• 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

I wonder who danarhea is suggesting will go to Hell for not doing enough to lift the poor.
 
Neomalthusian said:
I wonder who danarhea is suggesting will go to Hell for not doing enough to lift the poor.
Click to expand...

Wait. Are you suggesting that Christ would have told his FOLLOWERS to help to provide for their fellow man and not the Roman government? The next thing you know you will be presenting the idea that he taught that people should be personally responsible too!
 
Its funny to hear all the evolution based folks cling to a religous argument. Wouldnt man as a species benefit more by letting all the crippled and dependen pets just die and stop polluting the gene pool already?

Id be willing to bet that most of the people citing this religous argument in their defense of government health care are part of that dependent class and dont contribute to PAYING for those services. Whether they be college students still existing on someone elses dime or people existing on the dole. Not all mind you...but most.
 
Councilman said:
This is a bogus topic. Ron Paul who I do not back never said let him die. this is just another attempt by radical Liberals to make it sound as if Tea Party members are as radical as the Liberals.

More BS from the left who cannot deal with the truth and the facts.

I am surprised any of them can stand after so much spin. It must be dizzying.
Click to expand...
You may be right though most of the outrage I believe was directed at the few audience members who shouted, "yeah," to the question, "are you saying society should just let him die?"

However, what do you think Paul meant when he said this about Blitzer's hypothetical coma patient, "what he should do is whatever he wants to do and assume responsibility for it?" What does that mean other than "let him die" if he chooses to not purchase health insurance?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
However, what do you think Paul meant when he said this about Blitzer's hypothetical coma patient, "what he should do is whatever he wants to do and assume responsibility for it?" What does that mean other than "let him die" if he chooses to not purchase health insurance?
Click to expand...

Because the patient does not have insurance, the patient chooses whether to send his family into debt or die naturally. This decision goes hand in hand with a decision not to buy insurance. If the patient can't decide, then it's a lesson to us all to write out some advance directives.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Because the patient does not have insurance, the patient chooses whether to send his family into debt or die naturally. This decision goes hand in hand with a decision not to buy insurance. If the patient can't decide, then it's a lesson to us all to write out some advance directives.
Click to expand...
I understand Paul was putting responsibility on the individual for making his own decision on electing not to purchase health insurance, but doesn't that translate Paul's answer that I quoted above into "let him die?" Afterall, you just said yourself, his options are "to send his family into debt or die naturally," and not everyone has family who can assume $1,000,000 or more in debt; leaving the coma patient with the other option.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I understand Paul was putting responsibility on the individual for making his own decision on electing not to purchase health insurance, but doesn't that translate Paul's answer that I quoted above into "let him die?" Afterall, you just said yourself, his options are "to send his family into debt or die naturally," and not everyone has family who can assume $1,000,000 or more in debt; leaving the coma patient with the other option.
Click to expand...

That's right. If you've ever thought through a decision to buy health insurance or not, those are the possibilities you entertain.

Some people choose to "take their chances" that they may be faced with debt or death. We should respect those decisions--by holding them to it.
 
Last edited:
Neomalthusian said:
That's right. If you've ever thought through a decision to buy health insurance or not, those are the possibilities you entertain.

Some people choose to "take their chances" that they may be faced with debt or death. We should respect those decisions--by holding them to it.
Click to expand...
Ok, well then it sounds like you agree with me in the post I made to Councilman where he defended Ron Paul by denying Ron Paul actually said that. While I don't think Paul was as crass as some of the audience members who cheered at the prospect of letting someone die, he did indeed infer it in his comments.
 
nonpareil said:
My post is there, if you choose to reply to it, that's your choice. All I'm saying is that the reply should at least be rational arguements instead of repeating what I already said as if that's an arguement against what I said. If you don't wish to make a rational arguement, that's up to you too.
Click to expand...

What exactly do you want? You ask for a rational rebuttal to many different arguments all wrapped into one. Pick what you want.

Yes, you have repeated that sentiment many times. It seems to me you believe they should die if they can't pay. So my original post was not addressed to you, you were the one who chose to reply to that portion. I don't see why you feel the need to reply to a post not addressed to you just to repeat yourself again and again.
Click to expand...

If you want to think because I don't want to be forced to pay for others that means I wish death on those people be my guest.


