![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
A Man In Black RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32 |
It's their choice to be paralyzed. Whining about how it isn't their fault is just a liberal ploy to justify being on the dole. We should never be sympathetic to people when they make stupid personal decisions like getting into accidents or being paralyzed.
Government folly: "Disabled" paraplegics scam government out of free wheelchairs
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I shouldn't have to pay for Steve and NO ONE ELSE SHOULD EITHER. I'd rather not have insurance at all...if my wife wasn't so stubborn I still wouldn't be on her policy. It cost me less money for service in a clinic when and if I chose to seek out treatment. I have insurance now, covered by my wife's company plan. Quite frankly, I'd rather suffer and die in agony than be forced to have insurance. Even if that means leaving my wife and kids behind...I have life insurance for just such...
Thankfully, you don't speak for most of us. I'd gladly pitch in to help pay for Steve and others like him. I'd much rather be taxed than paying a for-profit insurance company, though.
You rail against government run healthcare, but Medicare spends 65 cents on the dollar for healthcare. That's about 10 cents more than the "best" insurance company. Another way to look at it: the government spends $0.15 on overhead compared to the $0.45 that for-profit insurance companies.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Kirth Gersen |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
![Satyr](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/satyr.jpg)
Government folly: "Disabled" paraplegics scam government out of free wheelchairs
I'm sure it's happened before, but that's a far sight from saying it's universal. However, the first 4 paragraphs of your link came across as the delusional raving of an overly-intellectualized dude who's so full of himself that he assumes anything he rants abut must perforce be "deep." I'm sorry to say that, when I saw how many more paragraphs followed, I discontinued reading as a having a poor estimated cost:benefit ratio.
EDIT: Duh, Ayn Rand. I should have recognized that snide pseudo-smart claptrap much sooner! The Fountainhead was bad enough so that I never read Atlas Shrugged, so the name didn't register right away.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() |
Sanakht Inaros wrote:How can anyone take Ayn Rand seriously? Especially the so-called christians that go around quoting her.The same reason most people cite their authority figures... they agree with their position.
Then allow me to quote Anton Lavey: "I give people Ayn Rand with trappings." Washington Post interview, 1970.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
thejeff |
Sanakht Inaros wrote:How can anyone take Ayn Rand seriously? Especially the so-called christians that go around quoting her.The same reason most people cite their authority figures... they agree with their position.
Except that they don't. Which is why he cited Christians. Ayn Rand was atheist and quite opposed to Christianity. Pro-Choice.
The big money people bankrolling the message are all in her camp, despite mostly qualifying as looters in her theories, but all the social values conservatives seem to have gotten no farther than "government bad!!!"
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Comrade Anklebiter |
![Goblin](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/Pathfinder1_02b.jpg)
Quote:LinkBrilliant.
Down with the false Galt!
Long live the Glorious People's Revolution of Galt!!
For a Commonwealth of Virtue based on the Reign of the Final Blades!
Vive Razor Jenni!
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() |
BigNorseWolf wrote:Sanakht Inaros wrote:How can anyone take Ayn Rand seriously? Especially the so-called christians that go around quoting her.The same reason most people cite their authority figures... they agree with their position.Except that they don't. Which is why he cited Christians. Ayn Rand was atheist and quite opposed to Christianity. Pro-Choice.
The big money people bankrolling the message are all in her camp, despite mostly qualifying as looters in her theories, but all the social values conservatives seem to have gotten no farther than "government bad!!!"
It's one of the reasons I cannot nor will not ever vote for Ron Paul or his son. That neither of them see the disconnect between what they claim they belive as christians and what they espouse with Ayn Rand just...
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
thejeff |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's one of the reasons I cannot nor will not ever vote for Ron Paul or his son. That neither of them see the disconnect between what they claim they belive as christians and what they espouse with Ayn Rand just...
Though honestly, just buying into the Ayn Rand drivel should be sufficient. Christian or not.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sanakht Inaros wrote:It's one of the reasons I cannot nor will not ever vote for Ron Paul or his son. That neither of them see the disconnect between what they claim they belive as christians and what they espouse with Ayn Rand just...Though honestly, just buying into the Ayn Rand drivel should be sufficient. Christian or not.
It is. But it's compounded by calling themselves "christians". At one point I was actually debating whether or not to send them copies of The Satanic Bible. My wife talked me out of it.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Gendo |
![Woman](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/b1_opener_final2.jpg)
Gendo wrote:So you object to health insurance but not life insurance? What about auto insurance? You're paying to fix other peoples cars when they get drunk and crash into telephone poles. In fact, your auto insurance pays for their medical bills when that happens. Why the difference?
I shouldn't have to pay for Steve and NO ONE ELSE SHOULD EITHER. I'd rather not have insurance at all...if my wife wasn't so stubborn I still wouldn't be on her policy. It cost me less money for service in a clinic when and if I chose to seek out treatment. I have insurance now, covered by my wife's company plan. Quite frankly, I'd rather suffer and die in agony than be forced to have insurance. Even if that means leaving my wife and kids behind...I have life insurance for just such...
Don't get me started on auto insurance. The fact that I'm paying to cover some other jackass and they me pisses me off to no end. I pay auto insurance only because it's mandatory. If I was the type of jack off that gets in their car or truck or whatever vehicle to just go for a drive for no other reason than the supposed enjoyment of driving, then I'm all for insurance. I'm not. I use my car only when I have to - go to work, take kids to and from daycare, or go to and from grocery store, or the occassional vacation out of state. I drive for a purpose, not for the senselessness of just being behind the wheel of a car. My perspective on vehicles is that the car is the single WORST invention ever made...the first being Cloud Computing. However, I digress. No I am not happy about auto insurance. Again, money for which I am being robbed all in the name of sharing the burden of others. Thanks but no thanks.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
thejeff |
TriOmegaZero wrote:Don't get me started on auto insurance. The fact that I'm paying to cover some other jackass and they me pisses me off to no end. I pay auto insurance only because it's mandatory. If I was the type of jack off that gets in their car or truck or whatever vehicle to just go for a drive for no other reason than the supposed enjoyment of driving, then I'm all for insurance. I'm not. I use my car only when I have to - go to work, take kids to and from daycare, or go to and from grocery store, or the occassional vacation out of state. I drive for a purpose, not for the senselessness of just being behind the wheel of a car. My perspective on vehicles is that the car is the single WORST invention ever made...the first being Cloud Computing. However, I digress. No I am not happy about auto insurance. Again, money for which I am being robbed all in the name of sharing the burden of others. Thanks but no thanks.So you object to health insurance but not life insurance? What about auto insurance? You're paying to fix other peoples cars when they get drunk and crash into telephone poles. In fact, your auto insurance pays for their medical bills when that happens. Why the difference?
Of course, the real reason for mandatory auto insurance is so that when some idiot in a car plows into you, even if you're just walking, your injuries will be covered, even if he's too poor to pay for them out of pocket.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
A Man In Black RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32 |
Maybe he's Amish?
I know that this is a joke, but there's more to the Amish than Luddism. I'd be shocked to see any Amish make the point that self-reliance and independence were more important than the well-being of the community, and some Amish communities have even gone so far as to set up common funds for emergency medical care in the community. (That said, they do have a specific exemption in the US from payroll taxes and Social Security.)
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
GentleGiant |
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
TheWhiteknife |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
![Commoner](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/delicious.jpg)
More from the police brutality files
RI officer still employed, despite felony assault conviction
Man tells dispatch, "My mentally ill brother has a fake gun". Cops kill him anyway.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Kirth Gersen |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
![Satyr](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/satyr.jpg)
Teen may face contempt charges for outting her assaulters
Without knowing what happened, it's sort of hard to figure what's what. "Misdemeanor voyerism" is pretty vague, and sounds like a very far stretch from her assertion that they are "rapists" -- so in that respect, it could be that, while a victim of inappropriate behavior (that the perps in the process of being sentenced for, if I understand it correctly), she is also herself guilty of libel.
The people who commented on the article are all screaming for these "rapists'" blood -- but from the article itself, it could equally be they just drew on her with a Sharpie or something. Nobody seems to care what actually happened; only that "something" did, and these boys were guilty of it, therefore they must be rapists who "deserve" death or life in prison for whatever they did -- which was not technically rape, but short of that, we have no idea.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Kirth Gersen |
![Satyr](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/satyr.jpg)
OK, but "sexual assault" covers a lot of territory. Say she passed out and they signed her cleavage with a magic marker. That would be immature as hell, and would also legally count as sexual assault. For sure they shouldn't feel like it's OK to do that. But does that make them "rapists" who need to serve hard time?
I'm still seeing the temporary gag order as less about not naming them, and more about not outright making false allegations of rape which (judging from the comments), many members of the local community would be very quick to act on with torches and pitchforks.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Kryzbyn |
![Vedavrex Misraria](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9041-Vedavrex.jpg)
On June 26, her attackers pled guilty to first-degree sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism and struck a deal that Dietrich says she knew nothing about until just before it was announced in court.
First-degree sexual abuse, sorry, not assault. I'd assume the voyeurism was the taking of the photos and posting them.
Her reaction to this, willing to pay a fine and do jail time, speaks to more than the writting on cleavage with sharpies, imo.![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Kirth Gersen |
![Satyr](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/satyr.jpg)
Her reaction to this, willing to pay a fine and do jail time, speaks to more than the writting on cleavage with sharpies, imo.
The reaction to the Jyllens-Post, storming the offices and assassinating employees, spoke to more than publishing some cartoons, too -- but that is, in fact, all they did. You can't use offended people's reactions as a gauge of what's reasonable.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Kryzbyn |
![Vedavrex Misraria](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9041-Vedavrex.jpg)
Indeed:
510.110 Sexual abuse in the first degree.
(1) A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree when:
(a) He or she subjects another person to sexual contact by forcible compulsion; or
(b) He or she subjects another person to sexual contact who is incapable of
consent because he or she:
1. Is physically helpless;
2. Is less than twelve (12) years old; or
3. Is mentally incapacitated; or
(c) Being twenty-one (21) years old or more, he or she:
1. Subjects another person who is less than sixteen (16) years old to sexual
contact;
2. Engages in masturbation in the presence of another person who is less
than sixteen (16) years old and knows or has reason to know the other
person is present; or
3. Engages in masturbation while using the Internet, telephone, or other
electronic communication device while communicating with a minor
who the person knows is less than sixteen (16) years old, and the minor
can see or hear the person masturbate; or
(d) Being a person in a position of authority or position of special trust, as defined
in KRS 532.045, he or she, regardless of his or her age, subjects a minor who
is less than eighteen (18) years old, with whom he or she comes into contact
as a result of that position, to sexual contact or engages in masturbation in the
presence of the minor and knows or has reason to know the minor is present
or engages in masturbation while using the Internet, telephone, or other
electronic communication device while communicating with a minor who the
person knows is less than sixteen (16) years old, and the minor can see or hear
the person masturbate.
(2) Sexual abuse in the first degree is a Class D felony, unless the victim is less than
twelve (12) years old, in which case the offense shall be a Class C felony.
Effective: July 15, 2008
History: Amended 2008 Ky. Acts ch. 72, sec. 1, effective July 15, 2008. -- Amended
2006 Ky. Acts ch. 182, sec. 33, effective July 12, 2006. -- Amended 2002 Ky. Acts
ch. 259, sec. 5, effective July 15, 2002. -- Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 91,
effective January 1, 1975.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Kirth Gersen |
![Satyr](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/satyr.jpg)
Kentucky's definition of first degree sexual abuse is online.
"1. A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree when: (b) he or she subjects another person to sexual contact who is incapable of consent because he or she: (1) Is physically helpless." [such as being passed out]
Most U.S. juries, especially in Kentucky, would consider touching someone's boob to be "sexual contact." Therefore signing with a Sharpie exactly fits the definition. So does ripping off her clothes and fingering the poor girl, or anything in between. The law, as written, doesn't distinguish between the range of possibilities, but the fact they were allowed to plea bargain it down instead of getting the book thrown at them suggests that whatever they did is more towards the mild end of the spectrum.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Kirth Gersen |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
![Satyr](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/satyr.jpg)
Yeah, maybe, Kirth, but if I was going to sign some girl's cleavage while she was asleep, I doubt I would take photos of it and show it to my friends. 'Cuz that would be pretty lame.
I totally agree, but if "lame" and "stupid" were felonies, man, then the whole world would be locked up.