Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "New evidence potentially connects Luigi Mangione to CEO shooting, police say" video.

Crimes are defined in law. What are you doing to change the law? Does defending a murderer make you credible in claiming another "criminal" is indefensible?
17
Murder is a crime. A murderer is a criminal.
11
The foremost obligation of gov't is to protect public health and safety. That sometimes means defending national security by engaging in war. See WW II. And supporting an ally that is the US's first line of defense -- see Ukraine.
10
He's a murderer. And he confesses to it in writing.
9
So you defend one murderer and hate another alleged "criminal". Did your parents teach you nothing about right and wrong?
7
He'll be convicted and never get out of jail.
5
Do have empathy for anyone? Oh, right: you have empathy for a murderer, but not for his victim. That is twisted.
5
JFK wasn't talking about the US. I was there. You fall for out-of-context slogans.
4
If CERTAINLY matters that it WAS NOT about the US. JFK swore and oath to protect and defend the Constitution. The Constitution SEVERALLY PROHIBITS political violence. It's even in the First Amendment -- "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people PEACEABLY to assemble". Thus Congress has the Constitutional authority, and has exercised it, to PROHIBIT political violence.
2
@Webbytrace7 That's a self-serving slogan -- not an argument, and certainly not a proof of anything but your inability to present anything but twisted gibberish. Right and wrong are determined, punk, not by law-illiterate fools who are preaching against their own interests, but by established law. "A system of Laws, and not of men." -- John Adams. "Justice and the Rule of Law are to be ABOVE politics." -- John Adams. You are promoting domestic terrorism.
1
@XY8YO_ That one death is a murder, and that is prohibited by law. What you are attempting is to change the subject -- which is intellectually dishonest, dishonesty being immoral -- by generalizing away from the specific toward the specious excuse, "Everybody does it which therefore makes it okay." No one is defending the insurance industry -- in fact Mark Twain suggested that anyone who works in insurance should have fire insurance for after they die. In fact my criticisms also apply to the health "care" side of the equation, and I am basing my criticisms of both on direct first-hand experience. But the effort to claim one form of murder -- domestic terrorism -- is acceptable, whereas another form of alleged "murder" is not, is totally indefensible in terms of anything remotely masquerading as reason or morality. The insurance industry and profit have no place in health care. But the medical industry itself has problems -- and not all of those problems are caused by the insurance industry or for-profit. Massachusetts General Hospital is the "Big Boy" in health care in Boston, Massachusetts. It is non-/not-for-profit. But its administration is mimicking for-profit -- look at the yearly salaries of non-/not-for-profit hospital CEOs. As consequence 300 primary care doctors at that hospital are unionizing to protect their practices and patients against the burnout they are suffering as result of administration policies aimed at increasing profits. My health care facility limits doctor-patient appointments to 30 minutes. What if the patient need 45 minutes? Certainly insurance, and profits -- Google "Steward Health Care" -- should not be involved in health care. But those are not the only sources of the problems in health care.
1
@XY8YO_ To quote you verbatim: "maybe". The corollary being "maybe not". How about adhering to known fact, instead of spewing mindless gibberish that doesn't withstand critical evaluation?
1
@annconforti9294 Who are "they"? Do you know which insurer was involved? Do you know who actually performed the surgery? You don't know anything except that the murderer made allegations. So we are to trust the word of murderers now? Did you vote for Trump -- after all, he's all about constantly lying to stupid people -- he "loves the uneducated" because they are so easy to BS. Trump said this directly to his supporters' faces: "I don't care about you, I just ant your vote." He meant that because he's always had contempt for his supporters. But they cheered and voted for him against their own interests.
1
The jury is required to apply the law to the facts. It is not an unelected legislature; it does not have the authority to rewrite or repeal laws.
1
@alyssal3817 None of that is going to happen. Trump went to extreme lengths in effort to get to the jury and he got convicted of the charges. you can either behave responsibly -- know what you're talking about -- or irresponsible and spew destructive junk.
1
@wholeNwon Those who jabber about "jury nullification" don't actually know how legal process works, or the civic DUTY of being a juror. They jury does not, as example, get to admit "evidence" or reject evidence. The introduction of the second knife in the movie "12 Angry Men," as example, would in reality result in a mistrial. The jury instructions given by the court are: apply the law to the facts, the evidence. The evidence as to admissibility is fought over by the two sides in the case. The neutral arbiter -- the judge -- determines what evidence is admitted and what excluded. "Jury nullification" is a "theory" pushed by law-illiterates and those who reject the rule of law. Who pride themselves in their staunch ignorance of the fact that "freedom" does not exist in conflict with law; it exists and is protected BECAUSE SECURED by WRITTEN law. So-called "sovereign citizens" reveal that self-"nullifying" stupidity by BOTH rejecting ALL law -- and then claiming rights that exist in the law they REJECT. Can't have it both ways. But let's go to the real point: defending murder. There is nothing moral in defending murder. Defending that which is, actually, domestic terrorism. Words have consequences. They are foolish and irresponsible. ___ From "A Man for All Seasons": In the following, Roper was Thomas More's hot-headed and impulsive son-in-law-- Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you -- where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws, from coast to coast -- man's laws, not God's -- and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
1
His fingerprints match fingerprints -- they got clear fingerprints from more than one source. The fake New Jersey ID ties him directly to the Hostel. the bullets match the gun. You really should pay attention to the evidence because FACTS MATTER.
1
@francescogalesso1880 Listen to Putin: in his view, ANY nation on his border is a threat. If he takes Ukraine, Poland -- a NATO member -- will be on his border. And he will use that as excuse to attack Poland. Learn the HISTORY, fool: TWICE European wars sucked the US into boots on the ground in Europe. NATO was established to prevent that happening a third time. To emphasize: NATO is the FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE of the UNITED STATES against Russia's history of imperialist aggression. And Ukraine is a democracy fighting for its survival against ILLEGAL INVASION BY RUSSIA. The US owes itself support of Ukraine. Stop defending Russian tyranny.
1
@francescogalesso1880 You are carrying Putin's nuclear threat for him. You are doing that for him because it's a bluff. There are Russians inside Russia rebelling against Putin's tyranny.
1
@manmanderson Certainly. But what does defending a murderer have to do with any of that? What it does is DISCREDIT those who defend murder. After all, your "complaint" is that the current health insurance industry kills people -- and that that is wrong in all cases. And at the same time you defend murder. You are being irrational. Worse, words have consequences: you are promoting domestic terrorism. How many must die before you decide defending murder isn't a smart idea?
1
Another isolationist simpleton. Probably voted for Trump, even though Trump promised to deport Latinos.
1
lboy1990 You are running with a slogan ripped out of its controlling context, which I already explained: JFK was not applying it to the US. He swore the oath to support and defend the Constitution. the Constitution PROHIBITS political violence -- not that you, obviously, care about the Constitution and rule of law. For you uneducated children it's all a video game, entertainment -- until it actually becomes real. INFORM yourself: ___ No law protects private/fake "militia" This chronology illustrates both the evolution, elaboration, and increasing specificity of law, and its continued consistency over centuries: ____ Militia Act from October 1658 (rendered in contemporary spelling): "Military, [S.] 11. . . . It is Further Ordered, that henceforth all warrants for impressing [e.g., DRAFTING] & raising of soldiers for any expedition, shall be directed to the Committee of militia of the several Towns who may execute the same by the Constable & the said Committee are hereby impowered & required to suppress all raising of soldiers, but such as shall be by the authority of this government." For emphasis: "the said Committee are hereby impowered & required to SUPPRESS all raising of soldiers, but such as shall be by the authority of this government." The Colonial Laws of Massachusetts. Reprinted from the Edition of 1660, with the Supplements to 1672. Containing Also, the Body of Liberties of 1641. (Boston: Rockwell & Churchill, City Printers, Published by Order of the City Council of Boston, 1889), William H. Whitmore, Record Commissioner, at 179. In the above, "Committee of Militia" is part of the town gov't. Above the town