hurstrsq

You are missing the point. If you are paying attention you have pleanty of time to negotiate the obstacle, and you would be aware of your surroundings and know the location of vehicles in your immediate area. Just look ahead a little further. It will give you more time to react and this wont be an issue.

You might reevaluate if you should be on the road if you have a hard time changing lanes and slowing your vehicle.

It is not that difficult if you pay attention well ahead of your vehicle. If you are watching far enough out there is more than enough time to get over or slow. Typically the folks that have trouble with it are watching just a second or two in front of their vehicle. I was told in my emergency vehicle operators class to watch 20 seconds ahead. Survey,Identify, Predict, Decide, Execute. It has always worked for me.

I'm a prime member also and use it a lot. The only problem I've found is every now and then the prime price of the product is much higher than the non prime price, and the non prime price includes free shipping. Still well worth it though. I use ebay a lot less because of my prime membership.

It is nice to see you are stepping up for this baby. We've got tons of clothes if you need any for her. I'm sure we can figure out a way to get them to you.

Not much I can say if you don't really understand or care why the law is in place. I was hit once on the interstate (on the scene of a vehicle collision) and can tell you the spirit of the law has good intentions.

If you are paying attention and watching ahead, it is really easy. There are always exceptions.

The intent is to slow or move traffic away from the scene, in an effert to keep the emergency responders safe. Self centered folks seem to have a hard time grasping the concept.

Dispatched as 17 Y/O male stabbed in the arm. Second caller advised original caller was lying. Dispatch advised possible domestic. SO did have EMS/Fire respond in. Did not finish listening to determine if anyone was actually stabbed.

Are you speaking in a war situation or in life in general? In another topic you were ok with breaking the law, so just trying to understand where you draw the line.

I have similar views. Barack Obama 82% Gary Johnson 81% Jill Stein 79% Ron Paul 60% Mitt Romney 59%

Actions of a coward.

I like how you finally changed your language to be more accurate. I don't disagree there are some benefits. My point was your blatant misrepresentation of the facts with your title description and short synopsis. As I said above, it looks like they made a change because of the impact on HIV. Do you have any idea which populations HIV impact? There are certain populations that are highly impacted, which is why there was not a blanket recommendation.

Yes.....slightly. Not nearly to the extent you indicated. Your title description says "Now Recommends Circumcision", which is not the case, not at all. You also stated "and now says the health benefits of circumcision clearly outweigh the risks of not being circumcised", which again is not true. Either you just look at the title and type what you think it is going to say or you have issues with reading comprehension. What the AAP released was brief and clear. I'm not sure how you could confuse the information. Let me know if I'm missing something. It seemed really straight forwar

I thought this was a thread about Flo Rida.

Dispatched as an attempted suicide. Additional: Unknown aged male, not conc, not breathing. Serious bleeding. Shot himself. Weapon in hand. Called in by neighbor.

This is what they actually said: "Systematic evaluation of English-language peer-reviewed literature from1995 through 2010 indicates that preventive health benefits of elective circumcision of male newborns outweigh the risks of the procedure." The risk of the procedure, not the risk of not being circumcised, as you stated. They also went on to say: "Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-pa

Yes, there is such a thing.

Correct. More ethanol = less MPG.

I probably picked a bad post to respond. My comment was more of a general comment regarding former member. I should have explained it better - no matter which discussion she is involved with, in her mind her opinion is the only correct opinion. She will not allow herself to understand/accept any other view. Must be a delight to work with. I'm not saying don't train law enforcement officers.

Didn't you know former member is an expert in everything? She cannot be proven wrong (in her mind).

You don't know when to give up. Are you related to former member?

Suicide threat, with gun, intoxicated, per 3rd party caller.

What kind of pipe?

You should also be able to think on your own.