victims

In DC, a crazy man with a gun was shot by capitol police. A bystander also suffered a wound. Who is responsible for her medical expense? She did nothing wrong. She was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Original Post
uandurine posted:
jtdavis posted:

Sorta expected an answer like that

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.  I can be a smart ***.

 

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.  I can be a smart dumb ***.  There correct it for you.

Plus, the guy drew a pellet gun, not a real one. Just waiting for the Dems to call police brutality.

direstraits posted:
uandurine posted:
jtdavis posted:

Sorta expected an answer like that

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.  I can be a smart ***.

 

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.  I can be a smart dumb ***.  There correct it for you.

Plus, the guy drew a pellet gun, not a real one. Just waiting for the Dems to call police brutality.

______

When that happens, you be sure to let us know.  I ain't holding my breath for an asinine knee-jerk prediction like that to happen.

jtdavis posted:

In DC, a crazy man with a gun was shot by capitol police. A bystander also suffered a wound. Who is responsible for her medical expense? She did nothing wrong. She was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

hillery has your answer, what ******* difference does it

make now..!!

jtdavis posted:

In DC, a crazy man with a gun was shot by capitol police. A bystander also suffered a wound. Who is responsible for her medical expense? She did nothing wrong. She was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Well, I pay insurance on my vehicle for non-insured drivers to protect me when I do nothing wrong other than being in the wrong place/time.

There will probably be lawyers standing in line asking the same question.  And they will go after everyone . . . including whoever made the shrapnel as the instrument of her injury is being called.

So if she is not self-insured, she better hope the lawyers win because

If you can afford health insurance but choose not to buy it, you must pay a fee called the individual shared responsibility payment. (The fee is sometimes called the "penalty," "fine," or "individual mandate.")

https://www.healthcare.gov/fee...r-not-being-covered/

Or as Sheldon would say Bazinga!

direstraits posted:
uandurine posted:
jtdavis posted:

Sorta expected an answer like that

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.  I can be a smart ***.

 

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.  I can be a smart dumb ***.  There correct it for you.

Plus, the guy drew a pellet gun, not a real one. Just waiting for the Dems to call police brutality.

No no no no no no  noooooo!  You mistook Urine's remark for JT's.

"U and Urine" is a good guy!  Not dumb.  But "smart ass extraordinaire."  You betcha. 

Someon"e" tried to explain 'uandurine' to me once before, but I thought it was a dialect thing.    But that's gone, sadly.

Old too soon.  Smart too late.

 

 

 

 

direstraits posted:
uandurine posted:
jtdavis posted:

Sorta expected an answer like that

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.  I can be a smart ***.

 

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.  I can be a smart dumb ***.  There correct it for you.

Plus, the guy drew a pellet gun, not a real one. Just waiting for the Dems to call police brutality.

Sorry, misread this.

MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:

This thread is perplexing.   By Buds defense of Uandurine and then dire's apology for his comment, it makes me think that the responses on these threads are simply predicated on whom is posting and not the content of what is being posted.   

What defense of Uandurine?

What content?  That I pointed out that he didn't say what he was believed to have said?  To someone I agree with more often than not?

How is that predicated anything?

I point out to JT and Contendahh their errors all the time. 

And yours too, apparently.

 

budsfarm posted:
MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:

This thread is perplexing.   By Buds defense of Uandurine and then dire's apology for his comment, it makes me think that the responses on these threads are simply predicated on whom is posting and not the content of what is being posted.   

What defense of Uandurine?

What content?  That I pointed out that he didn't say what he was believed to have said?  To someone I agree with more often than not?

How is that predicated anything?

I point out to JT and Contendahh their errors all the time. 

And yours too, apparently.

 

A true shame that I have to explain this to what I presume to be a grown man, but your line ""U and Urine" is a good guy!  Not dumb.", after dire made his remark is definitely defending him.  

For the record, I find no issue with anyone defending anyone, my point was that as I often see with the political forum, this forum is no different.   People do not pay attention to the content being posted,  they respond based on whom has actually posted.   

MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:

This thread is perplexing.   By Buds defense of Uandurine and then dire's apology for his comment, it makes me think that the responses on these threads are simply predicated on whom is posting and not the content of what is being posted.   

My original comment was because I misunderstood who was commenting on what.  I got the connect to the thread wrong.

MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:
budsfarm posted:
MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:

This thread is perplexing.   By Buds defense of Uandurine and then dire's apology for his comment, it makes me think that the responses on these threads are simply predicated on whom is posting and not the content of what is being posted.   

What defense of Uandurine?

What content?  That I pointed out that he didn't say what he was believed to have said?  To someone I agree with more often than not?

How is that predicated anything?

I point out to JT and Contendahh their errors all the time. 

And yours too, apparently.

 

A true shame that I have to explain this to what I presume to be a grown man, but your line ""U and Urine" is a good guy!  Not dumb.", after dire made his remark is definitely defending him.  

For the record, I find no issue with anyone defending anyone, my point was that as I often see with the political forum, this forum is no different.   People do not pay attention to the content being posted,  they respond based on whom has actually posted.   

A true shame that what I presume to be a grown man would cherry pick.  I also referred to Uandurnine as a smart ass extraordinaire.  You don't seem to have any issues with that.

For the record, were I to defend someone, I can do better than that.

 

budsfarm posted:
MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:
budsfarm posted:
MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:

This thread is perplexing.   By Buds defense of Uandurine and then dire's apology for his comment, it makes me think that the responses on these threads are simply predicated on whom is posting and not the content of what is being posted.   

What defense of Uandurine?

What content?  That I pointed out that he didn't say what he was believed to have said?  To someone I agree with more often than not?

How is that predicated anything?

I point out to JT and Contendahh their errors all the time. 

And yours too, apparently.

 

A true shame that I have to explain this to what I presume to be a grown man, but your line ""U and Urine" is a good guy!  Not dumb.", after dire made his remark is definitely defending him.  

For the record, I find no issue with anyone defending anyone, my point was that as I often see with the political forum, this forum is no different.   People do not pay attention to the content being posted,  they respond based on whom has actually posted.   

A true shame that what I presume to be a grown man would cherry pick.  I also referred to Uandurnine as a smart ass extraordinaire.  You don't seem to have any issues with that.

For the record, were I to defend someone, I can do better than that.

 

Don't be disingenuous, if you can.  You and I both know that calling someone a smartass extraordinaire is not an insult, especially when you are friendly.  How am I cherry picking?  I was pointing out something that is pervasive in these forums.   Just using this particular entry as a perfect example.   

It is the reason that no logical, rational discussion can be had on the political forums here.   Shame to see it spilling over into other forums now.  

MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:
budsfarm posted:
MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:
budsfarm posted:
MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:

This thread is perplexing.   By Buds defense of Uandurine and then dire's apology for his comment, it makes me think that the responses on these threads are simply predicated on whom is posting and not the content of what is being posted.   

What defense of Uandurine?

What content?  That I pointed out that he didn't say what he was believed to have said?  To someone I agree with more often than not?

How is that predicated anything?

I point out to JT and Contendahh their errors all the time. 

And yours too, apparently.

 

A true shame that I have to explain this to what I presume to be a grown man, but your line ""U and Urine" is a good guy!  Not dumb.", after dire made his remark is definitely defending him.  

For the record, I find no issue with anyone defending anyone, my point was that as I often see with the political forum, this forum is no different.   People do not pay attention to the content being posted,  they respond based on whom has actually posted.   

A true shame that what I presume to be a grown man would cherry pick.  I also referred to Uandurnine as a smart ass extraordinaire.  You don't seem to have any issues with that.

For the record, were I to defend someone, I can do better than that.

 

Don't be disingenuous, if you can.  You and I both know that calling someone a smartass extraordinaire is not an insult, especially when you are friendly.  How am I cherry picking?  I was pointing out something that is pervasive in these forums.   Just using this particular entry as a perfect example.   

It is the reason that no logical, rational discussion can be had on the political forums here.   Shame to see it spilling over into other forums now.  

How is what I wrote in any way pervasive?

Don't be disingenuous, if you can.

 

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×