gov't and "Committee" was a military command structure, in law, which included, at the top, the governor as commander-in-chief of the Militia. The governor was not going to "take up arms" against the gov't/himself. ___ Rendered in contemporary spelling: At a GENERAL COURT Held at Boston the 3d of May 1676. This COURT taking into Consideration the great Disappointment the Country hath suffered by reason of non-appearance of Soldiers Impressed [DRAFTED] for several expeditions: Do judge meet that every person Impressed [DRAFTED] as a Soldier for the Service of the Country, and neglecting to make his appearance according to Order: every such Foot Soldier shall pay the sum of four Pounds, and every Trooper shall pay the sum of six Pounds: and if their neglects or refusal be accompanied with Refractoriness, Reflection or Contempt upon Authority, such person shall be punished with Death, or some other Grievous punishment. And the Committee of Militia in the several Towns where the offence is committed are hereby impowered and required to call before them all such as shall be Delinquents as is above expressed, and on Conviction of their neglect to give Warrant to the Constable to levy the said fines, which said fines shall be improved to purchase Arms for the Towns use; Provided it shall be in the power of the Council upon Petition of any person aggrieved, and just reason alleged and proved to make abatement of the said fines as in their wisdom and discretion they shall judge meet. And it is hereby Ordered that the return of all neglects and defects in the cases aforesaid, be sent to the Committee of Militia in the several Towns, who are hereby required to take care for the strict Execution hereof. By the COURT Edward Rawson Secr. The Colonial Laws of Massachusetts. Reprinted from the Edition of 1672, With the Supplements Through 1686. (Boston, MA: Rockwell and Churchill, City Printers, 1890), Edited by William H. Whitmore, at 343. Law REGULATES -- which includes imposition of PENALTIES. ___ The "Declaration of Independence," which applied exclusively to England, includes a list of grievances against King George III, these two of which are directly on point: "He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures." "Legislatures" MAKE LAW, which REGULATE. "He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power." "Civil Power" is the gov't, which is by definition rule of law. As John Adams, who participated in writing the "Declaration," and authored the Massachusetts constitution, said: "A system of Laws, and not of men." ___ June 21, 1788: Ratification of the US Constitution completed: "Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions." "Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia . . . reserving to the States [GOV'TS] respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS." "Art. 4, S. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and . . . against domestic Violence." "Amendment I. Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people PEACEABLY to assemble." "Amendment XIV., S. 3. No person . . . who, having previously taken an oath . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof", shall be eligible for any US or state gov't office, civil or military. ___ The first Congress, both House and Senate, under the newly-ratified Constitution, debated and wrote the proposed Bill of Rights. The Debates of that which became the Second Amendment show its purpose was to establish a National Defense relying on the well-regulated Militia -- standing armies being feared. September 28, 1789: Proposed Bill of Rights submitted to the states for consideration and ratification consisted of TWELVE proposed amendments; the first two were rejected, making the 3rd the 1st, and making the 4th the 2nd. December 15, 1791: Ratification of remaining Ten Amendments completed. ___ Constitutional provisions are implemented by means of statutes: May 2, 1792: "An Act to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." May 8, 1792: "An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defense by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States." More than two years AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, Congress enacted a Militia Act in response to the "Whiskey" insurrection: November 29, 1794: "An Act to authorize the President to call out and station a corps of Militia, in the four western Counties of Pennsylvania, for a limited time." And this is how, per Art. I., S. 8., C. 16, the Militia is ARMED: July 6, 1798: "An Act providing Arms for the Militia throughout the United States. Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be provided, at the charge and expense of the government of the United States, thirty thousand stand of arms, which shall be deposited by order of the President of the United States, at suitable places, for the purpose of being sold to the governments of the respective States, or the militia thereof, under such regulations, and at such prices as the President of the United States shall prescribe. . . . ___ Source of all US statutes above: The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, from the Organization of the Government in 1789, to March 2, 1845. Vol. I. (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1845), By Authority of Congress, Edited by Richard Peters. ___ From Supreme Court decision _Presser v. Illinois_, 116 U.S. 252 (1886): "(115) . . . . It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions . . . have . . . the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations . . . . (116) The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine." ___ From _District of Columbia v. Heller_, 554 U.S. 570, 621 (2008) citing _Presser_: The Second Amendment "does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations". ___ In fact, all 50 states classify such fake "militia" as "paramilitaries" and PROHIBIT them. Pick your state: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/our-work/addressing-the-rise-of-unlawful-private-paramilitaries/state-fact-sheets/ ___
1
@l.w.paradis2108 Misstatement of what law, law-illiterate? This is fundamental to both reason and law -- and you are wrong, and you KNOW you're wrong: ___ From "A Man for All Seasons": In the following, Roper was Thomas More's hot-headed and impulsive son-in-law-- Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you -- where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws, from coast to coast -- man's laws, not God's -- and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ___ Thomas More was a real person, and those are his words. But that fundamental is obvious and universal. You are showing willingness to throw that away, blind to the fact doing so would come for YOU.
1
@ernwrld Not in the US if you believe in rule of law. But one can't both believe in the rule of law sometimes and reject it in others. There is no "right" of "revolution". For one, the "Declaration of Independence" does not include the word "revolution," it has never been law, and it applied exclusively to England. For another, this is American and us law on the issue, up to date: ___ No law protects private/fake "militia" This chronology illustrates both the evolution, elaboration, and increasing specificity of law, and its continued consistency over centuries: ____ Militia Act from October 1658 (rendered in contemporary spelling): "Military, [S.] 11. . . . It is Further Ordered, that henceforth all warrants for impressing [e.g., DRAFTING] & raising of soldiers for any expedition, shall be directed to the Committee of militia of the several Towns who may execute the same by the Constable & the said Committee are hereby impowered & required to suppress all raising of soldiers, but such as shall be by the authority of this government." For emphasis: "the said Committee are hereby impowered & required to SUPPRESS all raising of soldiers, but such as shall be by the authority of this government." The Colonial Laws of Massachusetts. Reprinted from the Edition of 1660, with the Supplements to 1672. Containing Also, the Body of Liberties of 1641. (Boston: Rockwell & Churchill, City Printers, Published by Order of the City Council of Boston, 1889), William H. Whitmore, Record Commissioner, at 179. In the above, "Committee of Militia" is part of the town gov't. Above the town gov't and "Committee" was a military command structure, in law, which included, at the top, the governor as commander-in-chief of the Militia. The governor was not going to "take up arms" against the gov't/himself. ___ Rendered in contemporary spelling: At a GENERAL COURT Held at Boston the 3d of May 1676. This COURT taking into Consideration the great Disappointment the Country hath suffered by reason of non-appearance of Soldiers Impressed [DRAFTED] for several expeditions: Do judge meet that every person Impressed [DRAFTED] as a Soldier for the Service of the Country, and neglecting to make his appearance according to Order: every such Foot Soldier shall pay the sum of four Pounds, and every Trooper shall pay the sum of six Pounds: and if their neglects or refusal be accompanied with Refractoriness, Reflection or Contempt upon Authority, such person shall be punished with Death, or some other Grievous punishment. And the Committee of Militia in the several Towns where the offence is committed are hereby impowered and required to call before them all such as shall be Delinquents as is above expressed, and on Conviction of their neglect to give Warrant to the Constable to levy the said fines, which said fines shall be improved to purchase Arms for the Towns use; Provided it shall be in the power of the Council upon Petition of any person aggrieved, and just reason alleged and proved to make abatement of the said fines as in their wisdom and discretion they shall judge meet. And it is hereby