Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How does Thomas Jefferson's affair with Sally Hemmings, which is well document,

sadly dear if "well document" means, proven, you are wrong. If you have proof though I'll pay you $10,000. Bet or run away with your liberal tail between your legs.


]

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How does Thomas Jefferson's affair with Sally Hemmings, which is well document, in any way smear Jefferson or undermine America's founders? A lot of the founding fathers owned slaves and it was standard practice for slave owners to "pleasure" themselves with slave women. That's why there were so many "light-skinned" slaves, which were favoured as house slaves in southern households. Jefferson was a man of his time.

I think that knowing that Jefferson cared for a black woman, had children with her and freed those children, speaks very highly of Jefferson as a man and in no way undermines him.

Only a racist would view this as a smear.

Bravo Dragonlady! My thoughts exactly! Ed seems perfectly willing to excuse Tom's ownership of other humans, but balks at interracial romance. Racist indeed!

Special Ed and his kind believe that American slavery was the best thing to happen to Africans.

Thomas Sowell believes it anyway. He's only the worlds greatest expert on refugee movements. If the bird brain liberal disagrees with him please say why or admit you lack the IQ to support your feelings and that you have no idea that feelings are different from thoughts.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How does Thomas Jefferson's affair with Sally Hemmings, which is well document, in any way smear Jefferson or undermine America's founders? A lot of the founding fathers owned slaves and it was standard practice for slave owners to "pleasure" themselves with slave women. That's why there were so many "light-skinned" slaves, which were favoured as house slaves in southern households. Jefferson was a man of his time.

I think that knowing that Jefferson cared for a black woman, had children with her and freed those children, speaks very highly of Jefferson as a man and in no way undermines him.

Only a racist would view this as a smear.

Bravo Dragonlady! My thoughts exactly! Ed seems perfectly willing to excuse Tom's ownership of other humans, but balks at interracial romance. Racist indeed!

Special Ed and his kind believe that American slavery was the best thing to happen to Africans.

PLease tell us what the best thing was or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so. Isn't thinking fun??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Special Ed and his kind believe that American slavery was the best thing to happen to Africans.

Yes, it helped keep African American families together, including those children who were fathered by their owner or his male family members, when they repeated raped their favourite female slaves. And except when the master sold one or both of the parents and kept the kids. But I digress.

yes you digress into more pure liberal illiteracy!! Nothing fractured black families more than liberalism.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow?? What other conclusion is possible??


We could survive slavery, we could survive Jim Crow, but we could not survive liberalism"- Walter Williams PH.D

Even in the antebellum era, when slaves often weren’t permitted to wed, most black children lived with a biological mother and father. During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do, what Jim Crow couldn’t do, what the harshest racism couldn’t do,” Mr. Williams says. “And that is to destroy the black family

The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals' expansion of the welfare state. Most black children grew up in homes with two parents during all that time but most grow up with only one parent today.

Liberals have pushed affirmative action, supposedly for the benefit of blacks and other minorities. But two recent factual studies show that affirmative action in college admissions has led to black students with every qualification for success being artificially turned into failures by being mismatched with colleges for the sake of racial body count.

The two most recent books that show this with hard facts are "Mismatch" by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr., and "Wounds That Will Not Heal" by Russell K. Nieli. My own book "Affirmative Action Around the World" shows the same thing with different evidence.



Thus began an unprecedented commitment of federal funds to a wide range of measures aimed at redistributing wealth in the United States.[1] From 1965 to 2008, nearly $16 trillion of taxpayer money (in constant 2008 dollars) was spent onmeans-tested welfare programs for the poor.

The economic milieu in which the War on Poverty arose is noteworthy. As of 1965, the number of Americans living below the official poverty line had been declining continuously since the beginning of the decade and was only about half of what it had been fifteen years earlier. Between 1950 and 1965, the proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level, had decreased by more than 30%. The black poverty rate had been cut nearly in half between 1940 and 1960. In various skilled trades during the period of 1936-59, the incomes of blacks relative to whites had more than doubled. Further, the representation of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations grew more quickly during the five years preceding the launch of the War on Poverty than during the five years thereafter.

Despite these trends, the welfare state expanded dramatically after LBJ's statement. Between the mid-Sixties and the mid-Seventies, the dollar value of public housing quintupled and the amount spent on food stamps rose more than tenfold. From 1965 to 1969, government-provided benefits increased by a factor of 8; by 1974 such benefits were an astounding 20 times higher than they had been in 1965. Alsoas of 1974, federal spending on social-welfare programs amounted to 16% of America’s Gross National Product, a far cry from the 8% figure of 1960. By 1977 the number of people receiving public assistance had more than doubled since 1960.


The most devastating by-product of the mushrooming welfare state was the corrosive effect it had (along with powerful cultural phenomena such as the feminist and Black Power movements) on American family life, particularly in the black community.
 As provisions in welfare laws offered ever-increasing economic incentives for shunning marriage and avoiding the formation of two-parent families, illegitimacy rates rose dramatically.

The calamitous breakdown of the black family is a comparatively recent phenomenon, coinciding precisely with the rise of the welfare state. Throughout the epoch of slavery and into the early decades of the twentieth century, most black children grew up in two-parent households.
 Post-Civil War studies revealed that most black couples in their forties had been together for at least twenty years. In southern urban areas around 1880, nearly three-fourths of black households were husband-or father-present; in southern rural settings, the figure approached 86%. As of 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks nationwide was approximately 15%—scarcely one-fifth of the current figure.
 As late as 1950, black women were more likely to be married than white women, and only 9% of black families with children were headed by a single parent.

During the nine decades between the Emancipation Proclamation and the 1950s, the black family remained a strong, stable institution. Its cataclysmic destruction was subsequently set in motion by such policies as the anti-marriage incentives that are built into the welfare system have served only to exacerbate the problem. As George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams puts it: “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do. And that is to destroy the black family.” Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell concurs: “The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.”

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Shortly after the DNA test results were released in November 1998, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation formed a research committee consisting of nine members of the foundation staff, including four with Ph.D.s. In January 2000, the committee reported that the weight of all known evidence--from the DNA study, original documents, written and oral historical accounts, and statistical data--indicated a high probability that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Eston Hemings, and that he was likely the father of all six of Sally Hemings's children listed in Monticello records--Harriet (born 1795; died in infancy); Beverly (born 1798); an unnamed daughter (born 1799; died in infancy); Harriet (born 1801); Madison (born 1805); and Eston (born 1808).

Since then, a committee commissioned by the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society, after reviewing essentially the same material, reached different conclusions, namely that Sally Hemings was only a minor figure in Thomas Jefferson's life and that it is very unlikely he fathered any of her children. This committee also suggested in its report, issued in April 2001 and revised in 2011, that Jefferson's younger brother Randolph (1755-1815) was more likely the father of at least some of Sally Hemings's children.

The committee commissioned by the heritage society had WHAT qualifications with which to reach their different conclusions?

I KNEW you'd tap dance away from your foolhardy wager. She went with Tom to Paris, for crissakes and he was present at Monticello where she was, or with her in Paris when her children were conceived. And her kids have Jefferson DNA! Baby brother Randolph becomes the scapegoat, does he? Either way..a Jefferson boy was dipping into some dark meat.

Special Ed makes these stupid ass bets knowing full well he'll never have to pay up.

actually liberal fools make proud assertions that they think are correct because a liberal will lack the IQ to know the difference between a feeling and a thought. I propose a legal bet for $10,000 that they can't support what they say or feel.

They always refuse to take the bet knowing in their hearts that they are illiterate feelers, not thinkers.

 

[Dragonlady]

They always refuse to take the bet knowing in their hearts that they are illiterate feelers, not thinkers.

Ed, that is one of the dumbest things you have ever posted, and that's saying a lot. If we are not thinkers, how can we know anything? If we are illiterate, how can we consistently write posts that point out the obvious logical fallacies in your borrowed ideas?

If you had an original thought, it would be lonely, Eddie. Everything you post has been written by someone else. No one takes your bets, not because they would lose, but because you won't ever admit you've lost and you won't pay up. It's pointless.

The only reason anyone on the left responds to your posts, it because shooting you down is like shooting fish in a barrel. And because through you, we are able to correct mis-information and outright lies which you repeatedly post.