So you are against prevention? Unlike you, most people can see that possibilities can be negative or positive, smart people try to prevent negative possibilities if they can. When my friend's drunk, I prevent the possibilities of them dying or injuring others by not drinking and driving them home. If that doesn't make sense to you, well I think you are not very smart.
Click to expand...

Prevention in your life and prevention in the government are not at all reliable. If you were smart you wouldn't treat them the same.



I try to make my government reflects my beliefs - guess what? That's what democracies are about. :2wave:
Click to expand...

I was unaware we were a democracy. Why do liberals not understand what a Representative republic is?


You are now saying you want the government to provide all kind of goods and services for you? It seems to go against the principle you profess to follow but whatever. Why don't you list the things you want the governments to provide for you?
Click to expand...

I was saying I pay for you rwants already, and my wants are my wants that live outside of government. Having ones wants in government is a just a way to control others. I have no desire for it.


Emotional appeal and ad hominem are not rational arguements. Using adjectives like "ridiculous" "completely baseless nonsense" doesn't make it true, you have to actually explain why they are "ridiculous" or "completely baseless nonsense" in a logical way. And whether I'm "dreamy" or "sick" has nothing to do with the arguement at hands, resorting to personal attacks just say you have no logical arguements to make or that you are too lazy to make one.
Click to expand...

So you think your morality of forcing people to do what you wish is actually moral? Interesting.
So you think we actually really have a responsibility to society? That it actually exists in the real world and not in just in the minds of those people that believe it?

Your morals are not based on reality. They are only based on how you want the world to be. They are baseless.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
"If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth."

-Jesus Christ
Click to expand...

So charity then? Have fun trying to find a Jesus quote that actually supports forced charity. :)

"They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely."

-Jesus Christ
Click to expand...

Who is doing that?
 
Rough Rider said:
I probably shouldn't give you such a hard time, particularly if you are currently serving your country in uniform. Have you been deployed overseas yet?
Click to expand...

Meh. It's what arguing politics is about. And no not yet. I just got out of IET when my unit just got back from Iraq, so I've not been overseas yet.
 
Bardo said:
I don't want your services. The government is "stealing from me to pay for services I don't want". Right? Aren't you stealing money right out of my pocket and putting it into yours?

Either way, you work for me and you're dependent on me for your salary. This whole debate has been a question of self responsibility and you've had a public job the entire time. Nice.
Click to expand...

I'm in the reserves. I make $180/month through the army. So, through rough mathematics, you pay me around .0000029315. That must be devastating. If you don't enjoy the military services. I invite you to move to a country without a military. Have fun. :)
 
Top Cat said:
Ummm no. Not everyone can pass a physical or the educational requirements, although the latter has been relaxed. You neglected to mention that you actually weren't paying for your health care. It's included. And yet you claimed you "could afford" it on your 24k salary. Pretty much a bold faced lie.

Completely disingenuous. Speaks volumes about you. You also forgot to mention that you can shop at the PX....
Click to expand...
Again. Army reserves, so I don't get Miltary Health care. Nice try though.
 
Rough Rider said:
Tea Party/Libertarian types don't like to mention the fact that insurance companies don't offer comprehensive medical insurance that's anywhere close to being affordable for average working Americans.
Click to expand...

I, by no means, like the way the current health care is set up. I'll also say, that, until Herman Cain presented his idea to fix the costs of health care on the debate, there was no suggestions at all, regarding health care. Other than the rhetoric "I'm gonna repeal Obamacare"
 
Last edited:
DashingAmerican said:
I'm in the reserves. I make $180/month through the army. So, through rough mathematics, you pay me around .0000029315. That must be devastating.
Click to expand...

So if I received $1,000 worth of care under a universal system and there are 138 million tax payers you would spend $.00007246 on my care if everyone was in the same tax bracket. Seeing that you're in a lower tax bracket you would pay much less than that. The argument works both ways.
 
Bardo said:
So if I received $1,000 worth of care under a universal system and there are 138 million tax payers you would spend $.00007246 on my care if everyone was in the same tax bracket. Seeing that you're in a lower tax bracket you would pay much less than that. The argument works both ways.
Click to expand...

I still invite you to move to a country without a military if you really don't want to pay for it.
 
DashingAmerican said:
I still invite you to move to a country without a military if you really don't want to pay for it.
Click to expand...

I don't mind paying for national defense. Having trained reserves on hand isn't the same as having a permanent standing army fighting permanent wars.
 
roughdraft274 said:
That was hardly some standing ovation. It was two or three people. Extrapolating that to the entire group is wrong.
Click to expand...

