Reminds me of the group Bossa n Roses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAdJXKfJKA0&index=9&list=RDXfCYvWNR6Dk

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.

*ban
victor rose
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnupxUCtiGw

These ridiculous women again? They make their living selling discount Trump items, so their income is totally dependent on his success, yet they balk when asked about this and pretend they're just ordinary supporters, and not paid spokespeople.

When exactly did they 'destroy Clinton' here? They made a single ridiculous metaphor that made no sense...there can be no smoke without fire? They can't really be that ignorant, can they? Do they really not know that 99.9% of the idiotic conspiracy theories their boy spouts are totally baseless rantings, and they still believe Obama is a Muslim Kenyan bent on destroying America? You can't teach that level of stupid, it's innate.

I can't see how these characters help him anyway, they are prime examples of stereotypes that many in the black community find offensive. I guess it's the "see, I have black friends" argument, made so white people can try to pretend they aren't voting for a clearly racist douchebag.
I'm still astonished at the blinders and 3" thick rose colored glasses the Republicans are seeing the world through today. You would think I would have gotten over that by now.

And did that idiot at the end really claim that if he's dead, the Democrats will cast his vote, implying that voting for a dead person is something Democrats consistently do, but not Republicans? Better check your figures there, buddy. You've got it backwards, the dead consistently vote Republican.

15,300 through my shitty earbuds. Might try this later with my Beyerdynamic headphones to see if I get a different result.

The volume also fluctuated as it rose in pitch, I don't know if thats the headphones or my ears.

Your video, Louis CK Talks To Charlie Rose, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Death of an Innocent

This morning you were sentenced unto death
without a trial. You were conceived to die
before you had a chance to catch a breath
of life, or feel the wind, or watch the sky,
or smell a rose, or walk upon the earth.
You were so helpless and so very small,
a bit of life-to-be before your birth,
With no one here to plead your cause at all.
Last night your mother wondered, as she tossed,
if you were someone special, And she cried
for little hands, and lips forever lost;
This morning she surrendered and you died . . .
if you had lived, her daughter or her son,
Could you have understood what she had done?


And yet we care more for a cow.

Yeah. I'm sure it is true, or mostly true, or contains elements of truth. But I don't like RT.

The 21st century Tokyo Rose, who sole goal was to demoralize the soldiers.

I'm with @skinnydaddy1.

Never owned a cat...never want to...cute video surprised it rose to the top.

PC correctness stifles free speech.

YES using words as you describe do indeed cause better understanding of the one using those words.

People should be able to use these words. Then get the fuck beat out to them.

The only hate I have is for dumb ass liberals like you who only looks at the world with rose collar glasses.

You know all the racist words you must use them all the time.
Can you tell us a good racist joke? or how about an anti gay joke. Sounds like you can rattle them off with out thought.

Sorry, but I still can't understand. We obviously don't get to wish away history and just declare America and everybody else should've allowed more Jewish immigration and thus the Jew's that fled to Palestine were illegitimate. If we are wishing, we might as well go all out for an alternate history where Hitler and the Nazi's respected human rights and strove for peace.

Fact is that millions of Jews were trying to flee persecution in Europe(and not just the Nazi's, they were just the worst of the bunch). Fact is that the nations of the world, just like today and always, didn't want to take in nearly that many refugees. They allowed in the smartest and the richest, and that was about the line that was drawn. Truly, I can not blame the still million plus Jews with nowhere to legally escape to choosing illegal immigration to locations deemed safer for them and their families. With Palestine already having a sizable Jewish population and being closer than many other places, it made perfect sense for them to flee there. I really can't see any rational objection to this you've raised save for declaring their situation NOT that desperate or that magically we should've changed history and had everyone else act better, which plainly wasn't something the European Jews could rely upon.

As to theft of land, prior to the total outbreak of civil war in Palestine, it cut both ways. You again seem to refuse to acknowledge this. It was not just the Jews unfairly and violently dealing with the Arab Palestinians, but it was equally Arab Palestinians doing the EXACT same to the Jewish Palestinians. With the British pulling out, both parties were grabbing for land and power. You talk as though the Arab Palestinians were standing there holding out roses and snacks for the Jewish Palestinians only to find themselves shot down for the favour.

After the break out of civil war the Jewish Palestinians and refugees absolutely gained more land than they had at the outset. That is hardly the only time in history that a civil war worked out that way though. More over, when Israel accepted the UN 2 state solution, it was the Arabs that refused, allied with the surrounding Arab state to grossly outnumber the fledgling Jewish state and swore to drive the Jews into the sea. The exact quote is from Azzam Pasha, the Secretary-General of the Arab League, who declared "We will sweep them into the sea". When that war ended, Israel was even larger than when the war started. If that counts as 'stealing' land I think your a little too lose with your definitions. When a much larger alliance of nations tries to destroy a smaller one, is it really expected that the smaller nation return all land it gained as a manner of good behaviour?

Here's the lyrics from the song he should have used:

'So I looked at the scenery,
She read her magazine;
And the moon rose over an open field.
"Kathy, I'm lost", I said,
Though I know she was sleeping.
"I'm empty and aching and
I don't know why."'

Except it's not 1968 anymore; it's 2016 and we know EXACTLY fucking why we feel that way now.

I think it's a matter of degree. Prior to WW1 (Or to say, around the turn of that century), the Jewish faithed presence was quite small. Roughly ~90% of the population was non-Jewish faithed. There was very little conflict prior to WW2, because prior to that, the immigrants purchased their land from the locals. As per the nature of humanity, the only conflict-free methods for transfer of property are : inheritance, trade/sale, or gift.

The League of Nations was inconsequential. As a result of WW1 Britain captured the territory of Palestine from its previous occupiers (Turks, by one title or another, dating back to the Roman empire), and by right of conquest could do as it pleases with it.

I refer to religious insularity, not genetic.
Yes, they are quite accepting of anyone with Jewish faith. Almost the entire Jewish faithed population in Israel, regarding this last century, is either immigrant, or born of said immigrants. The Jewish faithed population rose from around ~600k to ~7 million between 1947 and today. Even taking into account the rule of thumb 'population doubles every ~40 years', that would leave the population roughly 85% immigrant or children thereof.

Which in turn elucidates many of the issues at hand in modern times. Land prices are extreme, with more people than there is room for, so expanding for living room is a necessity. Hence colonial expansion into greater Palestine is inevitable. Further, the dramatic division in income equality puts a lot of social pressure on the government, which the government can further alleviate by expansion. A, because it can relocate those that can't afford to live in more expensive areas, and gives those people a place to busy themselves taking care of, and B, because the inevitable tensions that come from displacing the previous residents causes the government to serve as a protector from those unfortunates that were offended, which serves as a good distraction from other problems that the government isn't doing well to fix. Essentially, the same formula that nations have followed throughout history (Heck, Australia can thank its current existence for similar policies in Britain).

-scheherazade

Isn't there actually a 'game' where you choose the picture and 'beat it up'?

It's pretty funny that they get upset at an 'internet bully', so they become a gang of internet bullies to...well...I'm not sure...get theirs? Certainly not to stop internet bullying...they're using it as a main tactic.

Can't they be sued for publicly calling him a pedophile? Do they really accuse people of being pedophiles so often that they can't remember doing it?

I have to think there's something missing here....like what he actually posted that he's being charged with. Did he make threats? Unfortunately, time and time again this kind of opinion piece leaves out the most important pieces of information. I need to see the tweet that rose to the level of charging him before I form an opinion.

It sure seems like calling him a pedophile publicly meets the criminal standard, why isn't she up on charges?