 

[expatriate]

The committee commissioned by the heritage society had WHAT qualifications with which to reach their different conclusions?

I KNEW you'd tap dance away from your foolhardy wager. She went with Tom to Paris, for crissakes and he was present at Monticello where she was, or with her in Paris when her children were conceived. And her kids have Jefferson DNA! Baby brother Randolph becomes the scapegoat, does he? Either way..a Jefferson boy was dipping into some dark meat.

Special Ed makes these stupid ass bets knowing full well he'll never have to pay up.

actually liberal fools make proud assertions that they think are correct because a liberal will lack the IQ to know the difference between a feeling and a thought. I propose a legal bet for $10,000 that they can't support what they say or feel.

They always refuse to take the bet knowing in their hearts that they are illiterate feelers, not thinkers.

the "bet" you propose is ridiculous. Hemmings' offspring have Jefferson DNA. Hemmings and Jefferson were known to have co-habitated and Jefferson freed all of her offspring from the bonds of slavery, yet did not do so for any other children of his slaves. Everyone who has half a brain or more realizes that the children were his, and nobody I know of, except you, thinks there is anything wrong with it. He is no less a great American for loving a woman of color. I think his actions only accentuate his greatness. Not you, obviously. If his fathering children with his slave-lover diminishes him in your eyes, that's YOUR problem, not mine.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Hemmings' offspring have Jefferson DNA.

and there were many Jeffersons of course.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

shooting you down is like shooting fish in a barrel.

the illiterate liberal has a feeling which explains why she is so afraid to present her best example for the whole world to see. What does your fear tell you about the liberal character and IQ?

 

[dblack]

The only reason anyone on the left responds to your posts, it because shooting you down is like shooting fish in a barrel. And because through you, we are able to correct mis-information and outright lies which you repeatedly post.

I sometimes wonder if he isn't a cleverly placed foil.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The only reason anyone on the left responds to your posts, it because shooting you down is like shooting fish in a barrel. And because through you, we are able to correct mis-information and outright lies which you repeatedly post.

I sometimes wonder if he isn't a cleverly placed foil.

yes, she says, like shooting fish in a barrel, I say, best example please, she disappears having had no idea she could be exposed so quickly for the brain dead libturd she is.

 

[dblack]

All I can say is truth matters

 

[Annika55]

Well suppose no one bought the livers?

too stupid and perfectly liberal!!!

1) if you need a transplant you have no choice but to buy much like if you need food you have no choice but to buy

2) in a capitalist system providers would be locked in life and death competition to offer liver transplants for the least possible price.


See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow!!

Imagine someone who jogs for fun and someone who races in life and death
competition? Who would be a faster runner? Now you understand competiton and how it makes us better. Not so hard was it?

Nothing in the Affordable Care Act has thus far limited competition amongst insurance companies. The Insurance Marketplace doesnt even kick in till Oct 1, 2013.
The Marketplace will be available*plans "run by private companies.
When you shop at the Marketplace, everything you need is laid out for you. All your costs are stated up front, so you’ll get a clear picture of what you’re paying and what you’re getting before you make a choice."
About the Health Insurance Marketplace | HealthCare.gov

So far the Act removes the cap insurance companies could have on their payments, removes the pre-existing conditions language that insurance companies used to make sure only demonstrably healthy persons are insurable, and allows those up to 26 years old to have coverage under their parents' policies. Most American favor these changes.*

Since absolutely nothing about competition has been changed to date, we can assume consumers are benefitting from competition in the insurance system and the effects of capitalism have lowered prices over time.*
(Competition even exists in the medicare arena. Dozens of booklets from insurance companies with Medicare contracts and Medicare supplements flood the mailbox.)
OMG! Despite competition and capitalism the price of insurance has RISEN over the last decade.

"From 1999 to 2009, Kaiser found that the insurance premiums had climbed 131% or 13.1% per year, and workers’ contribution toward paying that premium jumped 128% or 12.8% per year. In 1999, workers’ average contribution to the premium was $1543, and in 2009 it was $3515. For employers, their contribution was $4247 in 1999 and $9860 in 2009."