This is not the first time the teabaggers have applauded death. There was the guy with parkinsons, the woman with the dead child, and Roger Ebert
 
Bardo said:
I don't mind paying for national defense. Having trained reserves on hand isn't the same as having a permanent standing army fighting permanent wars.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you here. I'm all for withdraing 85% of our forces.
 
Henrin said:
What exactly do you want? You ask for a rational rebuttal to many different arguments all wrapped into one. Pick what you want.
Click to expand...

Do you read for comprehension at all? Let me repeat myself again: reply to whatever you want, preferably with rational arguements, but not even that if you want. It's your choice what you do.


If you want to think because I don't want to be forced to pay for others that means I wish death on those people be my guest.
Click to expand...

Strawman again. No one said you wish death on anyone. Or maybe you just don't read for comprehension like I said.



Prevention in your life and prevention in the government are not at all reliable. If you were smart you wouldn't treat them the same.
Click to expand...


Do you understand that in your first sentence you equate both "Prevention in your life" and "prevention in the government" to "not at all reliable". Let me ask the silly question: if they are both "not at all reliable", why wouldn't I treat them the same?

I can sort of understand if you gloss over my posts and don't comprehend what I write, but do you also gloss over your own posts too?

I was unaware we were a democracy. Why do liberals not understand what a Representative republic is?
Click to expand...

So you are claiming the US does not have democracy?



I was saying I pay for you rwants already, and my wants are my wants that live outside of government. Having ones wants in government is a just a way to control others. I have no desire for it.
Click to expand...

So back to square one. After contradicting what everyone can see was your thinking so far (you want the government to provide only what you think ought to be provided by the government and begrudge the taxes you think are paid for what others want) you now go back and confirm it. Don't you get tired of contradicting and repeating yourself?


So you think your morality of forcing people to do what you wish is actually moral? Interesting.
Click to expand...

You are just filled with fallacies. Let's examine your strawman - what if I go to the opposite extreme of "forcing people to do what I wish" - i.e. absolute freedom? Is it moral that we force people to have a driver license before they can drive? Is it moral that we punish people who want to shout fire in a public confined space? Is it moral that we put criminals in jail and curtail their freedom as a result?



So you think we actually really have a responsibility to society? That it actually exists in the real world and not in just in the minds of those people that believe it?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do as my post made clear. And you are just repeating it without any counter arguement whatsoever.

Your morals are not based on reality. They are only based on how you want the world to be. They are baseless.
Click to expand...

As I have said, and I'll repeat again: That is because you think that it's okay to let someone die who can't pay for the healthcare. And you don't seem to comprehend that you are as subjective as I am, whereas I'm very attuned to that fact and made clear from the beginning that it's my views, subjective to me. You keep repeating that it's my view, but you don't seem to understand what that means. My morality is base on my reality and value as yours are. I think the problem with your position is both to do with reality and values - as I've said in my original post. You believe that it's not your problem when someone fails to buy insurance, it's their problem. That ignores the reality of how the system currently works. The fact that it affects you the tax payer and potential healthcare user in many ways: when they seek charity care, that is paid with tax money. If they don't seek charity care, and own the bill to the hospital, as Ron Paul campaign manager did (his family still have not paid the bill) the hospital covers that loss by charging more for the services. We know what your values are regarding society. What my value are regarding society I've stated in my original post. So you are immoral to me, and I think to DA and Paul too who could not bring themselves to say that it's okay to let someone die who can't pay for their healthcare. My reality is not baseless, they are backed up with factual examples and solid reasonings which you have not been able to refute in anyway.
 
Last edited:
DashingAmerican said:
Libertarians enjoy being free more than anyone.
Click to expand...

Great, but it has absolutely noting to do with my question you didn't answer. Your job is proof that the government can create jobs, despite the libertarian claim they cannot. BTW, are you dissatisfied with your government provided health care?
 
Tigger said:
....Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.

....You don't want to see me angry. You wouldn't like me very much when I'm angry.
Click to expand...

You won't have that problem with me. I don't like you now :)
 
Last edited:
DashingAmerican said:
Again. Army reserves, so I don't get Miltary Health care. Nice try though.
Click to expand...

So let me see if I get this right? You're out of the military, I'm guessing you're high school educated, and you're only making 24k?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom