ext_306469 (
paft.livejournal.com) wrote in
talkpolitics2011-09-13 10:22 am
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
Entry tags:
...And the Crowd Goes Wild
Texas Primary Voter on Governor Rick Perry allowing the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham, a man who was probably innocent: It takes balls to execute an innocent man.
Brian Williams to Governor Rick Perry: Your state has executed 234 death row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times…
(Audience bursts into applause and whistles)
Wolf Blitzer: ..you're a physician, Ron Paul, so you're a doctor. You know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question. A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what? I'm not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I'm healthy, I don't need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it.
Who's going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?
Ron Paul: Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.
Blitzer: Well, what do you want?
Paul: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not be forced --
Blitzer: But he doesn't have that. He doesn't have it, and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?
Paul: That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody –
Blitzer: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?
Audience: Yeah! Yeeeesss!
Zealotry is the worship of an idea at the expense of human beings. This is true whether the idea being worshiped is Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Jehovah, The State, or the Master Race.
Or the Free Market.
Zeolots are marked by their willingness to go that extra mile, to cheer on the death and suffering of those outside their own sacred circle. They think it’s a sign of strength, of courage, of heard-jawed will. At worst, they’ll torture and kill. At best, they’ll not just allow others to die from sickness and hunger, they’ll cheer on those deaths as a salutary cleansing of society.
It is becoming more and more apparent that the Tea Party is made up of zealots, who are not only willing to see fellow Americans die, but are downright enthused about the idea.
Yessir, they like them some dyin’.
It’s interesting to note Ron Paul’s response to Blitzer’s question. After glancing rather nervously out at the audience, he replied:
No. 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.
That’s nice, but in the context of Paul’s earlier comments, it makes no sense. Really? Private charity is sure to step in every time and save a life? If that were the case, why would people have less expectations about being taken care of in the event of sickness? I thought the whole point of Paul’s opposition to “welfarism” was keepin 'em scared.
Paul is, to put it quite bluntly, lying. He knows about Mark Price dying in Arizona because he couldn’t afford a heart transplant. He knows that charity has never been able, and won’t be able to fill the gap left if government doesn’t offer assistance for healthcare.
Ron Paul thinks people should literally and reasonably fear dying, not because a cure isn’t available, but because they couldn’t afford it. He thinks a young man dying in that way would be a good thing, would put the fear of God in all those lousy deadbeats who can’t afford to pay for health insurance. In short, Paul’s answer is inconsistent with his earlier statements.
The audience’s response isn’t. The audience response is the honest one.
Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
Unless, of course, you're quoting somebody else...
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
I'm sure...
"He dies, he dies"
Re: "He dies, he dies"
no subject
PAUL: That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody –
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?
PAUL: No. 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.
New project: Looking up videos of speeches by Democrat leaders, pointing out inappropriate applause points, and using THAT to analyze candidates or the part as a whole.
no subject
Now, I might note that the flaws in Ron Paul's arguments include that whole 1,000 year span of time between the Battle of Adrianople and the start of the Hundred Year's War where private-sector institutions had their chance to shine in a Europe where states did not exist in any sense of the term. That span in time not coincidentally was one of continued deep poverty and ignorance and illiteracy and people humping like bunnies and dying like bunnies, the only interval where anything was at all different being the era of the Carolingians.
Without a welfare state, trusting in the private sector to handle everything you will eventually get your state from the simple reason that after enough contact with the Church and the landlords the peasants will again decide that the state can't be worse and the leaders will once again be delighted to assume that responsibility the private sector cares not for.
Abolish public sectors and you revert society back to the warm and fuzzy period of prosperity that was the Medieval era.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Homelessness does not exist in areas with lots of Democrats. Whenever a homeless person is seen by a Democrat they promptly scoop them up off the street and give them all the assistance they need to be productive. Whereas in red areas the homeless are killed for sport.
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
I've heard this from conservatives before. Considering that over half of the churches in the country have fewer than 200 members - and can just pay for their ministers, church upkeep, and whatever missions they are committed to - it's expecting a lot for them to take care of everyone else.
It's the inflation!
no subject
And exactly how does that applause negate the people who were cheering on the idea of letting an uninsured patient die?
mvl: Tommy Christopher posted a similar article on Mediaite which included the transcript.
Funny how that portion of the transcript you quote leaves out those people who can be clearly heard shouting "yes" to Blitzer asking "are you saying that society should just let him die?"
MVL: New project: Looking up videos of speeches by Democrat leaders, pointing out inappropriate applause points, and using THAT to analyze candidates or the part as a whole.
If you can find the audience of a Democratic political candidate cheering on the idea of allowing sick or injured people to die, I'd be interested in seeing it.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
AP/NCC (http://surveys.ap.org/data/GfK/AP-GfK%20Poll%20Aug%202011%20FINAL%20Topline_NCC_1st%20story.pdf): 82% against the insurance mandate, 16% in favor. The reality is that you not only hold a significant minority viewpoint here, but it's a bonafide fringe viewpoint.
Twice, Republican candidates took a stance that many in the political class consider controversial. Twice, Republican candidates took a stance that is held by the majority of Americans.
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
The founding fathers mocked the majority.
Re: The founding fathers mocked the majority.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Or the income redistribution(lol what euphemistic language!) welfare state, for that matter. Zealotry comes in all shapes and sizes.
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
For some reason...
Re: For some reason...
Re: For some reason...
Re: For some reason...
no subject