LouisianaHusker

I can see how Z's comment came off as let's see if your opinion is even legitimate or not based on whether you liked TFA.

 

For my part, if you didn't like that movie you're dead to me

 

Kidding. Mostly.

 

 

 

 

To gauge the value of your opinion... What are you're thoughts on TFA?

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.

 

 

To gauge the value of your opinion... What are you're thoughts on TFA?

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.

Ouch! That was kinda tongue in cheek. I am curious what you thought of it though. No judgment, just curious what type of movies you like.

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

To gauge the value of your opinion... What are you're thoughts on TFA?

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.

 

 

Interesting.

 

I don't know that I'd consider this voter fraud, but if I was a Trump supporter it'd drive me up a friggin' wall.

 

U.S. voters look to game election system by 'trading' ballots

 

 

Sophy Warner wanted to vote for third-party U.S. presidential candidate Jill Stein. But she worried that her ballot, cast in the swing state of Ohio, might help Republican Donald Trump capture the White House.

 

Through the website "Trump Traders," the 20-year-old biology student at Cleveland State University got in touch with Marc Baluda, 44, a Republican corporate lawyer in California who opposes Trump's candidacy and planned to vote for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

 

The two strange bedfellows made a deal worthy of congressional horse-trading: Warner would vote for Clinton in Ohio, where polls show a tight race, while Baluda would cast a ballot for the Green Party candidate Stein in California, where Clinton is assured of winning the state's electoral votes.

 

Tens of thousands of voters, the vast majority seeking to prevent a Trump presidency, have signed up on "vote-swapping" exchanges in advance of Tuesday's Election Day. There is no way to verify the ballots are cast as agreed, though some people are taking "ballot selfies" in states where such photos are legal.

 

...

 

Trump Traders had matched 40,000 voters as of Monday, according to co-founder John Stubbs. Although that may be a small fraction of the electorate, a few hundred votes could make a difference in a state where the race is close.

 

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.

Fact check:

 

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/26/495115346/fact-check-first-presidential-debate

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.

Did anyone see how it happened. He flashed across th screen when Morgan scored. No one was around him. Then you see him on the ground ??

 

 

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

 

If I say "Barack Obama worships the devil", is it incumbent upon me to provide evidence to fit my claim or you to go out looking for it?

 

Seems to me knowing who is purchasing weapons is useful when you need to crosscheck who is allowed by law to have guns. Felons, for example are not. In turn, this aides the ATF in tracking gun dealers who sell illegally.

 

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!

So in other words, you can't answer why I should have to pay for coverage that I don't need.

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.

 

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.

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.

First, why should I be force to pay, as a Single Male, never married, with no children, for Maternity/Newborn and Pediatric coverage?

Do you have insurance now?

 

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".

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.

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?

Why would you say that? Under the ACA, health insurance must offer a specified level of coverage:

A set of health care service categories that must be covered by certain plans, starting in 2014.

 

The Affordable Care Act ensures health plans offered in the individual and small group markets, both inside and outside of the Health Insurance Marketplace, offer a comprehensive package of items and services, known as essential health benefits. Essential health benefits must include items and services within at least the following 10 categories: ambulatory patient services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

 

Insurance policies must cover these benefits in order to be certified and offered in the Health Insurance Marketplace. States expanding their Medicaid programs must provide these benefits to people newly eligible for Medicaid.

https://www.healthca...ealth-benefits/

 

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?

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".

Just checked the Covered California website myself . . . here's 45yo Deborah's options according to my search: (FWIW, I used 45 as her age. $100,000 as her annual income. 92596 as her Zip.) I'm sure that the credulous will be more than eager to try it for themselves.. https://www.coveredca.com/

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?

You really have totally bought into every "article" that comes up on this subject haven't you?

 

This paragraph alone totally throws any credibility for your link out the window.

 

First, what exactly was her old plan? Deborah looks to be around 45. 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.

 

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.

You really have totally bought into every "article" that comes up on this subject haven't you?

 

This paragraph alone totally throws any credibility for your link out the window.

 

First, what exactly was her old plan? Deborah looks to be around 45. 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.

 

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.

Why do you refuse to acknolwldedge any possible detractors and such....facts be damned?

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.

Critics of the law are right to ask whether it is having an adverse impact on these millions of Americans. . .

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?