Nightingale
-
Content
10,389 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0%
Posts posted by Nightingale
-
-
QuoteQuoteQuoteDo you have any idea how many soldiers in the British Army are Irish? The last soldier to die in Afghanistan on Sunday was from the Royal Irish Regiment. Recruitment from the Republic of Ireland into the British Army has increased four fold in the last two years. How many tens of thousands of Irishmen died in WWI? How many more in WWII?
And how many soldiers took part in Bloody Sunday? That argument is a nonsense spouted by republicans clutching at straws.
I'm not saying that people should be burning or vandalizing anything, or that there aren't Irish soldiers in the British Army, or that Ireland hasn't lost any soldiers. Ireland lost over 35,000 in World War I. All I'm saying is that it could still be a very politically charged issue, as there are still tensions in Northern Ireland.
"Politcally" charged, NOT fead by Bible /Quran versus , two totally different subjects!
I was replying to the original post.
-
QuoteDo you have any idea how many soldiers in the British Army are Irish? The last soldier to die in Afghanistan on Sunday was from the Royal Irish Regiment. Recruitment from the Republic of Ireland into the British Army has increased four fold in the last two years. How many tens of thousands of Irishmen died in WWI? How many more in WWII?
And how many soldiers took part in Bloody Sunday? That argument is a nonsense spouted by republicans clutching at straws.
I'm not saying that people should be burning or vandalizing anything, or that there aren't Irish soldiers in the British Army, or that Ireland hasn't lost any soldiers. Ireland lost over 35,000 in World War I. All I'm saying is that it could still be a very politically charged issue, as there are still tensions in Northern Ireland. -
I did a bit of digging and it appears that in Ireland (and in the Six Counties in particular) this is an issue largely because the poppies are sold as a fundraiser by the British legion, and the money could potentially go to support British soldiers who participated in Bloody Sunday. -
QuoteThe purpose built flags are actually same color and design arrangement but Banner scale. Technically not a flag.
Some Teams (Fastrax being one) have Congressional Decrees or Proclamations stating that the banner-flag may touch the ground and be picked up quickly for safety reasons, a 7800' flag with appropriate weight is a bit tough to catch.
When Dana Bowman Jumps his Banner-Flag his narration even has this explanation in it.
Matt
Thanks! -
I wasn't sure whether to put this here, in a skydiving forum, or in Bonfire, so I figured I'd play it safe and put it in Speaker's corner and the mods can move it if necessary.
I was always taught that it was disrespectful to allow the American flag to touch the ground (at least on purpose), and the Flag Code indicates that the flag should not touch anything beneath it, like the ground, though contrary to popular belief, you don't have to burn it, just pick it up.
Every flag jump I've seen ends up with the flag lying on the grass. Has there been some kind of exception made for parachute jumps?
I love watching the flag jumps. They're awesome, and beautiful, and there's something wonderful about watching the flag sail through the air, but I cringe when I see the flag hit the ground.
Just curious about the thoughts of others. -
QuoteQuoteI just got to use our online option to reschedule from the week after Thanksgiving (we'll still be out of town) to January. Man I love that reschedule option. And now that it's online, I don't even have to actually speak to a person
Now, this is example of perfectly valid reasons to bitch about jury duty. Once a year potentially, you get a notice from CA about 6 weeks out that you need to be available on this day. If that day isn't good, you have to ask for a reschedule X days in advance, and who knows when that will be. There's no ability to offer up suitable times.
Hehe... I did.
If you call the courthouse directly instead of the jury recorded message number and ask for the jury room, you can sometimes talk to a person who can actually assign you a date. This is how my conversation went:
Me: "I need to reschedule my jury duty"
Jury Lady: "We can't do that. You've already rescheduled once."
Me: "I'd really like to serve, but I had a law school final on the last day you scheduled me for, and the new day you scheduled me for is in the middle of the bar exam."
JL: "Is the following week good for you?"
Me: "Sounds great! Thank you!" -
QuoteQuoteQuoteSo, if a property owner has the right as that owner, to deny a citizen the right to carry a fire arm on property they own, how can the government have the power to tell a private property owner that they can not smoke in their own house? Seeing how smoking is legal?
Where is this happening??? Somehow I don't think that one's going to stand up in court, but seeing the court case would be interesting.
I will look for that one
How about where it is a privately held business run only by family members?
It varies by state, but you can find the list here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States#.C2.A0California -
Quote
That's FOSTER parents. Those kids are wards of the state, which makes the situation a bit different. If you choose to be a foster parent, you choose to abide by the restrictions the state puts on you, and not smoke around the kids if that's what you agree to. -
QuoteQuoteRugby ......Then Cage fighting, followed by boxing..
