Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

True face of the Tea Party

Page 4 of 6 [ 89 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

14 Sep 2011, 9:08 am

GoonSquad wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
If a person makes no provision for illness by his own effort and resources, why should the rest of us carry his burden. The solution is very simple: insurance. We all run the risk of injury or illness so let us insure ourselves against that contingency. That is the responsible way of handling the problem.

Each of us should make plans to deal with the misfortune that life sometimes hands us.

ruveyn


Sure but if we are going to pay for it anyway we should find a way to do it for cheaper.


You should say: more rationally. Our current system is based on dealing with crises after they happen, not before. That is guaranteed to be the most expensive and least effective way of doing things.

Health maintenance rather emergency treatment is the key.

ruveyn


So, how do we accomplish this in a way that is acceptable to the right?


frame it as a way to cut medical expenses for corporations which is what it is.
Make them think it was their idea.
tell them it is unfair and that people will die.
because that is what they like.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,748
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Sep 2011, 10:21 am

ruveyn wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
If a person makes no provision for illness by his own effort and resources, why should the rest of us carry his burden. The solution is very simple: insurance. We all run the risk of injury or illness so let us insure ourselves against that contingency. That is the responsible way of handling the problem.

Each of us should make plans to deal with the misfortune that life sometimes hands us.

ruveyn


Sure but if we are going to pay for it anyway we should find a way to do it for cheaper.


You should say: more rationally. Our current system is based on dealing with crises after they happen, not before. That is guaranteed to be the most expensive and least effective way of doing things.

Health maintenance rather emergency treatment is the key.

ruveyn


My Lord, ruveyn! Are you really a closet liberal?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



LeonKrahe
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jun 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 86
Location: New Jersey

14 Sep 2011, 11:14 am

GoonSquad wrote:
click to source


Quote:
Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Paul--a fierce limited-government advocate-- said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause as he added, "this whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody …"

"Are you saying that society should just let him die?" Blitzer pressed Paul. And that's when the audience got involved.

Several loud cheers of "yeah!" followed by laughter could be heard in the Expo Hall at the Florida State Fairgrounds in response to Blitzer's question.





Your mothers must be proud...


Just to address the original post, has anyone considered the possability (in my mind, the most likely explaination) that those shouts of "yeah!" weren't an answer to Blitzer's question, but a taunt to Ron Paul? My hearing of it gave me the impression the shouters were satisfied with the question, as it appeared to trap Paul into a corner where he wouldn't likely give an answer that wouldn't damage his credibility in some way.

Given the booing Paul faced in other parts of the debate, it's clear there was a vocal opposition to him in the audience, and enough people there find his candidacy annoying at the very least, and so would be happy to see him embarass himself beyond recovery.

Only the few shouters themselves truly know what they meant by it though, but the most obvious interpretation of their shouts to me also happens to be the most politically useless one, and I haven't heard anyone else bring it up. More useful for Paul opponents and anti-Tea people to potray it as "Yeah! Let the poor die!" to demonize them, rather than consider that it could be true that it was Paul opponents meaning it as "Yeah, what DO you say about that [Blitzer's question], moron?"



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,748
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Sep 2011, 11:20 am

LeonKrahe wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
click to source


Quote:
Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Paul--a fierce limited-government advocate-- said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause as he added, "this whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody …"

"Are you saying that society should just let him die?" Blitzer pressed Paul. And that's when the audience got involved.

Several loud cheers of "yeah!" followed by laughter could be heard in the Expo Hall at the Florida State Fairgrounds in response to Blitzer's question.





Your mothers must be proud...


Just to address the original post, has anyone considered the possability (in my mind, the most likely explaination) that those shouts of "yeah!" weren't an answer to Blitzer's question, but a taunt to Ron Paul? My hearing of it gave me the impression the shouters were satisfied with the question, as it appeared to trap Paul into a corner where he wouldn't likely give an answer that wouldn't damage his credibility in some way.

Given the booing Paul faced in other parts of the debate, it's clear there was a vocal opposition to him in the audience, and enough people there find his candidacy annoying at the very least, and so would be happy to see him embarass himself beyond recovery.

Only the few shouters themselves truly know what they meant by it though, but the most obvious interpretation of their shouts to me also happens to be the most politically useless one, and I haven't heard anyone else bring it up. More useful for Paul opponents and anti-Tea people to potray it as "Yeah! Let the poor die!" to demonize them, rather than consider that it could be true that it was Paul opponents meaning it as "Yeah, what DO you say about that [Blitzer's question], moron?"


