Honestly show me one good thing about the FUCKING GOD DAMNED OBAMACARE BILL?! ONE DAMN GOOD THING. ONE. Just go ahead.
Do you even read the responses? I just gave at least 3 PERSONAL stories -above - about the benefits of Obamacare - even though I am not on Obamacare myself.
Not reading what you're saying, the title is like, DUH, but thanks for getting there.
It is DUH for you.. but not for the libtards who can't understand even the simplest concepts.
The media are playing this as if Trump is denying free healthcare coverage from 25 million people. Those people were not getting free healthcare coverage to begin with. What Trump is doing is not FORCING people to pay for coverage that they don't want.People also get the idea that when their employer is paying the healthcare premiums.. that they are getting it for free. Uh.. no. Instead of having more money going into one's paycheck, that money is being taken before the employee ever sees it, and being sent off to the government. Which by the way.. is a concept in communism.
Seems to me that it is you who is unable to understand the simplest concepts.
Very few people are getting free health insurance under Obamacare. The only people who are getting it for free at present at those earning less than $16,000 per year. These are people who are covered by the expanded medicare/medicaid which varies from state to state. Is this helping anyone? Yes. My sister, who is a pediatrician (and who was initially against Obamacare) is now all for it for the simple reason that she is getting to see all the children who were never brought in before because their parents either did not have insurance, or were unwilling to pay the very high deductibles their shitty (but cheap) private insurance forced them to pay for each visit. Some of these children had never even come in for their vaccinations.
Between 16 and $32,000 per year, you pay on average $80 - 120 per month for insurance, for full coverage. The same amount only got you the very shittiest coverage with the highest deductibles in the private marketplace. If you have an income of above $48,000 per year, you are not eligible to get insurance on the exchange, but have to get private insurance. The assumption is that your employer is paying for it, I guess.
Pre-existing conditions: Do you have any idea how reluctant insurance companies are to cover this? A student of mine who had cystic fibrosis was unable to get any insurance at all for many years once he aged out of getting coverage through his parents. The poor guy spent years essentially diagnosing himself, buying blackmarket medicine, expired medicines, and medicines from South America just to stay alive. The only time he ever saw a doctor was when he got his frequent bouts of pneumonia and was taken to the Emergency room.
I experienced this directly as well. I was covered by Aetna for many years. When I went back to college for post-grad, I switched over to their student rates because they were cheaper, for the same plan. At no point did I lose Aetna coverage. And then I got a kidney stone three months after I went to the lower rate. Aetna refused to cover ANY cost of my treatment, insisting that it was a "Pre-existing condition" even tho I had been with them for nearly 12 years in total - during which time I never had to see a doctor. (Never fall sick in the first six months of coverage, folks!) I ended up with a medical bill of over $70,000 which I had to take them to court for.
Deductible limits. Under Obamacare, deductibles are limited to $6000 per year on the lowest tier - which is the tier that is most commonly bankrupted by medical services.
Fuck - you disgust me too much to continue, even though there are a lot of more points to make.
Your comments are so full of it, that they don't deserve a response. Seems like nobody pays any attention to you anyway.
I will point out what you are doing though. You take random bits of news stories that are churned out by various nutjobs and anonymous sources, which are at best speculation, and you add to them with colorful adjectives and verbs. You should get a job writing science fiction novels.
Here is just one example from the most recent issue you mentioned: You said that Trump revealed "highly classified intelligence". You overlooked that the Secretary of State and the U.S. National Security Advisor were at that same meeting and said several times that Trump did nothing wrong. Instead, you and several other news organizations, draw your own conclusions - all stemming from one report written from one unnamed anonymous source. Here's a thought.. if that anonymous source revealed what that supposed highly classified information was, then that anonymous source is guilty of high treason! How would this source even know that the information was HIGHLY classified? My understanding is that when the subject of ISIS and Terrorism came up.. along with one of Russia's airliners recently blowing up with no explanation - Trump mentioned that he heard that ISIS was planning on blowing up planes with laptop computers. That is highly classified information that damages the U.S.? I hardly think so. In case you are ignorant, Russia and the U.S. and many other countries constantly are sharing information (intelligence) if you will that they don't make public. There is a war going on in Syria in which both the U.S. and Russia are involved. They HAVE to share information all the time so that each one knows what the other is doing and don't wind up blowing each other up. Did that not occur to you? Besides that, the president can pretty much do whatever the hell he wants! Whenever senior members of countries meet, such as at summits or otherwise, all they talk about are classified confidential topics. So, this entire diatribe is complete nonsense. It just shows - again - that the libtards will stoop to anything at all to denigrate President Trump, and the truth means nothing. In their eyes, anything and everything Trump does is wrong.
I must compliment you on one thing though.. You do a great job representing the mindset and methods used by the libtards. Congratulations!
:congrats:
So many wrong points in one post.
But just to point out the most obvious ones:
the President can NOT do whatever the hell he wants. The constitution created checks and balances and three branches of govt. for precisely this reason, to prevent one single megalomaniac person from running the country in directions that were not in its best interest.
Both the Secretary of State, nor the Security Advisor have been spinning desperately while carefully avoiding saying anything about the actual legality of the situation. McMaster, for instance, has overtly avoided answering 'yes' or 'no' as to whether the information was classified, because he knows he will lose in either case. If the information was classified, then Trump most definitely broke the law in sharing it with Russia.
Russian and America are not Allies in any sense of the word, nor are they working towards a common goal in the Middle East. Notice how Russia scolded the US when Trump bombed the airfield. Russia has its own agenda, and, unlike Trump, will fulfill it regardless of the impact it would have on us. The big question here is why Trump keeps kissing their ass so relentlessly and fawning over them. And how many times has Russia shared information with America? Did Russia tell us before the chemical attack?
