Bignugget

That was hysterical. I love how he starts yelling at them to stop, hahahahah. and how he says hes not hiding behind her, hes PROTECTING her. hahahahah. Great post.

To me, there is no such thing as a toy gun, and I don't feel I stole any part of my kids' childhood by making them treat toy guns like the real thing. Like my granddaughter, my kids grew up shooting at an early age. One is a "pistol packing momma". I like this sentiment. All guns are capable of being used to kill. Even the ones that can't shoot. You wouldn't intuitively think you could kill yourself with a plastic toy gun, but you would be wrong. This kid proved that. Like Masterrig said though, when you allow guns to proliferate so much you have to expect cops to shoot first, and never ask questions. If there were only a million guns floating around instead of 300 million I could see a better case for the cops waiting another 3 seconds to see if it was an actual weapon or not. Me? I think the parents are 100% at fault here. 300 million guns "floating around"? Ok, lets start with Chicago first. It is more dangerous than a tour in Afghanistan these days, and until these "floaters" around the country are removed from the criminals and insane, the killing will go on. "If there were only a million guns floating around...." Nope, there are more than a million law abiding gun owners in this country. That is my point. Since there are 300 million guns floating around, and apparently Chicago is more dangerous than Afghanistan, cops shoot first, and don't worry about questions. Solution, don't have an environment like that, and cops might not have to react the way they did.

He nailed it, why not borrow his words? The fact that he doesn't vote doesn't mean he can't have an intelligent political opinion, or that his opinion holds no value. The same way that the fact someone does vote doesn't mean that their political opinion is intelligent, or that it holds any value. It can go both ways, voting or not.

To me, there is no such thing as a toy gun, and I don't feel I stole any part of my kids' childhood by making them treat toy guns like the real thing. Like my granddaughter, my kids grew up shooting at an early age. One is a "pistol packing momma". I like this sentiment. All guns are capable of being used to kill. Even the ones that can't shoot. You wouldn't intuitively think you could kill yourself with a plastic toy gun, but you would be wrong. This kid proved that. Like Masterrig said though, when you allow guns to proliferate so much you have to expect cops to shoot first, and never ask questions. If there were only a million guns floating around instead of 300 million I could see a better case for the cops waiting another 3 seconds to see if it was an actual weapon or not.

Lol I saw that earlier today watching the show, cracked me up. Too bad they made him quit. He makes me smile when I think about the GOP. This dude resonates well enough with his home area to get elected, I say more power to him.

Well, I don't know that I can 'forget what is going to happen'...because I don't know it....and I would need to know it to forget it. Maybe you do know what is going to happen and that is why you are so passionate. Like in the Nicholas Cage movie where he finds that paper with the numbers from aliens. I would imagine that to be very frustrating, seeing the future but having no way to influence it via the present. I will just have to sit back and watch while paying my nominally increasing premiums and keeping my same deductibles. Sucks to be you, I take responsibility for my actions, and am sure glad they were the right ones as they pertain to keeping my premiums and deductibles low!

Again, you're equating that which meets all mandates and that which is adequate, and that's complete nonsense. Well no...the are equal. By definition. Adequate coverage is defined as coverage that meets the mandated minimum.

No problem. That was your priority and choice. Now you live with the consequences of your choices and priorities. Personal responsibility.

The Amish are one. But they have a very long history of actually paying their medical bills. They don't carry health insurance, they really pay the bills. I always thought Obama looked Muslamish.

Sure it is. Everything is about personal responsibility and can be changed/affected by just trying harder and prioritizing properly. Ask turtle.

Turns out "Coal Fired Bicycle" is an indie rock band. I thought it would be super fun to find an actual coal fired bicycle picture. But all I got was indie rock.

Ok....let me rephrase it since something got lost. Would it be worse in your mind if sales had increased, thus increasing the amount of tax credits?