Health insurance costs in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dblack]

Any laws that dictate coverage minimums/maximums limit competition.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Since absolutely nothing about competition has been changed to date,

your liberal ignorance about education is exceeded only by your liberal ignorance about health care. Sorry.

Yes, nothing has been changed about competition to date, so that means competition is still illegal!!! If interestate competition is illegal then competition is illegal. Imagine if each state was its own toothpaste market and there was no national competition??? Live and learn, dear.

Please note that being a liberal will subject you to countless crushing defeats.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

All I can say is truth matters

yes, certainly to conservatives anyway, but to liberals only feelings seem to matter. They lack the intelligence to subject their feelings to scrutiny so they must accept them and go with them. Hence, the carnage around here.

 

[Annika55]

and what about insurance industry profit?

in a capitalist system where competition is allowed competition forces profits to $0 so it is not an issue. Econ 101!!

ANd wouldn't republican health care encourage insurance companies to dump folks with illnesses in order to further maximize their profits?
just curious.

no they would be the best customers because they need the most product. It
would be like someone needed a Rolls Royce. THe more products someone needs the more capitalists like him!!

The capitalist, competitive system has not lowered insurance co. profits.
The insurance industry's (AHIP) "own chart of this data shows that the share of the health care economy sucked up by health insurance profits has more than tripled over the past decade."

Ethan Rome: The Truth About Health Insurance Company Profits: They're Excessive

Your comment about insurance companies wanting customers with pre- existing conditions and chronic diseases is the MOST laughably stupid remark ever posted.

Let's make this very simple:

An insurance company gets $15,000 in premiums from a customer. Customer A has no diseases or health issues. The insurance co. pays out $500 a year for customer A's checkups.

Customer B has cancer. Currently he sees his oncologist every two weeks for extensive bloods tests and lab work and he has CT scans every three months for $3000 each.

Currently, he is being treated with 2 medicines; one costs $5000 a month and
one costs $8000 a month. Medicines like these might keep Customer B alive for five years or more. The insurance company
pays out several hundreds of thousands of dollars each Year for customer B.

Now do you really think the insurance co would reject customer A because he does NOT NEED much health care?
Do you really believe the insurance company will choose customer B because he NEEDS such expensive medical care?

I really hope you can understand why your comment was so totally ridiculous it indicates nothing you say is likely to have any validity. I hope you understand why Obamacare had to make it ILLEGAL for insurance companies to continue their
longstanding practice of denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The capitalist, competitive system has not lowered insurance co. profits.

dear, you are not being a good reader are you?? Libturds made competition illegal in health care insurance so there is no capitalist competitive system!

Do you need to write that 100 times before it sinks into the very very slow liberal brain????????????

 

[Annika55]

Since absolutely nothing about competition has been changed to date,

your liberal ignorance about education is exceeded only by your liberal ignorance about health care. Sorry.

Yes, nothing has been changed about competition to date, so that means competition is still illegal!!! If interestate competition is illegal then competition is illegal. Imagine if each state was its own toothpaste market and there was no national competition??? Live and learn, dear.

Please note that being a liberal will subject you to countless crushing defeats.

Competition may be limited, but there are still enough insurance companies competing to maintain the free market rules.

I think I showed everything you wrote on the education thread was completely ignorant or simply lies. I posted recent test data from tests YOU praised to show that your comments were really stupid, comments like "The Soviet Union produces the dumbest students in the world" while you simultaneously posted "The US produces the dumbest students in the world." Can you see the problem with your 2 posts (in addition to the fact that their actual scores on the test YOU presented as an excellent measure completely dubunks the accuracy of your posts.

Yes sir, you called me stupid and liberal so there is no doubt your intellectual superiority won that debate.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Competition may be limited, but there are still enough insurance companies competing to maintain the free market rules.

Dear, please don't be stupid on purpose. Show some character and intelligence. When you lose you lose! Grow up!! If libturds created 50 markets for toothpaste instead of allowing one national market the price of toothpaste would go up 10 times and we'd all have a soviet standard of living.

Still over your head??

A brainwashed libturd has been programmed to attack capitalism but when the libturd cant find capitalism she creates a strawman to fullfill her prime directive !! Got it now?????????