a healthy trend, the teen birth rate was up for a second year in a row. -- PHOTO: AFP
ATLANTA - MORE babies were born in the United States in 2007 than any year in the nation's history - and a wedding ring made increasingly little difference in the matter.
The 4,317,119 births, reported by federal researchers on Wednesday, topped a record first set in 1957 at the height of the baby boom.
Abortions down to lowest levels
Meanwhile, US abortions dropped to their lowest levels in decades, according to other reports. Some have attributed the abortion decline to better use of contraceptives, but other experts have wondered if the rise in births might indicate a failure in proper use of contraceptives. Some earlier studies have shown declining availability of abortions.
The statistics are based on a review of most 2007 birth certificates by the National Centre for Health Statistics, part of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention.
... more
Behind the number is both good and bad news. While it shows the US population is more than replacing itself, a healthy trend, the teen birth rate was up for a second year in a row.
The birth rate rose slightly for women of all ages, and births to unwed mothers reached an all-time high of about 40 per cent, continuing a trend that started years ago. More than three-quarters of these women were 20 or older.
For a variety of reasons, it's become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband, said Duke University's S. Philip Morgan, a leading fertility researcher.
Even happy couples may be living together without getting married, experts say. And more women - especially those in their 30s and 40s - are choosing to have children despite their single status.
The new numbers suggest the second year of a baby boomlet, with US fertility rates higher in every racial group, the highest among Hispanic women. On average, a US woman has 2.1 babies in her lifetime. That's the 'magic number' required for a population to replace itself.
Countries with much lower rates - such as Japan and Italy - face future labour shortages and eroding tax bases as they fail to reproduce enough to take care of their aging elders.
While the number of births in the US reached nearly 4.3 million in 2006, mainly due to a larger population, especially a growing number of Hispanics, it's not clear the boomlet will last. Some experts think birth rates are already declining because of the economic recession that began in late 2007.
The 2007 statistical snapshot reflected a relatively good economy coupled with cultural trends that promoted childbirth, she and others noted. -- AP
US population replacing itself.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/World/Story/STIStory_352004.html
March 19, 2009
40% babies out-of-wedlock
Behind the number is both good and bad news. While it shows the US population is more than replacing itself, a healthy trend, the teen birth rate was up for a second year in a row. -- PHOTO: AFP
ATLANTA - MORE babies were born in the United States in 2007 than any year in the nation's history - and a wedding ring made increasingly little difference in the matter.
The 4,317,119 births, reported by federal researchers on Wednesday, topped a record first set in 1957 at the height of the baby boom.
Abortions down to lowest levels
Meanwhile, US abortions dropped to their lowest levels in decades, according to other reports. Some have attributed the abortion decline to better use of contraceptives, but other experts have wondered if the rise in births might indicate a failure in proper use of contraceptives. Some earlier studies have shown declining availability of abortions.
The statistics are based on a review of most 2007 birth certificates by the National Centre for Health Statistics, part of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention.
... more
Behind the number is both good and bad news. While it shows the US population is more than replacing itself, a healthy trend, the teen birth rate was up for a second year in a row.
The birth rate rose slightly for women of all ages, and births to unwed mothers reached an all-time high of about 40 per cent, continuing a trend that started years ago. More than three-quarters of these women were 20 or older.
For a variety of reasons, it's become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband, said Duke University's S. Philip Morgan, a leading fertility researcher.
Even happy couples may be living together without getting married, experts say. And more women - especially those in their 30s and 40s - are choosing to have children despite their single status.
The new numbers suggest the second year of a baby boomlet, with US fertility rates higher in every racial group, the highest among Hispanic women. On average, a US woman has 2.1 babies in her lifetime. That's the 'magic number' required for a population to replace itself.
Countries with much lower rates - such as Japan and Italy - face future labour shortages and eroding tax bases as they fail to reproduce enough to take care of their aging elders.
While the number of births in the US reached nearly 4.3 million in 2006, mainly due to a larger population, especially a growing number of Hispanics, it's not clear the boomlet will last. Some experts think birth rates are already declining because of the economic recession that began in late 2007.
The 2007 statistical snapshot reflected a relatively good economy coupled with cultural trends that promoted childbirth, she and others noted. -- AP
US population replacing itself.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/World/Story/STIStory_352004.html
March 19, 2009
40% babies out-of-wedlock
Behind the number is both good and bad news. While it shows the US population is more than replacing itself, a healthy trend, the teen birth rate was up for a second year in a row. -- PHOTO: AFP
ATLANTA - MORE babies were born in the United States in 2007 than any year in the nation's history - and a wedding ring made increasingly little difference in the matter.
