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?

NM

They might have been(don't know about were) willing to let him make the choice. Do you believe in choice? Do you believe in the choice to kill unborn or partially born babies? Do you believe in the choice of an a adult to terminate his life? Must society oppose some choices but enforce others? And if good samaritans are willing to save his life in spite of himself should he or anyone else be forced to pay for it. And is it the fedgov's responsibility to be a good samaritan, and does a good samaritan force anybody to do anything? I know you're a very moral person, but does your morality extend to force rather than personal compassion and personal responsibility to aid and comfort? And do you really believe that the great number of uninsureds would choose to die rather than do what it takes to live? There are a lot of questions and posibilities here, but among those destructive to society one is to change the basis of that society to suit the whims and irresponsibilities of those who do not practice the tenets of that society. Our foundation, the Constitution (here I go again), is meant to garantee INDIVIDUAL liberty and responsibility and is meant to preclude the central gvt. from assuming that responsibility because the assumption of that responsibility gives power to those who hold it. The Constitution is meant to give power to the people over power of the government. If your morality destroys that foundation it will not only be more destructive to a free society than letting an individual perish due to his own irresponsibility, but it will make it that much more difficult for the society to afford the care of those who need it.

Paul, you have been presented with evidence that "some" of the audience members applauded the "let him die" statement.

Without having any idea who they were, or why they were applauding, you made the leap that there are no more compassionate conservatives left in the country.

Would you care to retract your assertion that this applause means there are no more compassionate conservatives? Or do you still feel that's a reasonable thing to say?

NM

Paul, what took place at Wesleyan could not be any more different than the incident you referred to.

In your case, no one knows who was applauding, and more importantly, no one knows why.

In the Wesleyan incident, every honest person in the world knows exactly what was taking place. And moreover, no one in the world was surprised at what took place. Because that's the kind of behavior the world expects from many (not all) liberals, when a conservative has the audacity to express his opinion.

There is absolutely zero ambiguity about what took place at Wesleyan.

Paul, liberals claim to stand for inclusiveness and diversity. Yet time and time again, you see anarchist behavior by liberals when conservatives are trying to make a point. Moreover, I don't see many liberals condemning the anarchist behavior. So if someone claims that they are open-minded and caring about free speech, yet they are not appalled at what took place at Wesleyan, but they still believe they are open-minded, then they are delusional.

your exact quote.....#31

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?

#55 my "selectively edited version" of your quote....I did such a fine job that you can hardly tell that I was engaged in mischief huh :uhuh:

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?

:rtfm::screwy:

Your right and I'm sorry. I posted my quote and what you said. Obviously the same so I was prob. in a hurry and miss read it.

However, can you pls. post the link to what you quoted. As I said in that post, the article seems to have the statement missing where some in the audience yelled "yeah" - which was the whole point of the discussion. I'd like to read the whole thing. Thanks

Scott - was this where you got the quote?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...-someone-witho

it IS the point isn't it?.....you don't know who or why or any of the other "facts" involved:uhuh:

I just listened to it and according to it, when Paul was asked the question, people in the audience said "yeah". Maybe they were liberals?:rotf2:

Interesting in that the transcript from that site (and what you posted) didn't have the "yeah" but did include when people applauded at other times. I wonder how they could have missed the "yeah" and why it wasn't included? It did cut out very quickly after the "yeah". I wonder what else happened after that?

if I had to guess I'd say they probably started sacrificing small children and smoking cigars, you know how much they like dirty air and dead people

I also have to remember when I go to a sporting event not to yell "yeah" as I never realized people don't view that as cheering until now.

you can yell whatever you want to, hopefully the game will be far more relevant than whatever comes out of your mouth and if by chance you yell something obnoxious, let's hope that the entire stadium is not harshly criticized and/or (mis)characterized as sharing the sentiments of whatever you blurted, whatever your intention and how it was percieved depending on which team you happen to be rooting for :uhuh:

Scott, are you now pissed off that I showed you posted something from a site that doctored the transcript and none of your numerous cut and pastes have any credibility:rotf2:?

Let's stick to the thought that maybe they were Libs.

whatever you say Paul:)

And whatever you cut and paste, we'll have to check for accuracy:)

Another Thread gone to the Dogs......Shuttin'er Down