Bignugget

Then I support the ACA and all it's glory.

Are you still going to be able to afford internet when your higher premiums kick in?

Hey I just saw that documentary about Challenger too! That shit was crazy.

Ignore what? This is just the same stuff repackaged and regurgitated. Yes there is an insurance mandate, get over it. If you have coverage established before 2010 and you haven't fucked with it, then you are grandfathered in from the ACA. (like me, celebrate) If you don't, and you don't have coverage that meets the mandate, you have to get it, or pay a fine for not carrying the mandate. Additionally, if you are dispensable enough to your employer that they are willing to slash your hours, and send you buying your own insurance....you should have worked harder and been more valuable. Stop crying about it.

Well the state has re-opened the case and are investigating again I believe. I remember reading something about it last week. No guns available in what sense though? Guns are certainly legal in Missouri, widely available, and we have a conceal carry law. Or are you saying we should be arming 14 year olds? http://www.kansascity.com/2013/10/12/4549775/nightmare-in-maryville-teens-sexual.html Here is an article that actually explains how it went down. Sure sounds like he and his buddies took advantage of her and her friend, and the political clout someone had got them out of it for awhile. Not sure if arming 14 year olds is the logical next step though.

Okay, I'll bite. What is the motivation to not be consistent? It should be either Richard Milhous Nixon or Barack Obama. There must be some reason you choose to add Obama's middle name. So, what is that reason? Why not use his middle name, and why do liberals get uncomfortable when they see or hear it? He's the President of the United States; just like Franklin Delano Roosevelt or George Walker Bush. I use his middle name for emphasis (I guess this means I won't get away with just Obama anymore?). Emphasizing what? Why not use his middle name? Well that was my question, why not use Nixon's middle name, but use Obama's middle name. You seen to tap dance around the question, which leads to people coming to their own conclusions about why you may choose to do so. When I was a kid my mom would only use my full name when I was in deep shit. Maybe Obama is in deep shit with rick. Talk radio was on in the car when I got in today, and RUSH was on...omg. Cardinals baseball is broadcast on the same network (disclaimer), I managed about 10 minutes of that hate filled rage before I had to turn it off. If you sit around and listen to that vitriol all day long it really does not surprise me that you end up with the views espoused on these boards by the right-wing posters.

You skipped step 1. You are not allowed to help me assemble my moon launcher. I need people who can follow directions.

That (imo) is trolling. I didn't read the deleted comments, but the fact that the thread was cleaned to remove racist shit, is evidence of trolling. If that is what turned someone off about the project, that's a sad internet day. The thread was simply asking for some contact information about a certain demographic, pretty benign. (Unless of course the racist comments were made by the OP jtthames, but it didn't appear that way from what is still there) But w/e. I have been around the internet long enough to know better than to get trolled IRL from something someone types. I wish I was a black female wingsuit pilot, I would be a stunt double in a second, regardless of some idiots posting in a forum.

I didn't skip anything. After you increase penalties for possession, and ban ownership, and stop legal production. you start collecting guns as they come to light. When people commit crimes with guns, when guns are discovered during other investigations, when grandpa dies and you don't want to keep hiding his 30 guns that are all life sentences. Then after a few generations of that, lets say, from 2015 to 2115, we can re-evaluate and see how many guns we still have floating around, and how we are doing in the world rankings of violence. What you misunderstand is my first step addresses exactly what you claim I refuse to acknowledge. "It would take a fundamental change in the culture that promoted the buildup of 300 million guns." The culture that promoted the buildup of 300 million guns, is the culture that glorifies and promotes violence as the only solution to other violence. Once that is fundamentally different, once we go from an individualistic society to a collectivist society, then step 1 is complete, and you can continue on in my step by step program of harmony. Please do not skip step 1.

Unfortunate someone lets an internet troll influence their real life decision making processes. I don't know if it would have been a good opportunity or not, it sounded interesting at the least, being a stunt double?? Who wouldn't want to do that once in their life? But I do know that it is a sad day when internet trolls move into real world influence.

I disagree with the sentiment that you will have more gun violence with 1 million firearms vs. 300 million firearms in a nation. We KNOW what kind of levels of gun violence we get with 300 million guns floating around. We AREN'T Switzerland. So while the Swiss may very well be able to maintain a healthy amount of firearms while not maintaining an equally healthy amount of gun violence, we don't seem to be. It does suck when the (relative) few screw it up for the many, but that's life.