And as far as "libtards" stooping to to denigrate Trump. . .wow, just wow. Trump is the guy who relentlessly harassed Obama for YEARS over his birth certitifcate, attacked every action he took in office, attacked Hillary and insisted she needed to be in jail after investigation after investigation cleared her of wrongdoing, paraded out Clinton's old mistresses from decades before, spread scurrilous tabloid rumors of Cruz's dad, and now he is whining at the graduation of how is he is the most attacked president in history.
@PUTIPUELCA:
You're using the same argument homophobes use against homosexuality by randomly bringing up pedophilia here.. no one in this thread is talking about having sex with kids, doing so is wrong for both legal and biological reasons and any sane person will agree with that.
Regarding the incest part, give me one valid reason on why it should be demonized and prohibited because I can't really think of one myself.
Probably because the overwhelming majority of incest is between a coercing adult (usually male) and a underage child (most often female). There is indeed a pretty strong link between pedophilia and incest.
Incest between two consenting adults is much much rarer. However, it is not technically illegal in most western countries (including USA) as long as you don't expect to get a marriage license.
Personally, I don't care what people do as long as they are both consenting adults. I don't understand being attracted to relatives, but then I also don't understand fetishes like leather, rubber, furry . . .the list is endless.
Most people will naturally brush their teeth (and shower) before a meeting that is likely to result in sex. Unless you are meeting random guys in public parks and toilets, this is usually not an issue that one has to worry about.
I am curious about one thing - are you willing to perform oral sex on a guy, but not kiss him?
I am a muslim and out to my family, though I live in the USA, so i haven't had the experience of what it would be like to come out in a Muslim majority country. However, I do know many muslims who are out in Pakistan, UAE, Algeria, and Egypt. (I travel a lot for work, and get in touch with local LGBT groups where ever I go.
One interesting thing i have noticed in these muslim countries, is that for most of the out muslims, the initial reaction of their families was almost always negative, and then gradually accepting. In fact, in many cases, the families work hard to cover and protect the gay person in their midst, preferring to keep it quiet and safe rather than break the relationship with him. This is in marked contrast to many stories I have heard in USA, supposedly more liberal, where so many kids get kicked out by their parents when they come out to them. NYC has thousands of such kids living on the street.
One thing to keep in mind is that gays find it hard in every religion, and in every country where religion shapes the attitudes of the populace. Predominantly Christian countries such as Nigeria, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Angola, are violently homophobic, and some are moving towards criminal prosecution of gays by writing anti-LGBT laws into their books. It is no easier to be gay in Hindu India than it is to be gay in neighboring Muslim Pakistan.
I agree - keep it a bromance rather than a love story. Having a love story in there - even a heterosexual one - kind distracts from the whole Star Wars universe.
Hi, i have a lot of questions today:D my cock is okay, it is hard normally, i can jerk off without problems, i like guys, why it isnt hard when i have real sex? like it is hard while chatting with someone and when we do the deed (only blowjobs for now) my cock is only half hard and afther while soft… do i have some problem or it is nervosity?
When you are jerking off, the only thing on your mind is your own pleasure, so one is more relaxed.
When you are with someone, most of your focus is likely on the person and what is going on, and the surroundings, and that is probably distracting. Its even worse if the person is a stranger you've just met and jumped into bed with. Ive noticed a similar reaction when I used to meet guys off the internet. It was exciting when we were chatting, but by the time I had showered and was going over there, or waiting for him, I had lost my excitement and was filled with more anxiety than anticipation.
Funnily enough, on the very other extreme, I also had a similar experience with the guy I was most in love with in life. I couldn't get hard with him and I realized that it was because I was totally into making him feel good. I was so focused on him, his reactions, and his pleasure, that I had little inner energy to spare for myself. The relationship did not last very long!
Uhm. I'm not gonna support you guys. Just can't imagine how anal sex can be a turn off. For me it's obvious when your dick is standing it just needs to be put in something. And anal sex is actually the way that two male can connect physically. And coming in each other is such an epic moment.
But I'm just gonna reply to that rimming. Well what can't you understand ? Ass is males erotic area. If you understand doing blowjobs and you understand guys eating girls pussy, that's exactly the same. You just pleasure somebody with your tongue. Even if I don't like bottoming, just teasing with tongue is super pleasant.
I guess it depends on what one finds erotic. For me, the most erotic part of sex is feeling another guy's hand on my penis while we are kissing. In the very early days, just having another guy hold my penis within my pants was enough to set me off.
When I had sex with women, penetration was OK, but it wasnt the best part of sex, so I guess I never felt the need to insert my penis in anything.
And as for rimming, I find that the thought of the (possible) smell + the knowledge of all the gut bacteria very effectively nullify any erotic element to it. Perhaps my medical background has something to do with this, but as I mentioned above, the anus was never a part of my erotic development until quite late. I have never been attracted to nice butts for instance, and dont even notice them on guys - I can appreciate a shapely butt when we are naked, but am not drawn to them. Its all about a guy's face, his eyes, a flat stomach, long legs, an air of confidence and humor, good communication skills.
I am not a fan of anal sex either. I have topped on occasion, but reluctantly, and only on request. Never understood the appeal of anal sex. I know it never even occurred to me that anal sex was part of the gay world until I saw my first gay porn, and it took me by surprise then. I cant understand rimming either.
Having said that, I dont mind watching anal sex in porn, but I avoid it in real life. Luckily most of my partners have been of the same bent. Oral, long foreplay, cuddling, ear-nibbling. . . perfect.