• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tea Party Crowd Yells Let Him Die

If the crowd didn't shout "let him die", then don't post that the crowd said "let him die".

Both sides of this issue I agree and disagree with. The man shouldn't have dropped his health insurance and thought that it was wise. The crowd should not have seemingly shouted in glee at the thought of him dying. This issue is not black or white.

Define the issue. What was yelled was approval of letting him die. You can't say let him be responsible if at the end of the day we're going to take care of him anyway. This is why Paul struggled so much witht he question.
 
Define the issue. What was yelled was approval of letting him die. You can't say let him be responsible if at the end of the day we're going to take care of him anyway. This is why Paul struggled so much witht he question.

Paul struggled with the question because he is Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde. Most of him is the elected Republican Party politician who must continue to get elected. He knows that he will be lambasted nationwide if he dares say "sure, libertarians believe in free choice, and he made a choice so let him suffer the consequences of his free choice - let him die". But that libertarian Mr. Hyde burrowing deep inside of him wants to tease it just the same but then pull back just before the truth is told. This way the Paulites and randroids can continue to praise him since they speak libertarianese code but yet he avoids the contempt of most Americans.
 
Paul struggled with the question because he is Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde. Most of him is the elected Republican Party politician who must continue to get elected. He knows that he will be lambasted nationwide if he dares say "sure, libertarians believe in free choice, and he made a choice so let him suffer the consequences of his free choice - let him die". But that libertarian Mr. Hyde burrowing deep inside of him wants to tease it just the same but then pull back just before the truth is told. This way the Paulites and randroids can continue to praise him since they speak libertarianese code but yet he avoids the contempt of most Americans.

Perhaps. I'd like to think he realizes the problem with ideology overriding pragmatic concerns. If not, he wouldn't be the first to fail to see the importance of seeing beyond ideaology.
 
Never the point. That anyone felt free enough to express should a vile thought is of some concern.

I guess the important word here is "free." On the OP's clip I heard only two men say "Yeah." I didn't hear "Let him die." But perhaps, as you say, this isn't the point. In a crowd there are likely to be a couple of loudmouthed jerks. And yes, up to a point, they are free to be jerks.

Somewhere earlier on this thread I posted that I had recently attended my newly elected Rep's local townhall meeting. Probably 350 people in the audience, lots of them in the "retired" age group. For the most part, the audience was very polite, but at the end, there were 2-3 guys in a back corner who mouthed off. Liberals, just FYI, who didn't like the conservative POV being expressed.

They were rude and irritating, and like others, I turned to glare and see where they were and what they looked like. Never did. Their rudeness made me so mad I could've socked them, and I wanted to shout, "Just STFU!" But I didn't, and nobody else did either, just nervously laughed. I don't think that we were wrong to continue to behave.

Some posting on this thread think that others in the GOP debate crowd should have done something--what? Become part of the problem? Create more of a disruption? Did we somehow morally fail because we didn't? Did the GOP debate crowd morally fail because they didn't? I'd say that civilized people ignore lone asshats unless they're so disruptive that they're led away by the cops.

But up to a point, people are free to be jerks. To shout "Yeah!" or even "Let him die!" (which, again, I did not hear on the clip).

BTW, my friends and I never said, "Wow, those progressives and liberals--they're just disgusting" because others of our friends who are liberals and Dems were also in that crowd and behaved civilly the way the vast, vast majority of us did. Not fair to stereotype those who hold a particular political view because of 2-3 jerks.

The two guys in the GOP debate behaved disgracefully. But the bad's on them, not the entire Tea Party. Entertaining, kinda, to see those who hate the Tea Party trying to seize on this. And I know who flogged it all too because I Googled--the Huffington Post, Mediaite, and Kos. So there you go.
 
Why do you persist in this lie about TWO GUYS?
 
Paul is getting a bad rep here.
He would be the first to treat this person, free of charge. Most people with a conscience would donate money for his care.

But what is the answer? Shall we reward irresponsibility at any cost? Who is really to be held responsible? Those who always do whats right should also take care of those who just don't give rip?
When and when does it stop?
 
You have no defense for all those rightwingers who stood by and said nothing while the teabaggers mocked the man who was dying. All you have is an ad hom, just like the teabaggers who mocked the man who was dying

I don't have any defense for them. I certainly wouldn't act that way. I think ordinary people put in political situations (especially in groups) can be rude or disgusting, no matter their ideology. I don't need to masturbate my ideology as superior based on the behavior of incredibly small pockets of the population. I'm just more honest than you in being able to face up to that.
 
Last edited:
Paul is getting a bad rep here.
He would be the first to treat this person, free of charge. Most people with a conscience would donate money for his care.

But what is the answer? Shall we reward irresponsibility at any cost? Who is really to be held responsible? Those who always do whats right should also take care of those who just don't give rip?
When and when does it stop?

It matters not if Paul would treat him or not. There are simply not enough big hearted Ron Paul baby doctors to take care of everyone without insurance and keep the system viable and ongoing in a sustainable economic model at the same time.
 
You have no defense for all those rightwingers who stood by and said nothing while the teabaggers mocked the man who was dying. All you have is an ad hom, just like the teabaggers who mocked the man who was dying

A man was dying?
 
I love how progressives paint out Ron Paul to be some sort of radical. It is Ron Paul that proclaims that "We don't have to cut Medicare or Social Security in order to get our House in Order". It is progressives that are attacking medicare and social security. They just have proposed billions of dollars in cuts.

However, we live in mad world where up is down and night is day.
 
I guess the important word here is "free." On the OP's clip I heard only two men say "Yeah." I didn't hear "Let him die." But perhaps, as you say, this isn't the point. In a crowd there are likely to be a couple of loudmouthed jerks. And yes, up to a point, they are free to be jerks.

Somewhere earlier on this thread I posted that I had recently attended my newly elected Rep's local townhall meeting. Probably 350 people in the audience, lots of them in the "retired" age group. For the most part, the audience was very polite, but at the end, there were 2-3 guys in a back corner who mouthed off. Liberals, just FYI, who didn't like the conservative POV being expressed.

They were rude and irritating, and like others, I turned to glare and see where they were and what they looked like. Never did. Their rudeness made me so mad I could've socked them, and I wanted to shout, "Just STFU!" But I didn't, and nobody else did either, just nervously laughed. I don't think that we were wrong to continue to behave.

Some posting on this thread think that others in the GOP debate crowd should have done something--what? Become part of the problem? Create more of a disruption? Did we somehow morally fail because we didn't? Did the GOP debate crowd morally fail because they didn't? I'd say that civilized people ignore lone asshats unless they're so disruptive that they're led away by the cops.

But up to a point, people are free to be jerks. To shout "Yeah!" or even "Let him die!" (which, again, I did not hear on the clip).

BTW, my friends and I never said, "Wow, those progressives and liberals--they're just disgusting" because others of our friends who are liberals and Dems were also in that crowd and behaved civilly the way the vast, vast majority of us did. Not fair to stereotype those who hold a particular political view because of 2-3 jerks.

The two guys in the GOP debate behaved disgracefully. But the bad's on them, not the entire Tea Party. Entertaining, kinda, to see those who hate the Tea Party trying to seize on this. And I know who flogged it all too because I Googled--the Huffington Post, Mediaite, and Kos. So there you go.

I said earlier that all groups have their jerks, their idiots. But what we had hear was some who felt free enough to speak here. Who thought here was where this type of thinking would be accepted, and largely seemed to be.

Go back and revist when Clinton won. Think back to image Pat Buchanan presented of the republican party. Tell me had no effect.
 
As others have stated, this story has been totally blown out of proportion by the media. Like 3 people at the most cheer at that point. When I first heard about this I imagined the crowd literally chanting "Let him die!" as opposed to just a yelp from 2-3 people...
 
As others have stated, this story has been totally blown out of proportion by the media. Like 3 people at the most cheer at that point. When I first heard about this I imagined the crowd literally chanting "Let him die!" as opposed to just a yelp from 2-3 people...

Haha, I'm with you. I thought I had the wrong clip first time I saw it because it was so miserably anti-climatic.
 
As others have stated, this story has been totally blown out of proportion by the media. Like 3 people at the most cheer at that point. When I first heard about this I imagined the crowd literally chanting "Let him die!" as opposed to just a yelp from 2-3 people...

Where do you get this 2 to 3 people? You must be listening to a really bad audio track. It is obvious that there are a good number of people responding to the question if he should be allowed to die. How many it is - I do not know. But I hear a good deal more than just a couple of people.
 
Where do you get this 2 to 3 people? You must be listening to a really bad audio track. It is obvious that there are a good number of people responding to the question if he should be allowed to die. How many it is - I do not know. But I hear a good deal more than just a couple of people.

So do I. I think it is just an attempt to minimalize in order not to acknowledge the points here.
 
I don't have any defense for them. I certainly wouldn't act that way. I think ordinary people put in political situations (especially in groups) can be rude or disgusting, no matter their ideology. I don't need to masturbate my ideology as superior based on the behavior of incredibly small pockets of the population. I'm just more honest than you in being able to face up to that.

There was nothing honest about your post. That's why you have to make up a sick fantasy about masturbation.
 
Where do you get this 2 to 3 people?

I am an audio engineer for a living. There is nothing wrong with the sound in the clip that would stop one from honestly evaluating what is there.

There is one "Yeah", one "Yes", and one sort of "Wheep"(?). Only. These 2 (or three) affirmative sounds are underpinned by nervous laughter on the part of the rest of the crowd.

You are just as wrong to pin that on the whole tea party movement as a conservative would be to broadbrush liberal environmentalists because of the actions of certain violent protesters or pot smoking tree sitters.

But I am beginning to think expecting you to understand reasonable logic is a fools errand unfortunately.
 
I am an audio engineer for a living. There is nothing wrong with the sound in the clip that would stop one from honestly evaluating what is there.

There is one "Yeah", one "Yes", and one sort of "Wheep"(?). Only. These 2 (or three) affirmative sounds are underpinned by nervous laughter on the part of the rest of the crowd.

You are just as wrong to pin that on the whole tea party movement as a conservative would be to broadbrush liberal environmentalists because of the actions of certain violent protesters or pot smoking tree sitters.

But I am beginning to think expecting you to understand reasonable logic is a fools errand unfortunately.

I am not a sound engineer. I did teach school for 33 years and can tell you without looking if its one kid or two kids or a whole bunch of them talking behind my back. This was not two people.

What logic has to do with your ears is beyond me --- maybe you can explain that?
 
more like a "paper tiger".

A paper tiger that flushed out many democrats in office last election cycle during the Tea Party hysteria.
 
yes, and will hand Obama another term in 2012. :)

What validates your belifef?

You shouldn't discount the Tea Party. They did cause a large amount of democrats in office to be voted out.
 
Back
Top Bottom