Bignugget

People who want something done, only support efforts that infringe on the rights of honest citizens? That explains a lot about your positions on things.

If you include suicides... the 3 tens. But you can't prove that suicides would go down (Look at Japan, practically zero guns but higher suicide rates). So that leaves about 11k a year. The majority of those are black on black crime. And the majority of those were from people that are not allowed to own firearms using CURRENT law. ***Personally I am in favor of the magic button that removes all guns from everyone. Fantasy. You may want to believe in magic, but the rest of us know reality. If your dream worked, there would be no drug problem in the US. I said that's fine target whoever you want. But there is no way if my dream worked there would be no 'drug problem' (read as "no drugs") in the USA. I would definitely not use the button for that.

Losing it is not the same as being forced to drop it. Sorry.

False: "The level of propaganda surrounding this thing is mind blowing. You guys claim to be so upset with how its going to affect you, and yet have absolutely no idea what it is actually going to do." From you.... So you claim I don't know what it is going to do. Then you claim: ***I claim to know that if you have employer based health insurance, you will not be forced to drop it and purchase a new policy. But the you claim: So you just contradicted yourself. Well yes I do claim you don't know what it is going to do.....but I don't claim to know what it is going to do to you either..... And yes, you will not be forced to drop your employer based coverage. Your employer may choose to drop any and all health coverage they offer..... not that they were required to provide access to it pre-Obamacare....... but you aren't forced to drop anything.

I dont claim to know what it is going to do to you. In fact I encouraged you to go read up and make sure you understand exactly. I mentioned my premiums have increased by $12, since I have held my policy for so long, I am grandfathered in and my policy itself will not change, but I was subject to a small premium increase. I claim to know that if you have employer based health insurance, you will not be forced to drop it and purchase a new policy. As far as if employers can opt to stop offering insurance to their employees thereby forcing them into the new marketplace.....that is possible. The employer will be forced to pay a fine associated with doing that, and that does not take effect until 2015 http://www.sba.gov/content/employers-with-50-or-more-employees

And yet we have data that proves you wrong.... Yet you just ignore it, along with the Constitution. Your dream requires that criminals actually follow the law. I am pretty sure there is no data that shows murder statistics in the USA with 280 million fewer guns. Pretty sure. But if there are, please link me. If in fact I was asleep at some point and we had some several years with no guns in the USA, and people were getting stabbed to fuck with pointy sticks, at homicide rates on par with Yemen and other shit holes, I will apologize publicly for my ignorance.

You can target whoever you want. I was just posting the figures in answer to a question that was asked about how many tens of thousands of deaths per year were going on using guns. Personally I am in favor of the magic button that removes all guns from everyone.

Im with you on letting Japan keep the pepsi cheetos, I dont think thats a pot smoker specific thing, its just unnatural to combine the two outside the confines of ones mouth. I did enjoy reading about the seattle cops handing out doritos at Hempfest this past week with notes about the new laws in Washington.

False, my plan and my wife's plan has changed. Several other people who had insurance had their plans change. So your claim that it has no effect is false. ***The congressional staffers already have insurance, why should they have to give it up and purchase from a different provider? Why should they be treated any different from anyone else? The people who voted for it and the people that support them should be subject to it, not exempted from it. Same with the unions that supported it. You have a false notion of what 'it' is. No one who has health insurance is "forced" to drop that coverage and get into a new policy. Period. Seriously, don't take my word for it. Go check it out. https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-i-have-job-based-health-insurance/ That addresses the point about employer coverage, and there are many other questions you can find answers to. Everyone in the United States is 'subject to it' as you put it. No one is exempted, including Congress. Congress already has health insurance provided by their employer. (See above link as to why they will be within the new law) Can your premiums increase as a result of the new laws, yes. Will they? Probably. Mine increased $12 a month. The level of propaganda surrounding this thing is mind blowing. You guys claim to be so upset with how its going to affect you, and yet have absolutely no idea what it is actually going to do. Congress isn't exempt from premium increases any more than you or I, and they aren't exempt from Obamacare, whatever that would even mean.... That they could be uninsured without penalty? Why a rich ass Congressman would be uninsured is a mystery....but even granting that they would want that for some reason....no they are not exempt.

Well now, who is really the dumb one? The one who gets a job he cannot be fired for (as you put it anyway) or The one who knows about that job, and gets a different one instead, and then bitches about it not being the same as the other one he didn't even try to get. Not sure what that has to do with Congress getting the same thing as everyone else though.

