LouisianaHusker

Sorry but I don't have to validate my opinion so that it can be gauged to you nor anyone else. What is wrong with people?? How is this anyone's reaction to that question? I'll put it in simple words that even you should understand, it was a GDF'N opinion and doesn't have to be gauged or validated.Again you misunderstood someone's reply. Yikes. It's likely everyone who saw your post was very excited to see it (e.g. me) and then you went crazy. And obviously you didn't read my reply ZRod's reply. And I'll stand by my post in response to Moiraine. What I posted was an opinion, it does not have to be gauged or validated. If you have a problem with that than that is your problem.

Sorry but I don't have to validate my opinion so that it can be gauged to you nor anyone else. What is wrong with people?? How is this anyone's reaction to that question? I'll put it in simple words that even you should understand, it was a GDF'N opinion and doesn't have to be gauged or validated.

Okay, no problem. One bad thing about internet forums is that tongue in cheek and sarcasm really doesn't come across very well. Like I said above, I thought it was the best movie of the entire Star Wars franchise. It was a perfect movie to describe the SW: ANH crawler and it closed the Death Star exhaust port loop hole. I've read and watched several individual reviews that didn't like the fact that this movie didn't have a crawler but I was fine with that since I believe that a lot of what would have been covered in the crawler has been and will be part of the SW: Rebels cartoon series. Another problems others seem to have was the CGI of certain characters which was necessary with the way the film went but probably could have been done better using better voice talent. Vader is reestablished as one bad ass Mo'Fo. His scenes are short but extremely powerful, especially his final scene, even though IMHO this will create another loophole that happens in SW: ANH, i.e. the lightsaber duel between him and Kenobi. K2-SO provides the majority of the humor for the film, think of him as a mix of R2-D2, C-3PO with a touch of Marvin from Hitchhikers. Orson Krennic (Ben Mendehlsohn) a very good antagonist even though IMHO his character was overpowered by Tarkin and Vader. Cameos: there are several by characters from before and after this movie takes place, the best one takes place on Jeddah and is followed up in SW: ANH. Music: see my post above. Now as for SW: TFA, I liked the movie and yes it was basically a repeat of SW: ANH but it does play on the theme that history tends to repeat itself. The big key will be how is the next movie going to continue the saga? I've read an article, don't have the link, that said that J.J. Abrams stated that he wished that he could direct the next movie after reading the initial script. Types of movies: based in action, science fiction, science drama, but if I like it I'll watch it and buy it. Good example of other movies: Gran Torino, The King's Speech, Second Hand Lions, Soul Surfer, Paper Moon

Sorry but I don't have to validate my opinion so that it can be gauged to you nor anyone else.

Just got back and it is AWESOME!!!!! A little too over the top on some of the CGI The music while setting it's own tone does play homage to John Williams. There are tie-ins of characters before (from SW: Clone Wars and SW: Rebels) and after this movie. The Vader scenes are short but very powerful. IMHO arguably the best one yet.

That is interesting. It would be pretty hard to say that is illegal or some how fraud. People are free to make whatever voting alliances they so choose. According to what you posted, one person one vote doesn't mean a God damned thing.

More like political spin and Pro-Hillary. Hardly any fact checks on what she said and none on her comment about TPP being the "gold standard" even though there is a transcript of the speech when she said it on State.gov

Moiraine, show me where in the Second Amendment that has to do with hunting.

From what I understood he basically Grammatica'd himself.

If that was Kenny that threw that block it more than likely would of been flagged.

If we should win

And what felon in their right mind would willingly go into a sporting goods store, pawn shop or any other place that sells firearms and has the buyer fill out a 4473 and fill it out knowingly that they can't buy or possess a firearm?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BnYqnVzCEAAWVcw.jpg supposed pic of twister off of twitter

The crowd's reaction to that match was priceless!

No. I was trying to give you a personal example instead of just saying "risk pooling." But if you'd prefer, the answer is risk pooling. No. I've never heard someone (other than you, apparently) refer to the individual mandate portion of the ACA as Obamacare. I have heard the entire ACA referred to as Obamacare. Given that, what you're trying to argue doesn't really make sense. You said that the federal government is forcing people to be on Obamacare. It doesn't really make sense for you to say that the federal government (through the individual mandate) is forcing people to be on the individual mandate. Carl, risk pooling does not work. If it did people that live in Key West Florida should be required to buy avalanche insurance and those that live in Point Barrow Alaska should be required to buy tornado insurance. Now for the next part. You say that is doesn't make sense to say that the federal government (through the individual mandate) is forcing people to be on the individual mandate. Well than why did CNN post the link below? http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/13/news/economy/obamacare-penalty/ Now you did notice that in 2014 the penalty is $95 per adult or 1% which ever is higher? Now lets say 1 adult refuses to get health insurance and decides to pay the "penalty" or "TAX" as the USSC incorrectly ruled it IMHO. $95 dollars times 100 = $9500. How many people do you know making less than $9500 per year? So it seems to me that the vast majority of the poor are going to pay the 1%, but we know that isn't going to happen because they are the ones that are going to get their health care paId for because of the rate hikes that people like me are going to end up paying. Here comes 2015 and now the penalties are $325 per adult or 2% which ever is higher. Next comes 2016 and now it is $695 per adult or 2.5% which ever is higher. Now I went to that California site that you used earlier for rate quotes and I put in my information back when I was a part time worker from 10 years ago making less that 18K per year before taxes but using my current age of 42. The cheapest plan was $5 dollars a month after tax credits. Now here is the kicker, the individual deductable was $5000 and the family deductible was $10000. How is that affordable?

