Right vs. Left is Logic vs. Emotion

[P@triot]

We don't have SS, Medicare, SNAP, etc??

We don't have murders, rape, and armed robbery??? Oh wait....we do?!? Well if that happens, it must be legal then, uh?

How does it feel being my personal bitch in this debate?

 

[P@triot]

The Father of the American Economic System, Hamilton???

He wasn't the father of shit - except of fellow assholes such as yourself. The only thing he was the father of was the Treasury.

 

[P@triot]

Sorry you have reading comprehension issues Cupcake, but your premise wasn't in my posit

Nobody knows how to run like hell when they get owned like you do, snowflake.

 

[Papageorgio]

It is a General welfare clause not a Common welfare clause. You figure it out.

I figured it out decades ago snowflake. And then I schooled you on it. To the point where you literally ran away like a little bitch because you knew you were dead wrong. We will do it again in this thread, just for fun...

If the left-wing lie about the "General Welfare" clause were true, the Republicans who currently own the House, the Senate, and the White House could pass a law right here and now stating it is for the "general welfare" of the United States to round up all Dumbocrats and execute them (and that would be true - it would be in the best interest of the United States to execute all anti-American communists).

This is the part where you ran like a little bitch. See, of the "General Welfare" clause actually meant what you dimwitted Dumbocrats try to convince the American people it means, it would grant the federal government unlimited power. Anything they deem to be "in the general welfare" would be legal. Sterilization of woman? Oh...that's just in the "general welfare" of America. Repossessing all firearms? Oh...that's just in the "general welfare" of America. Extermination of all African-Americans? Oh...that's just in the "general welfare" of America. Elimination of Freeom of Speech? Oh...that's just in the "general welfare" of America.

Do you see how stupid you sound now? Of course not...you're a Dumbocrat. You lack the self-awareness to realize how stupid you sound. I'll let the revered Thomas Jefferson polish your stupid ass off in front of everyone...

“Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)

Because Thomas Jefferson knew how dumb you federalists are, he clarified a second time...

“[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)

You're wrong and even you know it. This could not be more clear - even for illiterate Dumbocrats.

You have nothing but propaganda. The welfare clause is General not Common. Thus, anything for the common offense can be applied to anything in General.

So Thomas Jefferson is now considered propaganda. Interesting take.

 

[JonKoch]

We don't have SS, Medicare, SNAP, etc??

We don't have murders, rape, and armed robbery??? Oh wait....we do?!? Well if that happens, it must be legal then, uh?

How does it feel being my personal bitch in this debate?

SCOTUS rulings say it's OK to have "murders, rape, and armed robbery???" Buttercup

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

In response to your reply regarding Clinton "lying", Mrs Clinton only needed to meet privately at a tarmac regarding her investigation in seeking to get herself cleared.

Regarding Russia collusion:
As quoted among those involved in the investigation.



CNN’S WOLF BLITZER: “The last time we spoke, Senator, I asked you if you had actually seen evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and you said to me -- and I am quoting you now -- you said, ‘not at this time.’ Has anything changed since we spoke last?”

SEN. FEINSTEIN: “Well, no -- no, it hasn't. …”

BLITZER: “But, I just want to be precise, Senator. In all of the -- you have had access from the Intelligence Committee, from the Judiciary Committee, all of the access you have had to very sensitive information, so far you have not seen any evidence of collusion, is that right?”

SEN. FEINSTEIN: “Well, evidence that would establish that there's collusion. There are all kinds of rumors around, there are newspaper stories, but that's not necessarily evidence.”

Feinstein: Still No Evidence Of Trump Camp-Russia Collusion


SOURCE 2 There Remains No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion


SOURCE 3
"President Obama's former director of national intelligence and his former acting CIA director have both said they have seen no evidence of collusion," the official said. "Clapper repeated his assertion today."

The official also pointed to statements from some Democrats who said they had not seen evidence of collusion either.

