Monday, November 06, 2017

Rand Paul Breaks Ribs in Scuffle with Neighbor

Republican Sen. Rand Paul has five rib fractures, including three displaced fractures and lung contusions, after an assault in his home in Bowling Green, Kentucky, a senior adviser told CNN. Paul sustained what were initially reported as "minor injuries" after a neighbor allegedly assaulted him in his home Friday. Kentucky State Troopers said the neighbor, Rene Albert Boucher, "intentionally assaulted" the senator. ... Police say Boucher, 59, "admitted going onto Paul's property and tackling him."

More

Dang ...

Comments

Just remember that Randy was treated with government provided health care after voting to deny millions government provided health care.

#1 | Posted by 726 at 2017-11-06 07:10 AM

#1: Um, the ACA was signed into law by Obama in March of 2010. Paul was elected November of 2010.

#2 | Posted by Daniel at 2017-11-06 07:43 AM

OK Daniel, he was treated for his broken ribs with government paid for healthcare. Same point 726 was making just a different date. Same hypocrisy.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-06 08:43 AM

Poor little Dandy Paul
Had to go and call the government just to protect himself from a mean anesthesiologist

What A Puss

#4 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-11-06 09:39 AM

Sen. Rand Paul's injuries far more severe than initially thought

"He's pretty much the opposite of Rand Paul in every way," Bullington said in an interview.

The neighbors had been known to have "heated discussions" about health care, Bullington said, adding that Boucher is an advocate of a national health system.
www.washingtonpost.com

Sounds like a Socialist has gone off the rails .....

#5 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-06 10:25 AM

I bet the Rand Paul speech about cutting taxes on the rich being an important part of a tax cut sent him over the edge.

#6 | Posted by LEgregius at 2017-11-06 10:51 AM

Dandy Paul is delicate.

#7 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-11-06 10:52 AM

is paul an anarchist at the HOA meetings as well?

#8 | Posted by bus_driver at 2017-11-06 11:07 AM

The neighbors had been known to have "heated discussions" about health care, Bullington said, adding that Boucher is an advocate of a national health system.
www.washingtonpost.com
Sounds like a Socialist has gone off the rails .....

#5 | Posted by AndreaMackris

Facing a man and kicking his ass is far more admirable than working behind the scenes to take healthcare from millions of suffering poor people, resulting in many of their DEATHS.

#9 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 11:15 AM

When Doctors Attack...

New TV show...

Showing kids how adults solve their problems...

#10 | Posted by Pegasus at 2017-11-06 11:23 AM

I found this, more accurate, description: "Republican 2016 Presidential Candidate Who Survived Assassination Attempt By Bernie Sanders Supporter Is Physically Assaulted By Angry Kentucky Democrat."

#11 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-11-06 11:37 AM

"I found this, more accurate, description: "Republican 2016 Presidential Candidate Who Survived Assassination Attempt By Bernie Sanders Supporter Is Physically Assaulted By Angry Kentucky Democrat."

Not even a good deflection. Probably not even a real event. Probably never even happened. You're probably just a liar.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-06 11:45 AM

I can't tell if you're kidding.

#13 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-11-06 12:03 PM

#9 He didn't face him and kick his ass...he tackled him from behind while Paul mowed his lawn. Basically a back-shooter.

#14 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-06 12:03 PM

I'm surprised he mows his own lawn.

#15 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-06 12:07 PM

So what we have here is a setting senator being assaulted by a leftist in his own yard in an unprovoked attack. What is sad, there are plenty of people here who feel that behavior is justified. If that attack was against one of the leaders of the left, they would be screaming for blood. This will not end well for the neighbor- his lapse in judgement will cost him his license, his home and probity his liberty. Assaulting a setting elected member of congress is a felony.

#17 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-11-06 12:40 PM

"What is sad, there are plenty of people here who feel that behavior is justified."

You thought invading Iraq was justified. Also sad?

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 12:47 PM

Snoofy is obfuscating in defense of assault and battery. Poorly.

#19 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-06 12:50 PM

You thought invading Iraq was justified. Also sad? - #18 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 12:47 PM

Giving him the ol' whataboutism punch, snoofy?

#20 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-06 12:52 PM

#18 | Posted by snoofy, I bet that misadventure cost me more than it cost you. Want to lay odds Snoofy?

#21 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-11-06 12:55 PM

----, who an I kidding. Docnjo still believes the Gulf of Tonkin incident was real too.

Finding a veteran who can acknowledge they went to war for lies is a rare thing around these parts. Especially a right-wing veteran.

Sad!

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 12:55 PM

----, who an I kidding. Docnjo still believes the Gulf of Tonkin incident was real too.

Finding a veteran who can acknowledge they went to war for lies is a rare thing around these parts. Especially a right-wing veteran.

Sad!

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 12:55 PM

#23 | Posted by snoofy, I was 8 years old when the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred, and I realized it was a false flag by the time I was 13. That was a lie propagated by LBJ, a Democrat, to expand a war started by JFK, another Democrat.

#24 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-11-06 01:02 PM

y visitor_ at 2017-11-06 12:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

#9 He didn't face him and kick his ass...he tackled him from behind while Paul mowed his lawn. Basically a back-shooter.

#14 | Posted by MUSTANG

Still more admirable than trying to take health care from poor families while so rich people can have lower taxes.

#25 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 01:03 PM

Assaulting a setting elected member of congress is a felony.

#17 | Posted by docnjo

Yet killing sick poor people so the rich can get richer is perfectly legal.

#26 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 01:04 PM

"I was 8 years old when the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred, and I realized it was a false flag by the time I was 13."

So you couldn't figure that out with Iraq, or were you so indoctrinated you were Just Following Orders by then?

Or has it never been about the truth, you just like killing people?

