Originally posted by stj0691:[..]
You'll love this bit about Obamacare then. In order for a state to opt out of this, they [the state] have to provide a plan that has the same coverage and the same cost. I would imagine having to force a state to have to adopt a federal plan of some sort could only be avoiding by calling it a tax. Somebody please tell me I'm wrong though, because if the Supreme Court missed this, it's a huge miss.
By the way which part of my post are you referring to?
Originally posted by LikeASong:[..]
You know something, Aaron? You're as boring with your you-commies-will-burn-in-hell shit as Yogi with his anti-yankee/NATO propaganda, but he at least participates in other sections of our website and our forums. You just come over and over to the Politics thread, only to fight people and spread your speeech. This is a U2 website with some off-topic things like this thread, but U2start is not a political forum. If you want a dedicated politics forum, register over at US Message Board, or maybe take a look around Political Forum (worldwide forum, not only US-related) and Debate Politics; I really think those are the websites you're actually looking for.
I have *nothing* against right-wingers who reasonably argument their positions; my best friend leans very much towards right wing, and we're best friends since 21 years ago. It's just an example tos how you that I respect opinions, whether I share them or not, and I don't have anything personal against those who don't share my opinions (something you can't afford to say, by the way). But man, I *do* have something against those who just repeat their arguments over and over, and automatically dismiss and/or insult anyone who opposes them with true thoughts and arguments.
I'm done with you, seriously. But lemme tell ya: one more "piss off", "fuck off", "you suck", "I don't give a damn about you" or any of other equivalent bullshit towards any of our truly appreciated and useful members, and you will be the one who's done with U2start.
Did I explain myself clearly enough?
Originally posted by wtshnnfb01:[..]
Just ban me and get it over with. I'm tired of being held to a double standard, and all you threats, and passive agressive B.S. Either follow though on one of your threats, or stop doing them. Your a pety imature man, and how you ever got admin privilages is beyond me.
Since I know this will get me banned, goodbye to everyone on this site who actually cares for me.
Originally posted by LikeASong:In my humble opinion, an argumented, long-thought post is quite less hostile than a constant stream of piss off's (and similar dismissings).
Ok, you might have read it, but you clearly didn't understand it.
Originally posted by Mr_Trek:Hey, don't start a war now Sergio or AaronIt's "only" politics and I don't think people need to be banned for political views.
Originally posted by wtshnnfb01:[..]
I did. When are we going to quit these passive agressive games?
Originally posted by LikeASong:I haven't heard anything about it, and when I search the internet I only find information about... ehm... the United States thinking of forbiding themFor example: http://www.myhealthbeijing.com/2011/06/is-your-sunscreen-spf-50-dont-waste-your-money/ (2011 article speaking of a probable 2012 ban). This article gives figures that support my previous post: SPF 2 blocks 50% // SPF 15 blocks 93% // SPF 30 blocks 97% // SPF 50 blocks 98% // SPF 70 blocks 98.6% // SPF 90 blocks 98.9%...
And this is an online petition to, erm, United States Food&Drug Administration, to ask for a ban of those high SFP sunscreens: http://forcechange.com/21405/ban-misleadingly-branded-high-spf-sunscreens/ ... "sunscreens with an SPF above 50 don’t actually offer any additional protection, despite the higher number on their label. People who wear high-SPF sunscreens are therefore deluded into thinking they can stay out in the sun for longer without reapplying sun protection–a delusion that leads to irreversible skin damage.".
So, there you are.