White House highlights Clapper's lack of evidence on Trump-Russia collusion - CNNPolitics.com

After nearly 5 months of looking into this, it seems rather apparent that these are the only resulting Facts.

Mrs Clinton met who on the tarmac?

How do you find evidence of a collusion if you don't investigate? YOur sorcres did say there wass enough evidence for an investigation.

Hillary Clinton met attorney general Loretta Lynch in a private discussion on a tarmac while her emails were in the middle of an FBI investigation so close to the election. Why the need to be placed in a suspicious face to face encounter at this particular location during such a critical time of the election process where votes are close to being cast towards her presidency ? What kind of deal was she pandering to pad her election success? A "collusion" with an attorney general who has a direct line access connection to an FBI investigation. The same "suspicion" the left wants to try to generate surrounding Trump's claimed suspicions meeting with a Russian foreign diplomat. An attempt to generate guilt without knowing any of the facts, without any evidence disclosing any specific wrongdoing to warrant an investigation. Maybe we need to look into what deals Hillary and Loretta Lybch were planning to try to pass on to guarantee HER path to the presidency, in exchange to drop any further inquiries and squash any possiblity of indictments. Do you see how the liberal democrats llikewaise want to draw their own conclusions first without knowing any of the facts involved, nor specify any actual evidence of wrongdoings having occurred outside of ... "the meeting"? (oh and be sure to read with emphasis added to ensure plenty of drama to generate a much bigger story of importance and make it more newsworthy)

LMAOROG, Hil met huh Cupcake?


No wonder you're always wrong on EVERYTHING (BTW After meeting Bill on the tarmac, Lynch recused herself on the Hil thing which is why Comey took over)

Lynch Will Accept FBI Recommendations on Clinton Emails
Lynch Will Accept FBI Recommendations on Clinton Emails

It was only a simple face to face meeting, right fruitcake? Despite the unusually manner and location that this private meeting had been conducted. Without knowledge of what took place, no knowledge of what was being said, no evidence... just a cloud of suspicion if the media wanted to try and generate one That outcome being there was no further investigation into Hillary's emails with no calls to indictment to grant her the clear opportunity she wanted for president ( very convenient ), we only need to accept and take Loretta Lynch at her word there was no attempt to influence the outcome to aid Mrs Clinton in her executive ambitions. Just as Sessions spoke with Trump and removed HIMSELF from the situation, stating there was no wrong doing in HIS private meeting prior to an election, just a face to face encounter there as well, nothing spoken that can conveniently give Trump his opportunity to become commander in chief, absolutely no evidence provided of any wrong doing at all outside of just the meeting. This is why Senator Feinstein commented to Wokf Blitzer stating that despite access to all the classified information she has seen, after months of investigating, no evidence of any wrong doing is what she is on record of reporting.


CNN’S WOLF BLITZER: “The last time we spoke, Senator, I asked you if you had actually seen evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and you said to me -- and I am quoting you now -- you said, ‘not at this time.’ Has anything changed since we spoke last?”

SEN. FEINSTEIN: “Well, no -- no, it hasn't. …”

BLITZER: “But, I just want to be precise, Senator. In all of the -- you have had access from the Intelligence Committee, from the Judiciary Committee, all of the access you have had to very sensitive information, so far you have not seen any evidence of collusion, is that right?”

SEN. FEINSTEIN: “Well, evidence that would establish that there's collusion. There are all kinds of rumors around, there are newspaper stories, but that's not necessarily evidence.”


With Hillary you at least was able to produce emails (evidence) found at Senator Weiner's private home, some form of aactual physical trail. With Trump ... nothing, no evidence, no trail. Isn't that right Fruitcake? All this really is, are liberal democrats throwing their tantrum "Not my president" fits, looking to find some excuse because they did not like the outcome. Had this been Obama, with cries from a candidate that had to make a concession speech and demonstrations to resist!! Watch out --- they must all be RACIST. Right fruitcake?
: lol:

Sorry Cupcake, your entire post where you CLAIMED Hil met on a tarmac with Lynch was debunked. Your inability to admit your mistake and just dodge noted buttercup

Just as the your fruitcake call for impeachment based on Russian collusion has been debunked. You haven't been proven right yet.

