SkyDekker

Can confirm. My plan through the Colorado Exchange keeps going up and up, and the crazy premiums + high out of pocket actually keeps me from going to the doctor if I need to. I said it in another thread, but Colorado is going to vote on a single payer system next year. I haven't read enough about how it will work or the numbers or how it will effect my costs, so I'm not for or against it yet. My premiums have gone up year after year since long before the ACA became law. It's not a new phenomenon. $158.26 to $173.25 a month is a big jump for someone in my financial situation. For a shit plan I don't see why I need to pay and extra $15 a month this coming year. Around here if you cannot afford a couple of dollars a month, you are just too lazy to work harder. Of course that is different when it comes to Obamacare, in that case it is Obama's fault. Unless you are an immigrant, then you are likely illegal and should go back to whatever hellhole you came from.

Exactly, that alone would make him a great President. I am really pulling for either Carson or Trump to win the nomination and beat Hillary.

They recently relocated from a liberal state. They didn't believe in gun ownership. Maybe people should stop trying to pretend evil doesn't exist and drop this delusion that a couple of new gun restrictions will fix the problem. But this shouldn't happen in an armed society. Texans are known to have guns, so why would this happen in the first place?

But those are all filled with "brown" people. We don't really care about them. And besides if the natives get restless, we can always bomb them into submission which is good for us (government contractors) and our military. It also will help keep the natives here in line by allowing us to propagate fear of said brown people. So until there is food shortages here in the good old USA (or one of our allies who look like us), there isn't a problem. And of course we are going to be the last location on earth that will suffer from food shortages. What kills me the most in discussions is people spouting the "fear" that making changes will be devastating to the economy but without any proof. They always want proof from the "other" side. But supply none for their predictions. I've seen prices for fuel and energy go up and down in my lifetime. None of the times where it was higher has there been civil unrest. Yes for some people it was harder to do stuff. But the overall economy didn't come crashing down. People adjusted and moved on with their lives. My opinion is this is that it is better to make small to moderate changes now even if it really doesn't make a great difference. (I'm doing this in my own life, btw.) Then to wait until it is too late and then have to make drastic changes which may or may not prevent the pending "doom". To me this is the only rational choice. Humans adapt. It's how we have survived the climate changing throughout history, written and before, so I welcome change. I believe it will be good for the world. Don't think it will be climate change that does that. Drug-resistant bacteria will wipe out a couple hundred million well before climate change will be an issue. The posts blaming Obama Care will be fun to read.

$1,000,000 for each minute of fame Tell his buddy Obama to fork it over. That money would go a long way supporting ISIL, wouldn't it? You have any evidence this kid's family has tie to ISIL, or they just look the same so they must have?

I didn't say they stand for everybody in the party. What I said before was that the Republican was having the same issue the Conservative Party in Canada has. The centrist-right candidates have been unable to uncouple themselves from the more extreme right candidates with insane ideas. Rush basically responded saying there are no extreme right candidates and asked for some examples of statements by far right candidates. If your response is, but who cares about those guys, then you haven't quite been following the conversation. I didn't claim anything about representing the Republican platform. You are doing really well with the red herrings today. Surprised coming from you to be honest. The Democrats have generally done a better idea of marginalizing the far left portion of their party. The Liberal Party in Canada unfortunately has done a better job as well. It is hard for a centrist right candidate to get traction, if he, or she, constantly has to respond to idiotic statements being made by people representing the far boundaries of the party.

Free Speech has nothing to do with this. They are free to use the slogan. They can tell everybody they meet. However the medium they wanted to communicate on is regulated for content. Long been established that isn't a restriction on free speech.

That part of the story isn't quite true. Dassler (GDS) supplied shows to Olympians in the 1928 Olympics. The Jesse Owens deal was supposedly the first sponsorship of an African American. Both brothers were also Nazis.

Representatives of the Republican Party.

Building a wall on the Mexican Border - Donald Trump Building a wall on the Canadian Border - Scott Walker Making homosexuality illegal - Jack Fellure Building a space based weapons program to be used in the War against Drugs - ? Michael Bickelmeyer Alcohol Prohibition - Jack Fellure Using the 1611 King James Bible as the Political Platform - Jack Fellure Making Americans tithe 10% of income to the Church so government can be smaller. - K. Ross Newland

Mine all come from declared Republican candidates for presidency 2016. Can you show me where the above comments have been made by declared Democratic candidates for presidency in 2016?

Exactly! Name for me, if you will, a couple of issues where you see (what you and others call) a candidate having a far right view Building a wall on the Mexican Border Building a wall on the Canadian Border Making homosexuality illegal Building a space based weapons program to be used in the War against Drugs Alcohol Prohibition Using the 1611 King James Bible as the Political Platform Making Americans tithe 10% of income to the Church so government can be smaller.

Exactly!

No it won't. At least not any more than right leaning press will be hard on Democratic candidates. Seeing the world with your eyes wide closed again Just not agreeing with you. The Republicans suffer from the same problem as the Canadian Conservatives, just to a larger extent. The centre right has been unable to uncouple themselves from the far right. The left has done a better job of that. The result is that the centre right constantly has to deal with far right candidates making statements which make them totally unelectable. As an outsider looking in, the current crop of Republican candidates is pretty laughable. But then, your political landscape has become so incredibly viscous, why would anybody want to throw their hat in the ring?

Have read his official statement? The guy is seriously removed from reality.

But of course in this case throwing a thicker skin is not the solution. Now "we" are offended and something should be done about it. it is when other people are upset, THEY need to grow a thicker skin.

No it won't. At least not any more than right leaning press will be hard on Democratic candidates.

Go about your daily business. If you really think any Muslim terrorists are going to target bumfuck Georgia, you have a severely inflated sense of self-importance. Well, Chattanooga TN is about 100 miles from here. We have an Islamic training camp for the MOA less than 100 miles from here. The Muslims Of America have been linked to terrorists. So is that self-inflated sense of importance? Maybe, but my friends, mostly veterans, and I are concerned. On the news this morning they keep showing an ISIS video stating Washington DC is next. Isn't that close to you? In 1938 Most Americans wanted to keep Jewish refugees out of the country too.

That's not possible. If anything it is because the gun-o-phobes control all media and this story is purposely being kept from the public.

Ron, let's be honest. No opinion other than those who agree with yours, are valid in your world.

Who has made a direct threat against you and your family? Or are you referencing your general fear that Muslims are dangerous and out to get you? If so, I'll just continue on ignoring you.

Sorry.

Let them do the research first, peer review it and go from there. You are in favour of banning something because of what might happen. Like banning a gun, because it might be used for something nefarious. If I said to the world, I am going to conduct research that will ultimately prove that smoking is not bad for you, or even that guns do not need to be further controlled, Would you say the same? If you look for an outcome, you can find a way to prove it. No you can't. Not in a peer review study. And yes I would feel the same the other way around. Let the research take place, let it be peer reviewed and go from there. (Never mind that in this case the person making the comments is likely not the same one doing the research)

Irks me too, from all sides. Fear seems to be the only motivator left to get people to do something. Mushroom cloud Obama will take all your guns Sharia Law is coming New York will flood Muslims are scary The list goes on and on and on.

Yes ridicule this insane idea that if the French were more like the Americans there would be less dead. This idiotic idea that Americans seem to have, that the rest of the world wants to be like them. More amazing examples of the problems here. Unsolicited snarky off topic replies. LMAO, you commented on me, then used that to go on about Hillary and Carson and the media treatment of them. Then you call my comments off topic.