regulator

I'll go to my room...but only if you sister accompanies me wearing a bikini.

My mother used to breed German Shepards. We had two of them when I was a little boy. Umlaut and Schatzi. They are very loyal of their masters...and while you make think its funny now...you might not think its so funny later when his behavior gets out of control when you have others around you. Something you need to address very soon my friend.

They dont outlaw radar detectors in texas...funny how they would confiscate radar detectors in the UK when it seems (at least from what TV I see from over there) that a majority of the people are using tiny compact cars that wouldnt go much over the speed limit if you supercharged 'em. Could be me though.

I got two damn tickets yesterday. The first one going TO work...87 in a 65. The DPS cop spilt coffee all overhimself trying to pull me over..and coming BACK from work...83 in a 65...all on the same road. Damn I can't wait until daylight savings time kicks in! Now I have to take defensive driving and go to court for the other one and hope I can get deferred adjudication. Damn the luck.

Well I decided to do a google search and determine the number of abortion providers in South Dakota. I thought the list would at least be over ten or so. I was suprised by the end result. And I am aware this is a highly underpopulated state. The Grand total of abortion clinics in North Dakota (at least according to this search feature) =2. http://www.abortion.com/abortion_clinics_state.php?country=United States&state=North Dakota

Try this, the column index will increase as you paste the formula (to the right): =VLOOKUP(L4,'[mail.xls] new'!$A$6:$AB$261,COLUMNS($A$1:F$1),FALSE)

I'm torn on this. I agree it's wholly irrelevent to his guilt or innocence, however I could see reducing a sentence somewhat from whatever the standard is to account for the punishment already received, similar to a credit for time served. Blues, Dave I don't - these are totally different crimes and shouldn't relate at all. The attack victim has a civil action against the bad cops if he feels he's owed anything. The fact that the attack victim and the burglar are the same guy is inconsequential in terms of sentencing the burglary. Justice for the beating is putting the attackers in jail for their separate crime(s). It has nothing to do with the victim other than seeing that the attackers are punished appropriately. I think each of your views can be reasonably harmonized. Generally, the circumstances of arrest should be irrelevant to sentencing. An exception might be that if the defendant suffers a severe enough wrongful beating at the hands of the state, I can see a sentencing judge considering that a part of his "punishment". Take this case, for example. Let's say a judge might be inclined to sentence the burglar to, say, 12 months in jail, followed by 2 years probation, for the burglary. Might not be unreasonable for the judge to knock a month or 2 off the jail time as "punishment credit" for the cops beating the shit out of him at arrest. As for categories of justice: Justice for the people of Texas: fair trial of suspect; reasonable sentence if convicted. Justice for the people of Texas: fair trial of cops; reasonable sentence if convicted. Civil justice for suspect: reasonable opportunity to sue the cops and their employers for civil assault and possibly violation of his civil rights; fair civil jury trial, and let the chips fall where they may. Andy how many times have you seen a judge reduce a sentance because of unlawful arrest procedures like this one? (I'm asking your professional advice sir) And Quannel X is a total jackass. He does nothing more than try and get lighter sentences by using race as an excuse for criminals that commit horrendous offenses...and yes robbery is a horrendous offense...no matter what age commits the crime...this guy is just lucky this is going on his juvenile record...so he still has a chance to become something better. Will he? Antother question entirely.

Of course they still have sturgis...to which is probably accountable for at least 10% of the pregnancies in that state