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 01:07 PM

#26 | Posted by SpeakSoftly, You do realize that a majority of the cost of healthcare isn't from the providers. It is the administration, billing and endless red tape required to get federal funds.

#29 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-11-06 01:10 PM

Living next to a republican hack parading himself as a libertarian would make me snap eventually too. The faux-libertarians in my area are bad enough, I can't imagine having to live next to the prodigal son of their cult.

#30 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-06 01:11 PM

#26 | Posted by SpeakSoftly, You do realize that a majority of the cost of healthcare isn't from the providers. It is the administration, billing and endless red tape required to get federal funds.

#29 | Posted by docnjo

Good point. Which is why single payer is so much more efficient. Start telling your friends.

Doesn't change the fact that rand paul works to take health care from poor sick people so rich people can get richer.

#31 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 01:13 PM

Yes and Yes.

#34 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-11-06 01:22 PM

"It is the administration, billing and endless red tape required to get insurance companies to pay claims."

FTFY

#35 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-06 01:22 PM

Re #32 - falsely labeling things you disagree with as "violence" can be done by any fool to justify almost any assault.

#39 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-06 01:25 PM

"The man who allegedly attacked Sen. Rand Paul is out on $7,500 bail and -- so far -- faces only a misdemeanor charge, as questions surround the attacker's motive as well as the extent of the senator's injuries.

"He faces Assault in the 4th degree, minor injury," Jailer Stephen Harmon told Fox News on Monday, pointing further inquiries to the Kentucky State Police. "Other charges may be pending."

www.foxnews.com

"Now, fair's fair Henry. If I nail Hotlips and hit Hawkeye can I go home too?"

#40 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-06 01:27 PM

Re #32 - falsely labeling things you disagree with as "violence" can be done by any fool to justify almost any assault.

#39 | Posted by Sully

Killing is killing. Whether you order it from behind the scenes like Paul, or shoot someone in the face. Either way, you're taking lives. And Paul is willing to take thousands of them in order to get tax cuts.

#42 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 01:28 PM

Killing is killing. Whether you order it from behind the scenes like Paul, or shoot someone in the face. Either way, you're taking lives. And Paul is willing to take thousands of them in order to get tax cuts.

#42 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

It's ridiculous that you have to go to those lengths to demonize people who's policies you disagree with.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-06 01:30 PM

I'm a Democrat and -- while there are two sides to every story, and we have yet o hear Boucher's side -- I have no qualms saying that it appears Boucher was the aggressor. And if the attack grew out of a war of words over healthcare policy -- in other words, a political dispute -- Boucher is a particularly dangerous man.

#46 | Posted by cbob at 2017-11-06 01:38 PM

It's ridiculous that you have to go to those lengths to demonize people who's policies you disagree with.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ

There's no lengths to go. I simply don't live in denial about the effects of those policies like you do.

Take away health care = people die.

If you are in favor of taking away health care so that rich people can have a tax cut, you are killing poor people so the rich can be richer.

Thems the facts.

#47 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 01:39 PM

If you are in favor of taking away health care so that rich people can have a tax cut, you are killing poor people so the rich can be richer.

I don't know of anybody who is in favor of that.

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-06 01:42 PM

A career soldier has no room to lecture us on America's sad culture of violence, because he is America's sad culture of violence.

That is all.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 01:43 PM

"I don't know of anybody who is in favor of that."

You don't know any of the Republicans who are supporting Trump's tax plan?

Sad!

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 01:45 PM

Shreek is obviously trying to take the Deflection title away from Snoofy, all he needs to do is hone his lame strawman technique.

Still more admirable than trying to take health care from poor families while so rich people can have lower taxes.

Yet killing sick poor people so the rich can get richer is perfectly legal.

Killing is killing. Whether you order it from behind the scenes like Paul, or shoot someone in the face. Either way, you're taking lives. And Paul is willing to take thousands of them in order to get tax cuts.

Take away health care = people die.
If you are in favor of taking away health care so that rich people can have a tax cut, you are killing poor people so the rich can be richer.

Looks like his neighbor, another physician, at the very least disagreed with Paul politically, but Shreek is taking it to a whole other level.

Creepy.

#51 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-06 01:48 PM

I don't know of anybody who is in favor of that.

#48 | Posted by JeffJ

Everybody who voted to repeal obamacare, and Rand Paul too, because he wanted the repeal to be even worse.

#53 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 01:53 PM

Looks like his neighbor, another physician, at the very least disagreed with Paul politically, but Shreek is taking it to a whole other level.

Creepy.

#51 | Posted by Rightocenter

That "whole other level" is simply reality. And yeah, republican reality is very creepy. I'd call it sociopathic.

#54 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 01:54 PM

And if people decide that they want to stop paying for someone else's healthcare, it is murder.

#52 | Posted by Avigdore

Paying for someone else's healthcare is called HEALTH INSURANCE.

Just like your car insurance forces you to pay for other people's car repairs.

Are you so dumb you don't know how insurance works?

#55 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 01:55 PM

Re #42 - if I called out your dishonest tactic the 1st time, doubling down isn't going to fool me.

No matter what you say, voting against universal healthcare is, in fact, not a violent act.

#56 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-06 01:58 PM

"And here we find that people are ok if other people's representatives are assaulted because they did what they were elected to do."

Trump was okay if his supporters had to get violent removing protesters doing what they intended to do. Even offered to pay legal bills. Trump also encouraged police in general to be more violent.

So, what you're lamenting is behavior that's being normalized and encouraged by our President.

Sad!

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 02:00 PM

"No matter what you say, voting against universal healthcare is, in fact, not a violent act."

It kills people non-violenty.

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 02:01 PM

No matter what you say, voting against universal healthcare is, in fact, not a violent act.

