cg2112

The tattoo is fine, now that it's been cleaned up, and the rocks are removed and all, it's not too bad. Looked worse at first, but now it just looks like small scratches, except on my arm. The bruising is the real bitch.

I didn't want any sympathy. I choose to ride how I'm comfortable. What I was wearing wasn't the point. I'm comfortable with the risk I take when I ride. It's risky in full gear, or in shorts and a wife beater. I generally wear jeans and long sleeves, unless it's really hot, then I might wear a t-shirt.

I just came on to tell a story, but thanks for the lecture guys! It's been a while since a bunch of people told me stuff that I already know, and that I'm sure to just ignore. Much appreciated, though!

I would too, but I've seen more damage to bikes falling from a stand still (saw a guy forgot to drop his kickstand once, hilarity ensued). There's seriously not a visible scratch on it, until you look real close. And even then, you wouldn't guess it was from laying down.

While that's true, I'm a complete pussy when it comes to heat. I ride in the middle of winter, and feel fairly comfortable, but once it gets up to 80 or so, I start to feel pretty miserable. I probably wouldn't ride in the summer if I had to wear a jacket. Seriously, it's probably 80 in my house right now, and I'm sweating like a fat man in Florida.

Dropped my bike for the first time ever today. I noticed that one of the clips snapped on my left side saddlebag and the thing was flapping in the wind, so I pulled over onto a parking lot off the highway to fix it. Unfortunately, what looked exactly like a paved parking lot was actually gray loose gravel on top of fairly soft dirt. So, I hit the gravel, while in a turn, at about 30mph. It was pretty sweet. Banged up my right arm pretty good, and scraped up by back (going to have scars on my tattoo) right through the thick shirt I was wearing. Bruised up a rib or two pretty good, hurts to breath, but not to touch, so not cracked. Meanwhile, there isn't even anything that could be called a scratch on the bike. A little bit of scuff on the bottom of the right foot peg, and the mirror on that side was loosened, but not even a mark on it. Could have been worse, but not too bad for my first digger.

Yes, there is. To discuss a firearms treaty. Thus far, there has been nothing (aside from speculation from the right) that indicates that this would be a treaty that infringes on our 2nd Amendment rights. In fact, the resolution passed to have this meeting recognizes the right of all nations to their own firearm policies inside their own borders. Beyond speculation, there is really nothing to indicate that such a treaty would impact our rights as Americans. It might impact your ability to sell a firearm to some guy in Libya, but that's hardly a right, anyway.

That's kind of what I figured. There is no treaty as of yet. There is nothing to find objectionable, because there is, quite literally, no treaty. Just an agreement to meet this summer to discuss a treaty.

Doing what, though? Which parts of the treaty do you find objectionable? Which parts of the treaty will affect the people of this nation?

The first link is says that the Obama Administration will unveil reforms. It doesn't say what those reforms are, but does suggest that they will involve enforcement of laws that are already on the books. The second link talks about what Congress might do. It calls the treaty "Obama backed," but that's not accurate - the President has no power or control over international treaties. He may think one is a good idea, or another is a bad idea, but this is a specific power of Congress, the Obama Administration has no Constitutional ability to make a treaty with another nation.

I asked a specific question. What has the Obama Administration done to restrict gun rights? That question has still gone unanswered. I didn't ask what the President himself believes, or what people think he perhaps might perchance maybe possibly do. The suggestion was made that in terms of gun control, Mitt Romney would be a better choice than Barack Obama. So, to determine whether or not this is true, I'd like to know what it is that the Obama Administration has done to curtail gun rights.

This is why I love Fox News. The first article could have been called "Obama Given Option For Historically Low Debt Ceiling Increase," or "Obama's 8% Debt Ceiling Increase Much Lower Than George W Bush's 100% Debt Ceiling Increase and Ronald Reagan's 300% Debt Ceiling Increase" and would have been just as accurate. The second headline is neat, because it's clearly meant to bring doom and gloom, even though "Unemployment Continues to Decline, Despite Week Of Increased Claims After Christmas Seasonal Work Has Ended" and would have also been accurate.

Right - and the very premise of your first post, the thus this entire thread, is that you'd pick Romney over four more years of what we have now. I'm merely asking what the Obama Administration has done thus far to curtail gun rights. You're making the comparison - you'd take Romney over four more years of President Obama because you fear anti-gun stuff, so I think the question is fair. In fact, you say "He got his healthcare now he wants gun legislation." I haven't seen any evidence that President Obama has his sights set on gun legislation, no pun intended, so I'm trying to figure out what the Obama Administration has done thus far that would make you believe that they're going after gun rights. Ignoring that Romney can't win the nomination (he has a religion problem), I'm trying to figure out why he might be a better choice in this respect, comparing what Romney has done as Governor versus what President Obama has done as President thus far.

Operation Fast and Furious started in 2009, but it isn't now known as the gun runner scandal. The scandal predates the Obama Administration by four years. Perhaps you're right. Perhaps it was a mishandling of an already bad situation that led to the death of Mexican nationals and ATF agents. But that doesn't address the question, either. What has the Obama Administration done to try to harm gun ownership rights?

That might be completely true, but it doesn't address the question at all. What has the Obama Administration done to try to harm gun ownership rights?

What has the Obama Administration done to try to harm gun ownership rights?

How do you even do that?

I agree with this, but only because "hate" is a really strong word. Certainly, though, if you don't believe that gays should be married, while you may not hate gays, you certainly have enough dislike to want to continue depriving them of the same rights that everyone else has. There's really no non-bigoted reason to oppose gay marriage, regardless of the religion you practice. Likewise, it takes a certain amount of willful ignorance to not take the time to educate yourself in order to continue dislike practitioners of a particular religion (for instance, the 72 virgins myth, or the rewards in heaven for suicide bombing).

Speed Triple, no doubt.

If you can't afford water or food, you can get that, as well. It's not about making a profit. I don't know anyone who has a problem with insurance companies making a profit. It's about the current system making healthcare unreasonably expensive. We pay more for insurance per person in this country than any other nation on the planet. Yet, we don't have the best health care - in fact, we aren't even close to having the best health care. I find it odd that many people don't see this as a problem. And you're right. Go days without water, and you can die. Go a week or so without food, and you can die. At the same time, you can trip and fall, and without health care, be dead in an hour.

Sort of. You're almost always voting for someone who is on the ballot thanks to the 1%.

I don't know if that's realistic though. Usually it goes like this: Go directly to ortho. Get MRI. Get 9 weeks of physical therapy. Pay $2000 out of pocket. Get bill for remaining $3000 because you didn't get referred by your primary care physician, thus specialist care wasn't covered. Convince insurance company that it was medically necessary, they start to process your claim. Get bill again for remaining $3000 after insurance company terminates your policy because you did not disclose that you had acne in 1993, a pre-existing condition.

It's intent is clear - amend the Ohio Constitution in an attempt to shield Ohio from federal health care laws. Of course, it's ineffective in doing so, a state law cannot negate or trump a federal law. All it really ends up doing is limiting the Ohio legislature. I'm curious about the wording. No law or rule will compel a person to buy health insurance. What does this mean. Health care for themselves? Health care for their kids? It's pretty common for the courts to rule, in cases of divorce, that a specific parent pay for a child's health care. Will such rulings now be unconstitutional in Ohio?