Age Posts

I believe you are speaking of the "Coroners and Justice Bill".

According to the language I found (I haven't really looked for the exact language) possession of child pornography extends to to include non†‘photographic images. Which means, being in the possession of loli or shota in the U.K. will get you thrown into jail. The date in which you downloaded them is irrelevant as simple possession is illegal now.

My suggestion if you decide not to keep it is do a simple system defrag on your computer a few times. It overwrites the old location a few times with either blank information or gibberish (i forget which).

Anyways, if you're curious here is the bill.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmbills/169/09169.1-6.html

HR4872 is a bill that was constructed by the very people the politicians used as a scape goat to encourage this "reform" as they would like to call it. Americans who can't afford health care insurance are now being forced to hand over even more of their income. We are currently in the depths of of the largest and most severe economic crisis in American since the Great Depression. It is bad economic policy to force the citizens of a country who are already struggling with debt and unemployment to have to hand over large quantities of money per month to private companies without giving the citizens a choice whether or not to purchase the product or service.

Our government has already been running in debt for the last thirty plus years barring the surplus during the Clinton Administration. Forcing the American citizens to pay for services they can't afford will result in either 1).Americans falling into more debt which can mean more foreclosures or similar effects or 2). the government having to saddle the burden of people who were unable to pay for the mandatory insurance. So either Americans go into debt or America itself goes further into debt. Either way forcing one of the worlds largest economic demands into increased debt will only bode poorly for the world economy as a whole.

The "health care crisis" could have been fixed with a few tweaks to the regulations.


1). The role of government in the insurance reform should have been to create a new market place where individual citizens have the power to control their own policies. As it currently stands large corporations such as Wal-mart, IBM, Microsoft, Google,etc are the driving force in the market place. Insurance companies think of individual policies as simple pepper on their main course. Sure, it's a nice addition to a meal but, ultimately it's not needed.

2). Such as removing "pre-existing conditions" from people's medical records. Which is similar to the one positive effect of this bill. People with previous condition can buy insurance at the same cost as a healthy person.

3). Preventing lifetime or annual caps on medical care by insurance companies.

4). We should have increased market competition which has stagnated due to government regulations forcing some states to only have two insurance providers for the entire state. Free market capitalism greatest achievement is how competition will drive prices down. So, the solution to the monopolies of the insurance giants would be to allow new comers into the game and allow them to sell over state lines.

5). The relaxation of "minimum standards" for insurance policies. The policies themselves should be modular in a sense I can pick and choose what treatments I want to pay for. If I don't need hair plug treatment then I shouldn't have to pay for it. If a woman would never have an abortion through personal decisions or religious conviction she shouldn't have to pay for that service.

6). If the protections of preexisting conditions results in negative economic effects would could have the weakest amongst us, such as the elderly, children or the desperately poor into the medicaid and medicare systems. Allowing the sickest, poorest and weakest to receive treatment.

New customer centered market,Increased free market aspects of competition while increasing consumer protections and help for the weakest amongst us would have been a better option. Younger adults like us would have the option to decline spending the insurance premiums out of our monthly budget and paying expenses out of pocket if we so desired (I'm self employed. I could afford insurance if I want but, I choose not too so I can save the money for later such as for retirement).

Another criticism of Government controlled health care is our social security system. Currently, our social security system is on the verge of destroying America. As of this year, Social security will pay out more than it takes in. There is absolutely no reserve money because greedy politicians kept bleeding the program of its surplus money which was supposed to stay locked away like a savings account. So now we have a lock box full of I.O.U's and increasing expenses for the next fifty years. Current estimation for S.S. costing as much as 80% of the entire U.S. government budget range from 2015 to 2040.

We're swimming in so much debt that even China is shying away from buying it up anymore. So it's illogical to stack more spending on top of a heavy debt riddled government.

Additional criticisms in America come from the political game every election where Democrats dust off the playbook of fear mongering. Every election they claim that Republicans want to take away social security even if the republican platform that year is simple reform in the tax structure so the program won't go into the red. With government controlled health care we will with every election have the same thing. "Evil conservatives want people to die in the streets because they don't want government control in health care". I've already been personally accused of this over the last two years so I know it'll be the same in the political arena.

If I want to travel outside the U.S. I can draw evidence from the National Health Service of the U.K. I certainly don't need to bring those up as they are all well published. Everything from dirty bedsheets simply being "turned over" to keep costs down,or 999 patients being left to wait in ambulances in car parks and holding bays, or in hospital corridors – in some cases for more than five hours – before they can even join the queue for urgent treatment. This is done in order to meet Government targets to treat people within fours hours of admitting them. There is also the well published story of women being forced to give birth in unusual areas because N.H.S. would not send an ambulance.

On to Canada where Brain Tumor patients can wait weeks if not months to see a specialist. Something that would take a week to see a specialist in America.

Not to mention this



So in conclusion, I believe the American medical system should remain privatized, and subject to free market forces with the government taking the mantle of consumer protection architect so everyone can receive inexpensive care. While at the same time maintaining the superior level of care for all citizens.

Edit: No middlemen, no masters. Demand. Supply. Regulation.

Edit@

I was actually criticizing the people in S.D. for their narrow minded point of views. People stick to their party lines regardless of everything. I seem to be the only person in S.D. who will actually listen to and consider an opposing point of view regardless if I agree with it.

I can not swim nor dance. I skipped the crawling phase as a infant/toddler so I never developed the coordination to dance*. I can't swim because I am unable to get over the sensation of water in my ears.

*I haven't done any research but, this is what I have been lead to believe.

@Flaser

Gibs

@Black Jesus


Can somebody break the monotony and try to see the other side for once or am I the only one capable of seeing both Liberal and Conservative points of view?

Sorry for your misconception but, I wasn't mad. I simply feel that you don't understand the intentions of the founding fathers with the first amendment. I also feel you don't understand the ramifications of others dictating where people can exercise these rights.

You may think it's fine to prevent protests at/near funerals, then somebody else thinks it inappropriate to protest near churches. From there everybody and their grandmother will try to enforce their own beliefs on what and where it is acceptable to protest.

Depending on your state you may or may not be allowed to refuse a breathalyzer. It's best to look up your states implied consent laws. Normally people sign this when they file for a drivers license. However, even if your state does have implied consent laws, you can generally still refuse field sobriety tests.

Be aware of the consequences of doing so. For example, in the state of Illinois, if you refuse a breath alcohol test when you are under suspicion of driving while intoxicated, your license is suspended for 180 days.

A tip on refusing a test. Politely yet, firmly decline a test by saying "not until I speak with an attorney".

Also keep your mouth shut if the cop trying to talk to you. Only follow what you need to do such as producing your license, registration,etc but, skip the idle chatter as the cop is simply trying to gather evidence against you.

Failing a FST looks worse for you than simple refusal. Best to let them *think* you're guilty rather than let them *know* you're guilty.

On topic; It's a stupid charge but, still attacking somebody with bodily fluids and gases is considered assault. Spit on someone and you can face attempted murder charges.

Wow, the rest of the world put their health care in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats. Americans are extremely stupid for wanting to have the power in the hands of we the people. Nope only a complete fucking moron would think the peasants are capable of making their own health care decisions. No, that is a job for the government! Middle and lower class Americans are simply too stupid to understand or incapable of making decisions for themselves. It is up to the Washington elite to decide everything for these knuckle dragging troglodytes.

What? Wait times? Rationing of care? Reduced incentives for our best and brightest to become doctors? Government bureaucrats and unelected officials making health care decisions for us. Health care turning into a political tool for fear mongers to capitalize on like our social security? Nah, that's all conspiracy theories for the utterly incompetent and uneducated.

Government dependency is the way to freedom!

Side note: i could have fixed the big issues with a handful of tweaks to the system but then again, I'm just another stupid American who doesn't understand the glory of Europe.

No offense but, it REALLY pisses me off that nobody ever thinks a private sector solution can fix anything and that only the government can fix anything regardless of how inefficient, slow or corrupt that particular government is.

Semi related Rant:

Here is a list of flaws pulled off of N.P.R.'s website (article was dated December of 09. Currently searching for a URL)



Second is a list from commondreams.org 3/22/10



So here is a problem I have that isn't touched by these lists. I don't have a choice when it comes to my healthcare. My only choice is jail or no jail.

I can't choose to forgo health care and pay the expenses out of pocket, nor is there any competition between the big insurance companies to keep cost down. So I have to hand my money over to psuedo-monopolies. Monopolies are not good at cost control. Governments have bloated budgets and simply throw money at a problem until it's near catastrophic. I can't choose my insurance plan because they are all standardized plans enforced by the government. So I have to pay for treatments that I won't use.

No competition in the market against monopolies. No control in the hands of individuals over their health care. No control to keep costs from sky rocketing and potentially leaving people at the companies mercy. No standardization of care in hospitals so I could get individual rooms in one hospital and dirty sheets in another.

Do us all a favor and stay home on election days.

Think long and hard about what you just said. You believe the government should be able to tell the people what they can protest and where they can protest? Ignore that it's a funeral. What if it was a bar mitzvah that was being protested? Perhaps a PETA event, a gay pride parade, or the local chess club. Do you really want other people to tell you where and what you can protest?

Today, it's the Westboro baptist church on the chopping block. Due to mission creep, next week it'll be you in their place.

Edit; Before you think I'm some left wing anti-military nutjob. I have family and friends who are serving or have served in all branches of the military.

HR4872

There you go, go ahead and find out "whats in it".

Do I support it? Overall, it is a No so loud I just shook the Gods from their La-z-boy recliners.

Mostly because of one thing. The individual mandate. Due to this mandate in order for an American citizen to stay out of jail is to hand their money over to a private company regardless if they can afford it. If you spend over 1/4th or maybe it was 1/3rd of your gross income (income before taxes) on health care then the government will give you a tiny subsidy (if I remember correctly) which in essence is the government taking money from somebody else to pay for your insurance.

What if I don't want to hand over my money? What if I can't afford it but, I don't spend 1/4th of my total income on insurance? Do I get a subsidy? No, No you don't. You are fucked in that regard.

Do I think reform was needed? Oh hell yeah. I support that idea as fanatically as I do the U.S. constitution. Do I think this was the right way to go? Fuck no.

We can't support the extra burden on the budget. Even the CBO (congressional budget office) said this was going to cause adverse effects on the economy and next to little positive effects.

Oh, and how obama plans to "pay" for this is bullshit. Go ahead, read the document. You'll shit bricks when you realize when the taxes come into effect compared to our benefits.

I'll applaud Obama for trying to do something but,with all the back room deals, intimidation and bribery that went on in both houses of congress. Honestly, people should be revolting in the streets demanding that the representatives have some goddamn honor but, they are all spineless crooks the whole lot of'em.

The average American was too caught up in "March madness" and whatever trivial diversion was their fancy at the time.

Apparently people don't like the idea of provoking discussion. I'd figure everybody knew I enjoy discussions to an extent that I will even debate in support ideas I'm actually opposed to.



Which part is ridiculous, the accepting your consequences or the make a conscious decision to avoid a certain activity until you can accept the consequences?


Okay, let's take that example then. Say, you're driving your car and one day you happen to accidentaly hit someone, causing serious irreversible injuries to said person. As the damage cannot be undone, you'd have to cope with the fact that you hurt someone beyond repair.

But let's say that you only caused some minor wounds to the person. Isn't it fair that you apologise for your mistake and move on? Like in the case at hand - unplanned pregnancy - there is a way to fix it, so why should you not try to? This is not just any accident, it's an event that will consume many years of the parent's lives, and will have a toll on another person's life as well - the child's.

Or are telling me that accidents should not be an excuse and a person should not be allowed to try and redeem himself? What about this example- a long time smoker develops lung cancer. Are you saying that this person shouldn't be allowed to receive any treatment?[/quote]

Every time I get behind the wheel of my truck, ziggy's car or any of the vehicles I drive for my customers I make a mental note "I can/may hurt/possibly kill somebody or myself by driving. Do I accept that risk"? Every time I say yes because I accept the consequences of my "accidents". If I ran somebody over, I wouldn't try to cover my accident by slitting the poor bastards throat.

Again, doing this for simple discussion and because I'm bored.

Watch the video and clear your mind of the two reporters. Can you clearly tell the cameras in their possession are cameras or do they have a vague blob look to them?

Listen to the men in the helicopter, do they sound like they just butchered civilians? No, they clearly thought the group of men were armed with an RPG.

Also take notice that most insurgents, enemy combatants, terrorists,etc all dress like civilians. Their goal is to blend in as much as possible. They don't wear uniforms like the militias or a standing army. You can't tell the difference between a civilian and a terrorist/enemy combatant/insurgent/freedom fighter until they pull a weapon on you.

Civilian deaths are tragic but, are unavoidable. It's best to try to avoid as many as possible. It's impractical and foolhardy try to avoid all of them as it only results in more dead soldiers at the hands of cowards who use civilians as human shields.

I believe we should keep our RoE's more or less than same. Let the soldiers decide who is a threat to them by letting them decide which level will best fit the problem. Stop this nonsense of having to call back to mama and daddy for permission to defend themselves.

Side note; Yes, yes, I know we invaded a sovereign country. So you can keep quiet on that. the point of the matter these men don't wear uniforms when they decide to take pot shots at Coalition or Iraqi forces.



A common tactic for insurgents is to remove the bodies and weapons from a scene and basically cover up all evidence that there was even a conflict. Sometimes, they even leave the bodies so anybody who approaches will be lead to believe that they were simple civilians. "How do you transform a dead insurgent into a dead civilian? Take away his gun".



I agree, that behavior was unacceptable.

Gentlemen, Gentlemen. Calm down. Take a look at Article 21 of the Japanese constitution.

Japanese Constitution



Even if there is a ban, the lawyers in Japan will step up and have it repealed.

The biggest problem we face are the uptight mother hens who cause the moral panic of child predators. These women live in a universe where everybody salivates over the idea of sexually violating everybody's children.

Edit: Alternative idea

Extremism is a problem for any civilization but, in trying to find a solution to extremism we can inadvertently cause a larger problem for everyone. Lets take racists for example.

Most people quickly step to the idea of "shutting them up" since "nobody agrees with them". So they quickly demand that their representatives write legislation to silence these evil, vile, extremist bigots. At the moment they succeed in silencing the racists, they have opened Pandora's box. Who decides what is considered extreme? Is it the guy who doesn't apologize for being white? Is Sasha baron Cohen an extremist? Is Howard Stern an extremist? What about George Carlin? Don Imus? Sean Hannity? Micheal Savage? Stephen Donald Black? Me?

The problem with trying to find a solution to the extremist is what is called "mission creep" where a project or mission expands outside it's intended goals. Trying to silence the extremist we only have people trying to silence political dissent.

The best solution in my mind is to let them speak. Then engage them in debates all the while teaching the younger generations to not only listen to opposing views but, even protect those very views even if they don't agree with them.

Extremist groups and opinions collapse when they are faced with facts and information.

Honestly, not really. Condoms and birth control are not perfect and there still lies some risk of pregnancy. If you deem the risk worth it and have sex. You shouldn't try to bail if a pregnancy occurs.

Any other action we take, we accept the consequences. Why does sex somehow get exempt from the basic rules we use to make every decision in our lives?

Lets take any behavior, like driving a car for instance. If I injure someone or cause property damage through my actions then I have to accept the consequences even if it was an accident.

Random Fact: Less than 8% of all women seeking abortions did not use any form of contraception.

@Xgen: I could go into a lengthy diatribe but, I'll continue to keep my answer short and generally neutral in opinion.

I may get chastised for such "impractical" advice but, if a couple are not ready for a child, he should keep it in his pants and she should keep her legs closed.

Having sex and not wanting kids should they result seems like a moment of "having your cake and eating it too".

A few more questions to provoke discussion.

Do you believe humans have a right to live? If so, when does that right take effect, is it at conception, at a certain trimester, certain number of weeks, only once the kid makes it outside the womb or until the tricycle motor makes it to 18?

At what stage is an human entity entitled to the protections of the government?

I tried coming up with some pro-choice arguments but, frankly there we all weak and easily countered by any pro-lifer with 15 minutes.

Also I'm simply doing this for discussion. My personal feelings are far removed.

On the abortion micro-debate. It's all about man's "rights" vs the woman's "rights".

Does the woman have the right to destroy a lump of cells/baby/whatever term people can dream up for it? Why does she have that right? (+Rep for anyone who can answer that and doesn't try to tug on the emotion strings or use the "in her belly" argument)

Why does the woman's decision override the male regardless of their individual decisions? He/She wants to keep it or He/She wants to remove it.

Does one own themselves, their fluids, their genetics as property? If so, then why does the woman get to decide what happens to the man's "property"?

People lean too much on the crutch of "it's in her belly".

On topic: Man up. Anyone can take the easy way out but, it takes a real man to take the responsible way out.

I'm not sure when I found Fakku, though I have some memory of the forums crashing or being deleted back when Fakku was just a babe.

Anyways, member since 06 Sep 2007.

yeah, a few months and I'll have spent three years of my life here. I met Ziggy so it was worth it.

For the depleted uranium ammo numbers, file a freedom of information act lawsuit. A good judge will force the government to hand over all information regarding the subject. Best to get a few people on your side and sue the ever loving hell out of them.

The point i was trying to make is that, you may get things done. The only certainty of sitting idle is that nothing will get done. That is what irritates me about people with Shag's mentality. They figure it's pointless or futile to try so they never bother and only fall into a vicious cycle.