#56 | Posted by Sully

Universal healthcare has never been on the table.

Taking away someone's air, food, or water isn't a violent act either, but it still means you're killing them.

Are you ok with non violent killing?

#59 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 02:06 PM

you don't know how insurance works? - #55 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 01:55 PM

Yes I do, which is why I know that it isn't murder to stop subsidizing someone's policy.

So, what you're lamenting is behavior that's being normalized and encouraged by our President. - #57 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 02:00 PM

a) Nice whataboutism
b)Ok, I'm lamenting people here on the left hoping that people become more Trump-like. Ok. I guess if you've found your role-model, you do you.

#60 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-06 02:07 PM

Yes I do, which is why I know that it isn't murder to stop subsidizing someone's policy.

#60 | Posted by Avigdore

You say you know how insurance works but you keep proving you don't.
The healthy subsidize the sick.

Advocating policies that will result in people losing healthcare is advocating policies that will kill people.

And doing so that rich people can have a tax cut is killing poor people so the rich can be richer.

#63 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 02:11 PM

Failing to help someone is not the same as harming them, no matter how many times you simpletons repeat the lie.

#62 | Posted by Sully

Taking away someone's access to health care is not FAILING TO HELP them. You're actively harming them.

#65 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 02:11 PM

#59. - I'm not going to entertain your dishonest analogies. Suffocating someone is not a valid comparison. If you can't make a truthful argument then you are simply wrong.

#66 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-06 02:12 PM

"Failing to help someone is not the same as harming them."

Taking away their existing help is the same as harming them.

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 02:14 PM

#65 - you're pretending that you're literally talking about access to health cate rather than a subsidy and that is because you are wrong

#68 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-06 02:15 PM

#59. - I'm not going to entertain your dishonest analogies. Suffocating someone is not a valid comparison. If you can't make a truthful argument then you are simply wrong.

#66 | Posted by Sully

How is cutting someone off from medicine they need to survive any different from cutting them off from the air they need to survive?

#69 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 02:15 PM

#65 - you're pretending that you're literally talking about access to health cate rather than a subsidy and that is because you are wrong

#68 | Posted by Sully

The access is due to the subsidy.

I have ACCESS to a lamborghini dealership. Doesn't mean I can afford one.

Taking away the subsidy is the same as taking away health care, which will kill people. You can twist yourself into pretzels trying to pretend it isn't true but thats the bottom line. More money for rich people, more death for poor people.

I guess you're fine with that.

#70 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 02:18 PM

"you're pretending that you're literally talking about access to health cate rather than a subsidy"

The subsidy is literally what provides the access.

You're making a distinction without a difference.

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 02:18 PM

The healthy subsidize the sick.
Advocating policies that will result in people losing healthcare is advocating policies that will kill people.
#63 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 02:11 PM

The subsidy I'm speaking of is the health-insurance subsidy which is part of the ACA.
Advocating for policies that allow people to drive over 10 mph will kill people.
Advocating for policies that allow people to drink will kill people.
Advocating for policies that allow for abortions will kill people.
Advocating for policies that encourage alternative energy sources will kill people.

Did you have a non-hysteria driver point to make?

#72 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-06 02:19 PM

driven

#73 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-06 02:19 PM

"Did you have a non-hysteria driver point to make?"

Seatbelts save lives is a hysteria driven point to you?

I guess I have to ask, are there any life and death policies that aren't hysteria driven, and can you name some?

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 02:23 PM

Hell, advocating for health access for people will kill people.
How Many Die From Medical Mistakes in U.S. Hospitals?
at least 210,000 patients a year

#75 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-06 02:24 PM

The subsidy makes access easier. Saying that is the only way to get access simply isn't true. Relying on subsidies from others indefinitely is a bad survival strategy.

By your logic if I gave to feed the children for a decade then decided not to do it one year, my actions resulted in net harm.

Ludicrous.

#76 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-06 02:27 PM

OK, for the crux of the mater, Where in the Constitution does it require or enable the federal government to provide healthcare to every individual living in this country? I believe the ninth and tenth amendments actually preclude the federal government getting involved.

#77 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-11-06 02:28 PM

Advocating for policies that allow people to drive over 10 mph will kill people. We have punitive damages for breaking the speed limit and there is a societal benefit to have speed limits > 10mp. Try again.h
Advocating for policies that allow people to drink will kill people. Sin taxed, try again.
Advocating for policies that allow for abortions will kill people. Objectively false; legalizing abortions decreases net abortions performed and lowers childbirth death rates. Try again.
Advocating for policies that encourage alternative energy sources will kill people. False and probably the dumbest non-Boaz post of the day. Try again.

Avigdore, are you really such a moron or just weak troll?

#78 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-06 02:28 PM

And to equate such a thing with assault is fundamentally dishonest. Unless you're a genuine idiot.

#80 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-06 02:30 PM

@#78 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-06 02:28 PM |
wtf are you on about? Those are prime examples of strawmen. I didn't make any of the arguments that you're arguing against.
I stated that driving over 10mph will kill people. Are you refuting that?
I stated that people will die from drinking. Are you refuting that?
I stated that people will die during abortion procedures. You know, the women who have the right to get the procedure done. Are they not people? Are you refuting that?
I stated that people will die as part of the renewable energy. You know, the people who work in the renewable energy companies? (google man dies from fall from windmill). Are you refuting that?

Good job. You are arguing with reality.

#81 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-06 02:36 PM

"The claim that 'Not subsidizing someone's health insurance is murder', is hysteria."

Well, taking away the subsidies will certainly reduce access to health care for those affected.

And, it's certainly true that lack of care results in adverse outcomes.

You may not like the tone or the wording but you can't really have a serious disagreement with the message. Merely the messenger.

