just_some_dude

Soap and water.

Thanks for the info. I recently picked up my first light, a Nitecore P15. Nothing expensive, but I have been a little interested in lights recently.

I'd be interested... of course depending on date and time.

I am all for lane splitting, but I didn't think it was formally legal in California, thought it was just allowed. Just thought the wording is a little odd. Also, I would imagine this being more of a state issue than a federal issue. Either way, signing because I want it.

I remember reaching out to a local representative, he reached out to ODOT. ODOT stated they would not allow it because cars would want to do it too. Just add that to all the stupid things government can say...

Well in this case and this being Ohio and Ohio "law", if he is carrying a firearm concealed he must be licensed and he must notify law enforcement if in their presence.

I don't want to get in a gun fight on this thread though. Sorry, should not have brought it up .

I get it though, it is the "law".

... shall not be infringed... Why do we care if he is carrying or not?

Congrats... Can I borrow some tools .

I mean I feel pretty shitty for you, but I'm laughing because I'm sure the other guy is super proud of himself and thinks it is the funniest thing ever.

Jacked up all around, but man that kind of makes me laugh.

shitty day... shitty day.

Wow...

You could buy some Sugru & earth magnets and make your own mount.

I don't know a lot about most motorcycle racing, but I have heard (and this is hearsay) that EBR/Buell ran their motorcycles mostly stock while other companies would mod the crap out of them for racing. Maybe someone can verify that for sure. I obviously heard that from another Buell enthusiast .

Either way, pretty cool EBR is coming out on top. Curious to know how they perform on other races.

I enjoyed it.

I'm just going to put this out there... I don't have any issue with them traveling that fast. I wish all people would travel that fast.

I don't see how the fact that one CAN spend a bunch of money making a Blast powerful is relevant.

The allure of bikes is that they go fast for cheap. Blast + turbo is likely more expensive and slower than an FZ6, so it makes more sense to just buy the FZ6, no?

Likely . But sometimes people just want to... no good reason. Sometimes people want to paint their used rusted honda civic black with paint they stole from their high school art class... sometimes it just doesn't make sense.

Also, some of the people I know that do this have the parts hanging around. So, it is fun for them to play without all the pay.

Insert Self....

A couple people I know from another forum (buellridersonline.com) that have turned their Blasts to EFI and Turbo. Turbo is in process, obviously just needs to run the oil line back.

If I get enough money together I'll transform my Blast from carb to EFI Turbo.

Turbo Buell Blast:

EFI Buell Blast:

Interested !

Dumb question. How do you keep from overheating in full gear?

Purchase gear that is breathable! If that is the case, as long as your moving you are cool. The stoplights/stopped traffic will kill you.

Beyond that...

Minimum: Eye Protection.

Recommended: Boots, Overpant/Pant, Jacket, Gloves, Helmet.

Ideal: Boots, Overpant/Pant, Jacket, Gloves, Helmet, Camera.

I think you should have just gone with my response . I would have never noticed that... maybe if it was a Blast .

The shadow that looks like someone sitting?... and possibly looking at a phone?

I think this was jacked up to begin with. So, now they are going to decide what freedoms you can and can't have. I don't know why my argument is so wrong. I think the ruling is just as stupid as the thing was to begin with. I'm just pointing out that the ruling is simply a result of infringement on rights. My opinion.

So, you have a bunch of people scurrying around trying to 'fix' something that was broken to begin with. Rather than being butt raped with a jar of peanuts, you are finger banged with a middle finger with a goth ring with spikes. Super cool.

Isn't that kind of a moot point though?  Whether you want the new healthcare system or not is kind of irrelevant because it is in place. 

To me, I think this can only be a victory if you think (or if it comes to happen) that the new healthcare laws will be reversed to the previous system or a system in which businesses can choose to give you whatever healthcare that they want and you consider as part of the perks of employment with that company (how I think it should be) as a result of this step-stone ruling.  If that's the case, hooray, back to individual freedom.  If it is not, then as of right now, we have women who require certain medical treatment who are being forced to partake in the new healthcare laws AND not necessarily able to benefit from them.

Again though, it seems that the people who call this a victory seem to be the people who are opposed to the new healthcare laws, the people who call it defeat are people who are forced into the system or otherwise support the system and foresee the negative effects on women's healthcare.



Also, where are the boundaries?  If a company says they won't pay for birth control should vasectomies be eliminated as well?  Should the company have to prove that they are wholly committed to their beliefs (magz post on hobby lobby investing in companies that produce IUDs)?  or do they just get to be hypocrites for the sake of saving money for the company?  All of this WITH regard for the current health care laws!  Because what we SHOULD be doing and what we are ACTUALLY doing are/could be two different things, and quite frankly you can argue till you are in blue in the face about what we should be doing, but that doesn't make it so *sad face* so it makes more sense to discuss what is actually relevant rather than ideal situations.
 

The debate in this thread is stupid, it was over about three posts in when someone else mentioned this. This is a VERY narrow ruling and only impacts 3 types of 'birth control'. All of the rest, condoms, pills...all of that stuff is still covered and still mandated.

 

• Plan B "morning-after pill"

• Ella "morning-after pill"

• Hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs)

 

All three of the above are viewed as blockers. They block an already fertilized egg from implanting on the uterus. It is not unreasonable for people to have a religious objections to this type of 'birth control'. Many, myself included who is not religious view that as a very early term abortion. I'm sorry but that is what a fertilized egg is. And I am not opposed to abortion.

 

And it is not unreasonable for the courts to tell the government to honor those religious objections.

 

This ruling is a very narrow exception for some very specific drugs for some very specific people. It is a compromise, which is much needed in today's political climate. Both sides should be honest about what it really means and embrace the wisdom of the court.