Ordered that the return of all neglects and defects in the cases aforesaid, be sent to the Committee of Militia in the several Towns, who are hereby required to take care for the strict Execution hereof. By the COURT Edward Rawson Secr. The Colonial Laws of Massachusetts. Reprinted from the Edition of 1672, With the Supplements Through 1686. (Boston, MA: Rockwell and Churchill, City Printers, 1890), Edited by William H. Whitmore, at 343. Law REGULATES -- which includes imposition of PENALTIES. ___ The "Declaration of Independence," which applied exclusively to England, includes a list of grievances against King George III, these two of which are directly on point: "He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures." "Legislatures" MAKE LAW, which REGULATE. "He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power." "Civil Power" is the gov't, which is by definition rule of law. As John Adams, who participated in writing the "Declaration," and authored the Massachusetts constitution, said: "A system of Laws, and not of men." ___ June 21, 1788: Ratification of the US Constitution completed: "Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions." "Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia . . . reserving to the States [GOV'TS] respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS." "Art. 4, S. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and . . . against domestic Violence." "Amendment I. Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people PEACEABLY to assemble." "Amendment XIV., S. 3. No person . . . who, having previously taken an oath . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof", shall be eligible for any US or state gov't office, civil or military. ___ The first Congress, both House and Senate, under the newly-ratified Constitution, debated and wrote the proposed Bill of Rights. The Debates of that which became the Second Amendment show its purpose was to establish a National Defense relying on the well-regulated Militia -- standing armies being feared. September 28, 1789: Proposed Bill of Rights submitted to the states for consideration and ratification consisted of TWELVE proposed amendments; the first two were rejected, making the 3rd the 1st, and making the 4th the 2nd. December 15, 1791: Ratification of remaining Ten Amendments completed. ___ Constitutional provisions are implemented by means of statutes: May 2, 1792: "An Act to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." May 8, 1792: "An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defense by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States." More than two years AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, Congress enacted a Militia Act in response to the "Whiskey" insurrection: November 29, 1794: "An Act to authorize the President to call out and station a corps of Militia, in the four western Counties of Pennsylvania, for a limited time." And this is how, per Art. I., S. 8., C. 16, the Militia is ARMED: July 6, 1798: "An Act providing Arms for the Militia throughout the United States. Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be provided, at the charge and expense of the government of the United States, thirty thousand stand of arms, which shall be deposited by order of the President of the United States, at suitable places, for the purpose of being sold to the governments of the respective States, or the militia thereof, under such regulations, and at such prices as the President of the United States shall prescribe. . . . ___ Source of all US statutes above: The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, from the Organization of the Government in 1789, to March 2, 1845. Vol. I. (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1845), By Authority of Congress, Edited by Richard Peters. ___ From Supreme Court decision _Presser v. Illinois_, 116 U.S. 252 (1886): "(115) . . . . It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions . . . have . . . the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations . . . . (116) The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine." ___ From _District of Columbia v. Heller_, 554 U.S. 570, 621 (2008) citing _Presser_: The Second Amendment "does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations". ___ In fact, all 50 states classify such fake "militia" as "paramilitaries" and PROHIBIT them. Pick your state: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/our-work/addressing-the-rise-of-unlawful-private-paramilitaries/state-fact-sheets/ ___ If you're going to apply law to the victim, but not to the murderer -- there was no connection between the two -- then you'll only be able to be a hypocrite spewing irrationalities. And that encourages more domestic violence, and that will inevitably result in the deaths of those even you will consider innocent. You are digging a hole that does not emerge at reason.
