• 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

Do they also feel they have no right to express their own opinion? If "no" then why didn't they express their disapproval? That doesn't require that they silence anyone, including themselves, as your straw man dishonestly implies

Maybe they didnt feel the need to be loud and obnoxious and interrupt the damned show.
 
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.

Umm... just because someone is free to say something is not indicative of what they THOUGHT was ACCEPTABLE.

God you have to be kidding me.
 
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

If someone wishes to forego on medical insurance knowing they might need it someday, let them. It's not my problem. If someone wants to jump out of airplanes and they splat on the ground. Not my problem. If someone wants to shoot up herion and overdose and die. Not my problem.

All efforts should be made to make health insurance reachable for even the poorest in our society. But if they, poor or rich, decline to properly plan, not my problem. The only exception, I would imagine, are the one's not competent to make their own decisions.

I'm with Ron Paul 100% on this.
 
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

If someone wishes to forego on medical insurance knowing they might need it someday, let them. It's not my problem. If someone wants to jump out of airplanes and they splat on the ground. Not my problem. If someone wants to shoot up herion and overdose and die. Not my problem.

All efforts should be made to make health insurance reachable for even the poorest in our society. But if they, poor or rich, decline to properly plan, not my problem. The only exception, I would imagine, are the one's not competent to make their own decisions.

I'm with Ron Paul 100% on this.

he's not 100% with you. He thinks churches will pick up the slack, which is just someone else taking care of it. ;)
 
he's not 100% with you. He thinks churches will pick up the slack, which is just someone else taking care of it. ;)

He didn't imply that people outside the church would donate to charity?
 
Last edited:
Umm... just because someone is free to say something is not indicative of what they THOUGHT was ACCEPTABLE.

God you have to be kidding me.

Not exactly what I said. Remember, they could have booed. they didn't of course, but they could have. Which would have sent another message entirely. And the candaidates could have denounced it clearly. Theye didn't really. But they could have and that woudl have sent another message entirely as well.

As is, this will stand as a moment in which the tea party got a black eye, no matter who you blame for it.
 
He didn't ask the people of the church either. :coffeepap

That's confusing. Then how can you say that "He thinks churches will pick up the slack"?
 
That's confusing. Then how can you say that "He thinks churches will pick up the slack"?

Because that's what he said, and when I brought it up earlier, I noted without him actually asking churches if they want that responsibility. ;)
 
Because that's what he said, and when I brought it up earlier, I noted without him actually asking churches if they want that responsibility. ;)

Then that brings us back to my queston. You said he thinks the church will pick up the slack; so, do you also think non-church people will also donate to charity?
 
Then that brings us back to my queston. You said he thinks the church will pick up the slack; so, do you also think non-church people will also donate to charity?

Doesn't matter what I think, or what he thinks, he didn't ask so he doesn't really know. Neither do you and I. Across the board, everywhere? Hard to say, but likley someone will do without.
 
he's not 100% with you. He thinks churches will pick up the slack, which is just someone else taking care of it. ;)
voluntarily.......not compulsory.
 
voluntarily.......not compulsory.

Yes, we all need to rely on the knidness of strangers. That is largely the most effective way to handle a problem. Very pragmatic. :coffeepap
 
Yes, we all need to rely on the knidness of strangers. That is largely the most effective way to handle a problem. Very pragmatic. :coffeepap

One can always rely on themselves...........

If you cant do it alone... then you should be left to rely on your family and the kindness of friends and your community.

NOT on compulsory assistance where the government forced someone else to take care of you.
 
One can always rely on themselves...........

If you cant do it alone... then you should be left to rely on your family and the kindness of friends and your community.

NOT on compulsory assistance where the government forced someone else to take care of you.

True, but we KNOW that all won't. And even with those who try hard, **** happens. So, what do we do? We can go haphazardly, saying treat them but hope someone actually pays for it, or let the cost be passed on, again haphazardly, thus likely more expensively than necessary, or we can plan well.

And you wouldn't want to rely on my family. They're republicans. No help there. :coffeepap
 
True, but we KNOW that all won't. And even with those who try hard, **** happens. So, what do we do? We can go haphazardly, saying treat them but hope someone actually pays for it, or let the cost be passed on, again haphazardly, thus likely more expensively than necessary, or we can plan well.

