Rolled Out On: 5/15/2007 5:03 PM

I'd have to know more about the situation before siding with either one. If the doctor was negligent in some way, then the responsibility could be his. If she did not follow instructions properly, or did something against the doctor's instructions, then she should bear the responsibility.

Rolled Out On: 5/16/2007 2:04 PM

This is what happens after 40 years of the great society. Everyone thinks they deserve to have their every need taken care of by someone else.

Granted, not all the details are known about this case, but your friend's attitude is indicative of the average voter in this country. If it weren't, entitlement spending might actually decline for a change.

Rolled Out On: 5/17/2007 11:54 AM

That was a very thought provoking post. So much so that it was on my mind when I tripped and knocked my basset hound, Buford, down the steps to the basement. He ended up impaling himself on the wrong end of one of my golf clubs.

You'll be hearing from my attorney, blogging puppy killer!

Rolled Out On: 5/17/2007 12:17 PM

Dave, the last thing I ever intended was to be thought provoking. Technically, one should leave SaaM with a few less IQ points, if anything!

Rolled Out On: 5/22/2007 7:42 PM

Whenever I get into these kinds of arguments, I try to cast the concept (confiscation of resources without responsibility) into whatever industry the pinko is in. It usually boils down to:

"Should a customer be able to sue YOU for damages if THEY don't follow your instructions, suffer a virus/hard drive crash/spilled coke/poor data quality, and lose their data? Even if your program is still running fine?"

Usually clicks. Sometimes not, though.

Rolled Out On: 5/23/2007 1:53 PM

I would point out that the "leftie" is in fact lying, to himself and to his friend. He is in no way "rooting for the little guy." In fact, he could not care less what happened or happens to that woman.

What he is doing is his damndest to harm the doctor. His motivation is infantile envy and rage, not compassion. He knows that no amount of money can compensate for the woman's loss; he even unwittingly betrays this certainty by his insistent harping on "what would you take to cut your hands off" -- obviously this is irrelevant, but, like the rest of his argument, an appeal to irrational emotion.

Much of what passes for concern about others is in fact aggression gainst others still. Someone -- a doctor, say -- is more successful than you? Harm him. The "rich" seem to enjoy life more than you? Take their money -- in a good cause, of course.

People need to look through the purported motivation of the so-called "left" to "improve" society, and recognize the infantile envy and rage that altruism so often shrouds.