mistercwood

And if we had only 23 million people it could be awesome here, too. We don't have 23 million. It wouldn't be awesome. Yup. Sad to say that's the sticking point with quite a few things we do over here that I reckon would be awesome for you guys - the sheer difference in scale, coupled with differences in culture and political approach just mean it's never going to work the same. I also read the wall of text (you may not have read that novel but you could sure write one!) Looks spot on to me, from the outside looking in. Too big to fix? You said earlier that you don't use the healthcare system. I'll suggest that you're probably not the best reference source. I've been using it quite extensively for the last 2 months, and have been quite happy with it. You may take note that the two main scenarios I mentioned involved what would normally be considered moderately costly procedures - free of charge. I'd say I'm a perfect reference - I pay into the system same as everyone else, but rarely draw from it. Do I bitch about my taxes being wasted? Fuck no, I'm glad I have a safety net when I need it. You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

And if we had only 23 million people it could be awesome here, too. We don't have 23 million. It wouldn't be awesome. Yup. Sad to say that's the sticking point with quite a few things we do over here that I reckon would be awesome for you guys - the sheer difference in scale, coupled with differences in culture and political approach just mean it's never going to work the same. I also read the wall of text (you may not have read that novel but you could sure write one!) Looks spot on to me, from the outside looking in. Too big to fix? You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Ambulance rides these days are no longer covered. At the time I had my ride, there was a state based scheme where there was a small levy added to your power bill (miniscule, like maybe $5/quarter, if that?) which allowed for everyone in the state to be covered automatically. Stopped people who might've been broke but really needed medical attention right NOW from trying to take a cab to the hospital rather than cop a bill for a grand or so. Flipside I got from talking to a customer who was a paramedic was there were those in society who abused it, and unfortunately once they've shown up they now have duty of care and can't just tell the idiot not to waste their time. Shame it's gone, aside from my own rides I've called a few for other people and it was nice to not have to hesitate or second guess. There's a chance I'll be having another MRI for the shoulder, they don't do one normally unless something looks off on the xray or if it's a repeat injury, but with my current range of movement my physio's concerned there may actually be some damage to the cartilage. As far as I know there'll be no charge. You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Everyone's screwing everyone? Dammit, why aren't I getting any action right now!! Study after study has shown that watching porn does in fact desensitise one to porn, and that's about it. It does not lead directly to people "pushing the envelope" out of sexual boredom. Try again. You've not tried choking, hanging? Nope. And I've watched a lot of porn in my time. A lot... You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

So what? Viagra was originally invented as a heart medication. Things evolve. Clearly change is bad, didn't Obama invent it? You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