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/south-dakota-hb-1171-legalize-killing-abortion-providers A law under consideration in South Dakota would expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus—a move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions. The Republican-backed legislation, House Bill 1171, has passed out of committee on a nine-to-three party-line vote, and is expected to face a floor vote in the state's GOP-dominated House of Representatives soon. "The bill in South Dakota is an invitation to murder abortion providers." The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Phil Jensen, a committed foe of abortion rights, alters the state's legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person "while resisting an attempt to harm" that person's unborn child or the unborn child of that person's spouse, partner, parent, or child. If the bill passes, it could in theory allow a woman's father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion—even if she wanted one. Jensen did not return calls to his home or his office requesting comment on the bill, which is cosponsored by 22 other state representatives and four state senators. UPDATE: Jensen spoke to Mother Jones on Tuesday morning, after this story was published. He says that he disagrees with this interpretation of the bill. "This simply is to bring consistency to South Dakota statute as it relates to justifiable homicide," said Jensen in an interview, repeating an argument he made in the committee hearing on the bill last week. "If you look at the code, these codes are dealing with illegal acts. Now, abortion is a legal act. So this has got nothing to do with abortion." Jensen also aggressively defended the bill in an interview with the Washington Post's Greg Sargent on Tuesday morning. "The bill in South Dakota is an invitation to murder abortion providers," says Vicki Saporta, the president of the National Abortion Federation, the professional association of abortion providers. Since 1993, eight doctors have been assassinated at the hands of anti-abortion extremists, and another 17 have been the victims of murder attempts. Some of the perpetrators of those crimes have tried to use the justifiable homicide defense at their trials. "This is not an abstract bill," Saporta says. The measure could have major implications if a "misguided extremist invokes this 'self-defense' statute to justify the murder of a doctor, nurse or volunteer," the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families warned in a message to supporters last week. The original version of the bill did not include the language regarding the "unborn child"; it was pitched as a simple clarification of South Dakota's justifiable homicide law. Last week, however, the bill was "hoghoused"—a term used in South Dakota for heavily amending legislation in committee—in a little-noticed hearing. A parade of right-wing groups—the Family Heritage Alliance, Concerned Women for America, the South Dakota branch of Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, and a political action committee called Family Matters in South Dakota—all testified in favor of the amended version of the law. Jensen, the bill's sponsor, has said that he simply intends to bring "consistency" to South Dakota's criminal code, which already allows prosecutors to charge people with manslaughter or murder for crimes that result in the death of fetuses. But there's a difference between counting the murder of a pregnant woman as two crimes—which is permissible under law in many states—and making the protection of a fetus an affirmative defense against a murder charge. "They always intended this to be a fetal personhood bill, they just tried to cloak it as a self-defense bill," says Kristin Aschenbrenner, a lobbyist for South Dakota Advocacy Network for Women. "They're still trying to cloak it, but they amended it right away, making their intent clear." The major change to the legislation also caught abortion rights advocates off guard. "None of us really felt like we were prepared," she says. Sara Rosenbaum, a law professor at George Washington University who frequently testifies before Congress about abortion legislation, says the bill is legally dubious. "It takes my breath away," she says in an email to Mother Jones. "Constitutionally, a state cannot make it a crime to perform a constitutionally lawful act." South Dakota already has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, and one of the lowest abortion rates. Since 1994, there have been no providers in the state. Planned Parenthood flies a doctor in from out-of-state once a week to see patients at a Sioux Falls clinic. Women from the more remote parts of the large, rural state drive up to six hours to reach this lone clinic. And under state law women are then required to receive counseling and wait 24 hours before undergoing the procedure. Before performing an abortion, a South Dakota doctor must offer the woman the opportunity to view a sonogram. And under a law passed in 2005, doctors are required to read a script meant to discourage women from proceeding with the abortion: "The abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." Until recently, doctors also had to tell a woman seeking an abortion that she had "an existing relationship with that unborn human being" that was protected under the Constitution and state law and that abortion poses a "known medical risk" and "increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide." In August 2009, a US District Court Judge threw out those portions of the script, finding them "untruthful and misleading." The state has appealed the decision. The South Dakota legislature has twice tried to ban abortion outright, but voters rejected the ban at the polls in 2006 and 2008, by a 12-point margin both times. Conservative lawmakers have since been looking to limit access any other way possible. "They seem to be taking an end run around that," says state Sen. Angie Buhl, a Democrat. "They recognize that people don't want a ban, so they are trying to seek a de facto ban by making it essentially impossible to access abortion services." South Dakota's legislature is strongly tilted against abortion rights, which makes passing restrictions fairly easy. Just 19 of 70 House members and 5 of the 35 state senators are Democrats—and many of the Democrats also oppose abortion rights. The law that would legalize killing abortion providers is just one of several measures under consideration in the state that would create more obstacles for a woman seeking an abortion. Another proposed law, House Bill 1217, would force women to undergo counseling at a Crisis Pregnancy Center (CPC) before they can obtain an abortion. CPCs are not regulated and are generally run by anti-abortion Christian groups and staffed by volunteers—not doctors or nurses—with the goal of discouraging women from having abortions. A congressional investigation into CPCs in 2006 found that the centers often provide "false or misleading information about the health risks of an abortion"—alleging ties between abortion and breast cancer, negative impacts on fertility, and mental-health concerns. "This may advance the mission of the pregnancy resource centers, which are typically pro-life organizations dedicated to preventing abortion," the report concluded, "but it is an inappropriate public health practice." In a recent interview, state Rep. Roger Hunt, one of the bill's sponsors, acknowledged that its intent is to "drastically reduce" the number of abortions in South Dakota. House Bill 1217 would also require women to wait 72 hours after counseling before they can go forward with the abortion, and would require the doctor to develop an analysis of "risk factors associated with abortion" for each woman—a provision that critics contend is intentionally vague and could expose providers to lawsuits. A similar measure passed in Nebraska last spring, but a federal judge threw it out it last July, arguing that it would "require medical providers to give untruthful, misleading and irrelevant information to patients" and would create "substantial, likely insurmountable, obstacles" to women who want abortions. Extending the wait time and requiring a woman to consult first with the doctor, then with the CPC, and then meet with the doctor again before she can undergo the procedure would add additional burdens for women—especially for women who work or who already have children. The South Dakota bills reflect a broader national strategy on the part of abortion-rights opponents, says Elizabeth Nash, a public policy associate with the Guttmacher Institute, a federal reproductive health advocacy and research group. "They erect a legal barrier, another, and another," says Nash. "At what point do women say, 'I can't climb that mountain'? This is where we're getting to."

http://www.truecrimereport.com/2011/02/nurse_sarah_casareto_steals_pa.php The unnamed man, known only as LVK, went to Abbott Northwestern Hospital in Minneapolis to have kidney stones surgically removed. It's a wickedly painful operation -- at least if you don't have anesthetic -- that involves inserting a tube into your back and then to your kidneys... Prior to surgery, the doctor told him he would be feeling no pain. After all, he was supposed to be loaded up with 500 micrograms of fentanyl. But according to police, nurse Sarah May Casareto decided it would be a way better idea to jack herself up with 350 of those micrograms, leaving just 150 for LVK. Minneapolis police say Casereto told the man, "You're gonna have to man up here and take some of the pain because we can't give you a lot of medication." But she didn't explain why. During the surgery, the patient screamed in pain and thrashed around on the table. There was even talk they might have to restrain him. Meanwhile, Casereto behaved as if she was hammered during the whole ordeal, slurring her words, failing to help with the operation, and even falling asleep. The hospital later found two spent, unauthorized needles in her scrubs. When she was confronted with stealing the medicine, she resigned rather than take a drug test. It's unclear if the hospital ever reported it, but the very pissed off patient sure did. Now Casereto's charged with felony theft of a controlled substance.

hey its all good..2 or 3 people at once? Sounds a bit complicated....but if you dont get them anything perhaps they give you something...like ghonorrhea

I don't know I wanted to get a response first to see if there was any interest. Let me check and I'll send you a PM with the price...last time I checked they were around 600.00 but I don't know a for sure price until I check. I'll get back with you sometime this weekend.

I could be wrong but I think the umbrella corporation he was referring to came from Resident Evil http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Umbrella_Corporation

The first word in the subject of this topic is Guns: Like vince said there's alot of grey area and being the subject is so vague people are running off and saying its about religeon and what not..(not talking to billvon just talking about thread drift) so my father is a sherrif...he has well over 120 pistols, rifles and a few assault rifles to boot. I have inherited quite a few of these and one day when he passes on I will inherit more of them. I own a M1 carbine that I have not shot once....I have boxes of ammo and I really dont want to go shoot it ..'just because'. Trust me if some fucking nutjob breaks glass in my house and tries to gain entry while I'm sleeping my M1 is the first place I'm going to. But theres a LOT of difference between being a gun nutjob and someone who owns guns. Don't get me wrong I dont dislike shooting guns, I just dont want to make it a daily thing that takes my time up. I have skydiving on the weekends and thats good enough for me.

Sounds like its time to find a new roommate. Or get a smaller flat and live alone...no crazy ass people to deal with that way...have friends over...kick their asses out and wake up naked. Best ever. Roommates suck donkey balls.

