bluemarigolds

Members
  • Content count

    128
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About bluemarigolds

  • Rank
    Newbie

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0
  1. I asked because my old trainer used them on her warmbloods and thoroughbreds. When they were on the bit (they all went in smooth snaffles)...wow...they were in the bridle, practically pulling you out the saddle. Not stiff or yanky...just a really strong connection. The only exception was the schoolmaster pony, whom you had to drive into the bit and was always really light in the bridle. So, I'm curious as to when one might use one and what people's thoughts were on them since it sort of seemed relevant to the topic at hand. My background is predominatly hunter/jumper for pleasure rather than show, so the flash/drop nosebands/figure-8s/etc. have all been pretty much off my radar. Running into the Micklem bridle, whcih does buckle around the jaw, was a bit of a surprise.
  2. Sort off on a tangent, but since we're in the general neighborhood of things to strap around a horse's face, what are people's thoughts on the Micklem Bridles?
  3. I follow a blog written by an endurance rider (she actually has a book that is forthcoming). You may find her Endurance 101 entries informative: http://haikufarm.blogspot.jp/p/endurance-101.html
  4. Just be careful of the Toyota models from 1999-2002. A design flaw causes some of them to burn oil around 100k. As a result you may end up having to rebuild your engine or replace it entirely.
  5. As far as the cat goes, if you don't feel comfortable leaving it with your dad and you do move, could you leave it with a sibling, friend, or family member?
  6. Hey, ST. Good to see you pop up. Despite our political differences, I like your posts as they tend to be informative and not just talking points. =) Don't quite like the Obamabot jibe, but whatever. My original post was meant to inform, nothing more. I do want to point out that I did point out the .9% tax increase on earners of $200k; I tried to highlight all the taxes that were listed. Missed the Self-Employed tax increase on Medicare, so thank you for pointing that out. What's the problem with raising the capital gains tax and the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts? Historically, capital gains have been taxed at close to 30%. I am--perhaps predictably--for the Warren Buffet rule. Paul Krugman writes in his column: I would argue that the low rates are a Clinton-era innovation that George W. Bush continued on, but whatever. Factcheck.org makes for some interesting reading.
  7. Sorry, AD, I was reading rather quickly. That being said, I'm trying to understand the point that you're making. I agree that if she's in the market for individual insurance now, it's prohibitively expensive. That being said, the hope is that the cost of individual insurance purchased through the exchanges will become more affordable because the risk is spread out over a large number of people because of the mandate. If the price does not drop, then I agree, then TT and a whole bunch of us are SOL. That being said, the entire purpose of the bill, I think, is to drop the cost of health insurance for people who cannot get it through their employers or who are self-employed. If this is the case and the price drops, then TT should be able to get the health insurance that she wants at a reasonable price. Of course, all of this is theoretical. No one knows how it will play out, but I would like to imagine this is a step in the right direction. AD, it's great that your husband has got such a great deal, but it seems to me like that sort of deal is the exception rather than the rule. A lot of people, however, don't get benefits and are stuck with paying all insurance out of pocket or going without. For me and others, the system is broken and needs to be fixed. Employers can offer low pay and no or few benefits and people will still kill themselves trying to get it because a job is a job is a job. The result of this situation is that a lot of are ending up without benefits and not enough $$ to purchase insurance as individuals. We need a way to make it cheaper for individuals to purchase insurance on their own (i.e. not relying on employers) and this law is trying to do that. According to CNN and the US Census, there are nearly 50 million Americans who are uninsured. This means young people, low-income families, and foreign-born LEGAL residents. Do these people not deserve insurance because their employers do not or cannot offer it to them? In 2000, 64.1% of people were insured through their employers. In 2009, it was 56.1%. In 2010, it had dropped to 55.3%. Companies are ALREADY dumping their insurance, not so much because of ACA (note the drastic drop between 2000 and 2009, before the passage of ACA) but because they can. The result is a larger number of people who are uninsured and skyrocketing premiums and healthcare costs for those who are. The system is broken; you are (thankfully, luckily) insulated from it. Please, count your lucky stars. As for larger companies dropping insurance coverage, there seems to be a $2k/worker penalty after the first 30 workers. Right now they can drop their benefits with impunity. Whether or not this is a big enough stick remains to be seen, but at least it will be more than it is now. From the Reddit Article: I agree with you there is a lot of uncertainty about the effects of this bill, but the current system is untenable and needs to be changed.