 

[JonKoch]

The Father of the American Economic System, Hamilton???

He wasn't the father of shit - except of fellow assholes such as yourself. The only thing he was the father of was the Treasury.

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics


Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation.

It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program. The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient.

Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.


The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe.

The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.
American School (economics) - Wikipedia

 

[JonKoch]

Sorry you have reading comprehension issues Cupcake, but your premise wasn't in my posit

Nobody knows how to run like hell when they get owned like you do, snowflake.

Your dodge of your false premise noted Cupcake

 

[JonKoch]

Mrs Clinton met who on the tarmac?

How do you find evidence of a collusion if you don't investigate? YOur sorcres did say there wass enough evidence for an investigation.

Hillary Clinton met attorney general Loretta Lynch in a private discussion on a tarmac while her emails were in the middle of an FBI investigation so close to the election. Why the need to be placed in a suspicious face to face encounter at this particular location during such a critical time of the election process where votes are close to being cast towards her presidency ? What kind of deal was she pandering to pad her election success? A "collusion" with an attorney general who has a direct line access connection to an FBI investigation. The same "suspicion" the left wants to try to generate surrounding Trump's claimed suspicions meeting with a Russian foreign diplomat. An attempt to generate guilt without knowing any of the facts, without any evidence disclosing any specific wrongdoing to warrant an investigation. Maybe we need to look into what deals Hillary and Loretta Lybch were planning to try to pass on to guarantee HER path to the presidency, in exchange to drop any further inquiries and squash any possiblity of indictments. Do you see how the liberal democrats llikewaise want to draw their own conclusions first without knowing any of the facts involved, nor specify any actual evidence of wrongdoings having occurred outside of ... "the meeting"? (oh and be sure to read with emphasis added to ensure plenty of drama to generate a much bigger story of importance and make it more newsworthy)

LMAOROG, Hil met huh Cupcake?


No wonder you're always wrong on EVERYTHING (BTW After meeting Bill on the tarmac, Lynch recused herself on the Hil thing which is why Comey took over)

Lynch Will Accept FBI Recommendations on Clinton Emails
Lynch Will Accept FBI Recommendations on Clinton Emails

It was only a simple face to face meeting, right fruitcake? Despite the unusually manner and location that this private meeting had been conducted. Without knowledge of what took place, no knowledge of what was being said, no evidence... just a cloud of suspicion if the media wanted to try and generate one That outcome being there was no further investigation into Hillary's emails with no calls to indictment to grant her the clear opportunity she wanted for president ( very convenient ), we only need to accept and take Loretta Lynch at her word there was no attempt to influence the outcome to aid Mrs Clinton in her executive ambitions. Just as Sessions spoke with Trump and removed HIMSELF from the situation, stating there was no wrong doing in HIS private meeting prior to an election, just a face to face encounter there as well, nothing spoken that can conveniently give Trump his opportunity to become commander in chief, absolutely no evidence provided of any wrong doing at all outside of just the meeting. This is why Senator Feinstein commented to Wokf Blitzer stating that despite access to all the classified information she has seen, after months of investigating, no evidence of any wrong doing is what she is on record of reporting.


CNN’S WOLF BLITZER: “The last time we spoke, Senator, I asked you if you had actually seen evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and you said to me -- and I am quoting you now -- you said, ‘not at this time.’ Has anything changed since we spoke last?”

SEN. FEINSTEIN: “Well, no -- no, it hasn't. …”

BLITZER: “But, I just want to be precise, Senator. In all of the -- you have had access from the Intelligence Committee, from the Judiciary Committee, all of the access you have had to very sensitive information, so far you have not seen any evidence of collusion, is that right?”