Ok? But I don't know what aforfable is. Nor am I sure how your posts form any sort of coherent thought process. But as long as you understand what is really going on with the Affordable Care Act you are on the right track.

Lol. How to even approach this nonsense.... Lots of ways I suppose. Firstly, no you won't be able to wait. Obamacare will force you to get insurance or pay a penalty. So you will have it before you 'get sick' If you mean people like my father, who had 4x bypass while employed and under his employers health insurance, and then when he retired had to go shop for his own insurance.....his rates are insane because he has a pre-existing condition.....he can only get insurance because they are forced in Missouri to offer it.....for an insane price..... then yes you are correct....they are sick first, and then need some insurance, those fucking freeloading assholes. I'm going to go throat punch my dad right now for trying to game the system. If you mean after Obamacare takes effect you can just opt out and wait until you get sick....No. https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-someone-doesnt-have-health-coverage-in-2014/ "It's important to remember that someone who pays the fee won't get any health insurance coverage. They still will be responsible for 100% of the cost of their medical care. After open enrollment ends on March 31, 2014, they won't be able to get health coverage through the Marketplace until the next annual enrollment period, unless they have a qualifying life event." It is always good to know what's really happening so you can prepare. Might want to re-budget the stripper money

You said the 'snackie' boom was related to pot being legalized in the USA....(which we now know the snacks are really only in Japan, so completely wrong to start) But then turtle linked a 'munchie' delivery place, implying they were also 'cashing in' on the legalization of pot, and the munchie crazed gold rush that followed......so I assumed that meant pot was legal in Texas. How else will they be cashing in on the munchie stricken potheads? They do offer some semblance of shipping, although it may be hard to time the delivery with the onset of the munchies for those in legal states. But yes, it was sarcasm, since there is about 0% chance of Texas legalizing pot before the other 49 states....the delivery spot is not targeted at potheads springing up due to legalization, no more than the pepsi-cheetos are.

So is this. Munchies delivery. That's the American way! Make a buck any way you can. Chuck #1 The website lists no company information, or contact information. Always encouraging. They at least have an email. #2 Their delivery map shows them located East of Austin, TX....I didn't realize Texas was on the forefront of marijuana legalization, add that to the list of possible living locations!

You live in Japan? I didn't think there were a lot of cowboys in Japan. I didn't realize Japan had legalized marijuana. Good for them!! "The philosophical dilemma posed by the new puffed crisps is mind-boggling, but they exist in the world and can be found on the shelves of convenience stores around Japan." "Unfortunately for the novelty-seekers out there, the Pepsi-flavored Cheetos are available only in Japan and Frito-Lay is unlikely to ship them Stateside."

When did this happen? This year? Last year? 1863? In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicide deaths, and 11,078 firearm-related homicide deaths in the United States In 2009, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 66.9% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm

Nonsense. Once we get a good God loving republican in there, this type of tech will never be allowed to develop. I would wager they will destroy any of this sort of technology to protect individual privacy.

You simply don't know what you are talking about. They are the only group who CURRENTLY has insurance who would be forced to give that up and buy out of the pool for the uninsured. There was a special bill passed by the GOP, that signaled out congressional staffers, that force them to give up their current coverage, this new law merely treats them as everyone else in the country. WOW THANKS FOR THE INFO. Your last line sumed it up.LOL Con us and their staff will be be treated as everyone else , U GOT ME HystericalHelp I cant Breathe Con who? 'Obamacare' as mentioned was designed to allow uninsured people access to the market.....there is no subterfuge. If you have your own insurance, and have held it for a long enough period prior to the passage of the law, you are also grandfathered in. I hold private health insurance through Blue Cross since I also am self-employed. My premiums will increase $12 a month....from $214 to $226 a month. OHH THE HUMANITY. Also as mentioned, Congress, like all Federal employees already have access to employer provided healthcare. As such if there had not been some retarded caveat passed in the bill that would strip employer healthcare from Congress, there would never have been a need to grant them the exception to remain covered like every other employed American with healthcare.

"The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was opened for signature in 1968 and entered into force in 1970. It has nearly190 Parties, giving it the largest membership of any arms control treaty in the world. The Treaty comprises legally binding nonproliferation commitments and is the basis for international cooperation on stemming the spread of nuclear weapons. It is widely regarded as the legal and political cornerstone of the nuclear nonproliferation regime and as containing three main concepts or “pillars” – nuclear nonproliferation, disarmament, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. In Prague on April 5, 2009 President Obama said that the basic bargain at the core of the Treaty is sound: “countries with nuclear weapons will move towards disarmament; countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them; and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy.” The President also called on NPT parties to take steps to strengthen this vital nonproliferation instrument." http://www.state.gov/t/isn/npt/index.htm So as I understand it, the idea is to reduce the amount of nuclear weapons and prevent countries without them from acquiring them. Am I missing something? "Mutual assured destruction, or mutually assured destruction (MAD), is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of high-yield weapons of mass destruction by two opposing sides would effectively result in the complete, utter and irrevocable annihilation of both the attacker and the defender,[1] becoming thus a war that has no victory nor any armistice but only effective reciprocal destruction. It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment, and implicit menace of use, of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the same weapons by the enemy against oneself. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash equilibrium in which neither side, once armed, has any rational incentive either to initiate a conflict or to disarm (presuming neither side considers self-destruction an acceptable outcome)." As I understand it, MAD is the idea that if I have a nuke, it deters you from using the nuke you have, under the premise of you use yours/i use mine, we both die. So no one uses one, and no one dies. Am I missing something?

Yes. Guns, like nukes, were designed to end life. We (the US) end life with guns at the same rate as Uruguay and the Philippines, and quite a bit worse than Serbia , Croatia, etc etc, and factors worse than any other modern industrial country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#List I agree. I still don't understand the disconnect between M.A.D and nuclear proliferation (which we as a nation are willing to go to war to prevent) and small arms proliferation under the same M.A.D (an apt acronym IMO) mentality. I understand all the gun advocates inability to reconcile the two ideas, I have a tough time of it myself.

But you desire more acts of violence. You've stated just that up thread. You're OK with removing firearms even though they're used for defensive means. You've stated you're FOR an increase in violent crime. The CDC study on gun violence determined that firearms are an important self defense tool. "Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008." So yes. Increased presence of firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens could mean less violent crimes. then go look at the CDC study yourself. It also found that laws removing guns would not be effective in reducing crime. Or you may not trust the CDC study commissioned by our President by executive order. So based on the CDC reported numbers of defensive gun uses (500K to more than 3M), let me revise the amount of additional violent crimes you're OK with. An additional rapes: 35K-211K robberies: 149K-894K assaults: 316K-1,895K That, vs 8,583 firearms murders in the 2011 FBI crime stats. Why do you promote an increase in violent crime? Didn't we cover this already? We already decided that I was in fact for more rapes and assaults if that meant less murders. Why? Because rape and assault don't end the life of people. I still don't understand the disconnect between M.A.D and nuclear proliferation (which we as a nation are willing to go to war to prevent) and small arms proliferation under the same M.A.D (an apt acronym IMO) mentality. I understand all the gun advocates inability to reconcile the two ideas, I have a tough time of it myself.

Jesus is in everything, you can't bring him places. Didn't you know that? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvAepQXI8sM

Well, as seen in federal crime statistics reports, mass murder and crime in general have been going DOWN since the 90's and even earlier. And the number of guns owned in this country have increased significantly. Also, states that have loosened up the requirements to conceal carry have NOT seen increases in crime and and high percentage of them have seen crime go down!! Say it isn't so So, how do you reconcile these FACTS against your opinion? This way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#List I'll be happy when we murder as many people each year per capita as Croatia and Serbia. You know, hot vacation destination locations.

Huh? "Graffiti artists do some wicked ass stuff. Tagging an abandoned out of business spot...eh whats he hurting? Driving the property value of some abandoned shit down? I can handle that as the worst of the crimes we are dealing with. " Where did I talk about creating art making it ok to commit crime? I thought I pointed out that someone tagging a building isn't the worst thing that can happen in 2013, and that if our biggest problem is some kid spray painting abandoned shit, that would be a PRETTY COOL WORLD to me.

Art is, by its nature, subjective. Do you really think it's not a sad story that some kid died for no good reason? The facts of this case may exonerate the cops, but I personally think the cops go to the taser way more often than they should. My post was sarcastic and was replying to the vandalism comment. Bignugget thinks it is ok to do this in certain situations therefore he has declared himself the decider No comment to his death at all Umm....pretty sure I called it a crime, and pretty sure I said if I had to vote on a scale of crime to observe, tagging being the worst of it would be OK with me. You should really do fewer drugs. Go back and re-read my original post. Think about it for awhile. Then re-read it again, sound out the words. Think about it for another little bit. THEN write a response. Proofread the response since a lot of times your stuff is so convoluted it is hard to follow.