This is the line for bread comrade. The line for healthcare is over there. Seriously, though, I can't imagine not having it. I don't get sick. As in, I've seen a doctor 3 times in the last decade, and 2 of those were emergency situations - one mugging and just recently a shoulder dislocation. In those situations, I was well looked after. The first incident I had an ambulance ride, overnight stay in emergency, MRI in the morning and a tetanus shot (bastard doctors couldn't help adding to my pain... ). The dislocation so far - in terms of care - has involved initial xrays, sedation to relocate it, referral to Othapaedics(sp?) at my home hospital, xrays there, physio consult, physio session twice a week for about 5-6 weeks, exercise class twice a week for the last 3 weeks and I've got another consult next week as well. I haven't had to pay a cent. Yes, I pay 1.5% of my taxable income as a Medicare levy. There are exemptions for low income earners, and there are reductions and offsets for higher income earners who have their own private insurance. However what I've paid in the last decade in that nasty horrible little tax, from what I've seen would often equate to what many Americans spend in a single year on health insurance. I know which system I prefer. You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Same here; I'm filing a complaint. Forget marriage equality, I demand Screwing Equality!! And I'll take it all the way to the SC if I have to!! You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Umm... so committed same-sex couples wanting the right to raise a family (via adoption/IVF/surrogacy/whatever) relates to a wolf chasing sheep how? I'm assuming that's the metaphor you were going for, please clarify if I missed it. Also do tell about the Turk! I love stories... You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Everyone's screwing everyone? Dammit, why aren't I getting any action right now!! Study after study has shown that watching porn does in fact desensitise one to porn, and that's about it. It does not lead directly to people "pushing the envelope" out of sexual boredom. Try again. You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Not addressed to me, I know, but I guess I can add to your poll. The reason I'm only listed as 2 jumps is I'm still recovering from dislocating my right shoulder after stage 1 AFF, 2 months ago. I'd injured it mildly years and years ago, never bad enough to bother getting it looked at (ie if I was bowling playing some beach cricket or something it'd get sore after a while, that's it). After exit at 14k, I reached back for my practise pulls at 12k as planned. Instead of reaching forwards then back (towards the ground, if that makes sense), I rotated my arm back parallel to the ground. The way the wind caught it (I'm a skinny bastard) gave it a nasty wrench. Hurt like hell, but finished the rest of the dive as planned. Lots of swearing from me and concern from my instructor (stage 1 at my DZ is almost always TAF), but was good to fly us back. Explained the situation to my course instructor back on the ground, told him I'd see how it felt over the next hour or so before even thinking about heading up for stage 2. An hour later, testing my range of movement (arm happened to be in freefall position actually) it popped out. Better on the ground than in the air, at least. Funnily enough, the arm positions that I still have the most restricted movement are with my arm out as it would be in freefall, and reaching behind my back as I would to get the PC. Very frustrating as it's looking like I've probably got another couple months before it would be safe to jump again, and I reeeeeaaally don't like the cold... You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

I tried, I really did. But I have NO fucking idea what you're trying to say here. Oh except for: Yes, we have. There's a lot further to go still... You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Can't approach using consent in a sentence... doesn't get the basic meaning of consent. I was going to go with "informed consent", but you're right. Baby steps... You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Socialised health care is awesome. Just saying. *flees* You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

I like the idea. I'm torn on it's implementation. The quote is a bit different than you posted However, I would lean toward a level of training. Mostly safety related but, again I think then we regulate what is a stated right. So, at this point, for me anyway, training becomes a personal responcibiltiy ....the right of people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed As related to the 1st, again, IMO, we have restrictions, written and unwritten, that should not be. Yelling fire in a theater is an example many like to bring up. I do not think that applies. It is not a free speech issue, you can yell it in there if you want to, but unles there really is a fire, there seems to be intent to cause harm. I've been intrigued by the difference between the congress version (which you've quoted) and the states version - identical words but with the first and third commas removed. It's splitting hairs I guess, but semantically I find the states version to be implicitly stating that the right is in direct relation to the requirement for the militia. You're right though that it states regulated, not trained, but would be easily interpreted the same way, no? At which point training seems an obvious requirement that in no way infringes on the inherent right - safety of course being the key focus. With regard to personal responsibility, I have to respectfully disagree. You may have it. Other friends and family I have in the US I know have it. Plenty of fucksticks out there who could barely pronounce it, let alone display it... I don't think I'm reading your last point right (it's late here), are you saying there should not be a restriction on shouting "fire" as in the example, or that the implied intent to cause harm means it doesn't count as free speech and shouldn't be allowed? You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Which parts, specifically? Training/Experience? It's called English class. Ability to trace the source of a hate speech (a restricted form of speech)? I can watch your lips moving and these wiggly things on the side of my head pick up the sound waves generated.... (not *you* specifically, the hypothetical speaker). I'd like to hear more about how apples and oranges are so very alike. One good restricted right deserves another Not much of an answer, I've lurked here long enough before posting to expect better from you. You also missed my point - the first amendment has restrictions already. Realistically of course, so does the second. It's much harder to kill you with words though. I had a re-read of the exact wording of the amendment again today, both the one passed by congress and the one ratified by the states. I still believe the founders would be horrified at what it's been twisted into. But, that debate will rage onwards evermore... Which one and twisted how? I am not following what you are asking? What I asked in the earlier comment was for clarification on what similar restrictions you would like to see for free speech. Not, this is restricted therefore restrict that just as much. Which parts offend you, and what would be the equivalent restriction to free speech? Regarding twisting, I was referring to the 2nd amendment. At the simplest level, it clearly mentions the right is necessary for a "well-trained militia". Training is not mandatory for one to own a firearm nationwide is it? Correct me if I'm wrong, please. If it's not, would you object to it becoming mandatory, or is that too restrictive? You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

