« prev   random   next »

4
2

DeNiro leads crowd in singing God Bless America at Tony awards

By MisterLefty following x   2018 Jun 11, 3:16am 1,705 views   134 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    


Robert DeNiro yells 'f*** Trump' TWICE during a foul-mouthed tirade on stage at the Tony Awards and gets a standing ovation

Television audiences get bleeped version and wonder what they missed

DeNiro walked out and said 'Iā€™m just going to say one thing, and that's f*** Trump'

The audience leapt to it's feet, and cheered the statement while the actor, 74, pumped his fists

THEN he said 'its no longer 'down with Trump', its 'f*** Trump' and the audience cheered again

Robert DeNiro yelled 'f*** Trump' during a foul-mouthed rant at the Tony Awards and got a standing ovation.

The audience went wild, some rising to their feet. DeNiro pumped his fists triumphantly.

The outburst was bleeped, so Broadway fans watching at home didn't hear the expletive.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5828513/Robert-DeNiro-yells-F-Trump-stage-Tonys-TWICE-gets-standing-ovation.html

« First    « Previous    Comments 121 - 134 of 134    Last »

121   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 14, 1:46pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
I showed you the article describing the shortage of healthcare professionals in many areas of the Deep South.


You are conflating issues. There is a lack of top quality specialists in rural areas. There is no shortage of professionals who can do prenatal care and annual wellness checks. So yes, if you are diagnosed with a rare cancer, you'd have to get to a big city doctor. However, not doing a prenatal visit or eating doritos are personal poor decisions. The lowered life expectancy and IMR in our black communities is a direct result of bad decisions. It has nothing to do w healthcare.
122   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 14, 1:48pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
Goran_K says
The truth is poor people tend to have the worst outcomes for everything; health, graduation rates, becoming criminals, etc.


No kidding. And it's not because they're fat.


Being fat is an effect of the same cause = poor choices. Is obesity your doctor's fault, or your fault?
123   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 14, 2:02pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
lol--if only it were that easy. Pretty sure a high school education and a job at Walmart doesn't keep you from being poor.


What is your opinion based on? The Brookings Institute studied decades of data.

CBOEtrader says
Being fat is an effect of the same cause = poor choices. Is obesity your doctor's fault, or your fault?


Bingo.
124   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 14, 2:16pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Goran_K says

What is your opinion based on? The Brookings Institute studied decades of data.


It's not an opinion. It's pretty easy to look at the Walmart pay/hour, multiply it by 40 hours/week and see that one is still poor.

CBOEtrader says

Being fat is an effect of the same cause = poor choices. Is obesity your doctor's fault, or your fault?


What are you talking about? Who says it's your Drs. fault? Why the preoccupation with obesity? Is it that hard for you to accept reality--that healthcare access differs based on $$?
125   MisterLefty   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 14, 2:48pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
No, they would have to in order to keep their employees. Labor is a free market and salary + benefits is set by the market. If your companiy reduce benefits, then salaries would have to go up to maintain the same equilibrium on the supply/demand curve.
Gibberish pseudo-theory. I prefer to look at the real world and real world behavior of employers. Of course, you could be on Trump's side and believe that lower corporate taxes will result in a passing on of the savings to employees in the form of fatter paychecks. You know you want to wear that red MAGA hat. LeonDurham says
Those are poor assumptions. You absolutely ARE paying for all of your healthcare, whether your company sends the check directly or you send it. So, Change the $5277 to $18142.
No, and I can provide numerous links that break down contribution by employees and contributions by employers. For an average family it is about 1/3 employee, 2/3 company. Again, I believe there is no evidence to show that employers will pass that 2/3 cost, around $10k or so, onto the employee in the form of a nice raise.LeonDurham says
Where did you come up with the $23000 extra with single payer too? Why would it be MORE than what we're paying now? Every other system pays much LESS--usually around 1/2 of what we pay.
I'll run some calculations again later. If you Google if folks pay more taxes under socialized medicine, there is no consensus. However, if you look at tax rates in countries that do have socialized medicine, you will see much higher personal tax rates in general. Although I would admit that your argument, pay less and get more, is the American desire, but OTOH, you get what you pay for.LeonDurham says
Nobody knows until the numbers come out, but if the argument is that unless EVERYONE saves money don't do it, that's a really ridiculous argument.
No. no, it is the precise argument if you will be paying more in taxes under socialized medicine, and don't prefer to.
126   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 14, 3:11pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

MisterLefty says
Gibberish pseudo-theory.


lol--- theory of supply and demand is gibberish pseudo-theory? Well, OK then.

MisterLefty says
Of course, you could be on Trump's side and believe that lower corporate taxes will result in a passing on of the savings to employees in the form of fatter paychecks. You know you want to wear that red MAGA hat.


Nope--two totally different situations. Giving companies money doesn't raise wages because it doesn't affect the supply and demand of workers. Reducing benefits is giving all workers a pay cut and will definitely have an impact.

