It's nice that all of the 8 year old jokes are relevant again now that we have an orange president.

One side is always hurt. Another effect of having a two party system that fosters opposition and division to the point of hate. End it or Trump vs Clinton will happen again and again. Demand ranked choice voting, or plan on your side fearing 'the end of the world' every few years.

Ohhhh, so you just reassert your point about Democrats never backing down, but Republicans do without any factual basis whatsoever! What a novel losing debate strategy!

Obamacare isn't perfect and needs to be fixed or replaced with something better. Not the Trumpian "something great" if it should be replaced, but something that is well thought out and addresses what Obamacare couldn't accomplish if the entire premise is systemically not going to work.

Did you see what I did there? I *gasp* recognize that sometimes things don't work! OMG! IT'S AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I also didn't say it's a "fucking disaster", because it isn't. If it were that, explain how the uninsured rate has dropped very significantly. It was never going to achieve 100% insurance rate. The only way that happens is with single payer.

Here's how stupid you are. You don't seem to understand that if Obamacare isn't the answer, you're just making single payer universal health care more likely to be enacted. The American people are not going to go back to being denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. They're just not gonna. Obamacare is the least left policy you could possibly enact that would help control costs and decrease the number of people who are uninsured.

You can scream to the top of your lungs, but Obamacare was enacted to remedy real problems. I'm even sympathetic to the argument that those were real problems, but Obamacare isn't the answer, but if you're going to make that argument, you have to propose something that has historical precedent and rationale to solve those problems. And you simply don't have one.

So again, keep struggling in the quicksand until it swallows you whole, and single payer is enacted.

Your evidence about health insurance premiums is anecdotal, and quite frankly, you don't seem to understand that your numbers and description of what happened to her is absolutely ridiculous. You don't get on medicaid because your insurance premiums go up under Obamacare. You qualify for Medicaid because of a lack of income.

Secondly, the claim is absolutely ridiculous that her premiums went up that much. For data we have available, *unsubsidized* premiums for the lowest cost silver plans for data we have in the Obamacare exchanges was $257 a month for a single person.

http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/analysis-of-2017-premium-changes-and-insurer-participation-in-the-affordable-care-acts-health-insurance-marke
tplaces/

If she qualifies for Medicaid, then surely she could go on a silver plan in the Obamacare exchanges and come out likely paying less. Oh, and, on top of that, she would EASILY qualify for federal subsidies if she qualified for medicaid.

Oh, and btw, without Obamacare, if health care companies decided to raise those premiums just to price gouge, what protection would she have? Not much. Obamacare insures that you can only take in so much that isn't spent on health care.

Your story is completely utterly full of crap on so many levels, it's clear you made it up.

I'm dismissing all your numbers are being unsubstantiated bullshit. Have premiums gone up? Sure have. Were they going up before Obamacare? Yep! There's a healthy debate about how much Obamacare is contributing to premium increases. Obamacare isn't perfect. I'm happy to discuss rationally what could be done to improve Obamacare, or another plausible alternative. But not with you, since you pull numbers out of your ass that easily are completely debunked.

BTW, FYI, Obamacare was not intended to lower premiums nor to completely eliminate the number of uninsured. It was to control costs in all forms and reduce the amount of uninsured, as well as reform the health care system to eliminate problems like being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, people having to declare bankruptcy due to medical bills, etc.

Some of its goals it succeeded in, and some not so much. That's a fair assessment at this point. Medical related bankruptcies have not declined. Being denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition has been eliminated. Premiums have gone up, but we simply don't have enough data to determine if they've slowed or accelerated since Obamacare was implemented. If you go by the immediate years after Obamacare was fully implemented, they slowed.

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/Adler_Exhibit1.png

More recently, they've accelerated. It's important to note that health care costs are not solely determined by premiums alone. It's interesting you cherry picked premiums only to prove costs haven't been controlled because premiums are your best case to make that point. Copays, coinsurance, deductibles, prescription drugs, all those play a role. IE, if the average American pays more in premiums but less everywhere else, it's possible the net average is lower for total costs paid for health care.

These are complex topics that have no room for bringing in rose colored ideologically tinted lenses to force the outcome to be "a fucking disaster", where you'll bring in anecdotal evidence, some of which is completely utterly made up.

Just how far are you willing to make stuff up? Hillary Clinton, according to you, has never in the last 40 years done anything substantially positive.