SEN. FEINSTEIN: “Well, evidence that would establish that there's collusion. There are all kinds of rumors around, there are newspaper stories, but that's not necessarily evidence.”


With Hillary you at least was able to produce emails (evidence) found at Senator Weiner's private home, some form of aactual physical trail. With Trump ... nothing, no evidence, no trail. Isn't that right Fruitcake? All this really is, are liberal democrats throwing their tantrum "Not my president" fits, looking to find some excuse because they did not like the outcome. Had this been Obama, with cries from a candidate that had to make a concession speech and demonstrations to resist!! Watch out --- they must all be RACIST. Right fruitcake?
: lol:

Sorry Cupcake, your entire post where you CLAIMED Hil met on a tarmac with Lynch was debunked. Your inability to admit your mistake and just dodge noted buttercup

Just as the your fruitcake call for impeachment based on Russian collusion has been debunked. You haven't been proven right yet.

Without false premises, distortions and lies, what would the rightards EVER have Cupcake?

 

[P@triot]

We don't have SS, Medicare, SNAP, etc??

We don't have murders, rape, and armed robbery??? Oh wait....we do?!? Well if that happens, it must be legal then, uh?

How does it feel being my personal bitch in this debate?

SCOTUS rulings say it's OK to have "murders, rape, and armed robbery???" Buttercup

People violate the law every day (they are called Dumbocrats). That includes left-wing Supreme Court Justices intentionally ignoring the U.S. Constitution in favor of their own personal political agenda.

 

[P@triot]

Sorry you have reading comprehension issues Cupcake, but your premise wasn't in my posit

Nobody knows how to run like hell when they get owned like you do, snowflake.

Your dodge of your false premise noted Cupcake

There was no false premise. And the only dodging is being done by you, snowflake.

 

[JonKoch]

Sorry you have reading comprehension issues Cupcake, but your premise wasn't in my posit

Nobody knows how to run like hell when they get owned like you do, snowflake.

Your dodge of your false premise noted Cupcake

There was no false premise. And the only dodging is being done by you, snowflake.

Got it Cupcake, you the proven liar tries to create a premise of "100+ years of SCOTUS rulings" to mean every year they had at a min of 2 and you want me to prove it Buttercup?? LMAOROG

 

[JonKoch]

We don't have SS, Medicare, SNAP, etc??

We don't have murders, rape, and armed robbery??? Oh wait....we do?!? Well if that happens, it must be legal then, uh?

How does it feel being my personal bitch in this debate?

SCOTUS rulings say it's OK to have "murders, rape, and armed robbery???" Buttercup

People violate the law every day (they are called Dumbocrats). That includes left-wing Supreme Court Justices intentionally ignoring the U.S. Constitution in favor of their own personal political agenda.

Weird, it's like YOU live in some ALTERNATE UNIVERSE where facts and history don't matter like when you blame Gov't policy like CRA for Dubya's failure to reign in the Banksters in their WORLD WIDE SUBPRIME BUBBLE?



Yeah I can see how THIS was on BJ Bill's shoulders Cupcake:

 

[P@triot]

SCOTUS rulings" to mean every year they had at a min of 2 and you want me to prove it Buttercup??

In other words....the left-wing liar made yet another claim that she is incapable of backing up. You said 100 years of rulings. When challenged, you turn and run. Game over.

 

[P@triot]

Weird, it's like YOU live in some ALTERNATE UNIVERSE where facts and history don't matter like when you blame Gov't policy like CRA for Dubya's failure to reign in the Banksters in their WORLD WIDE SUBPRIME BUBBLE?

So I just want to be crystal clear on this: your saying that the housing bubble was the result of George W. Bush's policies. Is that correct?

 

[JonKoch]

SCOTUS rulings" to mean every year they had at a min of 2 and you want me to prove it Buttercup??

In other words....the left-wing liar made yet another claim that she is incapable of backing up. You said 100 years of rulings. When challenged, you turn and run. Game over.

Got it Cupcake, you will stick with your reading comprehension problem and continue to lie. I'm shocked

 

[Weatherman2020]

St Jude childrens hospital provides treatments for free, and they provide housing for the parents.
Supported with donations.
The difference being, conservatives give to charity, leftists do not.

St. Jude's is wonderful, but I did not know it was 100% a conservative organization. No leftists are allowed to contribute, huh? I thought it was a Mason's hospital. Am I confusing it with another one?

We all know the left hardly give anything to charity, study after study shows it. You playing stupid simply shows your level of involvement.

Are you kidding. Red states are charity cases. They soak the money from money making Blue states.

Republicans give an old can of creamed corn to some church and talk about all the charity they give.

Democrats invest in college scholarships which isn't counted a charity. Because Democrats don't want charity. They want jobs. Republicans want food stamps and welfare.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." That's' what Democrats believe.

Republicans: F*ck 'em. Let him die. But give him that can of cream corn first so we can pretend we are charitable.

More left wing claptrap void of any facts.

Poorer conservatives more generous than wealthy liberals – new study

Surprise! Conservatives are more generous than liberals

Who’s More Generous, Liberals or Conservatives?

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

Debunking the "Conservatives Give More to Charity" Myth



Since the publication of Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism

it has become common for conservatives to say they give more to charity than liberals. Many, many conservatives have cited the book I just linked to for support.

However, that book is just wrong. A recent MIT study countered it finding:

In this paper, we first show that conservatives and liberals are equally generous in their donation habits. This pattern holds at both the individual and state level, and contradicts the conventional wisdom that partisans differ in their generosity. Second, we show that while levels of giving are roughly equivalent, liberals are much more likely to donate to secular organizations, and conservatives are more likely to donate to religious causes, especially their own congregation.


However, there is another issue to address which is: what to count as charity? All of these studies use the IRS definition of "charity" rather than the biblical definition. In the bible, God defines charity as giving to the needy without receiving, or expecting to receive, anything in return. Most "charity" conservatives give is in the form of tithes to their church. The vast majority of that money goes to salaries and building expenses -- for people and buildings that provide the giver with services. A tiny, miniscule fraction goes to the poor and needy.

So, in actuality, it seems that liberals give quite a bit more to biblical charity than conservatives.


Debunking the "Conservatives Give More to Charity" Myth

A. I am directly involved in the finances of a large church and two international charities for kids in poverty. 85%-90% goes to programs.
B. I directly work with charity volunteers in the West. I can get a hundred volunteers without asking in conservative areas, but when the same event moves to Los Angeles or San Fran it's like pulling teeth.

Easy to attack things you have no knowledge of, isn't it?

 

[JonKoch]

Weird, it's like YOU live in some ALTERNATE UNIVERSE where facts and history don't matter like when you blame Gov't policy like CRA for Dubya's failure to reign in the Banksters in their WORLD WIDE SUBPRIME BUBBLE?

So I just want to be crystal clear on this: your saying that the housing bubble was the result of George W. Bush's policies. Is that correct?

A WORLD WIDE BANKSTER CREDIT BUBBLE CHEERED ON BY DUBYA IN THE USA? Yep



But PLEASE give me the Vid of Barney saying F/F were fine in 2004 (because they were)??

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush's President's Working Group on Financial Markets March 2008

"The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007."



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf


Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (2004/2005)
Lowering Invesntment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule (2004)
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans (2004)
Lowering down payment requirements to 0% (2004)
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets (2004)
Giving away 40,000 free down payments (2004)
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (2003)


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.


ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?


FACTS on Dubya's great recession

 

[JonKoch]

St. Jude's is wonderful, but I did not know it was 100% a conservative organization. No leftists are allowed to contribute, huh? I thought it was a Mason's hospital. Am I confusing it with another one?

We all know the left hardly give anything to charity, study after study shows it. You playing stupid simply shows your level of involvement.

Are you kidding. Red states are charity cases. They soak the money from money making Blue states.

