"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
m...
They would have had access to emergency medical treatment except
they attempted to hijack ambulances and loot hospitals.

Are those two "they"s meant to be the same? That is, are you claiming that
all--or even a nontrivial fraction--of the people who lacked access to
emergency medical treatment are the same people who had attempted to
hijack
ambulences or loot hospitals? Presumably not; there's no evidence to
support
such a claim.

'They' as in residents of NO. Instead of pulling together and helping each
other many of 'them' decided to act like animals preventing the rest of
'them' from receiving the help 'they' needed. Why is it 'they' didn't go
out and help their fellow citizens instead of looting and committing other
crimes?

What then *do* you mean? That "they" who couldn't get emergency care had
the
same skin color as "they" who hijacked ambulences, so that you feel
entitled
to just refer to all of "them" interchangeably? Because I really don't see
any other way to parse what you wrote.

You spend way too much time listening to Jesse and Al.

--Gary