  8. I would highly, highly recommend reading the first response to this post: What exactly is Obamacare and what did it change? Yes, it is Reddit, but the commenter cites the legislation directly which leads me to believe that his explanation is credible. ---- Some highlights (from the above linked post; in the post citations are linked): There's a lot more information in the post, including an FAQ at the bottom... I'm not pasting it here because it's not my work. I have tried to include all references to fees, taxes, etc. --- Tenacious Tins mentioned that she was concerned about having to provide health care as a small business owner. Provided she does not employ more than 50 people full-time, she is exempt from the penalty of not providing health insurance to her employees. If she does decide to offer insurance, she could get a tax credit. According to the Kaiser website (linked above), in 2014 individuals who made less than $14,856 or families of four who made less than $30,656 (133% of poverty) would be eligible for Medicaid. The problem is, of course, some states may decide not to change their Medicaid program. Florida may be one of these non-compliant states unless the legislature acts. I hope this helps to explain the new law, at least a little bit.
  9. @Trinity: Drug-testing costs money. Florida has shown us that it costs MORE money to drug-test people than it saves. It does not deter people from applying for benefits. http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871/floridas-welfare-drug-tests-cost.html So, what's the point?
  10. I would hazard a guess that your old dog is awesome because of all the training you've put into him and all the one-on-one time you have spent with him, possibly socializing him or introducing him to new situations, etc. Genetics are GREAT in terms of ensuring that a dog does not have any major health issues, but I have come to believe they are far less important than training when it comes to personality. Personality does not, unfortunately, "rub off" from one dog to another. Our second dog's personality is nothing like our first dog's. If you want your second dog to be as awesome as your first, spend time with him, train him, socialize him, and teach him to look to you (rather than his "big brother") for guidance. Good luck.
  11. I'm on the hunt for a dressage whip that can be hung by its handle from a ledge. This is just for schooling, so I'm not looking to spend a bundle. The whip I currently have, which works perfectly, has a handle that is similar to the image below: I have been able to find crops (30 inches) with the requisite horse-head handle, but no dressage whips. Any leads or suggestions?
  12. To what extent is ACORN involved in the political process? I'm genuinely curious because I never hear about it in the news. I mean, not since the 2008 debacle. I find it said that in a country where, theoretically, church and state are divided that someone who does not believe in God and would therefore by the most secular in their decisions is considered "unelectable."
  13. Southern Trails, I appreciate that you responded to me on a point-by-point basis. It's late, so I will have to get back to you later. Thank you for the links from reputable news sources. If you want to post more, I'll read them when I have time. I'm more than happy to debate the issues and try to understand your side of the issues. I don't take well to ad hominem attacks; they get tiresome. If we can agree to just talk about the issues, I do think this could be an interesting conversation. I look forward to continuing our discussion in the near future. I do want to set the record straight on this point; I was referring to myself, not the president. My point was that despite my defense of Obama, I'm not completely on board with everything he's done--including the assassination of Anwar Al-Awlaki.