And you wouldn't want to rely on my family. They're republicans. No help there. :coffeepap

Wait.... I got a better idea.....

Lets rob the citizens at gunpoint and make them chip in to pay for it.....
 
Wrong. Obviously you need an education, but you're not going to get any more from me. Look it up, I am not a charity.

Are you trolling?

The Sumerians are responsible for the earliest written literature known. The Epic of Gilgamesh?? Code of Ur-Nammu?? These date from the early bronze age.

Hell, the Egyptian Book of the Dead dates back to 1550 BC.

Come on, Guy.
 
Wait.... I got a better idea.....

Lets rob the citizens at gunpoint and make them chip in to pay for it.....

Well we don't do that either. Here we elect representatives, thus we have representation. No one is being robbed. Such hyperbole out of nowhere. I wonder why? :coffeepap
 
Well we don't do that either. Here we elect representatives, thus we have representation. No one is being robbed. Such hyperbole out of nowhere. I wonder why? :coffeepap

And if you dont pay your taxes see what happens when you refuse to leave the home the government is taking from you in order to recoup the costs of those taxes.
 
Where the hell were these so called "defenders of the Constitution" when Bush signed the Patriot Act into law?

To be honest, I think this Tea Party is just going to be used to demonize the true patriots who question the Government and wants to see real change. Which isn't going to come from some politician in a cheesy suit.
 
One can always rely on themselves...........

If you cant do it alone... then you should be left to rely on your family and the kindness of friends and your community.

NOT on compulsory assistance where the government forced someone else to take care of you.

"If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population"
Ebenezer Scrooge
 
This is an indication how radical and far right the Tea Party is.

Lol. I see. They are against the Obamacare mandate because they would prefer death as a penalty for not buying health insurance. It all makes sense now!
 
more like a "paper tiger".

scissor dragon :3 *troll face* <3

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.

Moderator in the next debate will ask if Paul hates puppies? Paul will answer No, Prog: He hate kittens!!!!!

cutekitten8.jpg
 
Lol. I see. They are against the Obamacare mandate because they would prefer death as a penalty for not buying health insurance. It all makes sense now!

Fifty-eight pages in and we're still going on with this sort of nonsense?

Krhazy, I could drop my insurance right now and take my chances. Save the cash, apply it toward whatever I want. Can you stop me? Should you be able to stop me from dropping my insurance?

No, you cannot stop me and you should not be able to stop me. Nor should the federal government. I should be able to take this risk if I want to. I can take all sorts of OTHER risks in my life that might lead to my death. I can take this one too. There is no reason I should not be able to. If I ended up dying, no one would have therefore administered a death penalty upon me. I am not being penalized by dying. I am simply facing a consequence of my own decision making. I took a chance and did not get the outcome I wanted.

The major problems inherent to our health care system are that we excuse people from all the natural potential consequences of this risk, and that we don't ration enough.

It is simply un****ingbelievable how much liberals are twisting this issue into a melodramatic appeal to pity over and over and over again. Grow up, people. Jesus H. Christ.
 
I completely agree with you, Paul is just another politician. "The Libertarian" is just his schtick. He's so close to the presidency he can taste it, and like all good politicians he is walking back his extreme ideals to appeal to the middle. Libertarians are so far from the middle, though, that you can walk them back all day and still not be anywhere close to the middle.

Libertarian presidential politics is a joke. Libertarianism is incompatible with the political mainstream. The real work of libertarian politics is done in philosophy departments. On rare occasions a grassroots movement will get a local government spot, and that's a pretty big coup. But in order for a libertarian to break into the mainstream, they have to completely sell out their principles, and become a "fusionist-libertarian." AKA, not a libertarian at all, but a Repblican who likes to call himself a libertarian.

Why is that selling out their principles? My principle has always been that more liberty is better than less. Not that liberty must be an all or nothing proposition. Too many libertarians want the quick win or a big home run that will settle the issues once and for all. Holding out for a fantasy that is never going to happen is not acting on the courage of your convictions (btw, they did not yell "let him die" they yelled "yes"). In my opinion it is a sign of their laziness and insincerity.

The ground of Liberty is to be gained by inches. We must be contented to secure what we can get from time to time and eternally press forward for what is yet to get. It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good. Jefferson to Rev. Charles Clay, January 27, 1790
 
Back
Top Bottom