Well, in some cases getting your wife/SO out of the way of the tv so you can watch is more dangerous than anything you listed.
(clearly, I'm stereotyping here.)
Hehe, yes you are. You have clearly never been in my house when the Ducks/Kings game is on. Or when the Angels are playing the Yankees. Because the Yankees suck.
-
QuoteSo, if a property owner has the right as that owner, to deny a citizen the right to carry a fire arm on property they own, how can the government have the power to tell a private property owner that they can not smoke in their own house? Seeing how smoking is legal?
Where is this happening??? Somehow I don't think that one's going to stand up in court, but seeing the court case would be interesting. -
Quote
Just curious (from the thread drift in here)... As private property owners who can restrict firearms from their property, would private colleges also be held responsible for the large amount of underage (illegal) drinking that takes place on their property?
It would depend on the laws of the individual state, so anything I say can't be anything more than a personal opinion and isn't legal advice whatsoever, but it's my opinion that most college students are adults and they choose to be there and agree to abide by the rules, which makes colleges pretty different than a high school where the students must attend and the schools are responsible for the minors. -
QuoteQuote>So the constitution should be suspended when you cross the property line
>of a college campus.
?? No more so than it's suspended when you cross the property line of a homeowner, or the edge of an airport security area.
Interesting line of thought
So, in this case, rights end at the private property line ? (I mean this as a sincere question) Not that I disagree with you because I feel as a private property owner you should have the right to make this kind of determination
Yes. Just like a private property owner, if he doesn't regularly open areas of his property for public gatherings can restrict free speech (I can boot you off my property for standing on my lawn no matter what you're shouting, but I can't boot you off the sidewalk), a private property owner can restrict firearms from their property.
So, the prior poster who doesn't want his college roommate to have a gun should pick a private college that has the same philosophy and a "no guns in dorms" policy. -
QuoteI just don't want the latter who's not trained in gun safety to be able to carry his Glock on campus (still stereotyping?). Nor do I want my roommate, who's a farmer and hunter and been raised shooting guns and learning gun safety to be able to have his on campus.
I've been particularly fond of this quote:
"We have no idea what could have happened had there been an armed defender at Columbine and Virginia Tech, but we know with absolute certainty what happens when there’s not.” -Utah State Representative Curtis Oda
As for the drunk shooting argument, the Supreme Court has held that a state must show a compelling interest (strict scrutiny) when restricting certain rights. Now, whether or not you think second amendment rights should fall under strict scrutiny, I think a state could probably make a pretty reasonable argument that they have a compelling interest in keeping drunks and people otherwise under the influence from carrying a gun, and a law saying "you can't carry a gun when you are drunk or high" seems to be pretty narrowly tailored, since you could carry one at all other times.
Personally, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with a state putting on their CCW/CHLs "This license not valid when the holder is under the influence of alcohol or drugs that may affect judgment."
And frankly, anyone who thinks guns and beer are a good mix is a fucking MORON. -
Rugby comes to mind. -
My mandatory one was the World of Warcraft authenticator.
-
QuoteSorry! What i meant was a very basic understanding of what it entails.
You're jumping out of a plane.
It can kill you.
Other than that, forget everything you've heard and everything you've read, and LISTEN TO YOUR INSTRUCTORS.
Oh, and have fun! -
QuoteQuoteQuoteRealized that depending on one's perspective, yesterday could be thought of as a pretty shitty day for California...
1) Jerry Brown is governor... again...
2) Barbra Boxer is STILL in office...
3) Pot isn't legal.
I'm not upset about Brown. Honestly, I think he was a better alternative than Whitman, primarily because I don't think Whitman knows how to make nice with those that disagree with her. I think she'd have barged into office with all the grace of a stampeding rhinoceros, offended damn near everyone and made compromise virtually impossible.
Now, Boxer, Newsome (/facepalm), and Prop 19 I'm a bit pissed off about.
in many ways, that is what california needs, Stop kissing special interest ass, and run a state!
The problem with that is that the governor can't do anything at all without the support of the legislature. Piss them off too much, and they won't work with you, and may actively work against you. We absolutely need someone who will stop kissing special interest ass, but we need someone with the diplomacy to tell them to go to hell, but convince them it was their idea and to buy a first class ticket. That isn't Whitman. -
QuoteRealized that depending on one's perspective, yesterday could be thought of as a pretty shitty day for California...
1) Jerry Brown is governor... again...
2) Barbra Boxer is STILL in office...
3) Pot isn't legal.
I'm not upset about Brown. Honestly, I think he was a better alternative than Whitman, primarily because I don't think Whitman knows how to make nice with those that disagree with her. I think she'd have barged into office with all the grace of a stampeding rhinoceros, offended damn near everyone and made compromise virtually impossible.
Now, Boxer, Newsome (/facepalm), and Prop 19 I'm a bit pissed off about. -
Quote>maybe the libs will start respecting the constitution...
IIRC, the people who are currently trying to repeal the 14th amendment are . . . conservatives. Indeed, our very own Skyrider referred to that part of the Constitution as a "loophole." Now there's respect for you!
I have no problem with people working to repeal an amendment (practically speaking, this means to pass a new amendment that says the old one is no longer in force). That is respecting the constitutional amendment process that is written into the document itself.
What I don't respect is those that totally ignore what the constitution says and try to do their own thing anyway. -
QuoteNews:
Law curbs McDonald's Happy Meal toys
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101103/us_nm/us_mcdonalds_toys
San Francisco has become the first major U.S. city to pass a law that cracks down on the popular practice of giving away free toys with unhealthy restaurant meals for children.
The law would require that restaurant kids' meals meet certain nutritional standards before they could be sold with toys...
"San Francisco Approved Bunny Food Happy Meal With Toy: $3.99"
"Happy Meal: Burger, Fries, Drink, toy not included: $3.49. Separate Toy: $0.50" -
QuoteQuoteOoooh! I started a thread that got that flame icon. Cool! Don't think that's happened before. Uhoh. is that beer?
I'm partial to Sam Adams. Just sayin...
If you make it out to Perris, perhaps that can be arranged. While I can't jump very often, I do try to get some tunnel time in now and again.
-
Quote
Well, then you run into common-law marriages and the like - which means government gets involved anyway. And if there are children involved, then paternity laws, child support etc apply.
(BTW if you mean "the government doesn't need to get involved if everything goes well" then I agree 100% - but unfortunately things don't always go well, which is why laws on visitation/child support/survivor's benefits/joint custody etc are important.)
Many states don't have common law marriage, and if they did, that would also disappear with the government no longer recognizing relationships.
Child custody is child custody, and child support is child support. It's got nothing to do with marriage and divorce. People separate and remain married and deal with custody and support. People never get married and deal with custody and support. A child is a responsibility completely separate from a relationship between the parents.
As for survivor's benefits and the like, there's no reason why those can't be willed to whoever the person wishes. I know a lot of people who would like to will them to take care of an elderly parent, and frankly, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to do that if they don't have a minor dependent. A benefit is a benefit, and if it's been earned, it should go to whoever the person who earned it says it should go to. -
Like most civil rights issues, their battlefield isn't going to be at the polls. It's going to be in a courthouse.
For example, the following battles would probably never have been won in a voting booth:
Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)
This decision held that "racially restrictive covenants" in property deeds are unenforceable.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
In this landmark case, the Court prohibited racial segregation of public schools.
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
This decision holds that state laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage are unconstitutional.
Romer v. Evans (1996)
In this case, the Court finds that an amendment to Colorado's constitution, which sought to preclude legal protection of homosexuals' rights, is unconstitutional.
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
The Court holds that a Texas statute criminalizing same-sex conduct is unconstitutional. -
to take references to marriage outQuoteQuote
or just add in "civil union" or what ever term to describe Gay marriage. Give them the whole legal kit and kaboodle.
Separate but equal isn't equal.
ATTN: PET OWNERS: Don't do what I did!!!!!
in The Bonfire
Sounds like she went with the "prepaid veterinary" thing rather than insurance. If it's through Banfield (there are a few others, but Banfield is the most notorious), it's not insurance. It's a prepaid vet plan that just spreads out the cost of exams and vaccines over the year. It doesn't cover any kind of emergency medicine, just basic care, which is why the heatstroke wouldn't have been covered.
If I want to cancel my policy, I call them and cancel it. I just renewed my policy and ASPCA has confirmed that I can cancel at any time.
My policy covers almost everything except preexisting conditions and genetic diseases, and almost any treatment except elective stuff. Covers vaccines, spay/neuter, exams, emergencies, all that.
I just took my cat to the vet twice over the last few weeks. First visit was a little over $500. Second visit was about $270. So, close to $800 total. And after I get the insurance checks (I can check online...I can see the amount and they're in the mail!), my cost will be about $160. My premiums are $67/month (total $807/year). Since it just saved me $640, I'd say it's totally worth it, since this hasn't been our first vet visit this year.
Pet insurance has been the best decision I've made for my critters. We've had it for three years now, and it's been wonderful!
Also, please ignore the link posted above. We found a much better company that doesn't limit their reimbursements to a fee schedule.
www.aspcapetinsurance.com
I've recommended them to several friends, and they've all been very happy with them. They're a little more expensive than VPI (the company in the other link), but they cover a lot more and reimburse a lot more, so it's worth it.