I did a lot of what now some would consider risky cycling in central and South London many years ago and never had a problem without a helmet (couldn't have afforded one anyhoo). I had a few accidents but you'd expect that. Cycling sensibly and avoiding large vehicles will see you safely home most of the time.

Of course that was pre-radical Health & Safety where every little activity must be accompanied by safety goggles, a helmet or comprehensive assessment. All of which is ever so slightly out of whack with the real risk e.g the reason why you don't see kids play in the streets anymore.

Right, so..

1.) I never said Ron Paul is some panacea for the world's troubles.

2.) I even admitted that Paul is more or less a racist homophobic religious cuke.

3.) I don't think Paul or any single person should have that much power to begin with.

The fact that we're still stuck with a two-party system in which we vote for one president "in charge of everything"..

..as opposed to 50 governors and local communities making their own decisions for their own goddamn selves is mind-numbing.

Point is:
The immediate effects and sincere discussions that would take place in the wake of such a radical candidate becoming president are the best thing that could happen for the American political process at this conjunction in our history.

For fuck's sake, YOUR AVATAR & GALAXY STAR ARE A GUY FAWKES MASK! You should support a grassroots underdog upheaval like the one Paul represents more than anyone on this site.

Ron Paul represents the chance to reclaim our Foreign Policy from Warmongers; our Economics from Speculators; our Health, Safety, Labor, and Ideas from Robber Barons.

But then again, he did stereotype blacks as fleet-footed so.. I guess you make a good counter-point.
>> ^NetRunner:

Hah. No. Of course not.

I'd liked to remain as status quo-y and entrenched in my beliefs as the Conservative Republicans I like to gripe about.

But it's okay cause I wear & cheer lead for the blue team while I do so.


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
You got any solutions, bro?
Or just more fallacious arguments?

Well, now you're making me think you got ripped off by greedy capitalists who weren't honest with you about what they're offering you.

Who chipped your dog? What service did you purchase from them? Did they tell you it was an alternative to getting a license, because they provide the animal control services for your area?

You need to be registered with animal control. They're not just doing it to discern pet from stray, but also to keep an eye on the pet population, the flow of animals in & out of homes, etc. And of course the fee is helping defray the cost of the entire animal control operation, not just tags.

Now I personally am not in love with the idea of charging a fee to pet owners. Economically speaking, it'd make more sense for animal control to pay people $5-$10 to register their pets, and then pay for the entire budget of animal control (including that $5-$10 responsible owner bonus) with property taxes, since the bulk of animal control's costs are aimed at picking up strays and helping maintain public health & safety for a geographic region, not tags & registry.

Would you prefer that set up? I would.

>> ^blankfist:

That aside, @NetRunner, thanks for the history lesson, but the point is that I've already taken the proper precautions in giving him his vacines and even gone above and beyond when giving him tracking (tags + RFID), so I don't need the government to charge me that $20 a month. See? I don't require their one-size-fits-all solution to lost dogs. We, in the private sector, already have that covered.
By the way, if Animal Control ever picked up my dog, they'd first see the tag and call me. In case that was lost they'd most likely scan for the RFID chip. So, why do they need me to pay for a (emphasis mine) YEARLY REGISTRATION FEE?
It's obviously to generate revenue not for protection since I've already covered my basis. So, please, respond to that. Thanks.

>> ^imstellar28:
Wealth is capital.


Really?

It's not health? Safety? Opportunity? Fairness?

It's not equal access? It's not ease of travel?

Food for the hungry? Homes for the homeless?

A sustainable economy, ecology, and sources of power?

A fair retirement?

As usual, you did a "stellar" job of repeating almost verbatim almost any chapter out of almost any horseshit rightwing tome crowing about the benefits of capital.

And, with every word, leaving the human, and humane, element absent from the equation.