  14. A prominent US socialist, who should know what socialism is, don't consider Obama a socialist. Source: Huffington Post's "Top U.S. Socialist Says Barack Obama is Not One of Them"
  15. Where do I start with this? I will grant you, you are entitled to your opinion that Obama is "bad for America." You are wrong, however, that Obama is spending taxpayer money faster than any other President in history. (Source:New York Times) Bush spent WAY more than Obama. That is a documented fact. Point two, "apologizing to ever [sic] other nation he can" is unfounded and hyperbolic. But nonetheless, what is wrong with being more diplomatic? Bush never apologized, and we got two wars from him and a huge deficit from these two wars. As a country, we cannot go around saber rattling. Our reputation is in the toilet, and no matter how much we "support our troops" we have to admit that some of our troops are doing horrific, disrespectful things. Burning the Q'ran in Afghanistan, the group of Marines urinating on the corpse of a Taliban, last month's killing spree of 16 villagers by Staff Srgt. Robert Bales, and all those small cruelties that don't make the news. How can you be okay with not apologizing for these events? If not Obama, then who? So, I applaud Obama for apologizing for these sorts of things. Not to do so would be incredibly arrogant. I think we need to put aside the arrogance that makes us believe that America is always right, and that America is fighting for liberty and freedom and self-determination. We're not. We're not always the good guys; we only need to look Vietnam to realize that. There is an obscene number of infants born with serious birth defects because of what we did in Vietnam. The rhetoric politicians use is just a smoke screen, and foreign policy is a lot more nuanced, complicated, and self-interested than the politicians trying to sell the war would have you believe. Why do we invade Afghanistan and Iraq and bomb Libya but do so little for Syria? It has nothing to do with "liberty." First, it is clear you do not know the definitions of Marxism or Socialism. It's clear that you are drinking the Kool-Aid that the conservative pundits are serving. ACORN is not affiliated with any sort of socialist movement; it is/was a non-profit that worked on "neighborhood safety, voter registration, health care, affordable housing, and other social issues"(Wikipedia). Think of it like a lobbyist for people who are of low- or middle-income. Are only the wealthy entitled to lobby Congress? I would think it's closer to the ACLU than the Socialist party. Socialism is where the means of production are owned by the people; this has nothing to do with taxes and everything to do with nationalization of industries. In another post, I talked at length about nationalization and how it differs from conservatorship. Both Bush (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and Obama (Citigroup) have put companies in conservatorship. So, if Obama is a socialist for this, so too is Bush. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Second, Marxism is Socialism. Did you mean Communism? For the record, if Obama isn't nationalizing industries left and right, he sure as heck isn't a communist. Sorry. Where are you getting the idea that Obama wants to redistribute wealth and "shunning capitalism"? Is this because he wants to raise taxes? The tax rate for the top bracket is at a historical low (excluding the first four years). See for yourself. If you look at 1951 and 1952, you'll see that the top tax bracket was theoretically taxed 92%, under Truman a Democrat. But they remained high under Eisenhower, a Republican. Would you consider either of these men socialists? Between 1921 and 1933, the tax-rate jumped from 56% to 63% under Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. All Republicans. Are these men socialists? No. What has happened is that the wealthy few, including corporations, are controlling the discourse of this issue. Their interest is their bottom lines, and so they frame the discourse in such to elicit a knee-jerk reaction from their audience. The discourse has become so "spun" that it's little better than propaganda. I encourage you to rethink where you are getting your news. Even if you don't agree with my political beliefs, I encourage you to find a news source that is free of all the vitriol that is poisoning our news. The BBC might be a good place to start if you believe that NPR is slanted to the left. Read widely, think deeply, and get educated on the issues. Don't spout talking points (i.e. Obama hates America, Obama is a socialist), talk to me about the issues. Such as the fact that the uninsured, those most likely to be unable to deal with any fines, will have to pay a penalty for being uninsured according to the Affordable Care Act. or And if you think I'm an Obama fanatic, you're wrong. He's doing a lot of things I don't agree with, such as the assassination without due process of an American citizen, Anwar Al-Awlaki, who was accused of being a terrorist but killed before he ever was officially indited. There are others--the NDAA, for example--that bother me, as well the Department of Homeland Security's involvement with the Occupy Wall St. movement. I don't like the fact that the Obama administration protected the Pell Grant at the cost of doing away with subsidized federal loans for graduate students. I disagree with him on the issues, and I want you to disagree with him on the issues not just because you think he "hates" America or because you've been told he is a "socialist." And I'm sorry if I'm being testy, but I'm tired of having the same conversation on these boards again and again; it's frustrating to repeat one's self. If you're going to make outlandish claims, have the courtesy to back them up with links. It will actually strengthen your argument, since it won't be just your word at issue. If you don't, it's just hearsay, and you're not going to persuade me. While Guilherme and I rarely see eye to eye, I respect him greatly because he does talk about the issues and provides evidence, even if it's anecdotal. We need more of this on these boards: And we need less ad hominem attacks. Need an example? You don't have to look far.