#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 02:39 PM

"I stated that driving over 10mph will kill people. Are you refuting that?"

I'm not refuting it.
But it sounds hysterical.
See how that works?

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 02:40 PM

No. The claim that 'Not subsidizing someone's health insurance is murder', is hysteria.

#79 | Posted by Avigdore

In our current healthcare system, it's a fact.

If people have health insurance because of a subsidy, then taking away that subsidy will result in lost insurance, which results in people dying.

Saying it's "hysteria" really means you have no way to dismiss these facts, so you'd rather try and dismiss those who point out these facts as overly emotional.

Glad you can be so cool and calm about killing people.

#84 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 02:43 PM

#81 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Please answer, are you being a weak troll or are you really this big of a moron? I need to know before I bother explaining why you are such a damn fool for thinking those policies kill people. Individuals? Sure, but every policy can be a cause for an individual's death. You are a moron because they decrease the overall number of deaths.

We have policy to disincentive speeding and drinking. Taking people off healthcare is a direct action that results in more deaths.

#85 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-06 02:43 PM

"Where in the Constitution does it require or enable the federal government to provide healthcare to every individual living in this country?"

Where in the Constitution does it say we can't go to war based on lies?

It doesn't. Insurance is simply the best method we humans have come up with to provide for the common defense... against sickness and disease.

#86 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 02:43 PM

What's being left out of the argument is whether ACA sustainable and fair. Can insurance actually work if pre-existing conditions must be covered? And is the cost to everyone else fair? Should my brothers family continue to see their insurance rise by 40% every year because insurance is being forced to cover the moron who refused to buy health insurance until after he contracted a serious ailment? It is a system that encourages irresponsible and unsustainable behavior while punishing those who are doing the right thing.

#87 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-06 02:44 PM

We have policy to disincentive speeding and drinking. Taking people off healthcare is a direct action that results in more deaths.

#85 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

Person A - advocates for a 10 MPH speed limit.
Person B - advocates for the status quo.

Status quo creates more auto-related deaths than what Person A is advocating.

By your logic, Person B is killing people. Or, more accurately, Person B is advocating a policy that will result in more lives lost.

#88 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-06 02:46 PM

Should my brothers family continue to see their insurance rise by 40% every year because insurance is being forced to cover the moron who refused to buy health insurance until after he contracted a serious ailment? It is a system that encourages irresponsible and unsustainable behavior while punishing those who are doing the right thing.
#87 | POSTED BY SULLY

That is what the mandate is for. Unfortunately, our America hating friends on the right don't understand how insurance functions so they let their states drop the mandate.

#89 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-06 02:47 PM

What's being left out of the argument is whether ACA sustainable and fair. Can insurance actually work if pre-existing conditions must be covered? And is the cost to everyone else fair? Should my brothers family continue to see their insurance rise by 40% every year because insurance is being forced to cover the moron who refused to buy health insurance until after he contracted a serious ailment? It is a system that encourages irresponsible and unsustainable behavior while punishing those who are doing the right thing.

#87 | POSTED BY SULLY

Apparently, those aren't worthwhile concerns and the only reason you oppose ACA in any way is because you want to kill people so the rich can get a tax cut.

#90 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-06 02:47 PM

#88 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

10 MPH speed limit is such a hindrance on the economy it would probably net more deaths overall. Plus, with no speed limits at all if people still obeyed the other rules of the road there would be no traffic deaths.

Try again, this time not using --------- moronic example.

#91 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-06 02:49 PM

I guess the lives lost in car crashes is a completely different group of people than those killed in car crashes.

If you are JeffJ.

Sad!

#92 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 02:49 PM

Speaks asked someone else if he knows how insurance works.

How could anyone who understands how insurance works think that having to cover pre existing conditions is sustainable?

It would be like allowing people to wait until after they total their car and kill another driver to buy car insurance AND the insurance has to cover the collision/liability for the accident.

Can't work. Won't work.

#93 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-06 02:51 PM

That is what the mandate is for. Unfortunately, our America hating friends on the right don't understand how insurance functions so they let their states drop the mandate.

#89 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

Which states have dropped the mandate?

The mandate is set up to fail. Our America hating friends on the left we so desperate to get ACA passed they made the mandate too weak and gave the IRS wholly insufficient enforcement mechanisms because had these things been written into the law, it wouldn't have passed. So, people are incentivized to game the system with no recourse so long as they structure their witholdings in a way so they don't have any tax refund when they file their taxes.

#94 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-06 02:51 PM

Speaks asked someone else if he knows how insurance works.

How could anyone who understands how insurance works think that having to cover pre existing conditions is sustainable?

It would be like allowing people to wait until after they total their car and kill another driver to buy car insurance AND the insurance has to cover the collision/liability for the accident.

Can't work. Won't work.

#95 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-06 02:52 PM

"Apparently, those aren't worthwhile concerns and the only reason you oppose ACA in any way is because you want to kill people so the rich can get a tax cut."

Hysterical much?

Try phrasing it like this: It's because the tax cut matters more than the impact of removing health care subsidies.

Now, when you're prepared to discuss the impact of removing the subsidies, go for it!

#96 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 02:53 PM

"How could anyone who understands how insurance works think that having to cover pre existing conditions is sustainable?"

I dunno, can you explain how they do it in countries with single payer health insurance?

#97 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 02:54 PM

"Apparently, those aren't worthwhile concerns and the only reason you oppose ACA in any way is because you want to kill people so the rich can get a tax cut."

Hysterical much?

That's exactly how Speaks phrased it. Take it up with him.

#99 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-06 02:55 PM

#97 - apples and oranges. In the countries you are talking about, everyone is required to have and pay for insurance. Literally nobody is allowed to wait until after they have cancer before they start paying in. It couldn't be a more incongruent comparison....