How is this different than if an infertile hetero couple did the same thing using a donor sperm or egg, then broke up and later went after the donor???? It's not. Actually, with respect, it is. Going through a clinic, the donor is protected from situations like this legally. At the time the example here occurred, going through a clinic was not in any way an option for a non-hetero couple, hence no legal protection in this scenario. Apparently the laws have been updated since. EDIT: Typing on autopilot, made a glaring error in the first sentence. You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Which parts, specifically? Training/Experience? It's called English class. Ability to trace the source of a hate speech (a restricted form of speech)? I can watch your lips moving and these wiggly things on the side of my head pick up the sound waves generated.... (not *you* specifically, the hypothetical speaker). I'd like to hear more about how apples and oranges are so very alike. One good restricted right deserves another Not much of an answer, I've lurked here long enough before posting to expect better from you. You also missed my point - the first amendment has restrictions already. Realistically of course, so does the second. It's much harder to kill you with words though. I had a re-read of the exact wording of the amendment again today, both the one passed by congress and the one ratified by the states. I still believe the founders would be horrified at what it's been twisted into. But, that debate will rage onwards evermore... You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Nope. You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

The article's not very long, and the answer's in there, but yes. One of the couple (they were still together) had lost her job, and the family was now on welfare. Child Services demanded to know who the father was as despite their own contracts stating he had no responsibility for the child, they only know to go after the dad. That's for the Kansas one, mind. The UK one they agreed he would have no responsibility, and he is not listed on the birth certificate - either time, as he agreed to donate a second time. Later, the couple split up leaving one woman with the children, and she sought help from the state. They went straight after the donor, yet have made no requests at all from the estranged partner. It was impossible for the women to go through a clinic at the time as the services were solely available to heterosexual couples. No good deed goes unpunished, as they say... You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Found the one you mean, and another in Kansas. In both instances (and all others I came across) it was Child Services who went after the donor, NOT the couple. A clear example in both cases of the law not keeping up with reality... http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=22367 http://hollywoodlife.com/2013/01/03/sperm-donor-child-support-craigslist-kansas-lawsuit/ You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Probably the one and only time I will (kinda) agree with you - the whole thing was pretty tasteless, but not illegal. Marriage as purely one man and one woman for thousands of years? Like hell. Even the church's involvement in marriage only goes back 4 or 5 hundred years. In your argument there I can swap the word "gay" for "coloured" and put "white" in front of man and woman and hey presto! - you're now just another out of touch bigot. Infertile men and women can't have children. Older couples can't biologically have children. I have no intention of having children. There's no need to get around that as this argument has been debunked over and over and over and over. It's irrelevant to the discussion. Frequently gay couples source the needed sperm or egg from a close friend or even family member (in this instance also more likely to share genetic characteristics), increasing the likelihood the child will have their "biological" parent involved in their life from the get-go. If 2 parents are better than 1 supposedly, wouldn't 3 parents be fucking awesome? You imply that the options for the child would be any different whether their parents were straight or gay. Source? Again - source? I mean seriously, you're truly splitting hairs saying that a same-sex couple qualifies less in this case. And my splitting hairs I mean pulling facts out of your ass once more. You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

