Bignugget

That's exactly what I remember, which is why I described the response as a "cacophony of 'raaacist'". People thought what they thought because pols, public figures, and the media played up the whole racial angle. Not so in this case. Hence the double standard I , and Limbaugh, referred to. I'm not saying I want to see the Chris Lane shooting turned into a reverse-Zimmerman case, but I do find the silence from the race-obsessed crowd quite curious and worth noting. I thought like I thought because I heard the tape of Zimmerman on the phone with 911 on day one. chasing a kid down and murdering him is the same as what these fucks did. They should all be rotting in prison. The parents should be charged and thrown in prison as well. Facilitation of homicide etc. "Edwards has had run-ins with the law previously and had been in court Friday, the day of the killing, to sign documents related to his juvenile probation." I know my parents wouldn't have let me go hang out with my buddies the day im in court signing probation papers.

I'm saying that at this point, we do not know. Yet there are some, Rush Limbaugh for instance, who actively want this to be the "reverse Trayvon" case. That all by itself is racist. Funny you like the Trayvon case It actually makes Limbaughs point very well That case was NOT about race Yet the racists needed it to be so the naravtive was set and those like you buy into it as fast as you can So it was a media made case NOW they ignore race, in a case that does have racists elements (as demonstrated by this kids racists tweets) Which is Rush's point Your falling on your own arguments Paul I am pretty sure when you start defending Rush Limbaugh, you have lost any sort of debate.

Huh? The article was targeted at mid to large size companies.... I will wait for you to post some articles talking about how the majority of companies in the USA will be dropping employer subsidized health insurance....which is what I claim is unlikely....and that the articles was supposed to show strong evidence against.....which it does not.

I would but I cant afford them Some people CAN afford jet fighters. However, the armament has to be removed. Seems to rebut your position. You need to read back up thread BEFORE you post so you understand the context of the comments Not that you would give a fuck "Actually If you care to look back at my other posts regarding your angle you would see I argued as the founders did. this topic has come up when others said, "well, the founders could not have imagined the fully automatic weapons and fire power we have today". And actually, this is not true If one takes the time to read what they wrote, part of their argument was to have the people be in possession of weapons common at that time. This concept would easily extend to today. And then the debate would become, are tanks and F18"s common. common or not, I could not afford one round for a tank Could you?" Isn't that the context? It seems we have moved onto step 2, determining if they are common or not. How many makes common?

"But the same study found a very strong majority of those companies—82 percent—see their ability to offer subsidized health benefits to existing workers as an "important" as part of their "employee value proposition" for 2014, according to the study. And 98 percent of the employers have no definite plans to discontinue health-care coverage in 2014 and 2015 and direct their full-time workers to the state health insurance exchanges." "Most companies very much still see health-care benefits as a core offering," said Ron Fontanetta, a senior health-care consultant at Towers Watson. ""It's a very visible benefit, and it garners a lot of attention among executives, in part because it's very visible to employees and also because it costs a lot," Fontanetta said." 98% seems like a majority to me.

I posted 2 good methods to find a leak. 1) Locate where the water is presenting itself as a leak (and follow it back) 2) Start narrowing sources down. I never mentioned humans. They used unmanned subs to fix the oil leak in the gulf....etc. You are speaking from ignorance. It's not a simple task like stopping the inflow of water. The water is underground and coming down from the mountains. There is no valve to just turn it off. From the article: ""It's a very difficult situation because we don't know exactly know where the leak is coming from."" And... "In response to the latest leakage of 300 tons of toxic water, a TEPCO spokesman said Wednesday the company has finished removing radioactive water from a leaky tank and transferred it to another tank at the plant." so it sounded to me like they have found some leaky shit, that is leaking onto the ground and into the groundwater....they just haven't found it all. The water coming off the mountains isn't radioactive, its picking shit up as it flows under the plant....as I understand it.. .so fixing the leaks at the plant seemed like a logical first step to me....(admittedly not a nuclear scientist as I said at the start)

I was going to post "are sexy." after reading the title of the thread. But I see you already knew what the deal was. Agreed.

Boom. Rush just came up on the solution. Lets just price guns out of food stamp range and we will be able to list them with F-18's, tanks, and nukes. Shit he should have a right to, but can't afford. Now we are in your wheel house Tax tax tax Spoken like a true big government liberal It's the tax on F-18's you can't afford?

I posted 2 good methods to find a leak. 1) Locate where the water is presenting itself as a leak (and follow it back) 2) Start narrowing sources down. I never mentioned humans. They used unmanned subs to fix the oil leak in the gulf....etc.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/21/world/asia/japan-nuclear-leak-warning/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 I in no way claim to be able to clean up a nuclear plant after it melts down....I treat that a lot like gun control. Easier to handle if we just don't have any. But... They claim they cannot figure out where 300 tons of water are leaking from? And they will not be able to stop the leaks?? I was a maintenance man for a few years for some apartments. Found my fair share of elusive water leaks. "I'm sorry I don't know where its leaking from, I will just leave you this bucket" wouldn't work very well with pissed off residents. A few techniques I found to work well: Locate where the water is presenting itself as a leak.....in this case somewhere in the rock/ground that is shooting into the ocean, probably not super easy....and the shit has been leaking for over a year so probably not gonna become any easier to see. If that doesn't work, start narrowing sources down. Go turn other apartments water off etc. In this case, stop pumping water around in half the tanks for a day and watch for the tank that suddenly has 300 tons less water than it did! Asians are supposed to be the smart ones! WTF!?!

Boom. Rush just came up on the solution. Lets just price guns out of food stamp range and we will be able to list them with F-18's, tanks, and nukes. Shit he should have a right to, but can't afford.