The 4,317,119 births, reported by federal researchers on Wednesday, topped a record first set in 1957 at the height of the baby boom.
Abortions down to lowest levels
Meanwhile, US abortions dropped to their lowest levels in decades, according to other reports. Some have attributed the abortion decline to better use of contraceptives, but other experts have wondered if the rise in births might indicate a failure in proper use of contraceptives. Some earlier studies have shown declining availability of abortions.
The statistics are based on a review of most 2007 birth certificates by the National Centre for Health Statistics, part of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention.
... more
Behind the number is both good and bad news. While it shows the US population is more than replacing itself, a healthy trend, the teen birth rate was up for a second year in a row.
The birth rate rose slightly for women of all ages, and births to unwed mothers reached an all-time high of about 40 per cent, continuing a trend that started years ago. More than three-quarters of these women were 20 or older.
For a variety of reasons, it's become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband, said Duke University's S. Philip Morgan, a leading fertility researcher.
Even happy couples may be living together without getting married, experts say. And more women - especially those in their 30s and 40s - are choosing to have children despite their single status.
The new numbers suggest the second year of a baby boomlet, with US fertility rates higher in every racial group, the highest among Hispanic women. On average, a US woman has 2.1 babies in her lifetime. That's the 'magic number' required for a population to replace itself.
Countries with much lower rates - such as Japan and Italy - face future labour shortages and eroding tax bases as they fail to reproduce enough to take care of their aging elders.
While the number of births in the US reached nearly 4.3 million in 2006, mainly due to a larger population, especially a growing number of Hispanics, it's not clear the boomlet will last. Some experts think birth rates are already declining because of the economic recession that began in late 2007.
The 2007 statistical snapshot reflected a relatively good economy coupled with cultural trends that promoted childbirth, she and others noted. -- AP
US population replacing itself.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/World/Story/STIStory_352004.html
March 19, 2009
40% babies out-of-wedlock
Behind the number is both good and bad news. While it shows the US population is more than replacing itself, a healthy trend, the teen birth rate was up for a second year in a row. -- PHOTO: AFP
ATLANTA - MORE babies were born in the United States in 2007 than any year in the nation's history - and a wedding ring made increasingly little difference in the matter.
The 4,317,119 births, reported by federal researchers on Wednesday, topped a record first set in 1957 at the height of the baby boom.
Abortions down to lowest levels
Meanwhile, US abortions dropped to their lowest levels in decades, according to other reports. Some have attributed the abortion decline to better use of contraceptives, but other experts have wondered if the rise in births might indicate a failure in proper use of contraceptives. Some earlier studies have shown declining availability of abortions.
The statistics are based on a review of most 2007 birth certificates by the National Centre for Health Statistics, part of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention.
... more
Behind the number is both good and bad news. While it shows the US population is more than replacing itself, a healthy trend, the teen birth rate was up for a second year in a row.
The birth rate rose slightly for women of all ages, and births to unwed mothers reached an all-time high of about 40 per cent, continuing a trend that started years ago. More than three-quarters of these women were 20 or older.
For a variety of reasons, it's become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband, said Duke University's S. Philip Morgan, a leading fertility researcher.
Even happy couples may be living together without getting married, experts say. And more women - especially those in their 30s and 40s - are choosing to have children despite their single status.
The new numbers suggest the second year of a baby boomlet, with US fertility rates higher in every racial group, the highest among Hispanic women. On average, a US woman has 2.1 babies in her lifetime. That's the 'magic number' required for a population to replace itself.
Countries with much lower rates - such as Japan and Italy - face future labour shortages and eroding tax bases as they fail to reproduce enough to take care of their aging elders.
While the number of births in the US reached nearly 4.3 million in 2006, mainly due to a larger population, especially a growing number of Hispanics, it's not clear the boomlet will last. Some experts think birth rates are already declining because of the economic recession that began in late 2007.
The 2007 statistical snapshot reflected a relatively good economy coupled with cultural trends that promoted childbirth, she and others noted. -- AP
African-American population
It's a good thing if the black population is ever growing into the middle class. It means that that demographic is benefiting from workfare and the changes in welfare that kept the culture dependent soley on the government for many years. The most striking thing about New Orleans is that it is one of the most welfare ridden cities left in the country, and that is why so many people there were in such a poverty state. The able people haven't been made to start providing for and/or bettering themselves. New Orleans is an example of what happens in a nanny state. It's not that the government was not involved. It was involved too much. It's glaringly obvious.