1
@ernwrld It is a nice slogan RIPPED OUT OF CONTEXT. Slogans are substitutes for THOUGHT. Indeed, they offer an escape from the responsibility to REASON. Defending a murderer is at best stupid. ___ From "A Man for All Seasons": In the following, Roper was Thomas More's hot-headed and impulsive son-in-law-- Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you -- where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws, from coast to coast -- man's laws, not God's -- and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
1
@sammyr.1284 It's pretty monstrous to shoot a stranger with whom one has no connection in the back based on what -- anger at the surgeon who performed the back surgery? "The sleep of reason breeds monsters." -- Goya. It is monstrous to defend the murderer because the victim is alleged to have been a monster. ___ From "A Man for All Seasons": In the following, Roper was Thomas More's hot-headed and impulsive son-in-law-- Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you -- where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws, from coast to coast -- man's laws, not God's -- and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
1
It's financial exploitation. The "health" exploitation occurs in the medical industry, which in the US is based on monetization of illness. The sicker the patient is, the greater the profits for others than the patient. Look up "Medicare Conditions of Participation," read them, then try to get an answer from Medicare about who enforces them.
1
@lindawhite5006 You are omitting the hospital administrations, which are more directly involved in treatment decision-making. And even the non-/not-for-profit hospital administrations are increasingly imitating the strategies of the for-profit. And look at the salaries of hospital CEOs. And they, even when M.D.s, don't have time to actually practice medicine so don't have any patients. But more and more they are run not by M.D.s -- but see what that's worth by Googling "Steward Health Care" -- but by MBAs. MBA = Masters in Business Administration. There was a time when hospitals were part of the community -- they existed to meet the needs of the community. They weren't intended to make profits because providing health care was the mission. Google "Steward Health Care" -- a disaster not caused by the insurance industry.
1
@nexus6163 If you have EVIDENCE for that assertion, present it. Otherwise, you are deliberately spreading disinformation. you are promoting domestic violence.
1
@garyhawthorne2560 That is where it is going. Trump tried everything to convince the jury to acquit him. It was a New York jury: they convicted him of all charges. No New York jury is going to vote against the mountain of evidence produced by the murderer himself.
1
Politics is more complicated than the simpleton's right-wing divide-and-conquer of "left & right". MAGA is right-wing working class. The left is not MAGA.
1
In all cases?
1
Catch up: the DOJ is investigating United Health executives, including Thompson, for financial crimes. You can admit fact; or you can lie against known fact.
1
@melindaward4780 You forget that they doubtless have VIDEO of his actions IN "Starbucks," and from there to putting the bottle and wrapper into the trash, and thereafter. And the videos are timestamped
1
The pro-murder "movement? How old are you, 12?
1
@henrymcdowell3103 Are you totally ignorant of history and politics!? The Republican and Democratic Parties are NOT IDENTICAL. Which enacted and signed the ACA -- and which wants to REPEAL it? The ACA was simply the first step in the INCREMENTAL process that is DEMOCRACY. Who did YOU vote for? You have no idea how great a president Biden has been -- his DOMESTIC achievements. Another Democratic president would have advanced the ACA toward greater power for those needing health care. Trump intends to take us back to BEFORE FDR's "New Deal". At very least kiss the ACA goodbye. But instead of dealing with reality, you people view everything as entertainment. You don't know how to take anything seriously -- which is why the wholly irresponsible praising of an act of domestic terrorism. That's what the REPUBLICANS want as excuse to engage in their LAWLESS version of "law and order". Words have consequences -- which you batch of fools should have learned by now -- or did you SLEEP during January 6th?
1
@nope-87-12x Law prohibits murder. Immorality defends murder against the rule of law. You are promoting domestic terrorism.
1
@nope-87-12x You are pushing immorality. Immorality is not moral. You are totally off base even invoking the word "morality". Law prohibits murder. You are attempting BOTH to claim defending murder is "moral" while at the very same time REJECTING morality. Words have consequences including those of you and your fellow hypocrites: you are promoting domestic terrorism -- more death, while BSing that you are opposed to killing. You may actually believe your twisted hypocrisy, or be stupidly trolling and stirring the pot, but you are not fooling the rest of us. Pay attention to what YOU are doing: you are promoting domestic terrorism -- promoting violence and death while pretending you oppose both.
1
Did you carry his ammunition for him?
1
An insanity defense is extremely rare, and even more rare is it successful.
1