MisterLefty says
o, and I can provide numerous links that break down contribution by employees and contributions by employers. For an average family it is about 1/3 employee, 2/3 company. Again, I believe there is no evidence to show that employers will pass that 2/3 cost, around $10k or so, onto the employee in the form of a nice raise


Well, you believe incorrectly. Wages are set by supply and demand You're saying giving everyone a pay cut will have no effect. That's wrong.

MisterLefty says
Although I would admit that your argument, pay less and get more, is the American desire, but OTOH, you get what you pay for


Except you don't. In the US, we pay double and get worse healthcare. This is not in doubt. It has been shown in study after study after study. We pay more and get less.

MisterLefty says
No. no, it is the precise argument if you will be paying more in taxes under socialized medicine, and don't prefer to.


Luckily the country is run by majority so one person who pays more can't override 300 million that do.
127   MisterLefty   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 14, 3:25pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
lol--- theory of supply and demand is gibberish pseudo-theory? Well, OK then
Consider if all employers decide to apply their portion of their contribution to employees healthcare to other uses, e.g. invest internally, return to shareholders, etc. Nothing will have changed from this mythical supply and demand perspective. A given employee would not be getting a better deal elsewhere, under this assumption, and the status quo would be maintained.LeonDurham says
Except you don't. In the US, we pay double and get worse healthcare.
And so under a pay less scenario, you could still get worse healthcare.LeonDurham says
Luckily the country is run by majority so one person who pays more can't override 300 million that do.
Actually the country is run by the banksters, but with regards to voting, it comes down to those who vote, not simple population based majorities.
128   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 14, 4:54pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

MisterLefty says
Consider if all employers decide to apply their portion of their contribution to employees healthcare to other uses, e.g. invest internally, return to shareholders, etc. Nothing will have changed from this mythical supply and demand perspective. A given employee would not be getting a better deal elsewhere, under this assumption, and the status quo would be maintained


Yes it will. Employee take home pay will be reduced. Employees would decide that the new pay wasn't enough and would quit.

MisterLefty says
And so under a pay less scenario, you could still get worse healthcare.


Not according to every available study that Ive ever seen.

MisterLefty says
but with regards to voting, it comes down to those who vote, not simple population based majorities.


OK--luckily the country is run by the majority of voters, so one person who pays more can't override the 128MM that do. Is that better?
129   MisterLefty   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 14, 6:30pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
Yes it will. Employee take home pay will be reduced. Employees would decide that the new pay wasn't enough and would quit.
Employee pay after taxes might be reduced to pay for the increased taxes to fund socialized medicine, perhaps. but as the employer contribution is not represented on their current paycheck, when it is not longer provided, it can't in and of itself reduce the paycheck.LeonDurham says
Not according to every available study that Ive ever seen.
Which you won't reference. To be clear, a reference describing how care will be better in the USA under a scenario of paying less would be interesting to see.LeonDurham says
130   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 14, 7:05pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

MisterLefty says
Employee pay after taxes might be reduced to pay for the increased taxes to fund socialized medicine, perhaps. but as the employer contribution is not represented on their current paycheck, when it is not longer provided, it can't in and of itself reduce the paycheck


Right--so, as I said, employee net pay is reduced.

MisterLefty says
Which you won't reference. To be clear, a reference describing how care will be better in the USA under a scenario of paying less would be interesting to see


lol--you think I can't find those studes?

https://www.imf.org/external/np/seminars/eng/2011/paris/pdf/Joumard.pdf
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.20.3.219
http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

I can link to more if you'd like, but it's pretty simple if you want to do it yourself. Google--health care system efficiency by country.
131   MisterLefty   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 14, 7:35pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
Right--so, as I said, employee net pay is reduced
Yes, to pay for higher socialized medicine taxes, an argument against it.LeonDurham says
lol--you think I can't find those studes?
I don't think you understand them. Please point out in any of those links information verifying your belief that by paying less, care would improve.
132   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 14, 7:47pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
Is it that hard for you to accept reality--that healthcare access differs based on $$?


This isn't true man. Someone on Medicaid has better access to care than any of us. To be on medicaid you need to make less than $12500/yr.

These same people have much higher rates of IMR because of poor choices. Go read any legit study on the topic anywhere. The causes of IMR are pre-teen and young teen pregnancy, drugs, poor eating habits, and stress. All of these women have access to a few pre natal screenings. All of them. Usually they have free access.
133   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 14, 7:47pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

MisterLefty says
I don't think you understand them. Please point out in any of those links information verifying your belief that by paying less, care would improve.


By copying the best of those systems, efficiency would be vastly improved and outcomes could improve even as costs decreased.
134   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 15, 8:53am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Goran_K says
LeonDurham says
lol--if only it were that easy. Pretty sure a high school education and a job at Walmart doesn't keep you from being poor.


What is your opinion based on? The Brookings Institute studied decades of data.


https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/minimum-wage-worker-needs-2-174600615.html

"NLIHC found that a worker needs to earn $17.90 an hour at a full-time job ā€” 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year ā€” to afford a modest one-bedroom apartment. That's over $10 more than the federal minimum wage of $7.25."

« First    « Previous    Comments 121 - 134 of 134    Last »





The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions