Conseratives WILL choose welfare over letting their kid die. No exceptions.

[LJ_Reloaded]

If you've got a kid who is going to die without a heart or liver transplant you're going to accept government help if it's available. 99% of you don't have the money to cover the $250,000 that you need for this care. 99% of you don't belong to a church that can help you cover that. If your insurance company denies coverage you're going to accept government aid because the ONLY possible alternative is that your kid dies.

No exceptions. You either cough up the cash yourself, and since almost none of you can do that, you're going to go to your insurance provider, and if they turn you down like Cigna did when they murdered Nataline Sarkisyan you're GOING to accept welfare. No exceptions.

There is no other way out except burying your kid. No conservative is ever going to cling to their morals when their morals get their loved ones dead.

 

[dolf]

I wouldn't say that. for example, there have been court cases to force Jehovah's witnesses to allow their kids to have life saving treatment, because they were willing to let their child die rather than compromise their beliefs. plenty of people view their kids as their property, plenty of people are selfish, plenty of people are zealots.

 

[Rangudo]

If it doesn't stand for "Lit Joke," what does LJ mean?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

If you've got a kid who is going to die without a heart or liver transplant you're going to accept government help if it's available. 99% of you don't have the money to cover the $250,000 that you need for this care. 99% of you don't belong to a church that can help you cover that. If your insurance company denies coverage you're going to accept government aid because the ONLY possible alternative is that your kid dies.

No exceptions. You either cough up the cash yourself, and since almost none of you can do that, you're going to go to your insurance provider, and if they turn you down like Cigna did when they murdered Nataline Sarkisyan you're GOING to accept welfare. No exceptions.

There is no other way out except burying your kid. No conservative is ever going to cling to their morals when their morals get their loved ones dead.

Youre what we call a BEEF STEAK NIGGER, BROWN ON THE OUTSIDE AND ALL RED IN THE MIDDLE.

LJ cant distinguish between a 911 event and sit on his ass 24/7 welfare for him and all his baby mamas. Your right-thinking conservative figgers he better get a little of the money before the niggers, wet backs, and Hillary steals it all.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You do this same thread all the time with nothing more than minor variations on the basic theme.

It is a horrible Sophism, at best.

On one hand, if you do not favor the ever-continual expansion of welfare, but forced to pay for it (at the point of a gun) by the state, then when making application for a return of your monies in an emergency, one of which you might have otherwise had saved for, then you are a hypocrite.

That is but a simple extension of a well-known and very old Sophism:

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.
Frédéric Bastiat

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I wouldn't say that. for example, there have been court cases to force Jehovah's witnesses to allow their kids to have life saving treatment, because they were willing to let their child die rather than compromise their beliefs. plenty of people view their kids as their property, plenty of people are selfish, plenty of people are zealots.

99% of Conservatives aren't Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

If it doesn't stand for "Lit Joke," what does LJ mean?

It means that you're a brain dead fucktard, and probably a cowardly alt to boot.

Unless you're one of the LESS THAN ONE PERCENT of the Conservative populace who shuns modern medicine to begin with, you're going to choose any method you can to save your kid. Even if that method is government assistance.

No Conservative on here has the cash to make a transplant happen if their insurance provider denies them. Ain't gonna happen for them without some kind of handout.

Nobody's got a counter point against this. No one. It's one of the basic facts of life. You're NOT going to turn down a public handout if your loved ones' lives are at risk, ESPECIALLY not a child.

Conservatism is bullshit when the rubber hits the road.

 

[renard_ruse]

Since conservatives are the ones paying most of the tax burden, I'd hope they would get something for their money from time to time.

 

[renard_ruse]

I wouldn't say that. for example, there have been court cases to force Jehovah's witnesses to allow their kids to have life saving treatment, because they were willing to let their child die rather than compromise their beliefs. plenty of people view their kids as their property, plenty of people are selfish, plenty of people are zealots.

So you view children as the state's property? Who should be making the decisions? The state or the people nature entrusted to make the decisions (parents) until they are old enough to do so for themselves?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Since conservatives are the ones paying most of the tax burden, I'd hope they would get something for their money from time to time.

LOL what a load of shit....

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

LOL what a load of shit....

Bill O'Reilly said, it, it must be true!

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

So you view children as the state's property? Who should be making the decisions? The state or the people nature entrusted to make the decisions (parents) until they are old enough to do so for themselves?

This is like saying that because I can't run you over in the crosswalk, you're the property of the state.