champu

Social security numbers? Who gives a shit about social security numbers? (for reference)

FYI The box allows you to select "subject and body", "subject", "body", or "username" but what you select doesn't affect the results you get. It does generate a url with the get_var "search_fields" assigned correctly but the server doesn't appear to be doing anything with it.

It is surprising that there is no such word as "alot" for someone who reads a lot? No it isn't. http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4149707#4149707

Taking the piss out of others is rude. Taking the piss on others is extremely rude.

Crap. The wedding I'm going to in a couple months is interracial as well as being between two gay people so my experiment to see if my wedding ring ignites and burns my finger off won't be controlled. If it doesn't, that could mean that both gay and interracial marriages are completely fine, or it could mean my marriage never counted because it too is interracial.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4316479#4316479 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4571041;#4571041 "Insofar as it affects my religious beliefs" is to religious people as "insofar as it affects interstate commerce" is to congress.

Just watched the video again on a larger screen. I agree the dark object is likely part of the second stage or the space vehicle. hmm...

I didn't watch the press conference, but based on the video it looked like a blow out of something that was carrying oxygen that resulted in venting of oxygen overboard for several seconds prior to the explosion rather than a sudden rupture of an oxygen tank.

Just bought plane tickets to attend a wedding between two gay people a couple months from now. If, when they kiss, my own wedding band suddenly begins glowing red hot and burns my finger off I'll be sure to relay said findings.

My employer contribution has not stayed the same. As I mentioned in this newer thread linking back to this post you quoted: www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4735304#4735304 My percentage of the total cost of the plan has stayed roughly the same. It's not a perfect comparison because I know how much I pay each plan year, and that runs from July 1st through June 30th, and that's when the cost increases happen and how I calculated those percent changes. I only know how much my company pays each calender year, so it kinda smears the cost increases over two years.

You're thinking of Moore v. Madigan which was a seventh circuit decision. Other important related cases are Kachalsky v. Cacace (2nd circuit; appealed to SCOTUS; cert denied) and Woollard_v._Gallagher (fourth circuit; currently in a similar state as Peruta) The goal of the ninth circuit en banc panel will be to issue a ruling that changes nothing about how permitting currently works (an effective ban at the discretion of each County's Sheriff) but that has some inoperative difference from Moore built into it so to leave SCOTUS an out to be able to deny cert.

The change in law regarding open carry occurred after the original complaint was filed in Peruta but well before last year's decision. The change they kept referring to in the oral arguments was AB144: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0101-0150/ab_144_bill_20110919_enrolled.html There are no binding precedents that would force the 9th circuit to conclude that a ban on open carry and a de facto ban on concealed carry are, together, unconstitutional.

There is very little chance that the en banc panel will rule in favor of Peruta and Richards. A three judge panel of the 9th already ruled in their favor a year and a half ago and the court elected to rehear the case en banc of its own accord. There's not really much reason for them to do that if they didn't intend to toss the panel's decision.

There's a joke in there about the Orange daisies and Rachel Dolezal but this thread is a little too windy.

Unless you're inferring some sort of catch-22 situation whereby any woman who decides to get an abortion is, in doing so, demonstrating an awareness that would actually make her a good mother, then you kinda lost me on this comment. If a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want to, or doesn't feel she is able to, raise and support a child then abortion is the least onerous course of action she can take in terms of placing a burden on society. I had a similar, possibly just related, discussion with quade about Chris Dorner back a couple years ago: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4442321#4442321 My personal opinion is that the argument/confusion stems from people wanting there to be some classification of crazy/insane that we could use to keep said people from having guns. I think people realize that it would have to be determined differently from how competence to stand trial or to be held accountable for ones actions is determined. What I don't think people realize or appreciate are the potential implications/challenges that defining "the new crazy" would have in terms of due process. So the desire for gun rights is based on ignorance? The 'funny' part about that is that for most anti-gun folks, 'reasonable restraints' include outright bans on guns that have certain cosmetic features. The push for said ban is written right in the Democratic Party's platform. It's their bag, baby. Bans on certain types of rifles, certain types of handguns, certain types of magazines, buying ammunition online, buying more than x rounds of ammunition at once, or buying certain types of ammunition are all worse than doing nothing. Time spent writing and pushing for those laws and the resultant time spent rallying against them and having to fight them in court is all time wasted.

Words hurt, man.

If you get away from your family and basically start over again as a black person, how much does that differ from actually being a black person? Is there an age cut off where "the damage of being black is done" after which soft reparations like the ones you mention are not owed? If you weren't black by then will you never be black? Is it really age zero? Is the presumption that a person can dye their skin, own their new race each day, and only benefit from it free from the drawbacks/racism/discrimination? What does that say about black people who grew up in well-off families? I don't think this is all that comparable to the guy who says he can't work because his bad back and proceeds to collect disability until he's caught launching a boat to go fishing on the weekend.

I always thought it was funny that there is a gated neighborhood in Manhattan Beach. All I can say is, "man... those people must really love being in a home-owners association."

Jeez guys, they're calling it the USS Gabrielle Giffords not the USS Background Check, give it a rest.

This is kinda my point: Besides, the fact that the DA is standing down, the guy had a CCW in New York, this happened at the Waldorf, and someone else has been charged with tampering with evidence suggests it's quite silly to try to bring this incident into a discussion of liability insurance.

Sincerity here is moot, but this is the right attitude.

And this attitude is off the deep end in the other direction. If the sandwich, when complete, had any chance in helping her change the outcome of the attack then maybe you'd have a reasonable comparison. Is a gun some kind of magic force field? No. But it's not completely irrelevant to the story as you are claiming, and you know that. Not really directed at you anymore... I can see that my previous post came across a little blame-the-victimy. My point was simply that if you would get and carry a gun to defend yourself, but you would not get and carry a taser or pepper spray or something if anything got in the way of you carrying a gun, then you might be thinking that having the gun is going to do more for you than it actually will.

Variants of this one date back a long time. This one was next to a random vibration test controller.

I'm in agreement over the poor attitude this whole situation seems both to have demonstrated and to be eliciting. If you feel you need a gun at the ready either on your person everywhere you go with a CCW or loaded on your nightstand then you should also feel the need to do more than nothing while you try to make that happen or if the government eventually denies you either (I say "eventually" because, as you noted, this wasn't even to the point of applying for a CCW permit and New Jersey is "may issue" which means they don't actually issue.) It's worth thinking about. Worst-case is you end up being more cognizant of your situation and you have a gun on you. Best-case is the thing you settled for gets the job done. I wonder if the attitude of law enforcement agencies towards applicants plays a part in this too. I know in "may issue" counties in California if a person applies for a CCW, they don't exactly steer you towards maybe carrying some other defensive implement, they steer you towards the door. (I haven't applied by the way, but I've read a few rejection letters.)