>> ^blankfist:
We got a mailer from the cops in CA showing which prop they endorse. Here's the list:
1A> Yes "Fight gas prices & airport hassles"
2> Yes "Protect health/safety of our food"
3> No "Prevent hospitals taxpayer rip-off"
4> Yes "Stop child predators"
5> No "Shortens parole of drug felons"
6> Yes "Safe neighborhoods act"
7> No "Another costly energy scheme"
8> Yes "Restore traditional marriage"
9> Yes "Protect crime victims: no new taxes"
10> Yes "Energy independence. Clean air."
11> No "Phony political power grab"

I think it's funny to see the police having such an interest in voter policy. Aren't they here to enforce laws, not aid in decisions of laws? I suppose they too deserve a voice, but because they represent the people I find it disheartening that they so blatantly have taken a side on prop 8 and added "restore traditional marriage". And, no, prop 6 is not the "safe neighborhood act"... It's for police and law enforcement funding.


OK cops, let's see. . . .

1A - disagree
2 - disagree
3 - agree
4 - disagree
5 - disagree
6 - disagree
7 - agree
8 - disagree
9 - disagree
10 - disagree
11 - disagree

Hmm . . .

We got a mailer from the cops in CA showing which prop they endorse. Here's the list:

1A> Yes "Fight gas prices & airport hassles"
2> Yes "Protect health/safety of our food"
3> No "Prevent hospitals taxpayer rip-off"
4> Yes "Stop child predators"
5> No "Shortens parole of drug felons"
6> Yes "Safe neighborhoods act"
7> No "Another costly energy scheme"
8> Yes "Restore traditional marriage"
9> Yes "Protect crime victims: no new taxes"
10> Yes "Energy independence. Clean air."
11> No "Phony political power grab"


I think it's funny to see the police having such an interest in voter policy. Aren't they here to enforce laws, not aid in decisions of laws? I suppose they too deserve a voice, but because they represent the people I find it disheartening that they so blatantly have taken a side on prop 8 and added "restore traditional marriage". And, no, prop 6 is not the "safe neighborhood act"... It's for police and law enforcement funding.

the other day we went in and met our 3rd graders teacher, each student drew a little health/safety poster for their parents to see and pick up while there.... my son drew a "dont eat poison" sign with some purple monkshood and a dead dude with X's for eyes.... one of his neighboring students had drawn a "dont do drugs" poster with a highly detailed glass bong with a stem and even a little detail where the stem went into the base and level water in it... now thats a 3rd grader who knows his paraphanelia

I live in Canada, and they justify increasing laws like seatbelts regulation, anti-smoking, anti-drinking, general health /safety regulations, because of public health care. It takes away your rights.
Because I am forced to go under the government health care system, I am forced to go under their rules of how I should live. I can not have the freedom to be an idiot, and do things that might risk or harm my body, because if I am an idiot then that costs the society.
If you make health public and socialized (which would be the only option if it was not profit driven) you make it other peoples business how you live your life, and in the end your rights are taken away.
For example, if I wanted house insurance I have the option of going with several companies and their rules. Maybe one company demands I get certain type of roofing, maybe another charges more but lets me do whatever I want with the house. I have the option of going with whatever rules I choose. Once this insurance becomes national, and the only option, I no longer can choose how I want to live. If I want to go into health insurance plan that lets me smoke and do drugs, I should be able to.
I understand the US has seltbelt laws and such, and smoking/drinking is sin taxed, but not NEARLY as much as in Canada, and the reason is our health care system.

Socialized medience keeps the majority happy just because they don't directly see what they get charged (most income tax goes to health care in canada), and they don't care about rights unless it affects them (and in many cases, only care about the exact rights that affect them, rather than overall rights, for example the divid with people who want drugs legalized and the people who want less gun control, they are both going for more civil rights but have become two very distinct groups).
I am not trying to be an economist and to convince people that a free market is more profitable, all I am saying is that I want to live my life as I choose.

from some website

State of Indiana Vs Robert Trimble, appeal from Jennings Superior Court Indiana to the Indiana Supreme Court....... Indiana State Supreme court ruled officer seeing crime / evidence from public that any public citizen could see, investigating a tip of a crime, including parking car in driveway to walk to the home, is allowed to warrantless enter the premises ( yard ) to investigate further. Court further states that officer entry onto private property and their observations do not violate fourth ammendment when they have a legitimate investigatory purpose for being on the property limitting thier entry to places visitors would be expected to go. Indiana Supreme court decided ruled on this type situation 02-21-2006. Also mentions timely tip from a person and health / safety of others.
The Deputy could have walked with the woman to investigate any health hazards to the public


think a locked fence and gate would have saved him?