A recorded public statement is just as valid as what he said in front of a judge. In his first statement, he lied. By your logic, only statements given in front of a judge are valid--this is patently false.

Shame was not advocated, it was shown to be effective by the link I posted. Shame is a very good motivator in certain societies; one of the search results talks about just how effective it is in Japan, for example. You also see shame used by judges, on occasion, throughout the US: the convicted standing on a street corner wearing a sign that says "I am an/a XYZ..." Assuming my advocacy of shame as a motivator by me sharing a link is incorrect.

The president did not tell the truth about the affair: "Now, I have to go back to work on my State of the Union speech. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you!"

Perhaps posting some relevant stats would be useful here; generalities, blatant accusations without proof, and incorrect facts serve little purpose except to confirm current parroted memes.

Shame has been shown to be one of the biggest motivators to shape behavior and it is much more powerful in the rest of the world, especially outside of the West. Scroll down to see about 30 results, there are plenty of papers and articles here.

Isn't the 1% a pretty small and biased sample size?

Come live here in Pakistan for a little bit. Shit, go live in Europe for a bit. I am not talking visiting, I am talking living.

Come back to the US.

Make decision on what is the least evil you are dealing with.

Perspective is a beautiful thing, especially when all you describe are first world issues.

All those shipping routes need no protection, right? And disaster relief, well, lets just do away with that as well.

Apparently you missed the part in your high school US Government class where a branch of government *does* have the power to shut down all of government.

The ACA was passed in as legitimate democratic act as the current budget has not been passed in a legitimate democratic act. In fact, I would argue the latter much more so.

The president's legacy is now ruined: few will remember the Speaker's name, the majority whip or any other representative or senator. History will only show that the government was shut down during this presidency. Legacy is a large part of a president's second term.

Your analogy is as tasteless as it is misinformed.

Wow, that has to be one of the best plot lines EVER for a movie!

Wow, great generalizations like this certainly need more mod points, especially when they are "insightful."

Apple is not required to spend that money any more than you or I are required to spend our savings after all our debts are paid and toys purchased. Apple and any other company with money in the bank is not required to stimulate the economy--that would be the government's job (to provide a friendly business environment).

Use it or lose it? Wow, why don't we just move in and take all savings accounts everywhere...that will solve the world's ills.

Apple has been holding a lot of cash for years--not much of an example of anything.

Yes, and if the US, or any other nation, were to lower thier rates to 11%, Apple, (and everybody else!) would set up shop here. Even provide some incentives to help out the move and paperwork. A slice of that debt-leavening $$ would certainly be a boon for the economy!

The governments are in competition for tax revenue as much as businesses are in competition for customers.

There are a lot of CRS reports that are not available on the government's website any longer--a common occurrence; a quick Google shows that this is all over the web regardless. The NYT is becoming more and more known for its stretching of the facts to fit thier agenda. This is a great example!

TFA, 1st Para: "The Congressional Research Service has withdrawn an economic report that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth, a central tenet of conservative economic theory, after Senate Republicans raised concerns about the paper’s findings and wording."

What the CRS Report says: "This report attempts to clarify whether or not there is an association between the tax rates of the highest income taxpayers and economic growth...There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth."

TFA, 5th Para: "Republicans did not say whether they had asked the research service, a nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress, to take the report out of circulation, but they were clear that they protested its tone and findings." == Contradicts their first paragraph.

So we have a report, based on the variables that the authors of this report chose, that says that tax rates are not well correlated with economic growth. One of thousands.

Zimmerman, and yourself, put yourselves in situations where you may have a confrontation with people--this is the reality of a neighborhood watch. He did not break the law by carrying a weapon and had done so previously while on the watch, a point that reinforces his position. Whether or not you agree is irrelevant.

This is not a homicide. "Homicide" is a legal term that indicates that another person was illegally killed by another. This has yet to be determined, just as you state.

There was a complete investigation and it was determined that Zimmerman was in accordance with the law. He was only brought in after the press and politicians got ahold of the case. Where are you reading that a full investigation was not completed? I am curious to see your sources.

Any investigation will have one person saying something and that is bounced off the other person, if either chooses to speak. Unfortunately, the victim is deceased. As it stands, much more than words are being put in Zimmerman's mouth by the press that he ever put in Martin's mouth, to include flat out lies, manipulated pictures and creative editing.

If you strive for justice/fairness, defend the inadequacies on both sides, not just one.

Here is another case, just happened: http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/19859545/2012/10/18/neighbors-altercation-ends-with-one-shot-and-killed

How much traction do you think this will get in the MSM?

Your facts seem to be a bit skewed (possibly to show bias?):
- The police knew that they had a shooting victim, not a homicide (that is determined in a court of law).
- How do you know he changed his story?

Where are you getting all this information? From what I have read, the only person who changed Zimmerman's story is the media.

Zimmerman had been on previous watches with a gun. He did not try to apprehend any others in the neighborhood previously and called the police. What makes you think that Zimmerman's behavior changed with this incident?

How is Zimmerman putting words into Martin's mouth? The only people that I see doing that is the press.

Sorry this a bit late, but just had to respond here.

>Really we need to recognize that nation building does not work.

Sorry, but the US military has been the most successful nation building enterprise the world has known. Think the Marshall Plan and the rebuilding of Japan after WWII and even Korea after the Korean War (the latter two just as radically different cultures as the Middle East, very arguably even more foreign). In fact, Korea is one of only two countries to ever make the leap from a second world country to a third world country as a result of US presence (other is Singapore, if curious).

If we take a look at the forays of the US military during and after Vietnam, what changed? The introduction of the press into the mix. I will let you make your own conclusions from there.