You're playing very fast and loose with the term "inadequate." According to the department of health and human services 105 million people including 89 percent of people who had individually purchased coverage had what you are calling "inadequate" insurance because it didn't meet the ACA standard of having no lifetime limit. That means that all of those plans had to change. 105 million peoples' plans changed in at least that way over the last few years and I would estimate that in 0% of those cases that was the only thing that changed. You and I have plans that didn't change much. The increase in the cost of mine was non-trivial, but has been spread out over the last three years and my employer ate most of it so it doesn't affect me that much. You sound like you're in the same boat. Good for us. For the 10 million people out there that had "inadequate" individual plans, life is a box of chocolates. They have exactly zero negotiating power with their insurance companies over what ways their plans are modified. The ACA imposed limits to prevent insurance companies from jacking up premiums as a result of the mandated changes, so guess what knob they turn to so that they come out ahead? Deductibles. Just because you don't believe the ACA could possibly be a screw job for anyone doesn't make it so. I believe some people could get screwed. I just think its their own fault. Personal responsibility. You and I were responsible enough to carry adequate insurance. The rest, irresponsible. Now they pay the price for irresponsibility by having to go get the coverage they should have been carrying anyways, and it costing them more now than it would have had they signed up for it when we did.

Gotcha, so you would be MORE angry had sales improved. And to be clear, you are against the tax credit for buying an electric car?

I don't understand. The Cruze sales suffered much worse, and other models suffered comparably in the article... Isn't the justification for the Volt the same as the justification for all those other models they will continue to make?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGxFJ5nL9gg I'd say the initial question of, 'are you qualified to edit a political magazine' was answered quite well. I'd read the shit he edits. While not ultra-realistic ideas, they sure make sense. I also loved his explanation for not voting, same reasons as I have.

I saw you post this a couple times. You theorize that '20-30 somethings' who currently have health insurance that meets the mandate will CANCEL their health insurance....pay a fine...and walk around uninsured.....because their premiums increased?

Yea, see part 1. He either carried inadequate coverage, which would put the burden on the taxpayer when he was seriously injured.... OR His employer carried coverage they are choosing not to carry anymore. Those are the only 2 scenarios I can come up with that end with him having to change policy. Its the pinnacle of the right-wing. Stop blaming others and take personal responsibility for your decisions. You guys made your choices, now you have to live with the consequences.

Mine did, it doubled. ***Why did you change coverage? The plan I had was no longer offered. Then it didn't meet the minimum standards, or your employer decided it is cheaper for them to just make you find your own. Why should you get more coverage for the same price? Its the capitalism you love at work. Its either your fault for not carrying adequate insurance to start with, or your fault for working with such a shitty employer that they won't make a little less to continue covering employees the way they were.

Did you read the thread title? He wasn't 'bashing the boss' *scoff* He was 'speaking truths'. Certainly speaking truth isn't grounds for termination is it? Of course it is, or at least can be, if it casts the employer in a bad light and/or damages the employer's business. In the absence of an employment contract or a termination in violation of anti-discrimination laws, employees are employed at-will, and they can be terminated for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all. That's a large part of why federal (and some state) whistleblower laws exist in the first place. That being said: does the employer risk a potential detrimental backlash if he fires an employee for speaking truth about misconduct? Depends on each individual case - sometimes yes, and other times no. Do you think he will get a wrongful termination suit going? From reading his responses in this thread, I will bet you 20 bazillion dollars he thinks its a great winning idea.

Did you read the thread title? He wasn't 'bashing the boss' *scoff* He was 'speaking truths'. Certainly speaking truth isn't grounds for termination is it?

Ahem; I'm paying LESS. Well thank god for that check box we hit when we signed up for health insurance years ago "liberal rich asshole" so they knew not to screw us over with Obamacare.

I posted this before - because of Obamacare my coverage premium doubles, deductible goes way up and my total out of pocket triples. They were nice enough to delay the increase until 15, but I'm screwed after that. Because of previously signed contracts and obligations and retirement savings, I'll have to choose bankruptcy or stop eating. OR - someone else can pay my way. The increase is unfair at best and criminal at the middle. Why do I have to extend my retirement date because of someone else? I don't understand the OR in your story. Who is going to pay your way and in what sense? Maybe you mentioned it before, but why is it that your policy is being changed?

Gotcha. So mine isn't changing at all. You work for someone who makes the decisions on what to offer their employees, and as such you won't know anything for awhile. So between the two of us, absolutely nothing has changed as far as our healthcare coverage goes (that wasn't already changing, normal premium increases etc) , from before Obama was elected in 2008, until now. So you can see why I don't get as up in arms about it as you. Seems like a big fuss about nothing. Didn't cost you or me anything. Who cares if some rich liberals with airplanes have to pay a bit more?

My deductible didn't change. What was yours before? What is yours now? Why did you change coverage?