The progressive a$$holery is truly astonishing to behold. Being wrong in the particulars and conceptually challenged at the same time is bad enough. But the spewing of progressive hatred is practically beyond belief.
Wrong in the particular that he didn't set it up (as if that matters). Wrong on the concept, too: it's perfectly wonderful to use the power of government to take money, but donations? HELL NO!
I thought I'd wait a bit to see what shook out. This:
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm
Still a creep.
A homicidal, grifting, sociopathic creep. Maye he could get his own day like Kyle.
Query: when Mack had his emergency that his modest resources were unable to pay for, did he accept personal responsibility and go home and treat his chest pains with Alka-Seltzer; or did he go to a public hospital in a public ambulance and expect treatment without payment? Why is that not considered theft of services?
Query: when Mack had his emergency that his modest resources were unable to pay for, did he accept personal responsibility and go home and treat his chest pains with Alka-Seltzer; or did he go to a public hospital in a public ambulance and expect treatment without payment? Why is that not considered theft of services?
... or did he go to a public hospital in a public ambulance and expect treatment without payment?
I don't know what actually happened, and you don't either.
But I do know this: you presented a false dichotomy. That's bad enough -- whether due to ignorance or axe-grinding -- but your false dichotomy doesn't even accidentally include the right option.
The proof is in your OP.
Why isn't your response considered a theft of intellectual resources?
Actually I do know. He didn't have insurance and he was treated. Unless it was at a private charity hospital -- not many of those around -- he ripped off the taxpayers.
Now he says (he's been all over the radio telling his disgusting story) he'll pay it back -- for sure, unless maybe he dies or something.
I got it right, first time out. Like shooting fish in a barrel really. Which is the party of 'takers.' The Tea Party
Actually I do know. He didn't have insurance and he was treated. Unless it was at a private charity hospital -- not many of those around -- he ripped off the taxpayers.
Not only do you not know, you are clearly wrong: you have presented a false dichotomy, and have attempted to cover it over by denying, or being ignorant of, any other options.
But that is par for your course. You don't let your ignorance get in the way of an opportunity to defame someone.
So his health plan was to hope for manna from heaven?
No matter. Until he fails to pay his hospital bills, then he hasn't ripped off the taxpayers, making you and your fellow progressives a baying mob. Again.
I did.
ReplyDeleteThe progressive a$$holery is truly astonishing to behold. Being wrong in the particulars and conceptually challenged at the same time is bad enough. But the spewing of progressive hatred is practically beyond belief.
Nice crowd you hang with.
Wrong in what particulars? As one of the commenters asked, are there no workhouses?
ReplyDelete(He was being sarcastic.)
Wrong in the particular that he didn't set it up (as if that matters). Wrong on the concept, too: it's perfectly wonderful to use the power of government to take money, but donations? HELL NO!
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of nice crowds: Jezebel completely be-merdes itself, and then issues a cack-handed update. (And hate-filled progs fail to take it on board.)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI see you missed the point, just like Ron Paul did.
ReplyDeleteCuriously enough the progs did not just shrug and say, let him die.
Curiously enough the progs did not just shrug and say, let him die.
ReplyDeleteNo, just a lot of hate filled rants.
Remind me again, who said "let him die"?
Teadiots did. Dunno why you need reminding, you have the video.
ReplyDeleteTeadiots did. Dunno why you need reminding, you have the video.
ReplyDeleteYes, I have the video, which proves you a liar.
Of course, I could be wrong. It's easy enough to provide a link to the exact time in the video where Tea Party members say "let him die".
You never have. You never will, either.
I thought I'd wait a bit to see what shook out. This:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm
Still a creep.
A homicidal, grifting, sociopathic creep. Maye he could get his own day like Kyle.
Query: when Mack had his emergency that his modest resources were unable to pay for, did he accept personal responsibility and go home and treat his chest pains with Alka-Seltzer; or did he go to a public hospital in a public ambulance and expect treatment without payment? Why is that not considered theft of services?
Of course, I could be wrong. It's easy enough to provide a link to the exact time in the video where Tea Party members say "let him die".
ReplyDeleteStart there.
Query: when Mack had his emergency that his modest resources were unable to pay for, did he accept personal responsibility and go home and treat his chest pains with Alka-Seltzer; or did he go to a public hospital in a public ambulance and expect treatment without payment? Why is that not considered theft of services?
ReplyDelete... or did he go to a public hospital in a public ambulance and expect treatment without payment?
ReplyDeleteI don't know what actually happened, and you don't either.
But I do know this: you presented a false dichotomy. That's bad enough -- whether due to ignorance or axe-grinding -- but your false dichotomy doesn't even accidentally include the right option.
The proof is in your OP.
Why isn't your response considered a theft of intellectual resources?
Actually I do know. He didn't have insurance and he was treated. Unless it was at a private charity hospital -- not many of those around -- he ripped off the taxpayers.
ReplyDeleteNow he says (he's been all over the radio telling his disgusting story) he'll pay it back -- for sure, unless maybe he dies or something.
I got it right, first time out. Like shooting fish in a barrel really. Which is the party of 'takers.' The Tea Party
Actually I do know. He didn't have insurance and he was treated. Unless it was at a private charity hospital -- not many of those around -- he ripped off the taxpayers.
ReplyDeleteNot only do you not know, you are clearly wrong: you have presented a false dichotomy, and have attempted to cover it over by denying, or being ignorant of, any other options.
But that is par for your course. You don't let your ignorance get in the way of an opportunity to defame someone.
He's said he didn't have insurance. Are you challenging his life experience?
ReplyDeleteHuh?
ReplyDeleteHe doesn't rip off the taxpayers unless he doesn't pay his bill. Insurance is one way to do that, but not the only way.
Unless, and until, the debt becomes uncollectable, he hasn't ripped off the taxpayers.
That's your false dichotomy.
So his health plan was to hope for manna from heaven?
ReplyDeleteGot it.
So his health plan was to hope for manna from heaven?
ReplyDeleteNo matter. Until he fails to pay his hospital bills, then he hasn't ripped off the taxpayers, making you and your fellow progressives a baying mob. Again.
As if further proof is needed.
ReplyDeleteMore unneccesary proof.
ReplyDelete