#100 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-06 03:04 PM

"In the countries you are talking about, everyone is required to have and pay for insurance."

We have that too, except Trump de-fanged the IRS penalty.

But that doesn't really address how those same conditions are paid for. Only explains why we call them "pre-existing."

Pre-existing condition isn't a medical diagnosis, it's a financial construct the insurance companies invented to avoid paying claims.

#101 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 03:16 PM

"Literally nobody is allowed to wait until after they have cancer before they start paying in."

Sounds like a sensible way to run a national health insurance program.

But I'm sure you can find some reason our system is better. Like, it can be tinkered with to reduce benefits for the poor so the rich get a tax cut.

#102 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 03:22 PM

Failing to help someone is not the same as harming them.

I didn't know we were drafting the Republican Party platform, Sully, but that's a very appropriate plank.

If a video showed an injured person lying on the ground while passers-by did nothing, commenters would call those people monsters. Blistering criticism would thunder down from the heavens.

But for some reason Republicans can do nothing to address the health care emergency for millions -- or actively vote to make it worse -- and some people here will fall over themselves making excuses.

I guess being a Republican these days gives you a lot of practice in being completely indifferent to suffering unless it affects you directly.

#103 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-06 03:26 PM

Please answer, are you being a weak troll or are you really this big of a moron? I need to know before I bother explaining why you are such a damn fool for thinking those policies kill people. Individuals? Sure, but every policy can be a cause for an individual's death. You are a moron because they decrease the overall number of deaths. - #85 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-06 02:43 PM
Wow, how many times are you going to assign a position to me that I haven't taken so that you can vanquish it?
I claimed that Speaksoftly's statement that advocating for policies that will remove subsidies for people's healthcare would kill them was hysterical.
I responded with several equally hysterical statements about policies that would result in people's deaths.
You galloped into the conversation by arguing 4 different positions, that I had not taken, valiantly slew those strawmen, and then began child-like name calling.
I reiterated what the actual statements that I made were, not the ones that you assigned to me.
I even stated the women, the workers. Yes, individuals will die. Which is why it is true, but an equally hysterical position to Speaksoftly's. And why I didn't claim that more people would die, you assigned that on your own.
You even agree with my position 'Individuals? Sure', then call me a moron for having that same position.
WTF is wrong with you? I understand that reading comprehension may not be your forte, but you REALLY need to stop advertising it. Stop making strawman arguments. Stop thinking that maybe you're smarter than anyone, and begin reading to understand what is being said. And Really stop name-calling. It makes you look incredibly foolish and childish, especially when you're just wrong.

#104 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-06 03:27 PM

I'm not refuting it.
But it sounds hysterical.
See how that works?
#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 02:40 PM

Yes it sounds hysterical. Just like the argument is was being compared to. You've managed to understand the entire point of the statement. Congratulations.

#105 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-06 03:29 PM

#102 - cram your straw nan where the sun don't shine. I have never picked up your stupid positions that you try to assign me and I'm not starting now. One day you will get it through your thick skull that this never works for you

#106 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-06 03:30 PM

Hot Take 1

Rand Paul, like anybody else, should not be assaulted by a neighbor.

If it is a neighborhood dispute that Paul contributed to -- a pretty likely scenario in my estimation -- the charge should not be a felony just because Paul is a U.S. senator. Paul's neighbor should be treated like any other dumb old guy who loses his ---- and tackles his neighbor.

I hope Paul recovers soon. Rib injuries are painful and take forever to heal.

Hot Take 2

Rand Paul, like any other Congress member, should recognize that millions of Americans need publicly financed health care options, protection against exclusion for pre-existing conditions and all the other protections offered in Obamacare.

I hope that Paul's conscience appears soon and he votes to keep Obamacare.

#107 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-06 03:32 PM

People need to stop clutching their pearls because somebody used a scuffle between neighbors in a comparison for Congressional sabotage against the health care of millions.

No one is advocating assault. They are advocating a Congress that cares about the plight of uninsured and underinsured Americans.

#109 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-06 03:35 PM

[...] If you want to discuss whether indifference to the suffering of others is morally correct or not, that is a separate issue entirely

You are smart enough to know all this without my telling you so I have to wonder aloud what your intention is. Are you advocating violence against Republicans because if not I don't understand the intention of your post in this context.

#110 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-06 03:38 PM

The Seinfeld crew did nothing to stop the fat guy from being robbed and they went to jail for that.
Ipso facto case law.

#111 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-06 03:40 PM

#109. - why are you saying nobody is advocating assault when speaks and snooty clearly are even after being called out for it?

#112 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-06 03:41 PM

You are smart enough to know all this without my telling you so I have to wonder aloud what your intention is.

You should know my intention, because I've made it clear countless times. I completely reject political violence.

This incident isn't political violence, based on what is known thus far.

The neighbor's lawyer claims it's not political at all. He said, "The unfortunate occurrence of November 3rd has absolutely nothing to do with either's politics or political agendas," he said. "It was a very regrettable dispute between two neighbors over a matter that most people would regard as trivial."

www.foxnews.com

There's a history between Paul and the neighbor. Both are doctors and they used to work together.

www.vox.com

#113 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-06 03:45 PM

"#103 - so are you here to obfuscate and make excuses for assault to?"

Is it unfair to call the GOP plan, and Trump's decision to stop subsidy payments "an assault on Obamacare?"

When you read those kinds of headlines, do you imagine someone punching or shooting a piece of paper with the laws written on it?

No, of course you don't.

#114 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 03:45 PM

Apparently, those aren't worthwhile concerns and the only reason you oppose ACA in any way is because you want to kill people so the rich can get a tax cut.

