• 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!

Rick Perry 'Taken Aback' By Tea Party Audience Cheering, "Let Patient Die"

The last two Republican presidential debates have both featured the audience cheering about death. I personally think the reaction last week, when they cheered the number of executions in Texas under Perry, is far scarier.

I personally cheer when a murderer is put down .. it's justice, to me... and I like justice.
 
Ive been saying this and I will say it again...The more the teaparty and their supporters talk...the worse they look
One of the Tea Party biggies, a former Flight Attendant, was on CNN with Don Lemon before the debate.

She was telling him that 'Bankamerica was laying off 30,000 people because of Obamacare' (!) Unchallenged by Lemon of course.
 
Last edited:
Like I said, I see nothing wrong with what was yelled out in Tampa. It was politically incorrect at worst.
 
The last two Republican presidential debates have both featured the audience cheering about death. I personally think the reaction last week, when they cheered the number of executions in Texas under Perry, is far scarier.

What exactly is wrong with cheering on executions? The death penalty is a policy we on the right proudly support..
 
What exactly is wrong with cheering on executions? The death penalty is a policy we on the right proudly support..

You should never enjoy it, even if you agree with it. You do it relcutantly, just as you go to war with a heavy heart. Someone will be hurt by this, someone innocent. Killing anyone, for any reason, just or not, effects someone else.
 
That completely nullifies the idea that alternatives exist. There are alternatives to creating a single payer system or overstepping legal bounds and mandating the purchase of a product.

Not many in which someone won't be irresponsible (the legal bounds is still debatable BTW). We will have someone, a number of someones, who will be hurt, run up costs that they will never be able to pay for. That cost will be passed on one way or another.
 
Like I said, I see nothing wrong with what was yelled out in Tampa. It was politically incorrect at worst.

Let's say the person was your family member, still think there's nothing wrong about cheering for the death of someone who's fallen ill?
 
You should never enjoy it, even if you agree with it. You do it relcutantly, just as you go to war with a heavy heart. Someone will be hurt by this, someone innocent. Killing anyone, for any reason, just or not, effects someone else.


im not cheering for the death of any particular person. Im cheering for the presence of the institution of the death penalty
 
im not cheering for the death of any particular person. Im cheering for the presence of the institution of the death penalty

Doesn't matter. That institution kills real people, with real families, who suffer real pain. Cheering it has the same effect. You may honestly agree with, but it is a somber institution that warrents a sober reaction. Cheering doesn't fit.
 
Not many in which someone won't be irresponsible (the legal bounds is still debatable BTW). We will have someone, a number of someones, who will be hurt, run up costs that they will never be able to pay for. That cost will be passed on one way or another.

I am more concerned about the accessibility, quality, and availability of the care I want and am accustomed to. I am not okay with 1 MRI for several hundred thousand people. I am not okay with 1 specialist for several hundred thousand people. Many single payer systems have very severe limitations on higher-end technology and medical care. I'm not okay with my dad, who must be able to use his knees for squatting, bending, climbing ladders, and other tasks necessary to completing his job as a carpenter, being made to wait 6 to 8 months for knee replacement because access to such procedures are now limited. The fact that it's already "paid for" when he goes in won't negate the fact that he'll lose 80% or more of his income during that waiting period if he's unable to work.

We have problems with health care here. Many of them could be solved be better screening practices in the ER, less use of ER options for non-emergency situations, more emphasis on relatively cheap preventative care, better access to alternative medical options, competition through bids (instead of being limited to the doctor who has a partnership with the doctor you already saw, or the hospital you already visited, etc), and some pretty significant revisions to the manner in which drug companies operate. These companies make 100x, 200x, 300x profits or more on the medications they create, and that's after they heavily reinvest in R&D and receive grant money from world governments. And what are we getting? A cancer treatment that destroys you but is only 5% effective in destroying the cancer, while multiple studies are indicating that a more effective, less harmful cure is possible through the use of a chemical derive from a pretty common plant. Because when there's only one "cure", you can charge a hell of a lot more for it.

The immediate solution does not have to be a government pool of limited resources. We have other options we have not considered. And before we go to the extreme of handing medicine over to the government I'd like to investigate and explore those options.
 
I understand you being more concerned with your own personal situation. But that doesn't change much.

Nor does a single payer system have to have only one MRI for x number of people. Here the system would be two tiered. But, without some system to handle those who are irresponsible, we will be left with a choice of either paying for them one way or another, or allowing some to die.
 
I understand you being more concerned with your own personal situation. But that doesn't change much.

Nor does a single payer system have to have only one MRI for x number of people. Here the system would be two tiered. But, without some system to handle those who are irresponsible, we will be left with a choice of either paying for them one way or another, or allowing some to die.

Do you not think that "we must take care of the irresponsible because their irresponsible" is a pretty bad method of handling such an issue?

And it isn't just my individual situation. Limited access affects everybody, and it is a persistent problem in single payer systems, even those with a two-tier design. Once they start sucking up more of my money for healthcare how am I supposed to afford private insurance on top of it?? Most countries with single payer have effective tax rates close to 50%. I'd have about 16k in accessible money to get me through a year and I've got to pay rent, buy food, pay car payments, pay for my cell phone, pay for school, pay for insurance, try to save, etc.

So I have to think it would be better for the people as a whole to try other options before we start taxing people at a higher rate to cover a program that seems to me to be the most drastic option available, given the possibilities.
 
Do you not think that "we must take care of the irresponsible because their irresponsible" is a pretty bad method of handling such an issue?

And it isn't just my individual situation. Limited access affects everybody, and it is a persistent problem in single payer systems, even those with a two-tier design. Once they start sucking up more of my money for healthcare how am I supposed to afford private insurance on top of it?? Most countries with single payer have effective tax rates close to 50%. I'd have about 16k in accessible money to get me through a year and I've got to pay rent, buy food, pay car payments, pay for my cell phone, pay for school, pay for insurance, try to save, etc.

So I have to think it would be better for the people as a whole to try other options before we start taxing people at a higher rate to cover a program that seems to me to be the most drastic option available, given the possibilities.

I don't think must is the word I would use. I simply know that reality is what it is and we have to make choices on how we handle it.

And access is limited now. That's the point. We also spend more now than nearly anyone else. A single payor system is not a fix with only one model. Like I said, here it would be two teired, and as such, not limiting in any way. but we would spend less money providing basic and necessary care than we do presently.

The option as I see it is neither drastic or worse than what we are currently doing. it is just a common snese way to handle the problems we face with health care, and it takes it out of the workplace, and would much more to help us compete internationally than lower taxes will. It's higher on that list we've spoke of.
 
Doesn't matter. That institution kills real people, with real families, who suffer real pain. Cheering it has the same effect. You may honestly agree with, but it is a somber institution that warrents a sober reaction. Cheering doesn't fit.

Save your breath. The rightwingers, as a whole, can not understand compassion, as they regularly demonstrate. It's not as if this were the first time they have cheered death. During the push to pass HCR, the rightwingers did the same thing to a man who was suffering from a deadly condition, and they expressed their desire to see him die, as well as others

Tea Party Patriots Attack Family Who Lost Daughter And Grandchild (VIDEO)

Commentary: Tea Party member mocks Ebert's cancer following the recent Cinco de Mayo controversy - National Comedy | Examiner.com

Video "Tea Party Mocks Dead Baby And Mother" - Technorati


 
Save your breath. The rightwingers, as a whole, can not understand compassion, as they regularly demonstrate.

Where would you be without your sweeping generalizations?

Understanding compassion and feeling compassion aren't necessarily the same thing. You might feel compassion about something and therefore have a stupid idea. I understand that compassion can lead to stupid ideas and therefore advise more critical, logical thought.
 
Last edited:
Ive been saying this and I will say it again...The more the teaparty and their supporters talk...the worse they look

May be, but from a religious standpoint, the Bible said that this would happen. Jesus said that he would send a strong delusion to those who do not truly believe in him, but just go through the motions so that others think they are religious, that they would believe a lie. That lie is the so-called prosperity Gospel being preached by Televangelists disguised as godly men, but who represent Satan himself. From a religious standpoint, the beast of Revelations is alive and well. The "Mark" is coming soon.
 
I'm disheartened (but not surprised) by this. I've looked at both sides of this argument, but it comes down to doing the right thing for me. There have always been poor and irresponsible people, always. There always will be poor and irresponsible people. There are also people who have made some bad decisions and reaped horrible consequences - hopefully said person learns something. IMO you don't throw away people because of circumstances and bad decisions, you give them another chance. That doesn't mean they don't have to also help themselves.

I cannot advocate letting people die, or go without healthcare or food or shelter (unless they choose to do so). I also don't advocate hand-outs for the rest of your life because you're lazy, ignorant, etc. There has to be a compromise that is workable. My city offers a Hand-Up for single women on welfare. They help them get into college, help them get a part-time job (until their degree is complete - then it's on to full-time), help them find adequate and affordable day-care, help them get transportation (we have no public transportation that actually works), help them choose affordable insurance, etc., etc. Of course this is not cheap. However, our tax dollars (as far as I know, other than the groups tax-free status) aren't supporting this - companies, individuals, churches, groups, etc., - are.

I realize this is small-scale compared to the entire country, but... it's an idea!

Ok, rant over.
 
I'm disheartened (but not surprised) by this. I've looked at both sides of this argument, but it comes down to doing the right thing for me. There have always been poor and irresponsible people, always. There always will be poor and irresponsible people. There are also people who have made some bad decisions and reaped horrible consequences - hopefully said person learns something. IMO you don't throw away people because of circumstances and bad decisions, you give them another chance. That doesn't mean they don't have to also help themselves.

I cannot advocate letting people die, or go without healthcare or food or shelter (unless they choose to do so). I also don't advocate hand-outs for the rest of your life because you're lazy, ignorant, etc. There has to be a compromise that is workable. My city offers a Hand-Up for single women on welfare. They help them get into college, help them get a part-time job (until their degree is complete - then it's on to full-time), help them find adequate and affordable day-care, help them get transportation (we have no public transportation that actually works), help them choose affordable insurance, etc., etc. Of course this is not cheap. However, our tax dollars (as far as I know, other than the groups tax-free status) aren't supporting this - companies, individuals, churches, groups, etc., - are.

I realize this is small-scale compared to the entire country, but... it's an idea!

Ok, rant over.

That wasn't a rant. It was pretty well thought out and intelligent.
 
buncha bs.......the bigger problem here is that TEA PARTIERS shouted "let him die"...and TEA PARTIERS cheered executions. makes me wonder why anyone would be a part of that movement. has michelle bachmann produced the name of the woman who ALLEGEDLY said her daughter "got" mental retardation after the gardisil vaccine? gotta love those tea partiers, though, they are probably trying to outlaw that vaccine as i write.

paul is the most honest person running for the nomination. unfortunately, he's also bat**** crazy.

I heard applause after Huntsman said that the party needs to stop rejecting science. Does that mean that "Tea Partiers" all strongly support the theories of evolution and global warming? Making generalizations is dangerous.

Paul is not crazy at all. His answer was quite sane and it was not what was yelled.
 
So let us get this straight....a bunch of teabaggers say they think we should just let them die, so it's wrong to point out that the teabaggers think we should just let them die?

Is that why you dishonestly made up that BS about a "diatribe" against "almost half the country"?

Bunch? No. Your generalization is wrong and unless you throw in some qualifying words. You could say "some" maybe even "most" but without those words it implies "all" which is not accurate, unless Perry and Paul are not part of the Tea Party.
 
Doesn't matter. That institution kills real people, with real families, who suffer real pain. Cheering it has the same effect. You may honestly agree with, but it is a somber institution that warrents a sober reaction. Cheering doesn't fit.

Sure it fits. I see nothing fundamentally wrong with cheering on an institution that not only deters crime but administers proportional justice.
 
So let me get this straight....Perry comes out against the reaction of the crowd in that particular situation and instead of saying, "yeah, he's right..that was bad on them" you turn it into some sort of diatribe against almost half of the country?

Well, hell...

Teabaggers aren't half the country. A significant majority of the country, whether they are conservative or liberal, are decent, morally upstanding, educated, folks. The teabaggers only make up maybe, at most, 20% of the country.
 
Sure it fits. I see nothing fundamentally wrong with cheering on an institution that not only deters crime but administers proportional justice.

No. Not among human beings. Again, justice is not a spectator sport, but a somber institution that often does acts that leads to pain among innocent people. We have to do much of this, but the pain should always be acknowledged, thus not something to be cheered.
 
Sure it fits. I see nothing fundamentally wrong with cheering on an institution that not only deters crime but administers proportional justice.

I think something is fundamentally wrong with cheering a human being's death. Especially from a party that bills itself as "pro-life." It's almost as if the same people who say "life begins at conception" believe that it ends at birth.

I am among those who think that the death penalty is necessary (if overused). I think war is sometimes necessary (if undesirable). Maybe a person needs to live with the consequences of their decisions if they actually decide that they're going to go without insurance even if they can afford to have it.

But cheering people dying? That should be unconscionable to anybody who is a decent human being. Apparently the GOP candidates are decent people. Unfortunately, it seems the same cannot be said for a very vocal (if hopefully small) number of their supporters.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom