The Cult of Death

[Minimalist]

http://www.truth-out.org/cult-death/1315937077

On Monday night, candidate Ron Paul was given a hypothetical about providing health care to a dying man who lacked health insurance. Wolf Blitzer, who moderated the debate, asked Paul, "Are you saying society should just let him die?" Before Paul could cobble together an answer, the "Tea Party" audience again erupted, this time yelling "Yes!" in answer to Blitzer's question.

Hm.

These "Tea Party" people profess to be representatives of average Americans, despite being a complete creation of the 0.1% wealthy elite. They claim government is too big, even as many of them hail from states (think Texas) that would utterly collapse without federal funding. They bring guns to public rallies. They like Medicare, until they are reminded that Medicare is a government program.

And they are Christians, members of the faithful, who enjoy executions and who think uninsured people should be left to die.

Oh....but don't call them "nazis." That might hurt their fucking feelings!

[Anomalocaris]

Oh....but don't call them "nazis." That might hurt their fucking feelings!

Indeed, hurting their feelings wastes an opportunity to hurt them physically.

[Rev. Rye]

On Monday night, candidate Ron Paul was given a hypothetical about providing health care to a dying man who lacked health insurance. Wolf Blitzer, who moderated the debate, asked Paul, "Are you saying society should just let him die?" Before Paul could cobble together an answer, the "Tea Party" audience again erupted, this time yelling "Yes!" in answer to Blitzer's question.

And I'll bet these very people are also against abortion which gives both their movement and the anti-abortion movement a whole new level of hypocrisy.

[paintpooper]

These people are fucking sick. They probably got paid 100 bucks to cheer. Most everything we see on TV is staged and or edited, if you don't believe that, I feel sorry for you. You think Perry and Romney are placed in the center of the debates for no reason, and the lesser candidates off to the side. If you could even call these a real debates.

Yes let people die.... sick bastards. How can the population stand for this type of rhetoric! It's a mob mentality fueled by MONEY.

I will call them nazis, and I will call them sick fucks, and I will debate every mother fucker who agrees with them and show them they are wrong, and they can wallow in that information for awhile, of course they won't admit they are wrong but maybe in the voting booth where no one can see them. All I can hope for. Cause throwing facts in their face does not seem to make them realize the reality of this world, and our place as humans on this earth.

[Minimalist]

Well Said, Poop.

[cdog]

To be fair though, it was only maybe 2 or 3 people who yelled out "yeah" not the whole audience.

[Tiberius]

On Monday night, candidate Ron Paul was given a hypothetical about providing health care to a dying man who lacked health insurance. Wolf Blitzer, who moderated the debate, asked Paul, "Are you saying society should just let him die?" Before Paul could cobble together an answer, the "Tea Party" audience again erupted, this time yelling "Yes!" in answer to Blitzer's question.

This is a bit of a dishonest description. If you actually watched the debate, you'll know that the actual question was about a hypothetical man who was perfectly healthy, and refused to pay for health insurance since he saw it as a waste of money.

This wasn't an hypothetical about someone who couldn't afford health insurance.

The scenarios are completely different, as Ron Paul was trying to point out before he was interrupted. Even so, Paul answered "No" to Blitzer's follow-up question.

[Autumnlicious]

No Adrian, you're moving the goal posts.

The issue is that the supposed audience who represent the "Tea Party" and helped sponsor the event started cheering over the obvious wrong answer to a loaded question.

It's not about Ron Paul.

It's about the bat shit insane people of the Tea Party.

I wish you'd stop falling for Paul == Libertarian. Were he a Libertarian, why the hell is he catering to and competing for one of the most virulently not Libertarian political parties in history (through their actions and legislation)? The Tea Party talks Libertarian, but it's actions clearly indicate otherwise.

He's just an opportunist. One that has never done well, and will probably never do well, especially with this lot.

[Anomalocaris]

On Monday night, candidate Ron Paul was given a hypothetical about providing health care to a dying man who lacked health insurance. Wolf Blitzer, who moderated the debate, asked Paul, "Are you saying society should just let him die?" Before Paul could cobble together an answer, the "Tea Party" audience again erupted, this time yelling "Yes!" in answer to Blitzer's question.

This is a bit of a dishonest description. If you actually watched the debate, you'll know that the actual question was about a hypothetical man who was perfectly healthy, and refused to pay for health insurance since he saw it as a waste of money.

This wasn't an hypothetical about someone who couldn't afford health insurance.

The scenarios are completely different, as Ron Paul was trying to point out before he was interrupted. Even so, Paul answered "No" to Blitzer's follow-up question.

So should the situation arise, let's subpoena the dying man's financial records so as to perform a proper means test suitable for illuminating the all important point, which is not only material, but adjudicatable by any trust worthy talent possessing of Ron Paul wisdom. This test should no doubt be done thoroughly and painstakingly so as to ensure not only maximum accuracy, but that the dying patient has the time to be dead and thus making tny error in the process immaterial.

[Tiberius]

No Adrian, you're moving the goal posts.

Eh? I was just pointing out that I found the description of events a bit dishonest. The point was made very clearly by Blitzer that the hypothetical man was someone who could afford health insurance but had refused to buy it. This wasn't highlighted in the quote that Minimalist posted, and it makes for an entirely different reading because of it.

The issue is that the supposed audience who represent the "Tea Party" and helped sponsor the event started cheering over the obvious wrong answer to a loaded question.

I'm well aware of that; I wasn't arguing in favour of the audience's response, but rather against the description used, which left out a specific (important) detail about the hypothetical man.

Additionally, this was both a Republican and Tea Party event, and was probably attended by others as well. I doubt very much that one could make the assertion that a specific group of people were the ones cheering, especially since (as others have pointed out in this thread), only a few people did so. The crowd didn't go wild; a few individuals decided to yell out.

It's not about Ron Paul.

Again, I never said it was. He just happened to be answering the question, and although the description didn't say what his answer was, he did in fact answer "No".

It's about the bat shit insane people of the Tea Party.

It's actually about a few individuals of unknown party affiliation that called out in the middle of a debate...but...yeah.

I wish you'd stop falling for Paul == Libertarian. Were he a Libertarian, why the hell is he catering to and competing for one of the most virulently not Libertarian political parties in history (through their actions and legislation)? The Tea Party talks Libertarian, but it's actions clearly indicate otherwise.

I doubt very much the Democrats would have him; the Libertarian party have no hope of winning the race, and the Republican party is the only one left that he has any chance of winning the favour of. As I've explained time and time again here, it is less about the party you align yourself with, and more about your individual politics. Ron Paul's politics are strikingly Libertarian in nature.

He's just an opportunist. One that has never done well, and will probably never do well, especially with this lot.

Doesn't mean he won't try!

So should the situation arise, let's subpoena the dying man's financial records so as to perform a proper means test suitable for illuminating the all important point, which is not only material, but adjudicatable by any trust worthy talent possessing of Ron Paul wisdom. This test should no doubt be done thoroughly and painstakingly so as to ensure not only maximum accuracy, but that the dying patient has the time to be dead and thus making tny error in the process immaterial.

How you can take Ron Paul's answer of "No" and think he means all this is quite beyond me. If someone doesn't have health insurance, they will be charged for any healthcare that they have.