|
Posted by Secretia Green on August 15, 2007, 10:31 am
My new jeans sure afford a great fit.
> It appears that there is a continuous evolution on the meaning of words.
> Take the word *afford*, it appears there is no real definition for this
> word anymore.
> Or, everybody has their own particular meaning for it.
>
> I don't know why I subject myself to the silliness but I watched a few
> mins of news on the toob this morning and one of the articles dealt with
> *wealthy* people scamming the medical facilities.
> It was said that some people that can *afford* medical services were
> claiming they could NOT *afford* the service and were then given the
> medical service the wanted and didn't have to pay for it.
> One couple was accused of, and found guilty of, scamming a medical
> facility out of some sort of service to the tune of $46k.
> Upon conviction they were forced by the courts to pay that $46k back,
> which they were doing so through monthly payments to the hospital.
>
>>blink<
>
> Did you see it, right there in the last sentence.
> Payments.
> Does that sound like someone that can *afford* it?
> If you can *afford* something, that means you can go buy it right now and
> NOT go into debt doing so.
> Like say, a sandwich at Subway, or a pair of pants at the mall.
> Buying a car on credit is NOT affordable.
> Being granted credit does not mean you can *afford* it, it simply means
> you have an ability to re-pay the loan.
>
> Now, the reason given by a gov't spokesperson for the egregious
> prosecution of the people that scammed the medical facility is that they
> hurt the people that really couldn't *afford* health care, the indigent
> people, people that are unable to secure a loan.
>
> Actually, 2 words were slandered in that article.
> The word *afford* means the ability to secure credit to purchase things
> someone might want.
> *Wealthy* also means the same thing.
>
> In todays world both of those words are looked down upon by both, people
> that are able to secure credit, and people that are not able to secure
> credit.
> The first group, those able to secure credit, are hypocritical assholes,
> and the second group are lazy assholes.
> Both groups advocate the validity of theft under certain circumstances,
> that is, as long as they are not being stolen from directly by the accused
> thieves.
>
> The wave of insanity indicates that it is morally proper and legal to
> steal stuff but it is immoral and illegal to steal from the thief.
>
> I had to turn the fukkin box of dispair off...............
>
>
>
>
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap