• 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

Sounds like I believe in self-responsibility...I know, what a horrible viewpoint to think people should care for themselves.

Here's a simple fact of life to consider: not everyone is capable of caring for themselves. What to do?
 
Yes, you do. You are part of an interdependent network of people, wether you like it or not. The view you espouse here leads to nothing but divisive tribalism and the hatred of the "other." Your position is not a philosophical one, but rather just indicative of a stunted moral development.

Nonsense. It is your position that leads to divisiveness and tribalism. Eventually, all the blood that can be drained from the host is and the special interest start going to war with one another over who should benefit most from confiscating the property of others. That is what we see over and over in these big government boondoggles.
 
Here's a simple fact of life to consider: not everyone is capable of caring for themselves. What to do?

Which has what to do with UHC? The problem is much bigger than how to care for the poor and disabled.
 
Im kinda mixed. He had all the capabilities to get insurance but he didn't. Now we pay for it when something bad happens because he thought he was invincible. Of course, he should get treated so he doesn't die but doesn't anybody feel at least a bit upset of his decision?
 
It was more than one or two. I'm not going to argue the semantics of the word "bunch".

You're the one who originally used the word "bunch" to describe a certain number of people. So now you're stating you don't know what you meant?
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059801654 said:
The lie is:

That didn't happen; make up your reality as usual.

So - you opt for The Daily Double.....both the parsing of words and being intellectually dishonest.
 
Yet another compelling argument against the absurd notion that America is a Christian nation.
 
what...you don't think Jesus would let someone die in the street even if he had the means to help him?

;)

So you think that Jesus would have the state (the villains in his story) go out and tax others rather than have his churches take on the mission? I have read his story many times and I don't see him doing that.
 
Nonsense. It is your position that leads to divisiveness and tribalism. Eventually, all the blood that can be drained from the host is and the special interest start going to war with one another over who should benefit most from confiscating the property of others. That is what we see over and over in these big government boondoggles.

Why do you assume interdependence means parasitic blood sucking? Admitting that human beings depend on one another for mutual benefit does not require you to accept whatever socialist conspiracy you apparently fear.
 
Which has what to do with UHC? The problem is much bigger than how to care for the poor and disabled.

Not much, really. The point is simply to illustrate the untenable nature of the extreme "personal responsibility" argument. There are people who actually in no way can take responsibility for themselves. Therefore to say that you have no obligation to anyone beyond yourself and your family, is to say **** 'em, watch 'em die.

Second, as you note, there is a long continuum between those people totally incapable of caring for themselves all the way over to those capable of caring for themselves and the population of small nation states (e.g. Warren Buffet). I don't claim to know the rights and responsibilities that should be assigned to everyone in that mix, but they clearly differ from one end of the spectrum to the other.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of UHC... but I seriously don't understand what the big deal is. I guess it's the individual mandate, but hell - I have to buy car insurance too if I'm going to drive.
 
Not much, really. The point is simply to illustrate the untenable nature of the extreme "personal responsibility" argument. There are people who actually in no way can take responsibility for themselves. Therefore to say that you have no obligation to anyone beyond yourself and your family, is to say **** 'em, watch 'em die...

indeed, saying that society should not flip the healthcare bill for poor people who can't pay their bills, is basically telling the poor to go die in a dark corner.

luckily, we are a Judeo-Christian society...and we do NOT let people simply die in the street.
 
Not one person in the audience ever said let him die, the only person that even suggest such a thing was Blitzer. Ron Paul never suggested any such thing, that is why they cut the tape when then did... .so you couldn't hear the rest of his answer.

Paul >> I practiced medicine before we had medicaid in the early 1960s when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospital. And we've given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourself, our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it. This whole idea -- that's the reason the cost is so high. The cost is so high because they dump it on the government, it becomes a bureaucracy. It becomes special interests, it kowtows to the special interests and the drug company, then on top of that you have the inflation, the inflation devalues the dollar. We have lack of competition. There's no competition in medicine. Everybody is protected by licensing. We should legalize alternative health care. Allow people to practice what they want.

But I can understand the liberal zeal, after all they love to duck responsibility for anything. In this case there was a choice made not to buy insurance, who was responsible for making that choice ? No one but Blitzer suggested letting the man die, ahh but what the hell … why would a liberal let something like the truth get in the way of a chance to continue their assault on Republicans and the tea party right.

Lastly, can anyone here say with a shred of proof, that it was a tea party member, that applauded when Blitzer asked are you going to let him die? Or is that just another assumption you liberals like to make ??
 
I'm stil curious as to how a person in a coma is supposed to assume "personal responsibility" for theme selves....
 
It was more than one or two. I'm not going to argue the semantics of the word "bunch".

Thanks good to know because there's no semantic fine point here. English has a words for "two." Those words are "duo," "couple" and "pair." A "bunch" is defined as a "group," not a "pair" or a "trio."

I listened to the audio and counted two; you can do the same. Unseen guy says, "Yeah!" and then another says more loudly the same. Anyone with ears can hear that this just isn't so, and anybody with eyes can see that nobody knows who those two men were because cameras weren't on them.

And the real point is that all of this is an attempt to smear tea-partiers by claiming that a "crowd" shouted "Let him die!"

Dishonest.
 
Thanks good to know because there's no semantic fine point here. English has a words for "two." Those words are "duo," "couple" and "pair." A "bunch" is defined as a "group," not a "pair" or a "trio."

I listened to the audio and counted two; you can do the same. Unseen guy says, "Yeah!" and then another says more loudly the same. Anyone with ears can hear that this just isn't so, and anybody with eyes can see that nobody knows who those two men were because cameras weren't on them.

And the real point is that all of this is an attempt to smear tea-partiers by claiming that a "crowd" shouted "Let him die!"

Dishonest.

Was it any less disingenuous to suggest that a universal health care system would have "death panels"?
 
Paul couldnt even answer that question...he knows the answer....Society WILL PAY...this isnt medival america....

Paul couldn't answer that question because the libertarian answer is politically incorrect in our society. Even in a Republican audience most people are too mushy-headed an emotional to contemplate a system that allows for death. Nevermind the cognitive dissonance with regard to the death penalty on the right, or abortion on the left. Also, nevermind that plenty of people are "allowed to die" by the government all the time. Socialized healthcare is no panacea, pun intended. There will always be people that the system allows to die, the real question is do we want a system of coercion or a system of freedom?

People who feel instead of think will never understand libertarianism.
 
Was it any less disingenuous to suggest that a universal health care system would have "death panels"?

What's disingenuous is imputing something Sarah Palin said to Ron Paul.
 
I'm stil curious as to how a person in a coma is supposed to assume "personal responsibility" for theme selves....

They're supposed to do that before they go into a coma.

An adult must confront the unpleasant possibility that they will be rendered incapacitated, and it is each adult's moral responsibility make arrangements for such an eventuality. If they make no arrangements, that's their failure, and their neighbors should not be coerced into providing for those who fail to be responsible.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059801654 said:
The lie is:

That didn't happen; make up your reality as usual.

Molon, what on earth are you doing? It clearly happened, it's on video for crying out loud.

Don't try to sweep the whole thing under the rug. Have the courage of your convictions to defend it.

Personally, when it comes to an uninsured adult who would die unless somebody else is coerced into helping, I say enthusiastically, "Let him die!"

Or, more to the point, I would say, "Don't let anybody else be coerced into helping!"
 
Last edited:
Paul couldn't answer that question because the libertarian answer is politically incorrect in our society. Even in a Republican audience most people are too mushy-headed an emotional to contemplate a system that allows for death. Nevermind the cognitive dissonance with regard to the death penalty on the right, or abortion on the left. Also, nevermind that plenty of people are "allowed to die" by the government all the time. Socialized healthcare is no panacea, pun intended. There will always be people that the system allows to die, the real question is do we want a system of coercion or a system of freedom?

People who feel instead of think will never understand libertarianism.

I agree with you and disagree with you. Yes, Paul felt he could not answer the question because the libertarian answer is indeed politically correct. But as a politician, he knew that if he dared to answer it honestly as he believes, the price to pay would be very high. That tells me that Paul knows that his philosophy is not accepted by the vast majority of people and much of it is actually repugnant to most Americans. If he is the principled libertarian poster boy that his worshippers paint him out to be, he should have stepped up to the plate and given an honest answer. But Ron Paul - like almost all politicians - embraces compromise as is evident by him turning his back on the Libertarian Party and running as a Republican for the convenience of winning elective office.
 
Back
Top Bottom