President Donald J. Trump

[21st Century Man]

Oh come on! If it hadn't been for Brits fleeing Britain, the USA wouldn't have running water, toilets, stainless steel, faucets, great sex, fish and chips, decent beer, great sex, pennicillin, great sex, decent TV (Something you'll never get the hang of) or fish and chips.

There is only one country with worse hangups about sex than America and that is Great Britain.

[norland2424]

There is only one country with worse hangups about sex than America and that is Great Britain.

yea they had a face sitting protest over porn being censored from their net

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/dec/12/face-sitting-protest-outside-parliament-against-new-porn-rules

[analog kid]

Couldn't agree more about Budweiser.  Certifiable piss. Probably the reason why I don't drink much beer; however I do love a good lager every now and then.

Budweiser tastes like bubble gum and gasoline. You see a person in a bar drinking it and they look like they don't know what they're doing.

[albrecht]

Budweiser tastes like bubble gum and gasoline. You see a person in a bar drinking it and they look like they don't know what they're doing.

There is a place for cheap light beer, like drinking beer outside all day working in the yard, fishing, etc in the heat where dehydration is an issue, etc. But it should be cheaper and there many other cheaper options- even by the same brewery conglomerates! I think the craftbeers and small breweries that have gotten a little ridiculous also with all the gimmicky new types of beer. But admire the few that made great beers or have become successful (and get bought out by the behemoths.)

[albrecht]

There is only one country with worse hangups about sex than America and that is Great Britain.

Yeah, though there has always been just a bit of hypocrisy there and here with regard based on position in society, certain parts of town, men vs women, etc. I think it is changing as Hollywood pushes "envelopes," the mainstreaming and availability of porn even to youngsters, less religion (excepting immigrants and "refugees",) and government policy. It is an odd/striking thing that doesn't make much logical sense that we, at least until recently, have little problems with raising children watching people get killed on tv (and now with video games even worse the kid "does" the killing) but outraged if they see some tits?

[Yorkshire pud]

There is only one country with worse hangups about sex than America and that is Great Britain.

Really? I entertain bondage, outdoor sex and fun with food.. do I win now?

[albrecht]

Really? I entertain bondage, outdoor sex and fun with food.. do I win now?

I thought it was all about the spanking for you guys. Something Freudian to do with nannies and public school days punishment?
(Except for Mosley but easy to see why he had the NAZI fetish thing going on.  He had it down- even had the working girls check him for lice etc.)

[21st Century Man]

Really? I entertain bondage, outdoor sex and fun with food.. do I win now?

There are always exceptions.  Seriously though what do you make of these now forbidden acts?  Some I understand, most I don't.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/a-long-list-of-sex-acts-just-got-banned-in-uk-porn-9897174.html

[21st Century Man]

I thought it was all about the spanking for you guys. Something Freudian to do with nannies and public school days punishment?
(Except for Mosley but easy to see why he had the NAZI fetish thing going on.  He had it down- even had the working girls check him for lice etc.)

Spanking is now forbidden in porn produced in the UK. :

[Donald Noory]

While I completely agree with this and that costs are out of control, you are completely ignoring the fact that thousands upon thousands of employers have chosen to cut full time staff in favor of part time so that they don't have to provide any healthcare whatsoever. Some limit their staff to 49 for the same reason. Don't tell me they don't because I know of plenty of businesses who do, including some different levels of government. They even publically admit to doing so for this very reason. While some of them can afford to provide healthcare and are abusing the system, many businesses just can't afford to do so.

Ricochet Rabbit = Aswang

Wrong again. Companies were limiting hours to part time before Obamacare came into being, because they wanted to avoid offering insurance to employees they had to offer it to if they were full-time. Corporations who had over a certain number of employees had to offer insurance to full-time workers. You're just completely clueless.

[GravitySucks]

There are always exceptions.  Seriously though what do you make of these now forbidden acts?  Some I understand, most I don't.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/a-long-list-of-sex-acts-just-got-banned-in-uk-porn-9897174.html

Do you want us to draw you pictures?

[albrecht]

Really? I entertain bondage, outdoor sex and fun with food.. do I win now?

I think you forgot a comma, an Oxford comma at that, or do you sexually entertain with food in the outdoors? 

[theONE]

Wrong again. Companies were limiting hours to part time before Obamacare came into being, because they wanted to avoid offering insurance to employees they had to offer it to if they were full-time. Corporations who had over a certain number of employees had to offer insurance to full-time workers. You're just completely clueless.