So have you made a decision yet? I like the 5th and 13th...but they all look pretty good! Good Luck!

Hey John... As mentioned in the previous post my dad runs the rifle range for the brazoria county sherrifs department. Before they recently went to the M16-A4 they had around 20 M-1 carbines. Since he was responsible for originally purchasing them he got 12 of them...gave one to my nephew, one to my other nephew, one to my brother and one to me. As it would turn out my nephew LOST his within 6 months and mine is still in my closet and hasnt been shot since I received it...(saving my ammo for when I get to shoot a person breaking into my house or...when shit goes south globally ) anyway he still has 6 M-1 Carbines and he's tried to sell a few of them. Still think there are a few left over....let me know if you still want one.

Ah, but while we're nit-picking terminology, you have to be more specific with the term "M1". Because that could represent either an M1 Garand which shoots .30-06 from clips, or an M1 Carbine which shoots .30 Carbine from magazines. The Garand .30-06 has more zombie knock-down power, but the clips only hold 8 rounds. The Carbine shoots a weak cartridge, but comes with up to 30-round magazines. Of the two, I don't know which I'd prefer for a horde of zombies... ----------------------------------------------------------- John, As I'm sure you know that the M-1 Carbine with its puny .30 caliber rounds...will still penetrate police grade 'bullet proof' vests. I know my father is in the local sherrifs department and every 5 years they get new kevlar vests and he took several of them home and we did some testing to see which various rounds will penetrate. The .30 cal did it quite easily.

+1 for Infinity I've got one myself and I personally LOVE IT. I jumped nothing but Javelin's while on student status and I would get sore thighs from my weight being suspended on thin leg straps...I'm 5'11 and weigh 160 lbs. It's just my opinion but for skinny folks the double wide leg straps Infinity offers (I'm sure other manufacturers do as well) One of the best options I put on my container...that and the floating laterals. Infinity Rocks!...you should try one before passing on it!

---------------------------------------------------------- Hmmm that seems weird...it seems to be an absence of a certain ornithological piece...a headline regarding mass awareness of a certain avian vareity...oh have you not heard? It was my understanding that everyone had heard... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WNrx2jq184

So, most of this End Times speculation is just fantasy. For Christians, the Bible says that no one knows the date it will occur. As far as the rest of the people living on the earth, it will be the last thing they suspect until it consumes them. ... Well stated, sir. No; horribly stated, as it ignores the scientific facts that (a) virtually all species eventually become extinct (cockroaches, sharks and lawyers excepted), and (b) the normal evolution of stars such as our sun will cause expansion of the star to the point where inner planets will eventually heat to the point that life cannot be sustained. Or to put it another way, by the time "the fires" consume the Earth's life (which will eventually happen), species homo sapiens sapiens will probably have already long since become extinct (absent technological intervention and/or interplanetary migration). ---------------------------------------------------------- Andy you mention the sun as a possibility of our planet to be consumed by it. But perhaps you should also think about solar radiation...in particular the most powerful solar radiation of all. The Coronal Mass Ejection. If earth were hit by a powerful CME all life on this planet would be erradicated. It might not even take a BILLION years like you say...the next wave of increased solar activity? summer 2012.

Why is it that when someone commits a crime they always think their house will be a refuge from the law?

There are some really great minds coming up with solutions for the shortage of water...and yes our canadian friends have plenty of ice to thaw out in their pot bellied stoves....but what I am referring to is in 30-50 years when the overpopulation is so exponential that there will not be enough resources to provide food and water for all those people worldwide. It WILL be a problem in the near future. I just hope those brainiacs figure out a solution before then.

Perhaps due to the fact that the earth is running out of sustainable resources to provide for the overpopulation that we are currently in? I'm just referring to ONE resource right now. water

WOW! I been working all day long without power due to 'rolling power outages' throughout the houston area. I thought this thread would be at the bottom of the pile, but yet you still can't give up on this? Perhaps a SINGLE comment about the loss of diplomatic immunity of an american in Palestine? You keep rambling on and on about the thread not being formatted to your liking yet you have not added a SINGLE comment regarding what I posted but yet you continue to try to bash me over and over again because you seem to have nothing better to do with your time other than attempt to berate others.