REALLY?! Look, I understand not necessarily wanting her to be President. OK, fine. But that claim is absolutely ridiculous. Over $2 billion has been raised by the Clinton Foundation, and over 90% of that has gone to charitable work according to independent studies. Before you go down the path of "paid access", blah blah blah, even if that were true, the reality is $1.8 billion went to charitable works around the world through the Clinton Foundation Hillary Clinton helped to create and run.

That's not substantial?!?!

Dude, just stop. The only people who believe that BS are people within your bubble. You're not convincing anyone else who didn't already think Hillary Clinton personally killed Vince Foster. You're just making people like me think you're a complete loon.

I'm on the pretty extreme end of the introversion side of the curve.

I remember talking about introversion vs. extroversion in Psych 101 at college. I think that talking about it in that classroom environment helped to foster a lot of understanding between both sides. Very extroverted people talked about how they would get anxiety on up to physical symptoms of discomfort if they went for several hours with zero human interaction, which completely blew my mind.

But, I'll feel similar discomfort if you drop me into a loud, crowded party. If I'm ever trapped in a situation like that, I quickly escalate from nervous to annoyed to "honey badger in a corner" enraged.

I think there is definitely a societal extroversion bias, but a lot of it is well-intentioned. Many leaders tend to be extroverts, and they sort of "feel sorry" for people who seem to distance themselves from the group. Then they will try to incorporate those people into the group, thinking that they are doing them a favor. But in many cases, that is the exact opposite of what we introverts actually want.

I think that both personality types have advantages that can make them uniquely suited towards specific tasks. A really good leader understands both types and knows how to get the best out of either.

I didn't really care much when he revealed that Hillary is a lizardwoman who ate Vince Foster and raped Bill Clinton, because even though I believe it, Trump is pretty bad on policy. This though? This is beyond the goddamn pale.

I'm totally with you on the need to understand the motives that drove him to this desperate and indefensible action.
I don't think trying to understand what happened is condoning it, but I do think it's a necessary step in trying to keep it from repeating.

I don't think it's a stretch to think that he had some bad encounters with police. I don't think it's a stretch to guess that he felt abused by a nation that he served in war but wouldn't stand with him (or those like him) when police abuse them. I don't think it's a stretch to believe he thought his community was under attack from the police, and that belief was reinforced daily on the news. It's only a guess, but I would guess he didn't have a great life, so didn't have much to lose in this suicide attack (he couldn't think he would survive).

I also don't think it's a stretch to believe this won't be the last time this happens if the current division between police and citizens continues to grow. One can only hope that this terroristic act will foster empathy in both directions...for, and from police, or I fear we're doomed to see an escalation of this kind of thing.

One
more
total
communication
failure.
I wrote that there would only be an obligation for them to also help men IF they want to claim that 'feminism' is about pure equality of the sexes and not just working for women's rights, which is what had been contended. It was a reply to a claim, not a suggestion.
Please try reading again.

Sexual objectification is sexist, even if it's objectifying a man. What do you think the word means?
from dictionary.com
Sexist - relating to, involving, or fostering discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex or gender, or attitudes and behavior toward someone based on the person's gender

This is the exact thing I've come to dislike about 'feminism'. It seems you're saying his objectification and devaluation isn't up to par with the objectification and devaluation many women suffer from, so it's not "actual sexism", doesn't matter, and he should just shut up about it and quit his whining.....but if a woman said the exact same words about being uncomfortable being required to do the exact same actions there would be (and has been) a serious discussion of how to solve that disturbing sexist trend and a move to fire and shame the disgusting pig director/photographer that forced her to do something she was uncomfortable doing, and if someone dared to say her issues were minor, outrage and attack.

Benhgazi ! Vince foster ! Muslims !

If a parent did this to their child they would be in jail and the kid in a foster home.


What was the context for this event? Is the kid a criminal trespasser or did he spit on the cop?

That's just plain wrong. Black people can ABSOLUTELY be racist, they can even be racist against black people.
http://videosift.com/video/Chappelle-Black-white-supremacist
Black people can even perpetrate institutional racism...just see 'blackpeoplemeet.com' who's policy is to exclude non-black people as proof they can do it.

Please note the actual definition of the word below, and that your limited definition is the secondary one, not primary. The primary definition describes the most common usage, the secondary one describes institutional racism, which is a side effect of the those in power holding to the primary.

Racism: noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

People forget, Hillary scammed tons of money with the Whitewater scandal for decades until it was leaked in 1992, but they protected Hillary by everyone else in the partnership taking the heat but her, then very quickly almost without media catching it Bill Clinton as lame duck end of term pardoned everyone involved in Whitewater, in 1994 Hillary was stealing money "again", her law firm partner "fell on his sword" accepting the blame keeping Hillary safe, 1996 democrat fundraising head "fell on his sword" receiving 17 count indictment for money again.

there's ton of stuff even back to her youth with money scams and always wiggling out of it.


“In 1997, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, along with several other groups, filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and Donna Shalala over closed-door meetings related to the health care plan. The AAPS sued to gain access to the list of members of the task force. Judge Royce C. Lamberth found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded $285,864 to the AAPS for legal costs; Lamberth also harshly criticized the unethical tactics especially as she was a partner in a lawfirm, at least before it was shut down due to her partner "falling on his sword for theft and scamming clients".


“In the weeks before the inauguration, he [Vince Foster] had worked intensively with another Arkansas lawyer to expunge Bill and Hillary’s financial records of a shady land deal – a scandal later known as the Whitewater affair… One of his [Vince Foster’s] first jobs in the White House was to try to make sense of the Clintons’ false tax returns concerning the Whitewater land investment. A note in his hand-writing, found much later, warned that Whitewater was “a can of worms you shouldn’t open.”

Vince Foster was assassinated 1993.

Fosters? Eww

I looked up how he described his own role: "Officially, Masters are charged with setting the “intellectual, social, and ethical tone of the College.” On a practical level, I am here to support you, our wonderful Silliman students. I spend time trying to get to know and advise students; working with our amazing residential staff to foster college life; and hosting social and academic events. I also devote energy to anticipating needs, whether they involve space allocation, resources, or new programs to meet students’ interests. Oh, and I deliver sweets at odd hours. "

To me this is a different role from a teacher, and it seems like someone that the students might expect to provide them with safety and hugs rather than constructive criticism... But it still seems absurd to me and I hate their entitled rudeness.

Yes it is important the field you work in. You are going to spend something like 40% of your waking hours doing it. If you think doubleshifting manual labour under scorching sun and whips is somehow equivalent to 8 hours in an office environment where you answer phones or w/e, you've lost the thread.

You're right that not everyone can change jobs. You grossly exaggerate what is required to do so, however. Yes, changing between highly skilled careers that required a significant amount of specialized knowledge isn't available to all that many people. But you can't even see the miseries of slave labour from the desk of your first career, they're so far away.

You haven't thought too much about infrastructure and what it would mean to have it removed, have you? Of course infrastructure is a benefit to employers, but that's not relevant to how beneficial it is to the 'slaves'. I expect casual access to electricity, water, and world wide communication would have done a lot for slaves, to name just a few of the elements of infrastructure. I'm honestly starting to doubt your sincerity now.

Slaves had good healthcare? Holy shit. I never expected to hear something like that. I don't need to make a counter point here, as you've ridiculed yourself. American healthcare is shitty -- COMPARED with other developed countries. It is light years ahead of anything that has existed outside the jurisdiction of a government.

Yes, the influential have an advantage. Nobody is disputing that. It doesn't utterly negate your rights across the board. You can still travel. You can still educate yourself. You can still own property. You can still address many grievances by wielding your rights. This list goes on and on. ALL things a slave couldn't ever hope to do. I think the rest of your paragraph should have been moved to the protection from hostility section so I'll address it there.

I was addressing hostility from other slaves. You are probably right in that the tribalism it fosters can be very dangerous where countries clash. In a system without government, spats would result in undending blood feuds, all across the territory ruled by the anarchy, whereas under a state, if they happen across borders they can erupt into something far worse.

I don't agree with the way the US has handled the extremist muslim situation that they mid-wifed in the middle east. But are you going to tell me that you're less safe, now, even after all the alluded too transgressions, than some rural farmer in South Sudan, who is effectively living without any guaranteed rights?

I'm definitely for more compassion and socialism than seen in modern US policy, so I'm not sure what your point is. Are you trying to claim that policies on slave plantations were more generous towards the slaves than our current policies are towards us?

Let's just say that I'm loathe to accept an unsourced opinion than medieval peasantry lead better lives than the average government-laden citizen nowadays. I'm sure there are some points on which they did better. Superstition, sickness, famine, war, flooding. We honestly don't have anything that even compares to these in the modern world. If you could link it or something though, I'd love to read it. It sounds interesting.

These posts are getting too long.

Might be her lawyer. I'm just happy she has a lawyer. And sounds like her foster mom is not awful either...