...no you are clueless,..companies started doing that as soon they start hearing about this crapy idea, on advice of their lawyers and accountants
so they would not be accused of dumping people when the plan was implemented therefore facing fines and backlash...

[albrecht]

Wrong again. Companies were limiting hours to part time before Obamacare came into being, because they wanted to avoid offering insurance to employees they had to offer it to if they were full-time. Corporations who had over a certain number of employees had to offer insurance to full-time workers. You're just completely clueless.

I'm still trying to figure your logic that a 26 year old is still a "kid?"

[theONE]

I think you forgot a comma, an Oxford comma at that, or do you sexually entertain with food in the outdoors? 

pud is doing it wearing Hillry wig and eating buns baked in shape of her pussy

[Donald Noory]

...no you are clueless,..companies started doing that as soon they start hearing about this crapy idea, on advice of their lawyers and accountants
so they would not be accused of dumping people when the plan was implemented therefore facing fines and backlash...

Shut the fuck up you stupid Mongalian yak fucker, you have no clue. I had a relative dealing with that situation, years before Obamacare. Get your head out of your yak's ass, ya dumbfuck.

[Donald Noory]

I'm still trying to figure your logic that a 26 year old is still a "kid?"

You're missing the whole point, as usual. I didn't mean to say that 26 year olds are still kids. But that they should be able to stay on their parent's healthcare is completely reasonable. Unless you're a hateful old shit with a "survival of the fittest" attitude or you don't have kids. Any reasonable parent would be perfectly happy to have their child on their insurance policy until they're 26. Most young people of that age think they're indestructible, and won't buy insurance, no matter how cheap. This gives them some protection. Of course, a bitter old puke like you would think it just dandy if a young person got a serious illness and didn't have the coverage they need.

[Astrid Galactic]

Wrong again. Companies were limiting hours to part time before Obamacare came into being, because they wanted to avoid offering insurance to employees they had to offer it to if they were full-time. Corporations who had over a certain number of employees had to offer insurance to full-time workers. You're just completely clueless.

You can't read, aswang.

Any employer who has more than 49 employees must provide them with healthcare if they work more than so many hours per year. Think it's 1,560 - or somewhere around there. That comes out to something like 30 per week. One minute over that and they must provide healthcare. Go back and read what I wrote as to what some are doing instead.

Many of these employers either don't want the expense of healthcare or just can't afford it so either limit their hiring to 49 employees or under or reduce their jobs to being part time only. I personally know of many businesses who have eliminated a lot of their full time positions and turned them into part time only. That includes various local and state governments. Probably the Feds too. This is not just a local problem but one that is affecting the entire country to the detriment of it's citizens. These businesses do not hide why they do so. They will very publically admit to it. As I said, some are using it as an out to maximize profits for themselves while others truly cannot afford the ever excessive rising costs.

Yes, I do know that some companies were doing this before shitty ONoCare, but they could at least give their employees more than 30 hours a week if they wanted. Since they, those who were willing to work longer are now limited and hurting even more because they need the money. In fact, it's gotten much more prevelant because of ONoCare. I even know of companies who have publically admitted to cutting fulltimers to part time exactly for these reason.

Right about now, many of those places are furloughing some of their part timers because they've reached their maximum allowed yearly hours. Sure, they can go on unemployment until the end of the year but that means they are bringing in even less money as well as shifting more expenses onto the government.

Forced poverty, no healthcare or other benefits, and reduced pay. That's what's happened to the bulk of America's middle class jobs.

The way I see it, it's not the level of pay for minimum wage; instead, it's that most middle class jobs have been forced downwards to minimum wage, or close to.

[Donald Noory]

You can't read, awang.

Any employer who has more than 49 employees must provide them with healthcare if they work more than so many hours per year. Think it's 1,560 - or somewhere around there. That comes out to something like 30 per week. One minute over that and they must provide healthcare. Go back and read what I wrote as to what some are doing instead.

Many of these employers either don't want the expense of healthcare or just can't afford it so either limit their hiring to 49 employees or under or reduce their jobs to being part time only. I personally know of many businesses who have eliminated a lot of their full time positions and turned them into part time only. That includes various local and state governments. Probably the Feds too. This is not just a local problem but one that is affecting the entire country to the detriment of it's citizens. These businesses do not hide why they do so. They will very publically admit to it. As I said, some are using it as an out to maximize profits for themselves while others truly cannot afford the ever excessive rising costs.

Right about now, many of those places are furloughing some of their part timers because they've reached their maximum allowed yearly hours. Sure, they can go on unemployment until the end of the year but that means they are bringing in even less money as well as shifting more expenses onto the government.

Forced poverty, no healthcare or other benefits, and reduced pay. That's what's happened to the bulk of America's middle class jobs.

The way I see it, it's not the level of pay for minimum wage; instead, it's that most middle class jobs have been forced downwards to minimum wage, or close to.

No, actually it's you who can't read, dumbass. I was stating that before Obamacare came into being, large companies were limiting their staff to part-time hours so they didn't have to provide healthcare to them if they worked more than 30 or 35 hours or whatever the cut-off was for being considered full-time. Jesus Christ on a crutch.

[Donald Noory]

You can't read, aswang.

Any employer who has more than 49 employees must provide them with healthcare if they work more than so many hours per year. Think it's 1,560 - or somewhere around there. That comes out to something like 30 per week. One minute over that and they must provide healthcare. Go back and read what I wrote as to what some are doing instead.

Many of these employers either don't want the expense of healthcare or just can't afford it so either limit their hiring to 49 employees or under or reduce their jobs to being part time only. I personally know of many businesses who have eliminated a lot of their full time positions and turned them into part time only. That includes various local and state governments. Probably the Feds too. This is not just a local problem but one that is affecting the entire country to the detriment of it's citizens. These businesses do not hide why they do so. They will very publically admit to it. As I said, some are using it as an out to maximize profits for themselves while others truly cannot afford the ever excessive rising costs.

Yes, I do know that some companies were doing this before shitty ONoCare, but they could at least give their employees more than 30 hours a week if they wanted. Since they, those who were willing to work longer are now limited and hurting even more because they need the money. In fact, it's gotten much more prevelant because of ONoCare. I even know of companies who have publically admitted to cutting fulltimers to part time exactly for these reason.

Right about now, many of those places are furloughing some of their part timers because they've reached their maximum allowed yearly hours. Sure, they can go on unemployment until the end of the year but that means they are bringing in even less money as well as shifting more expenses onto the government.

Forced poverty, no healthcare or other benefits, and reduced pay. That's what's happened to the bulk of America's middle class jobs.

The way I see it, it's not the level of pay for minimum wage; instead, it's that most middle class jobs have been forced downwards to minimum wage, or close to.

I find it equally hilarious that your solution to this problem is to vote for Republicans. Republicans are perfectly fine with corporations behaving in the manner you describe. It's called "free market." They aren't even in favor of a minimum wage. You really are one of those dumbasses that vote against your own best interest huh?

[albrecht]

You're missing the whole point, as usual. I didn't mean to say that 26 year olds are still kids. But that they should be able to stay on their parent's healthcare is completely reasonable. Unless you're a hateful old shit with a "survival of the fittest" attitude or you don't have kids. Any reasonable parent would be perfectly happy to have their child on their insurance policy until they're 26. Most young people of that age think they're indestructible, and won't buy insurance, no matter how cheap. This gives them some protection. Of course, a bitter old puke like you would think it just dandy if a young person got a serious illness and didn't have the coverage they need.

I don't want anyone to get serious illnesses, no matter the age, or fast-tracked on some death panel or Liverpool Protocol, unless they specified that in a living will or by POA to someone in the case they are unresponsive. You, not me, said 26 years old was a "kid." And I questioned that. Sure when you are young many don't think of consequences (even many, if not most, adults also) but that doesn't diminish an adult's responsibility. If the parent still wants to help or put them on their insurance than they can pay and do so. But also the adult could be working a job that provides it, have a health savings account, buy their own insurance, having savings, or be adult enough to recognize the costs of their actions in not doing so. Having said that I'm not against healthcare reform or even some kind of single-payer system because it would save companies money and might provide better care, but they should be State-based so that we can experiment on what works best. Not some top-down government universal mandate. Coverage(s,) private, government, charity, employer, private/public, and implementation could be tried in different States and depending on what works than could be implemented in others. Also could experiment in what is covered based on local people's opinions and/or tiered system based on risk, health history, co-pay, tort reform, etc.

[Yorkshire pud]

Whowudathunk?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37770692

Donald Trump's employees have told reporters they are voting for their boss - as the Republican nominee looked on approvingly.

[Astrid Galactic]

No, actually it's you who can't read, dumbass. I was stating that before Obamacare came into being, large companies were limiting their staff to part-time hours so they didn't have to provide healthcare to them if they worked more than 30 or 35 hours or whatever the cut-off was for being considered full-time. Jesus Christ on a crutch.

No, you can't read. Besides, just because they were doing it before doesn't negate the FACT that now this has become the norm all over the place. Prior to that, many companies were giving employees ~40 hours or so a week without the benefit of any employer provided healthcare. Yes, they were. I personally know of many. Now they've limited them since the Oshithead employee mandate. Plus, many, many companies have cut back because they just can't afford the ever increasing costs. You yourself admitted to the costs being out of control. It's all gone to hell now, for everyone. Well, except higher end politicians who we fund in a golden cadilac.

[theONE]

Shut the fuck up you stupid Mongalian yak fucker, you have no clue. I had a relative dealing with that situation, years before Obamacare. Get your head out of your yak's ass, ya dumbfuck.

relax grasshopper -relax- you will get an heart attack with your attacking mode attitude and then for sure you will need Obama care

[Donald Noory]

I don't want anyone to get serious illnesses, no matter the age, or fast-tracked on some death panel or Liverpool Protocol, unless they specified that in a living will or by POA to someone in the case they are unresponsive. You, not me, said 26 years old was a "kid." And I questioned that. Sure when you are young many don't think of consequences (even many, if not most, adults also) but that doesn't diminish an adult's responsibility. If the parent still wants to help or put them on their insurance than they can pay and do so. But also the adult could be working a job that provides it, have a health savings account, buy their own insurance, having savings, or be adult enough to recognize the costs of their actions in not doing so. Having said that I'm not against healthcare reform or even some kind of single-payer system because it would save companies money and might provide better care, but they should be State-based so that we can experiment on what works best. Not some top-down government universal mandate. Coverage(s,) private, government, charity, employer, private/public, and implementation could be tried in different States and depending on what works than could be implemented in others. Also could experiment in what is covered based on local people's opinions and/or tiered system based on risk, health history, co-pay, tort reform, etc.

"Death panel"? Did you get that from Sarah Palin? That was one of her Obamacare talking points.

[Donald Noory]

relax grasshopper -relax- you will get an heart attack with your attacking mode attitude and then for sure you will need Obama care

What do they have in Mongolia? Yakcare? You eat the nutrient rich Yak shit for your well being?

[Astrid Galactic]

I find it equally hilarious that your solution to this problem is to vote for Republicans. Republicans are perfectly fine with corporations behaving in the manner you describe. It's called "free market." They aren't even in favor of a minimum wage. You really are one of those dumbasses that vote against your own best interest huh?

I'm an independent who is sick and tired of being royally screwed over by the Democrats. Sick of most of the Republicans too. Usually I vote 3rd party, so don't go 'assuming' that you know me all that well. I wrote in Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012 because the 2 major party options disgusted me and I refused to give them my support. But I did learn a whole lot about the Clinton Crime Family back in the '90s and know that they are one of the worst mobs in America, if not the very worst. If I have to vote Republican to keep that psychotic bitch out of office, than so be it.

[albrecht]

Whowudathunk?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37770692

Good, we don't need the toxic model in certain Continental models in which "bosses" and management are always at odds and cross-purposes with the "workers." A good business takes care of the employees, shareholders, and management and seeks to grow benefits for all of them depending on their experience, motivation, and performance. Most people have had 'bad bosses' but, hopefully, most, or at least many, had good ones who recognized talent and hard work and maybe you took their job as they moved up or on. Or even like a mentor or apprenticeship or like the military where time/experience etc advances you through the ranks.

[Astrid Galactic]

"Death panel"? Did you get that from Sarah Palin? That was one of her Obamacare talking points.

Actually, Hillary was talking about them back in the '90s back when it was called HillaryCare.

[Donald Noory]

Actually, Hillary was talking about them back in the '90s back when it was called HillarCare.

Remind me, what was the Republican healthcare plan they came up with during the 8 years that Bush was in office? Or how about that Ayn Rand-loving ass-sucker Paul Ryan? He has great ideas. Get rid of Medicare for seniors, and give them 15k vouchers, and when they run out of money, tough shit. Yeah, you Republicans have some great plans. Oh! I forgot the other grand plan. Allowing people to buy insurance across state lines! That'll really help! More "free market"!