Ok, let's take Chicago then... how would you eliminate that environment where all those violent criminals already have guns? Serious question... What would it take to remove guns from the thousands of violent criminals in that city? What would you propose? It would take a fundamental change in the culture that promoted the buildup of 300 million guns. Because the problem can't be managed on a micro level like that. Short of putting a Berlin style wall around Chicago. But once you convince the nation that having 300 million guns doesn't make us any safer, then you increase penalties for possession of weapons, stop manufacturing guns in the U.S., and start collecting them up as they enter the public light. With no production you only need to worry about the stuff being smuggled in, so the right wingers should celebrate the increased attention on the borders. A few generations of that and you will have markedly fewer guns floating around, maybe I'm wrong....lets try it and see?

He jumped on gun owners, NOT the gun. It amazes me how many gun-loving people misquote that context. It is also irresponsible for a parent to leave poison out for a kid to find, or leave the pool unlocked. I don't have his faith in people acting responsibly, but you could at least reference the context accurately. For me the difference is a kid can't take his parents pool to school and kill everyone....so that isn't as much of a concern.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country We have over 2x the amount of guns per capital as your Swiss example, and roughly 15x more than England/Wales. You are 100% correct, glorifying and promoting violence is not a good thing. Add to it 15x more guns per capita than you have, and you get a lot more gun violence playing out.

Thanks for the explanation. There might be a lot, but there is nowhere near our number. America takes 2nd place to no one, don't you know that?

"Ray Biggs is a St. Helens school board member who championed the repeal. He said that the district has no position on whether teachers should bring guns to class, but he personally supports the idea. “Absolutely,” Biggs said. “The NRA says the only way you can stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.”" That cracked me up. Why do you support teachers carrying guns to school sir? 'Well the fuckin NRA said thats the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun!" hahaha. classic. Personally I will find heavy irony when the teacher leaves their gun on the desk and some mentally handicapped school kid blows his brains out with it.

That option is covered on the list. It's within the employer-provided option.

I don't honestly care if kids get slaughtered. I don't have any. I certainly don't care enough to try and move over-seas. I barely care enough to post in forum threads.

I think I visited the DMV once in the past decade, when I bought a used motorcycle. And I got an appointment for that one. Otherwise, it's been mail or web activity. So no, no complaints from me about how shitty it is. If you're worried about your participation being viewed as tacit acceptance, you do have the option to not vote for either party. You could stick to the local issues and initiatives. Then your little protect would be noted - 1 million ballots cast, only 600k voted for either Senate candidate. So sorry, that excuse doesn't work for me. I like the idea, the problem with it, for me, is I don't draw the line somewhere down the pyramid. The whole pyramid is fucked up. I don't participate in helping keep it built. You are incorrectly describing my explanation as an excuse. You shouldn't be supporting things you don't believe in, and as such I shouldn't be voting. I would need an excuse TO vote.

I think the interview demonstrates Brand believes (and I agree), you are trying to do something about it the wrong way. You can't cure the broken 2 party system by participating in the broken 2 party system. Participating in the broken system to keep it moving along, and then taking that participation as indication of a right to complain about the system, seems almost crazy to me. It's like going to the DMV. If everyone stopped participating in the DMV, they would have to change it. Instead we all go to the fucking DMV and wait through that broken ass system. Then we complain constantly about how shitty the DMV is.

I 'think' there is a dropzone there near Shreveport. Skydive Louisiana. I know a few guys who jump down there. Not sure if that helps, but might be a good spot to start finding carpool buddies. GL!

I watched Colbert fill the App out using one of the helpers. They didn't ask him any med. questions, or make him get naked (to his sadness).

So if he was dirt poor you would be on board with his sentiment?

It's possible, just not very likely. IMO, when someone proudly talks about never voting, what I hear him saying is: "I'm a fucking loser." Doubly so if he spends a considerable amount of time debating politics. "It's possible, just not very likely." I see an awful lot of video that makes me think the same way about people who vote. I fail to see how complying with a broken system gives you legitimacy to speak about problems and solutions to a nation. "voting" is moot if there is never an actual difference between your choices.

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. Correct me if I am wrong here. I though UK cops didn't all carry guns. I thought that only certain UK units were armed all the time. Is that wrong? It would seem to support my point if that is the case. Because they don't have 300 million guns in the hands of their citizens, they don't all walk around armed as well, and as such when they randomly stop a suspicious kid with a plastic AK, they have a lot of TIME to think about things, and position themselves safely etc, while backup arrives. That is the whole point. 15-20 seconds of time that the cops could have spent properly evaluating the situation (while remaining safe) could have saved this kids life. And MAYBE having the same number of guns as the UK is a good start. MAYBE that means our cops don't have to act like they do.