#90 | Posted by JeffJ

There are plenty of reasons to oppose the ACA, but trying to repeal it or make it fail without a viable alternative in place is going to kill people. And it's being done so the rich can richer.

If you're fine with killing people, that's one thing. But if you're going to act upset when a terrorist runs over innocent people, then you should be even more upset when republicans try and kill far more people by taking their health care.

#115 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 03:46 PM

WTF is wrong with you? I understand that reading comprehension may not be your forte, but you REALLY need to stop advertising it. Stop making strawman arguments. Stop thinking that maybe you're smarter than anyone, and begin reading to understand what is being said. And Really stop name-calling. It makes you look incredibly foolish and childish, especially when you're just wrong.
#104 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

I'm not smarter than any average person. But people like you are objectively stupider than average. What's wrong with me is that I am pissed off that people like you continue to lie and make false equivalences in order to perpetuate an immoral agenda. What the hell do you gain from taking away others' healthcare apart from an inevitable increase in your own costs?

The reason your comment was moronic because those examples either didn't increase net deaths or were were revolving around individual choices.

You're like a nutcase calling for the banning of cars in the wake of a mass shooting in order to deflect from the problem at hand.

#116 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-06 03:46 PM

#109. - why are you saying nobody is advocating assault when speaks and snooty clearly are even after being called out for it?
#112 | POSTED BY SULLY

If not advocation, admiration of assualt.

#117 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2017-11-06 03:46 PM

Unpopular opinion: I like Rand Paul. When he isn't being a callous rat bastard, he's an interesting politician who isn't cut from the same cloth as the typical party line doofus.

#118 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-06 03:47 PM

*why are you saying nobody is advocating assault when speaks and snooty clearly are even after being called out for it?"

Lol. Show me where I advocated assault.

#119 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 03:47 PM

That you can't have optional participation AND coverage for pre existing conditions is not an excuse. It is reality. Insurance doesn't work if you can buy it AFTER you need it.

Single payer works so I can see advocating for that. But a system that is designed to fail can't be rationalized.

#120 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-06 03:49 PM

But a system that is designed to fail can't be rationalized.

This sentence does not describe ObamaCare.

ObamaCare was doing reasonably well under Obama and would still be on that path under a Democratic successor. If it fails now, it is only because Trump is openly sabotaging it.

#121 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-06 03:52 PM

If not advocation, admiration of assualt.

#117 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN

Don't take confuse noticing karma with approving of violence.

I don't approve of violence against anyone ever.

That doesn't mean those who fight for an agenda which will harm millions of desperate people should be surprised when people want to do them harm.

Do unto others.

#122 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 03:52 PM

But a system that is designed to fail can't be rationalized.

#120 | Posted by Sully

Tell it to the republicans. They're the ones trying to make it fail.

#123 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 03:53 PM

He had to go for his back becuase Dandy Paul is known for running away from the constituents he likes to lecture from the safety of a to studio
Like the time he ran away from that girl in a spaghetti string top

#124 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-11-06 03:53 PM

Don't agree with Paul on everything, but he's a breath of fresh air in the tired, old. elite senate club.

#125 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-06 03:55 PM

#122 "more admirable"

Your words not mine...

#127 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2017-11-06 03:56 PM

"Insurance doesn't work if you can buy it AFTER you need it."

So I guess that means our system of having insurance be optional is designed to fail people who need it but don't have it.

And I guess that means Rand Paul and most Republicans would like to see our already failing system fail even more people, by making it harder for them to get insurance before they need it.

#129 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 03:57 PM

LMAO At all the heat on this from the right on this - finally have a democrat act out and it goes pretty much the way I figured it would unfortunately. Personally I can't defend Boucher - at least not until I find out more. IF what I am reading is true and Boucher was unprovoked and attacked him from behind then throw the book at him. Actually he probably needs the book thrown at him anyhow since what he did is really dumb especially at his age. If you can't handle being neighbors with this air bag just move. You are not going to change his mind. He's a wannabe libertarian who's just nothing more than a Republican pretending to have a different position - just look at his voting record on libertarian issues to see that.

If I was a betting man Paul acted like ------ then turned his back on Boucher and Boucher flipped. I mean he's an ----- pretty much every time he opens his mouth but I don't think he deserved an unprovoked attack. Now if he ran his mouth he should have known better and been the bigger man and a professional. I don't know their history. I don't know how long they have known each other.

But man Boucher must have been a linebacker in a former life to mess up Paul so bad. Either that or Paul is Samuel L. Jackson as Elijah Price in Unbreakable and anything but Unbreakable.

#131 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-11-06 04:02 PM

#121 - trump is going to make it fail sooner.

But anyone who understands the basics of what insurance is can tell you that you can't allow people to wait until after they need insurance to sign up and be covered for a pre existing condition. Insurance can't and won't work that way.

#132 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-06 04:03 PM

@#116 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-06 03:46 PM
What's wrong with me is that I am pissed off that people like you continue to lie and make false equivalences in order to perpetuate an immoral agenda.
Ok. Let's see some citation of the lies that I am continuing. Or admit that you're a liar for saying so? Or is only 'people like me', not ME me? Have some strength of character here.

What the hell do you gain from taking away others' healthcare apart from an inevitable increase in your own costs?
Where have I advocated for taking away anyone's healthcare?

The reason your comment was moronic because those examples either didn't increase net deaths or were were revolving around individual choices.
The argument was intended to be hysterical to help Speaksoftly understand why his/her argument was hysterical. It is ok for you to admit that you don't understand what's going on.

You're like a nutcase calling for the banning of cars in the wake of a mass shooting in order to deflect from the problem at hand.
Another straw-man. I've never advocated for banning anything. And you're still name-calling.

#133 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-06 04:04 PM

We're not having the argument any more over whether somebody advocated assault. Put the pearls down.