Republicans give an old can of creamed corn to some church and talk about all the charity they give.

Democrats invest in college scholarships which isn't counted a charity. Because Democrats don't want charity. They want jobs. Republicans want food stamps and welfare.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." That's' what Democrats believe.

Republicans: F*ck 'em. Let him die. But give him that can of cream corn first so we can pretend we are charitable.

More left wing claptrap void of any facts.

Poorer conservatives more generous than wealthy liberals – new study

Surprise! Conservatives are more generous than liberals

Who’s More Generous, Liberals or Conservatives?

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

Debunking the "Conservatives Give More to Charity" Myth



Since the publication of Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism

it has become common for conservatives to say they give more to charity than liberals. Many, many conservatives have cited the book I just linked to for support.

However, that book is just wrong. A recent MIT study countered it finding:

In this paper, we first show that conservatives and liberals are equally generous in their donation habits. This pattern holds at both the individual and state level, and contradicts the conventional wisdom that partisans differ in their generosity. Second, we show that while levels of giving are roughly equivalent, liberals are much more likely to donate to secular organizations, and conservatives are more likely to donate to religious causes, especially their own congregation.


However, there is another issue to address which is: what to count as charity? All of these studies use the IRS definition of "charity" rather than the biblical definition. In the bible, God defines charity as giving to the needy without receiving, or expecting to receive, anything in return. Most "charity" conservatives give is in the form of tithes to their church. The vast majority of that money goes to salaries and building expenses -- for people and buildings that provide the giver with services. A tiny, miniscule fraction goes to the poor and needy.

So, in actuality, it seems that liberals give quite a bit more to biblical charity than conservatives.


Debunking the "Conservatives Give More to Charity" Myth

A. I am directly involved in the finances of a large church and two international charities for kids in poverty. 85%-90% goes to programs.
B. I directly work with charity volunteers in the West. I can get a hundred volunteers without asking in conservative areas, but when the same event moves to Los Angeles or San Fran it's like pulling teeth.

Easy to attack things you have no knowledge of, isn't it?

Sure Cupcake, I believe you

Anecdotal VS science, Hmm it's a tough choice Cupcake

 

[CowboyTed]

Jimmy Kimmel's recent viral monologue is a prime example of how the left values irrational emotions over logic and reason. That is why the left supports failed ideologies such as socialism, communism, etc. Because it feels good to them. They could care less that it ends in poverty, misery, and collapse.

Jimmy Kimmel illustrated this universal truth once again when he cried during his monologue about his baby (who is ok now) and proclaimed how nobody should have to decide between saving their child's life and money (as if anyone has ever had to make that "choice"). Life saving procedures cannot be denied regardless of a person's ability to pay. In addition to that inconvenient little fact, there is this gem:

The care, technology, and life saving treatment his family experienced was made possible by two, privately funded organizations. Both Cedars Sinai and Children’s Hospital LA are non-profit, not government-run, hospitals. This isn’t a coincidence.

When individuals are allowed to fund programs they like without a government mandate, we end up with more efficient and effective services. Hospitals are only one very important example.

Jimmy Kimmel’s Moving Story Shows Why Private Charity Trumps Government

Those private hospitals are great, I'm sure, but they sure are more expensive than most of the population can afford. So explain to me again how our current healthcare system is accessible to all? People can't afford to visit a hospital when they've got Obamacare--their $10,000 + deductibles are prohibitive. Same with doctor's visits. Kimmel as a father has every right to tear up relating the close call his newborn went through. You guys slamming "emotion" vs. "logic" aren't doing so hot when it comes to finding an actual solution to the problem, though. More and more people can't afford to visit doctors. Fix it.

St Jude childrens hospital provides treatments for free, and they provide housing for the parents.
Supported with donations.
The difference being, conservatives give to charity, leftists do not.

We have proven time and time again, if you take Church out of it their is not difference in giving but there is a difference in Conservatives States need more charity...