Nothing silly about population control.
BTW....we ARE animals.
State population: Same as Austin, Tx.
nm
40% of TOTAL US population (i.e., most of mid class)
Folks, this is the sum total of every SINGLE person (not family income) whose income is less than $57,490. Again, if this describes your economic class, ask yourself, does 40% of all work force (those persons who earn under this income figure) do less than 1% or more than 1% of the work. People, this is a question of fair pay for work performed. MTs battle cry. Is this okay with you?
so now abortion as population control...
lovely thought! As far as my daughter getting pregnant--there are options other than abortion. Plenty of people who want babies can't have them--or there is always the good old fashioned taking responsibility for your actions. I have one child that was a surprise and don't know what I would do without him. With my second "surprise" on the way, I am certain that I will never feel that keeping my baby was a mistake, but I am certain that I would have thought killing him was! The timing is bad, I was a little irresponsible, but babies have an uncanny way of making people happy. It seems to me that our world could use a little more of that.
No, not population control, Einstein. But in
an already overcrowded world, what sense does it make to bring an UNWANTED child into the world? Babies dont automatically make people happy when their birth is a mistake and it ruins their lives.
He's won the Islam population......whoop de doo
nm
Nope, she's right. He won that population hands down
x
He is president for the Muslim population
))
Population is comparable to Memphis, TN - hahahahahaha
80% approval rating - WHAT A JOKE!!!
Alaska is the largest state, accounting for over 15% of the entire land area of the United States. For all its size, Alaska has the lowest population density of all fifty states, with just 1.1 person per square mile.2 By comparison, South Dakota has ten times as many people per square mile.3 Alaska's entire population is comparable to the city of Memphis, Tennessee, which is the 17th largest city in the United States.
http://www.mahalo.com/Alaska_Population
The moderate Islamists, that is the general population
condemn the actions of the fundamentalists and radicals, they do not agree with them, as those backfired on them.
These wars have nothing to do with religion, they are all political wars.
Actually, the black middle class is the fasted growing population, but
x
Governing a very small population is different from being VP of an entire country...still no compari
sorry...baby with special needs should come first. I know if I had a special needs baby I would stop working for a while to care for that baby. The baby needs special care, it's not a baby you can just dump on just anybody.
NOBODY can make Saddam look good. But Bush seems to be the ONLY one who can make him look less
If you can't make abortion illegal, just make it impossible (sm)
That's right, Bush is still alive and well. Check this out.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#28024676
Yeah, I know it's MSNBC, but how many other people are doing a lame duck watch?
Just because you make a statement does not make it true...
.
Those who make you believe absurdities can make
Perhaps we can make a
between lying because he was a husband caught with a bimbo and lying to even the score with Wilson who knew of the intelligence manipulation for going to war and jeopardizing national security issues. You really don't see the difference here? If Hillary can stand her husband for being a cad, that's hers and Bill's business, not mine. Whereas this administration has lied about Iraq. Clinton lied--nobody died. Bush lied--2000+ died, not to mention the *collateral damage* of innocent Iraqis as pointed out by Democrat above. And you don't see the difference?!
This is what I make of it...sm
Supposedly if the insurgents lay down their arms and come over to the good side they will be allowed amnesty. Info leaked from Iraqi prime minister, al-Maliki, office that he was considering giving amnesty to insurgents and terrorist who have not killed Iraqi citizens. His office later added US soldiers into the equation.
Supporters of said amnesty believe it will lead to further isolating the *bad* terrorist and be inclusive of the *good* terrorist, allowing them become a functioning part of the new Iraq. Bring them over to the good side so to speak.
We can't make it here.
http://sheergoldenhooks.blogspot.com/2006/05/james-mcmurtry-we-cant-make-it-here.htm
don't mean to make any
one more nervous, but visualize this scenario, McCain falls down and breaks a hip. The vice president who has stated "I have not thought much about foreign policy" (despite having HER OWN SON going to Iraq soon) has to make a crucial decision that does not involve a rogue moose, her brother-in-law's behavior, or what to wear at a beauty pageant. Scary. Since she has not thought much about foreign policy, what group of Washington people are going to be instructing her on foreign policy soon? The Karl Rove group who is advising them on all issues. If you have enjoyed the last 8 years, you're gonna l-o-v-e the next 4 if McCain wins.
Exactly. And the DNC will make him pay for it, too.
Sadly.
|
