Don't know but wasn't it asked at a Repub. rally what should happen if someone was dying with no insurance and someone yelled "let him die" and the whole crowd started cheering? Lordy Lordy:rotf2:, where have all the compassionate cons. gone?

PaulS -

"Don't know ..."

Paul, the oceans could be filled with the many things you don't know...

"Don't know but wasn't it asked at a Repub. rally what should happen if someone was dying with no insurance and someone yelled "let him die" and the whole crowd started cheering?...where have all the compassionate cons. gone?"

Let's dissect this statement...

First you admit you don't have any facts...but that doesn't stop you from assuming there was one single incident where a crowd applauded that sick people should die. Then, you take that incident (which you probably invented) and you use it to assume that all conservatives feel the same way.

You have hit a breathtaking new low with this post. Breathtaking.

Give it a rest gentlemen....

He didn't invent it.
It was a conservative high point, like when the active service member who happens to be gay was booed for asking a question at a debate.

Was the gist of the quote correct or not - It was correct so your full statement has no merit. So what was breathtaking? - I admitted that I wasn't sure where it was (was it a political stop, a debate, etc). The facts of where it was doesn't matter, the fact that it took place is what matters. It was a Ron Paul rally - so why don't you apologize since I was right and you were wrong (and I won't act like a little child and make a snide comment as you usually do).

Since the only one who has actually provided any account of what Bachmann did and an actual analysis of it was Scottw with the Andrew Mcarthy article, and since the thread otherwise teeters back and forth on the verge of, as JohnnyD said, pooh pooh, not a little driven there by your insertions, I'll wander into another unrelated thread diversion that you've led us. So, do you like the Constitution? Do you think it is being adhered to and followed faithfully? Do you believe that the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate everything through the Commerce Clause? Do you think the Constitution gives Congress unlimited power to tax? Do you think that various legislations that Congress has passed over the years and have been allowed to stand by SCOTUS as constitutional has given the Federal Government power, if not nearly total, well beyond that which the original Constitution intended and still clearly states? Do you understand that the SCOTUS decision that the HCB was a tax, and therefore constitutional, was such a decision and one that grants fedgov the power to tax beyond what was specifed in the Constitution, and, actually, says the government can tax anything and everybody at will with no limits? Do you believe that all members of the fedgov, including the present President and SCOTUS, have abided by there oath to support and defend the Constitution? Just curious, since you brought up the subject of hating the Constitution, what you think of all this?

I believe that you have already said repeatedly that lib. hate the constitution.

Please show me where a group of ifluential conservatives gave anyone the impression that conservatives want sick people to die. Do you really think that's part of the conservative platform?


If that event took place, it wasn't a "conservative" high point, it wasn't a "conservative" anything. I expect that from Paul, he's incapable of rising above that. You're better than that.

Unbelievable...

Ron Paul, for your information, does not speak for conservatives. He specifically claims that his ideology is an alternative to conservative values. He speaks for a portion of people (on the fringe) who call themselves libertarians. There are massive ideological differences between Ron Paul's followers and true conservatives.

Equating Ron Paul's agenda with conservatives makes far less sense than for me to say all liberals think like Al Sharpton. Al Sharpton calls himself a progressive Democrat. Ron Paul goes out of his way to differentiate himself from the conservative wing of the Republican party.

For the record Paul and RIROCKHOUND...true conservatives care a great deal about thje sick and the poor. That's precisely why, in the study done called "Who Realy Cares", ABC News reported that conservatives donate more time and money to charity than liberals.

Who Gives and Who Doesn't? - ABC News

Can we try to be honest and rational here for 5 seconds?

No, the gist of your quote wasn't anywhere near correct. A small number of idiots do not speak for the majority of conservatives.

Paul, conservatives care deeply about the following...

• life (the unborn are precious and irreplaceable)
• fiscal responsibility (we are currently > $40 trillion in the hole, counting entitlement programs
• limited federal govt
• promoting individual liberty
• strong national defense
• charity for those in need
• support of free market capitalism

Rather than debate the merits of any of these, you seem content to find one or two idiots in our midst (which is easy in any large group), paint all of us with the same brush, and dismiss us as racists, homophobes, sexists, anti-poor, or some other insulting hate-monger.

To get back to the original intent of this thread, Bachman appears to have really stepped in it. I'm glad to see huge numbers of influential Republicans call her out on it. Maybe the liberals can try to do the same the next time some Democratic idiot declares that conservatives are waging war on women, or war against the middle class, or calling us all a bunch of Islamophobes. Maybe that'll happen. But I'm not holding my breath...

There is my quote

Jim, You fail to see that I just do exactly what you do and then you get mad.

By the way, where do you get the list that you copied from?

Any rational conservative will tell you that list represents what's important to them.

Paul, let me ask you, what do you think are the core principles of conservative ideology? In all seriousness and honesty, what is it that you think we wish to acomplish?

The point is they both did take place.
So they aren't influential conservatives, but you (and others on the right) are quick to judge the left based on Occupy and others... I don't see the distinction. Both probably represent the fringe of the idealogy...


"Let him die": A debate question exposes the incoherence—and cowardice—of the Republican candidates' opposition to Obamacare. - Slate Magazine

Gay Soldier Booed By GOP Debate Audience | New York Daily News

I didn't read the articles other than to know they cite the time and place of these events. Slate and NYDayily news are not in my daily reading....

I would come up with a somewhat similiar list if you asked me to write a list of cons. beliefs.

I wasn't questioning whether the list was of yours or any cons. beliefs. I asked b/c when I quoted it, there was indicator at the top and bottom of the list as though you copied the list from somewhere. No big deal.

Here's the distinction..I have never heard large numbers of influential liberals decry the actions of Occupy Wall Street...all I hear is liberals complimenting them. Which makes me think that according to most liberals, their actions are within the scope of liberal ideology. Almost every time large numbers of liberals get together, PARTICULARLY when they are protesting something, there is anarchy. You didn't see that with the Tea Party rallies, you just didn't.

Most conservatives would be appalled at the notion of someone applauding that a sick person should die. Most liberals don't seem to have issues with Occupy Wall Street crowds.

That's the distinction. And it's a major distinction.

You disagree with my observation there?

If I may interject, I think that they're mostly a some what wacky fringe element made up of former hippies and flowerchildren with a few homeless people who showed up b/c they could camp somewhere w/o being bothered and get free food. I can't recall anyone here really complimenting them. Certainly, as with any group you loosely share an ideology, there may be aspects that I could agree with but their view ends up too extreme.

The demographic make up of TP and OWS is very different.

I respect the way you stated that...

I watched a great deal of media coverage concerning the Occupy Wall Street crowd, and I watched what a lot of Democrats in Washington said about them. I didn't hear a lot of prominent, influential liberals dismissing them as the fringe. Whet I heard was a lot of support for the message they were trying to get across. And I never saw anyone on TV, other than those on Foxnews, make a big deal about the anarchistic behavior which was commonplace at their sites..

I don't believe that the Occupy Wall Street crowd operates on the fringe of the liberal universe. Their message is that the syatem is rigged in favor of the wealthy, and that poor people are victimized by the wealthy, and by some evil entity known as "business". If you think thoe are "fringe" ideals, I guess you think Obama is also a fringe guy. Because he obviously agrees with them on their core message, does he not?

that always a great qualifier when you are providing them as evidence that others should read to prove your point :uhuh:

I'm very curious to know how many here that are so deeply offended by the Bachmann et al letter actually read the letter? it's available to read as it was distributed to a number of agencies and made available to the public...hope the same people that are always suggesting that the idiot masses don't read past the headlines and are duped by out of context quips on Fox News actually did a little reading on their own:)

soooo...you should be able to provide an example....you don't even have to read it yourself...just post a link, to anything...like Bryan....lots'a stuff tossed about on this page without much to back it up:uhuh: and from the people that always demand...backup

btw...just clicking on the SLATE article that Bryan posted...the title is "LET HIM DIE " in quotes but if you read the article...it's Wolf Blitzer who was moderating the debate who actually said "let him die", not any republican

seems like a pretty balanced article too:rotf2:

Yes, let's change the subject to Pelosie. :hihi:

He would prob. agree that he has insinuated that a few times. Admittedly, he prob. would say that about some of the Cons. also.

I enjoy his posts, very well written as he puts a lot of thought into them. Very knowledgeable about the Const. I think the tone of this forum has worn him down recently.

Glad you changed from I "have said repeatedly" that libs hate the Constititution to I have "insinuated that a few times." I know that I have said, not insinuated, that the original progressives of the late nineteenth to early twentieth centuries despised the Constitution. And I provided their own words to demonstrate that assertion. And, yes, I did point out that Republicans were among the first progressives.

I don't equate Republican with today's "conservatives." Nor do I equate all those who are called liberal to "progressive." Most of today's conservatives are Republican or Libertarian, though many Republicans are somewhat progressive. I believe there is a divide between most of those who vote Democrat and the core of todays Democrat party. I believe that core is politically "progressive" and that most of its voters are not aware of that progressive nature or even what it is.

I don't think that most Democrat voters are aware of the progressive destruction of the Constitution. I believe they are mostly, as most Americans are, constitutionally illiterate and accept Democrat policies to be constitutional. That's why I asked you, very sincerely, what you thought on the matter. I am curious if you think that the Constitution has been, essentially destroyed, and if you do, if it matters.

On reading the article I could see an attempt at balance, but, to me, it was very heavily slanted toward the mandate as a solution to medical care for the uninsured who can afford it. The three options the article presented for someone who could afford it but was uninsured and critically or terminally ill are (1) the mandate, (2) current policy of care to be paid for by the rest of us, and (3) letting him die. For option 2, current policy, the article cites A study (only one study) that says the cost shift amounts to $1,100 per family. It omits another study that found that 80% was actually covered by charities and that the cost shifted to the rest of us was about $80 per family, so the article's assertion that charities could not substantially contribute to the cost is questionable. Option 3, let him die takes the responsibility of the uninsured out of the equation. In typical progressive thinking, society has to solve his problem, not the individual. But there is an option 4. Let the uninsured individual take responsibility for the cost of saving his life. Let him sell assets, take loans, do whatever it costs to pay for it, if saving his life is worth it to him, even if it would mean bakruptcy. This option would be an incentive for those who can afford it to buy insurance. The same would apply to any other expensive thing he thought worth buying. And yes, charities could help those who absolutely are not capable. And yes, various State programs could assist the truly needy. And yes, the Constitution would be spared the further destruction. And the principle of individual freedom from all-powerful government would be a little more preserved.

I saw an article that took a quote from the moderator(obnoxious by the way) and the supposed reaction of a few in the audience having no idea who they may have been and attempted to use that quote and reaction to characterize the sentiment and stance of the candidates:)

and further.....

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: I have to say, I’ve never witnessed such a crackle of enthusiasm for executing people as I heard at the Reagan Library debate last week. I recalled it last night when I heard the clap of applause when Ron Paul said he’d let someone die if they failed to pony up for health insurance.


BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?

PAUL: No

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 hospitals.

(APPLAUSE)

PAUL: And we've given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves. 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 insurance companies and the drug companies, and 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. And we should actually legalize alternative health care, allow people to practice what they want.


mission accomplished however

Originally Posted by PaulS
Don't know but wasn't it asked at a Repub. rally what should happen if someone was dying with no insurance and someone yelled "let him die" and the whole crowd started cheering? Lordy Lordy, where have all the compassionate cons. gone?



Lordy...Lordy:)

So Scott, was that exactly my quote or did you selectively edit it? You also seemed to have edited out the following which implies that there was no audience response (but left in the other times where the audience responded) (Quoted from ABC news):

After a pause, Blitzer followed up by asking “Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?” to which a small number of audience members shouted “Yeah!”

Here is my quote - Don't know but wasn't it asked at a Repub. rally what should happen if someone was dying with no insurance and someone yelled "let him die" and the whole crowd started cheering? Lordy Lordy, where have all the compassionate cons. gone?

So when I posted the statement, I qualified it by saying "Don't know, but" - which means I was unsure of the exact statement. It turns that it did happen - with the mod. saying "let him die?" and some in the audience saying "Yeah" instead of the cheering that I said. So the bottom line is that you have some in the audience who were happy w/the statement "let him die".

Scott, you sometimes remind me of a gnat.

Careful, Paul, there are mirrors.

I apologize to everybody else for contributing to the pooh, pooh. Apparently, however, no-one other than Scottw seems to care about the actual topic of the thread.

How do you know they were "happy" with the "let him die?They certainly were agreeable with the idea of letting him die with the "yeah" statement There could be many reasons and expanded explanations for that reaction, which would not fit into an interjection by an audience member. It could be, among others, a tough love stance saying, buddy take care of yourself, it is not society's responsibility to nurse you through every phase of your existence and to pay for your poor choicesI agree that could have been the intent. So b/c of "tough love", they were willing to let him die. Bottom line, some in the audience were willing to let him die. And if you have chosen a path of non-involvement in your own existence, it is not society's duty to empower you to stay on that path

So, besides your admittedly erroneous reflections on the "rally," So b/c it wasn't a "rally" does that change what happened? Shouldn't the focus not be on where the event was or what exactly the event was but rather on the fact that some members of the audience (for what ever reason) believe someone should be allowed to die? It seems like folks here would rather focus on those minor details while ignoring the main point.

OMG, why am I letting myself be sucked into a PaulS pooh, pooh? OK. Paul, your the one focusing on a minor detail here and ignoring my main points. BTW--any response to my constitutional Q's?