O/T: Knee Jerk

[Robatoy]

One Americanadian (Ignatieff) is trying to become PM. I'm no Harper fan, but IggyPop is no alternative.

[Tim Daneliuk]

I contribute a regular reminder that you and people like you are not noble, kind, honorable or decent. You are purveyors of theft and fraud. And it's important to keep that spotlight brightly lit so you can never delude yourself into thinking anything else.

Not the ones in my own family that actually work in the healthcare system.

[Robatoy]

That sounds like they are unionized squabblers.

[Tim Daneliuk]

No, they are first responders entrenched in the system for decades.

[Robatoy]

not of an adult. Your needs are legitimate - like 10s of millions of other people. But they are not a get-out-of-jail-free card to pillage your neighbors. A gentleman asks for help politely and is grateful when it is given. A spoiled child demands what they want and curses their benefactor. I'd say your predominant disability isn't physical, it's moral.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Wow! You have turned your ugliness inside-out for all to see. Do you kill children for not picking up their socks? What deep-rooted hatred you live with, day after day. I have been reading your commentaries for some time, and frankly I have been amused by them. This last little diatribe is not funny. It is deep-down ugly. You'll be in my prayers, Tim, because somebody has to help you out of that pit you're in. Such a soiled black soul is sad to see.

[Robatoy]

THIS is why I keep coming back for more. The purest of hilarities. You are funny, Jack. WAY funnier than you know. And not very bright.

[keithw86]

Find another employer. I've never had any issues anywhere close to that. In-plan or out-of-plan, certainly, but that's my choice.

Moving to Canuckistan? No. Changing insurance companies, yes even if it means changing employers.

[Jack Stein]

Who might that be?

You seem to see what you want to see!

[Jack Stein]

If you had any sort of reading comprehension, you would know someone else suggested filtering out off topic posters. I simply provided a short list of those recently participating in off topic posts.

If you didn't have your head so far up your ass, you would have noted there was no "pot-kettle-black nature" to the post, and about the only irony would be you crying I "missed one" and then posting a bunch of gobbledygook with my name on it, when the FIRST name on my list was my own...

Yeah, seems its your contest, and you won!

[Morris Dovey]

True, but a non sequitur.

This is an ugly accusation made, so far as I can determine, without justification.

This appears to be a strawman argument, where you fabricate and project a mindset and then castigate it as if it were not your own.

Perhaps, but a person who demands a public declaration of gratitude for a gentlemanly act is, in my opinion, unworthy of being considered a gentleman.

Another non sequitur.

I'd say you owe Upscale an apology.

[Tim Daneliuk]

I see that (once again) you have no meaningful counterpoint.

No. But I insist that they be responsible in cleaning up after themselves. They don't get to say, "Because my socks are dirty, it's Bobby's responsibility next door to pick them up."

Don't you think it's a tad condescending on your part to equate the disabled with children? I equated the *behavior* of "Gimme, gimme, gimme" of Upscale and his ilk as that of a spoiled child - which it is. I would never stoop so low as you and declare the disabled as children prima facia ... and you're going to lecture me on manner .. astonishing.

I live with deep-rooted reason. I hate no one. I love a few. I don't trust the masses or the government. I will be no one's willing slave. I am happy to help those genuinely in need as I am able.

You're attempt at amused condescension fails because in all that time, you've yet to make a case for your defense of theft.

It is indeed ugly - because it is sadly so true. Need does not constitute a moral claim on other people. You, Upscale, and the rest of the defenders of theft can tapdance, play your personal attack misdirection game, and generally behave noxiously, but it does not change the aforementioned truth. Your need, no matter how real, does not mean you suddenly haver permission to steal from everyone around you. Worse still, you defend such theft on the one hand, and then curse the very victims of your predation. So along with stealing, you also are ungrateful with really bad manners.

Does your 'prayer' involve sacrificing helpless animals, I wonder ...

[Tim Daneliuk]

Haven't you heard. In the new lexicon of a good many folks here, you are *entitled* to whatever you need, not matter who else gets raided to provide it. What you are suggesting above, sir, would require personal integrity and responsibility and we simply cannot have that. So go back to work - too many people that don't are depending on you ...

[Larry Blanchard]

You've got to be kidding! Or trolling. Most people get their insurance through their employer. Unless that employer gets complaints from a lot of employees, he's not going to change. If an employee tries to get other insurance on his own, he'll soon find out he can't afford it.

Try living in the real world.

[Larry Blanchard]

Your immigration quota for retirees who aren't rich is zero :-).

And yes, I understand the reasons.

[Tim Daneliuk]

It is quite to the point. Upscale and his fellow travelers have repeatedly defended a system that takes from some to give to others. They've also consistently held that a person's genuine need - say, for example, a physical disability - morally justifies such wealth redistribution. Such redistributive schemes do indeed benefit some people, but they always to so to the *detriment* of others, thereby undermining one of their core freedoms - the freedom to dispose of their legitimately acquired property as THEY see fit.

Go back and read the last year of just Upscale's foaming vitrol alone. Filter out the neverending ad hominem stuff and the profanity - which will leave about 5% of the text. What you see is a regular and reoccurring defense of "If I need it, I'm (morally) entitled to support my government taking it from other citizens." I have said repeatedly that making use of a system you're forced to participate in is no foul. But intentionally supporting such a system of theft is a moral foul.

Again, I encourage you to go back and read some of the nonsense that spews for from this individual. Beyond the personal vitriol, bad manners, foul language, and lack of argumentative clarity, there is a clear unceasing drumbeat of "I need it, so I'm entitled to it."

I agree. Demanding such a declaration would be bad and I was thus not doing so. I was defining the word for someone that has among the worst personal manners and disposition in these debates and apparently is unacquainted with the concept of gentlemanly behavior.

Hardly.

I'd say you've not being paying attention. A physical disability is no one's fault (ordinarily). A moral one is. I have been regularly personally cursed for not supporting his thieving worldview. He celebrates a kind of moral malignancy and I finally decided to call it what it was. Notice that I attacked not the man as an individual, but his bad *ideas* (because they are immoral), and defending such *is* a moral "disability." I did not swear at him, tell him he was useless, or otherwise impugn him as a person. I attacked an observable set of ideas that he clings to and defends. He, by contrast, is unable to express himself except in personal attack and profanity. This is because his *ideas* are indefensible and he knows it. Go back and reread just this thread and get back to be about who ought to be apologizing to whom.

[DGDevin]

Well sonofabitch, so it is. Heh, mea culpa, I actually looked for "Jack Stein" and "JBStein" didn't click.

BTW, the "gobbledygook" was the headers from your post.

[DGDevin]

That much you got right.

[DGDevin]

[DGDevin]

Do you ever address what people actually post, or only fabricate positions they didn't express and attack those instead? You must have a straw-man assembly line set up based on how often you indulge in this sophomoric stunt.

How does requiring insurance companies to play fair qualify as a raid on your pocketbook? How does setting up a pool where individuals can buy insurance at group rates take money from your bank account? And so on, but nooooooooo, you have to leap to some bizarre depiction of citizens forced to line up outside a clinic in a state-run gulag with whip-wielding commissars flailing the moaning masses. Your vivid imagination and libertarian paranoia are at least amusing (in a pathetic sort of way)--but frankly it's the only value you bring to the conversation.

[DGDevin]

Exactly, and anyone with the proverbial pre-existing condition is screwed if they look for private insurance, it's either impossible to find or so expensive as to be out of reach. Employers are feeling the pinch too, it's one more reason to move production overseas where they aren't faced with crippling health coverage bills. More and more citizens with less and less coverage, but some folks figure we don't need reform--astonishing, isn't it.