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