Carl, eye wish two apollogize four the weigh eye ended my last post. It wuz a bit ruff and mistaken of me two dew that two ewe. BTW Junior.

So in other words, you can't answer why I should have to pay for coverage that I don't need. Also you know exactly how the term Obamacare has always been used as a nickname for the Individual Mandate of the ACA and the entire ACA overall. Lastly, I though that you were an intelligent person but after seeing how you talked down myself and others in this thread and do nothing but parrot the Pro-Obamacare talking points I see that I might have gravely been mistaken.

Do you have insurance now? Again, what do you mean by the federal government forcing someone to be on Obamacare? Yes I do have insurance now. According to my coverage which is in Obamacare "standards" I am covered for Maternity/Childcare, btw as I said earlier, I'm a single male, never married and no kids. So why do I have to pay for this? I'm also covered for Family Planning to include abortions or as they put it "Health services and associated expenses for surgical, non-surgical, or drug-induced Pregnancy termination." I'm Pro-Life, so please tell me why along with what I posted earlier should I have to pay for this? The law states that you have to prove when you file your taxes that you have coverage that meets the "standards" as set by Obamacare or pay a "fine" or as the United Supreme Court Ruled it a "tax". That is what is meant by being forced to be on Obamacare.

Why would you say that? Under the ACA, health insurance must offer a specified level of coverage: https://www.healthca...ealth-benefits/ What do you think that people are required to "be on"? First, why should I be force to pay, as a Single Male, never married, with no children, for Maternity/Newborn and Pediatric coverage? Second, it is the law that everyone is to be covered by some sort of insurace that meets these One Coverage Fits All standards as set by Obamacare or pay a "fine"....oops I mean "tax".

So the article from Prospect.org said: "If she bought a plan on the individual market for $293 a month, I can guarantee you it barely deserved to be called insurance at all (I've bought insurance like this on the individual market). It probably had a deductible in the thousands of dollars and had substantial cost-sharing for any significant medical event. But the story doesn't tell us what sort of insurance she has." Now using YOUR parameters the quotes are 281, 296, 301 and 302 for the Silver and 230, 245, 247 and 249 for the Bronze. So does that mean that those barely deserved to be called insurance? Another question I have is if this idea of Obamacare is so good, why did the Federal Government have to pass a law and basically force everyone to be on it?

So....the author...."guarantees us" what they think. Really? That's pretty darn good reporting right there. I'm sure they will win a Pulitzer over that article. I have absolutely no clue what "Deborah's" plan was before so how can this "reporter" claim anything? BRB, I just checked the About Us on the home page of the link that Carl just posted and guess what it says? What's your bent? We're liberal, progressive, lefty—call it what you want, we're proud of it. So even though later on on that page they say that they aren't a shill for the Democracts, it isn't hard to see that is not the truth IMHO. You don't have to believe the article. You can go look up the numbers yourself if you'd like. No need, your "article" is the one that "guarenteed" that her policy barely deserved to be called insurance. That "article" is nothing but a "Polly want a cracker" piece for Obamacare and I'm sure that you'll be getting your cracker as well soon. Find something with real and complete numbers and than we'll talk, not some hack job that only has the guarentee of the author.

So....the author...."guarantees us" what they think. Really? That's pretty darn good reporting right there. I'm sure they will win a Pulitzer over that article. I have absolutely no clue what "Deborah's" plan was before so how can this "reporter" claim anything? BRB, I just checked the About Us on the home page of the link that Carl just posted and guess what it says? What's your bent? We're liberal, progressive, lefty—call it what you want, we're proud of it. So even though later on on that page they say that they aren't a shill for the Democracts, it isn't hard to see that is not the truth IMHO.

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/29/21222195-obama-administration-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered. Bold added for emphasis. Sounds like a bait and switch on the law to me.

I don't . . . and in fact, neither does the post that I linked. Do I need to pare it down even further? It's like it's completely invisible or something. http://www.washingto...-is-impossible/ (emphasis added) Thank you for proving that you refuse to acknowledge and dectractors and downfalls of it and my earlier post. I have a question, do you talk down like what you have in this thread to everyone?