That's just like saying that school integration and inter-racial marriage was up to the southern states to decide. Why are you not answering my question? Oh shush with your liberal agenda, always wanting answers and logic and shit... You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Your problem is that you cut copy out of sentence and comment on that portion of the copy without taking into consideration the rest of the thought. So based on your editing you think is was a good a idea the SC even heard the case as nothing about what California did was Unconstitutional? So you are in favor of LOUD NOISE? I think the SC made a huge mistake to even hear the case. The matter belongs in California to decide. Here's what I said: Good luck trying to promote your liberal agenda, even to the point of pushing it on an unwilling court that decided to hear it, not because there was standing, but because of loud noise. I just realised I hadn't read the article. I've read it now. Have you? The "loud noise" of which you speak was made by the opponents of marriage equality. Because a previous court smacked them and Prop 8 down as unconstitutional, and another court upheld that smackdown. As far as my reading of the history of Prop 8 goes (and someone please correct me if I've completely missed something here), at this stage if the SC decides the case doesn't have standing, then Prop 8 goes bye-bye? Isn't that a loss for your camp? Or are you happier having the SC wash their hands of it and leave it solely to the state, rather than have any risk at all of them setting precedent for a nation wide legalisation of same sex marriage? ETA: >> You wouldn't make a very good Supreme Court Justice, nor an attorney either arguing a case. Lookie here, even the one who brought the case couldn't say how they were even harmed by California's decison: yet they say all of California was harmed. Not such a good answer. (Last sentence) There's also talk about Kids in the conversation as well. http://www.guardian.co.uk/...gay-marriage-hearing Um. That would be the guy arguing FOR a gay marriage ban, failing. Seriously, did you read the bits about whose arguments was whose, or just look for the bits where people were failing and assumed it was the ones with the "librul ajender"? You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Which parts, specifically? Training/Experience? It's called English class. Ability to trace the source of a hate speech (a restricted form of speech)? I can watch your lips moving and these wiggly things on the side of my head pick up the sound waves generated.... (not *you* specifically, the hypothetical speaker). I'd like to hear more about how apples and oranges are so very alike. You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

it's excellent this is pretty much the process I proposed (without the photos). But I'm good if it doesn't require reporting my name on the sale. (it's none of the government's business how many or what guns I buy - but the seller can personally track or not track who they sell to. That's his business and his private records.) cleared to buy - should include proof of gun safety training/experience - IMHO Well, I like it to, but there are problems with it as I point out in my example scenario 4. If you recover a gun and the manufacturer tells you it was made after the law went into effect then that's one thing, but we're talking about a really long time constant to get to that point. If you're in law enforcement and you're dealing with a guy who you think is selling guns to people with no cards, and one of them turns up in a crime, how do you prove that he sold the guy the gun after the law went into effect? Do you trust the guy who you've arrested for using the gun in a crime? Do you try to piece together the details of what was probably a cash transaction? Or do you send in an undercover officer as someone without a card and hope he slips up? And, more importantly, if you're a law abiding citizen who began checking for cards for all sales as soon as it was mandated, how do you get the law enforcement guy off your back when he or she comes asking about a gun you sold a while ago? Maybe you have good records and maybe you don't, but it shouldn't be on you to make a case that you didn't do anything wrong. I don't think these are non-starters, but I think these two cases of grandfathered transactions need to be addressed up front, and in doing so people need to be comfortable with the idea that this will only help fix the problem eventually. See this kind of talk is what I so rarely see in the GC debate - compromise, and an effort to actually find a solution. I like this concept, it creates a chain of accountability usable when necessary without you directly handing over your details to the dreaded gubmint. How to handle the grandfathered issues is a very good point, and how it's done would be key to making any progress on the overall idea... Your last point however is a given - your constitution, culture and legal system guarantee that there is absolutely no GC measure that can have an immediate concrete effect. Something like this could address the problem definitely in the long term though, so long as the lobbyists don't take the teeth out of it... You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.