Quote:
Originally Posted by $5 submissions
On the one hand, looting is against the law
On the other, those homes are about to burn anyway. Why not 'spread the wealth' (I believe that's the proper lefty term of art, I maybe mistaken - perhaps, 'liberating the fruits of capitalist exploitation' may be more appropriate-if a bit dated) by legally allowing looters to steal flat screen TVs, art, sound systems, and other stuff that's covered by insurance anyway?
Besides, looting, like pimping, ain't easy-imagine looting a home that's surrounded by a wildfire.
Where do you stand on this pressing issue?
|
Wow.
My home was flooded for 6 months a few years ago and we had to move out. Yes we had house insurance. Should we have been looted aswell then ??
GFY stupidity never ceases to amaze...