That is a long ass way to swim. 3 miles in the pool and I am ready to stop, no way I am doing 32 miles. I bet that water is cold as hell too.

Lol man he must have crazy biceps. A few of my favorite parts: ""There are a lot of people that will look and laugh and stare in shock and awe and amazement," Warren says as he walks down the street in a preview for TLC's upcoming show "The Man with the 132-Pound Scrotum." The one-hour special airs Monday at 9 p.m. ET/PT." hahah epicly creative title. gj TLC "Warren's penis was "buried" about a foot under his skin, Gelman said, but fully functional. A tunnel of sorts had formed from the tip to the top layer of his swollen skin, allowing Warren to urinate without assistance." Epic. The real question here is, would Obamacare have helped or hurt the 132lb scrotum man?

Yep, I am against the stop n frisk idea. The original comment was founded on the (incorrect) idea that IF you were subject to a 'stop n frisk' (which I oppose) then that would allow the police to access your cell phone....that is not the case at least as per the article and the references made in it. Er go, he did not read it correctly, which was his question. The case was about a man who was in fact already under arrest when the police accessed the phone. As you so eloquently put it "If arrested you get searched ".

Personally I want to see an Austrian President. We wouldn't need guns if we had a Terminator.

You aren't. Stop n Frisk doesn't mean you get arrested....unless of course you are carrying illegal shit. Once you are arrested, they can look through your phone, your car, your pockets, your asshole, etc. without a warrant. A distinct and important difference. The only difference is you are ok with illeagal search I am not Where are your threads against searching vehicles and pockets after arrests?

"Cruz is a favorite of many of the same conservative groups who raised "birther" concerns about Obama, however, and questions about his eligibility to become president because he was born in Canada have not caused as much of a stir — at least not yet." Hahaha no shit. They are all sitting around going 'oh fuck, we did it again, talked a bunch of shit and it came back to bite us. Damnit.'

I'm totally stealing that. Lol, cracked me up.

You aren't. Stop n Frisk doesn't mean you get arrested....unless of course you are carrying illegal shit. Once you are arrested, they can look through your phone, your car, your pockets, your asshole, etc. without a warrant. A distinct and important difference.

Simply being an American does not qualify one to be President, you must be a "natural born American", that is born on American soil. No one ever claimed that Obama was not an American, that was the whole birther argument, he may have been an American, but he was not a natural born American. citing Wiki: "The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen." IOW, it doesn't matter if he was born in Kenya or not. The GOP learned to stop harping about draft dodgers as soon as they ran out of WWII veterans and got to Dubya, and even evolved to mocking the service of actual veterans Gore and Kerry. If Cruz gets any traction (and Trump still doesn't), then they'll drop it for good, or weasel with some clarification law. Pretty hilarious. I can honestly say I never bothered to research the requirements to be considered a citizen at birth. But of course I never buy into right wing conspiracy theories either, so I never wasted much time on the whole 'birther' thing. I can remember some pretty energetic posts about it though from the resident righties here. Cracks me up that it wouldn't even matter if the dude was born in Kenya or not. Hahah. Well his middle name is still HUSSEIN!

Does not even cover hospital stays? Sounds like shitty insurance that would leave tax payers on the hook if they end up staying in the hospital overnight. What a joke. Exactly. Which is why they will not be available under Obamacare. Plans that do not meet the minimum requirements for coverage will serve no purpose. Totally irrelevant to the topic at hand but very true. The topic is whether employees who have employer based coverage (which was not that article) will be forced to drop that coverage they currently have (which by and large meets the min. req.) and pick up a new policy. The answer is no. Unless their employer decides to STOP offering health benefits to their employees none of those employees are 'forced' to make any sort of decision. Employers already pay a HUGE fraction of the premiums for their employees. That helps to make them competitive, and attract hard-working, talented people. The notion that employers will stop offering health coverage (as a majority) ignores the huge competitive advantage benefit packages offer. It's a terrible business decision. Lets pose this hypothetical: RushMC is a college graduate. I know but stay with me... He goes out to interview, 2 spots...Google and Apple. Both are paying pretty good, let him nap in little contemporary balls and shit, have cool spots etc. One has employer based health coverage and is relatively affordable One doesn't, and Rush will have to pay ~75% more (about what the company covers on average) What does Rush do? Hes a smart, problem solving, go getter (remember this is hypothetical)...so what does he decide? I would argue that the employer who offers a comprehensive coverage package along with a competitive salary has a much higher chance of getting the cream of the crop, retaining talent, and producing a higher overall margin.

Those plans do not meet the minimum qualifications for health coverage. They are 'forced' to get the same basic level of coverage everyone in America is. They are 'forced' to get MORE insurance, since it doesn't meet the minimum. I will await your link to some employer based health plans that don't meet the minimum requirements......and are being 'forced' to increase coverage. My guess is Apple and Walmart already meet the new burden of coverage. So perhaps Obama misspoke when/if he said "“if you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period,” " Perhaps a better way to say it is 'if you like your health care plan, and its not complete shit with hardly any real coverage for when you get seriously fucked up, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. Otherwise you will have to meet a minimum burden of coverage, or pay an opt out fee.'

Let me get this strait. You are alleging that even when his employer drops their group coverage and rates, he is not in fact forced to drop that group coverage and rate by default. You are not forced to drop your employer based health coverage. Period. Your employer has a choice. Be mad at your employer if they stop subsidizing your healthcare. They made a choice.

That does not surprise me. I wager it took some time indeed.

It is true. I will await any sort of link to information that shows you will be forced to stop buying into your employers health care plan, or forced to drop your existing coverage. Barring that I will make the determination you in fact, have no idea what the Affordable Care Act will do/has done/is doing.