#135 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-06 04:05 PM

135

I get it. It became juvenile when I showed up.

It was fine 130 posts earlier.

At least I sped it up.

You're welcome.

#136 | Posted by eberly at 2017-11-06 04:07 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if Speak actually wears pearls.

#137 | Posted by eberly at 2017-11-06 04:08 PM

#129 - no it's just designed to collapse. Until it does, the irresponsible ----- who opts out until after he gets sick is getting the best deal (while breaking the system).

I don't think you understand what insurance is.

#138 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-06 04:09 PM

"But anyone who understands the basics of what insurance is can tell you that you can't allow people to wait until after they need insurance to sign up and be covered for a pre existing condition. Insurance can't and won't work that way."

And what do people who understand how health care works have to say about insurance being optional?

Health insurance only works for everyone when everyone has it!

Can we agree on that?

Bonus points, can you explain why it simply shouldn't be that everyone has insurance, via personal requirement or government issue or some other way?

#139 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 04:14 PM

But man Boucher must have been a linebacker in a former life to mess up Paul so bad. Either that or Paul is Samuel L. Jackson as Elijah Price in Unbreakable and anything but Unbreakable.

#131 | POSTED BY GALAXIEPETE AT 2017-11-06 04:02 PM | FLAG:

I gave you a FF, but only for this part of your comment. The rest of the comment was pretty solid!

#141 | Posted by cbob at 2017-11-06 04:15 PM

"What the hell do you gain from taking away others' healthcare apart from an inevitable increase in your own costs?"
Where have I advocated for taking away anyone's healthcare?
You're "hysterical" comment to Speaks was exactly that

"The reason your comment was moronic because those examples either didn't increase net deaths or were were revolving around individual choices."
The argument was intended to be hysterical to help Speaksoftly understand why his/her argument was hysterical. It is ok for you to admit that you don't understand what's going on.
And I retorted with reasons why those were invalid points

"You're like a nutcase calling for the banning of cars in the wake of a mass shooting in order to deflect from the problem at hand."
Another straw-man. I've never advocated for banning anything. And you're still name-calling.
I said like. Do yourself a favor and look up what a metaphor is. And a straw-man while you're at it.

#133 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

If you don't like being called a fool and a moron, quit posting foolish and moronic comments.

#142 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-06 04:16 PM

"Health insurance only works for everyone when everyone has it!"

And does Obamacare accomplish that?

#143 | Posted by eberly at 2017-11-06 04:17 PM

#139 - I'm not against that. Figure out a way to make it work and get the votes and I'm fine with it.

Fundamentally flawed systems, not so much

#144 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-06 04:22 PM

no it's just designed to collapse.

It was designed to help tens of millions of underinsured and uninsured Americans and take us a big step closer to universal health care by establishing that health insurance is a right.

All the claims it was about to collapse are politically driven partisan nonsense. If that was true, Trump wouldn't need to aggressively sabotage it. He could just wait for it to happen on its own.

#145 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-06 04:24 PM

"Two Kentuckians tell me Rand's neighborhood fracas stemmed from a dispute over some sort of planting or flora issue around the properties."

twitter.com

"Good fences make good neighbors." -- Flannery O'Connor

#146 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-06 04:26 PM

Our "system" has been fundamentally flawed from the moment the first insurance company provided insurance, then.

And you never found fault with it until Obamacare required everyone to have insurance or pay a fine...

It's like you can't even tell if Obamacare makes our flawed system any better or worse.

#147 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 04:26 PM

#145

The exchanges were on a trajectory toward collapse before Trump came into office.

Perhaps, over time, they might stabilize. Having said that, if the trend-line of the exchanges are to continue to move in the same direction, they will collapse. Something has to change.

#148 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-06 04:27 PM

Trump wouldn't need to aggressively sabotage it. He could just wait for it to happen on its own. - #145 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-06 04:24 PM
Trump taking steps to minimize the problems caused by the ACA is not the same as sabotaging it. Neither is his not making payments determined to be illegal by the judicial and legislative branches.

#151 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-06 04:34 PM

"payments determined to be illegal."

Did Trump break the law when he made the payments? Yes or no.

#152 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 04:40 PM

"Perhaps, over time, they might stabilize."

Either you're lying about that, or you're lying about them being in a death spiral.

Death spirals don't stabilize, liar.

#153 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 04:41 PM

"Good fences make good neighbors." -- Flannery O'Connor

It was Robert Frost who wrote that line in the poem Mending Wall:

www.poetryfoundation.org

#154 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-06 04:41 PM

Trump taking steps to minimize the problems caused by the ACA ...

I see you're just going to lie about Obamacare, then.

Neither is his not making payments determined to be illegal by the judicial and legislative branches.

The legislative branch doesn't decide legality.

If the judicial branch had ruled any ObamaCare payments to be illegal, Trump wouldn't need to stop them. They would already be stopped.

#155 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-06 04:42 PM

It was Robert Frost who wrote that line in the poem Mending Wall ...

Damn. I know Flannery had something to say on the subject, but all I can remember is her story quote from A Good Man Is Hard to Find:

"She would have been a good woman," The Misfit said, "if it had been somebody there to shoot her every minute of her life."

Note: She was not advocating violence.

#156 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-06 04:47 PM

Yeah, I thought you were thinking of that story: "A Good Man Is Hard to Find." Also an excellent line. :)

#157 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-06 04:49 PM

Re#145 - "about to collapse" may not be true. But unsustainable is. Insurance does not work when people can opt in once they need it. Something will need to change.