 

My hate for all of you is justified. The examples and arguments you are presenting don't have a damn thing to do with the issue or the ruling.

Just_some_dude:

  I get where your going... but the problem is that as of now, option 1, number 4, employer says no... is no longer an option. 

The ACA mandated that employers provide coverage for birth control.

 

That is why this Hobby Lobby case garnered so much attention... 

My opinion is, mandate means nothing. Shouldn't have forced something in the first place.

sure, but that is a reason to be against 'obamacare', not a reason to be against upholding the requirement to provide medications to a particular group of people under the current system...

I know people who are against government intervention, obamacare, and mandates on businesses in general are saying that this is a success.  In a way, I think they are right, but the success seems like its from the perspective of dishing out a blow to the general idea of obamacare, not necessarily a success for the people who are forced to use the system. 

If you want Obamacare, then go get Obamacare. Don't force me to offer Obamacare and everything I don't believe in.

Just because the government mandates you to suck their balls, doesn't mean you have to.

So let me change this...

Option 1:

1.) Employer says I will give you $1 per hour plus a pack of gum and I'm willing to let the government force me to give you specific benefits, but one that I refuse to offer (birth control) because it is against my 1st amendment right (freedom of belief (or religion)). - *religion does not have to be Christian versus, muslim, etc. It just means belief.*

2.) You say okay.

3.) You go to employer and say I want birth control.

4.) Employer says no.

5.) You go get a job somewhere else.

Problem Solved.

Option 2:

1.) Employer says I will give you $1 per hour plus a pack of gum and I'm willing to let the government force me to give you specific benefits, but one that I refuse to offer (birth control) because it is against my 1st amendment right (freedom of belief (or religion)). - *religion does not have to be Christian versus, muslim, etc. It just means belief.*

2.) You say okay.

3.) You go to employer and say I want birth control.

4.) Employer says no.

5.) You go to government and say I want you to force the company to give me something I am entitled to.

6.) Government says I force you to give birth control.

7.) Employer says no.

8.) Blah blah blah

9.) Government applies force and violence to get what they want.

Still a slave. No freedom. We the people don't exist. The mass overrides the individual. Freedom fails in terms of government.

Okay...

Option 1)

1.) Employer says I will hire you for a job and pay you $1 per hour and give you a pack of gum.

2.) You say okay.

3.) You go to employer and say, I want birth control too.

4.) Employer says no.

5.) You go get a job somewhere else.

Problem solved.

Option 2)

1.) Government disregards constitution and forces people (ultimately with violence) to do as they are told.

Hmm... slave comes to mind...

Putting this here because IP brought up Bengazi.

 

Ok, now I am completely confused.  When Bengazi happened Obama and his administration went around telling us it was a spontaneous riot caused by You Tube. And today they tell us the captured the mastermind behind the bengazi attack. Does that mean they captured the guy that made the You Tube video? Thats the only logical conclusion you can draw from all this BS.

The guy involved in the YouTube video was arrested and prosecuted for 'unrelated' charges. Good old government doing what is best for the people... Some potentially accurate/inaccurate information here (but you'll get the point): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakoula_Basseley_Nakoula

The guy got f'ed in the a, you know, for the good of the people. (sarcasm)

The whole idea of citing someone for speeding is unconstitutional to begin with.

Beyond that, here is something I read on the good old Internet (could be real, could be fake) that some guy supposedly sent for his red light citation and supposedly the case was dropped (searched and found it here: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/effectively-beat-red-light-camera-ticket/):

To Whom it May Concern,

I received a letter claiming I committed a violation of a speeding law in the District of Columbia on 04/21/2012. As per the instructions, I am writing to plead ‘not guilty’ to this charge. Although this option is said to result in this matter going to court; it is my suggestion that the charges simply be dropped. This suggestion comes out of respect for tax payers, and my request that their hard earned money not be wasted in such proceedings. As there is no evidence of my involvement with this alleged ‘crime’, as well as the fact that I am not granted my 6th amendment right to face my ‘accuser’ (a camera); I see no way the government could prove my guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I also see find no legal requirement for me to implicate someone else in this process, as it is the government’s responsibility to prove a person’s guilt. It is also my 5th amendment right to remain silent on the matter.

 

If it is the government’s decision to move forward in this matter, I would request copies of any evidence the prosecution may have of my involvement in the “offense”; as well as, all maintenance records for the camera(s) involved.

Sincerely,

Nathan Cox
United States Army Veteran

My suggestion is to destroy the items beyond

the point that they could be sold, before giving

them to the insurance company.  Take pictures

of the damaged areas and send a copy of them

with the items so that it can be seen that they

are the same items.

 

Furthermore, in regards to this >> But Mitch Wilson

of the Ohio Insurance Institute said insurance companies

can dispose of property however they like.<<

 

The Ohio Insurance Institute is not the governing

authority over insurance companies operating in

Ohio.  They only represent the insurance industry.

So, this Mitch Wilson can go piss up a rope.

 

The Ohio Department of Insurance is the governing

authority.  They license agents, and they are who

you go to if you have a complaint about your

insurance company.  They keep those crooks in

line.  They should have been contacted about this

issue from day one.  But, good on our "just_some_dude"

(Chris Roblee) to take this to the extent that he did.

 

Still, I would love to see the state Department of

Insurance get involved in this.  I'm not even in it

and I'm still pissed about what this agent did, and

what that insurance company allowed to happen.

 

http://www.insurance.ohio.gov/Pages/default.aspx

 

.

I spent a little more time reading the article and watching the newscast. I guess I can't complain about the fact that they attempted to cover the story, but they really did do a hack job of it. Definitely would not consider this an investigation. Seems like their investigative team likes to watch videos, make a few friendly phone calls, then just report what they think they know in 5 mins. Great 'news' here.