#158 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-06 04:56 PM

If the judicial branch had ruled any ObamaCare payments to be illegal, Trump wouldn't need to stop them. They would already be stopped. - #155 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-06 04:42 PM
Perhaps argue with the fine folks at:
Federal judge rules Obamacare is being funded unconstitutionally LA Times

President Trump Now Fully Justified In Cutting Off Illegal Cost Sharing Reduction Payments Forbes

a lawsuit filed in 2014 by House Republicans, who said the Obama administration was paying the subsidies illegally. Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the United States District Court in Washington agreed, finding that Congress had never appropriated money for the cost-sharing subsidies. NY Times

Yes, payments can continue after a judge rules them illegal if the judge also stays her verdict.

#159 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-06 04:57 PM

And here I thought you were thinking of the porn film: "A Hard Man is Good to Find."

#160 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-06 05:00 PM

But unsustainable is.

You know what was unsustainable? The private health care system before ObamaCare. Millions of people were not being offered insurance at any price because of "pre-existing conditions." Even babies!

#161 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-06 05:00 PM

I started a thread on this yesterday.

Someone else did too.

#162 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-06 05:02 PM

Avigdore: The fact the judge stayed the verdict is all that matters. Your own link states her decision "stands a good chance of being overturned on appeal."

It's not a ruling until it's in effect. The payments are legal.

#163 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-06 05:02 PM

#162

This will make you feel better.

#164 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-06 05:05 PM

#164 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2017-11-06 05:05 PM | FLAG: This web site is all I have in my life

Just pointing out that there are 3 threads on the same topic right now.

I know you'd open a vein over it. You clearly have little else to live for.

#165 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-06 05:09 PM

Sully do you have health insurance, or do you refuse to participate in the unsustainable system?

I'm betting on "has health insurance."

#166 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 05:11 PM

Something stinks in Denmark about this story.

#167 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-06 05:12 PM

Just so everyone knows, Rand Paul is a homosexual. This was a lover's quarrel. Wait for it.

#168 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-06 05:13 PM

#165

I'm not the one whining that no one paid attention to a thread that I opened up.

#169 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-11-06 05:14 PM

#165
I'm not the one whining that no one paid attention to a thread that I opened up.

#169 | POSTED BY LEFTCOASTLAWYER AT

You also aren't the idiot who I was replying to.

I guess there's more than one dick smack here with nothing else to live for......

#170 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-06 05:17 PM

"Perhaps, over time, they might stabilize."
Either you're lying about that, or you're lying about them being in a death spiral.
Death spirals don't stabilize, liar.

#153 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I'm not lying about anything, moron.

I didn't say they were in a death spiral. They are not there yet. What I said was that is the direction they are headed, at least in some states. Now, in those states it's possible that they could stabilize (or not). At this point, nobody knows because we don't have a crystal ball.

#171 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-06 05:21 PM

.... Yeah ......

I'm pretty sure RIGHTOCENTER just outed himself as LEFTCOASTLAWYER.

#173 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-06 05:26 PM

#173

That happened months ago.

#174 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-11-06 05:46 PM

#173
That happened months ago.

#174 | POSTED BY TONYROMA A

Does he ever argue with himself?

How often does he agree with himself, flag his own comments, etc?

What a sorry sack of ****.

LOL

#175 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-06 05:49 PM

And here I thought you were thinking of the porn film: "A Hard Man is Good to Find."

#160 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT

I might have flagged this funny if you had posted it under one of your other screen names.

Why is it that you have multiple screen names?

#176 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-06 09:06 PM

I just read this was over flowers or piles of leaves.

haha. shrubberies.

#177 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-06 11:24 PM

You know what was unsustainable? The private health care system before ObamaCare. Millions of people were not being offered insurance at any price because of "pre-existing conditions." Even babies!

#161 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2017-11-06 05:00 PM

You're confusing "unsustainable" with "inadequate".

Insurance can't work if people are allowed to opt in only after they need it. This can't be explained away with criticisms of the old system.

#178 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-07 08:04 AM

Sully do you have health insurance, or do you refuse to participate in the unsustainable system?
I'm betting on "has health insurance."
#166 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-11-06 05:11 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

That you think this is any kind of rebuttal to what I've said shows that you don't understand the issue. My criticism is based on the simple reality of how insurance works. And it doesn't work if people can buy it only after they need it.

I am not waiting until I have a serious medical need before realizing I need insurance so I'm not part of the problem anyway. So even a cheap "gotcha" this fails as hard as your typical effort.

#179 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-07 08:10 AM

HAHA
Dandy got his ass kicked by his neighbor.
Over some leaves. teehee
Of course, this dude had to go for Dandy's back, there is no other way to tackle someone running away from you.

#180 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-11-07 10:56 AM

Active: Rand Paul Breaks Ribs...? Or Passive: Rand Paul Ribs Broken...? Very misleading headline grammatically speaking. Get them clicks...

#181 | Posted by californiasteve at 2017-11-07 03:57 PM

Active: Rand Paul Breaks Ribs...? Or Passive: Rand Paul's Ribs Broken...? Very misleading headline grammatically speaking. Get them clicks...

#182 | Posted by californiasteve at 2017-11-07 03:59 PM

Old squirrel head popped off the the wrong person. Think next time before you speak Randy!

#183 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2017-11-07 05:00 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Shutdown (161 comments)

Drug Testing Welfare Recipients Was a Total Flop (67 comments)

World's Belief in U.S. Leadership Hits New Low (39 comments)

There Are 3.6 Million Dreamers (32 comments)

Steele: 'This Shutdown Rests at the Feet of the GOP' (22 comments)

Senate Advances Judicial Pick Hostile to Black Voting Rights (22 comments)

FBI Investigating If NRA Took Putin Money to Help Trump (20 comments)

Kushner Still Doesn't Have Security Clearance (18 comments)

Trump's Lies to Carrier Workers Come Home to Roost (17 comments)