I think you're giving the audience members too much credit than they deserve.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

14 Sep 2011, 11:24 am

MarketAndChurch wrote:
fairness is the politics of the jealous.

No. Fairness is fairness. If progressive politics were simply about jealousy, it doesn't make sense that many upper class individuals are progressive.

Accusations of envy/jealousy by the right are most likely projections. Because right-wingers don't understand notions of fairness and social justice, they must posit ulterior motives that are more familiar to their own way of thinking. That would explain the conservative tendency to bash public teachers, public servants, etc... as being overpaid for their worth. All because government workers get pensions, can't be fired at will, etc... unlike those working in the private sector. That's envy pure and simple.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

14 Sep 2011, 11:29 am

LeonKrahe wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
click to source


Quote:
Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Paul--a fierce limited-government advocate-- said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause as he added, "this whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody …"

"Are you saying that society should just let him die?" Blitzer pressed Paul. And that's when the audience got involved.

Several loud cheers of "yeah!" followed by laughter could be heard in the Expo Hall at the Florida State Fairgrounds in response to Blitzer's question.





Your mothers must be proud...


Just to address the original post, has anyone considered the possability (in my mind, the most likely explaination) that those shouts of "yeah!" weren't an answer to Blitzer's question, but a taunt to Ron Paul? My hearing of it gave me the impression the shouters were satisfied with the question, as it appeared to trap Paul into a corner where he wouldn't likely give an answer that wouldn't damage his credibility in some way.

Given the booing Paul faced in other parts of the debate, it's clear there was a vocal opposition to him in the audience, and enough people there find his candidacy annoying at the very least, and so would be happy to see him embarass himself beyond recovery.

Only the few shouters themselves truly know what they meant by it though, but the most obvious interpretation of their shouts to me also happens to be the most politically useless one, and I haven't heard anyone else bring it up. More useful for Paul opponents and anti-Tea people to potray it as "Yeah! Let the poor die!" to demonize them, rather than consider that it could be true that it was Paul opponents meaning it as "Yeah, what DO you say about that [Blitzer's question], moron?"


that would be cool too bad thats not how it went down.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

14 Sep 2011, 11:38 am

JakobVirgil wrote:
LeonKrahe wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
click to source


Quote:
Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Paul--a fierce limited-government advocate-- said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause as he added, "this whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody …"

"Are you saying that society should just let him die?" Blitzer pressed Paul. And that's when the audience got involved.

Several loud cheers of "yeah!" followed by laughter could be heard in the Expo Hall at the Florida State Fairgrounds in response to Blitzer's question.





Your mothers must be proud...


Just to address the original post, has anyone considered the possability (in my mind, the most likely explaination) that those shouts of "yeah!" weren't an answer to Blitzer's question, but a taunt to Ron Paul? My hearing of it gave me the impression the shouters were satisfied with the question, as it appeared to trap Paul into a corner where he wouldn't likely give an answer that wouldn't damage his credibility in some way.

Given the booing Paul faced in other parts of the debate, it's clear there was a vocal opposition to him in the audience, and enough people there find his candidacy annoying at the very least, and so would be happy to see him embarass himself beyond recovery.

Only the few shouters themselves truly know what they meant by it though, but the most obvious interpretation of their shouts to me also happens to be the most politically useless one, and I haven't heard anyone else bring it up. More useful for Paul opponents and anti-Tea people to potray it as "Yeah! Let the poor die!" to demonize them, rather than consider that it could be true that it was Paul opponents meaning it as "Yeah, what DO you say about that [Blitzer's question], moron?"


that would be cool too bad thats not how it went down.


The only reason anyone in that audience would criticize Ron Paul would be for being too much of a sissy boy traitor and not thumping people with the American flag or hating the a-rabs enough.



shrox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

14 Sep 2011, 11:39 am

One big worldwide EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) will level the playing field.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

14 Sep 2011, 11:44 am

LeonKrahe wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
click to source


Quote:
Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Paul--a fierce limited-government advocate-- said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause as he added, "this whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody …"

"Are you saying that society should just let him die?" Blitzer pressed Paul. And that's when the audience got involved.

Several loud cheers of "yeah!" followed by laughter could be heard in the Expo Hall at the Florida State Fairgrounds in response to Blitzer's question.





Your mothers must be proud...


Just to address the original post, has anyone considered the possability (in my mind, the most likely explaination) that those shouts of "yeah!" weren't an answer to Blitzer's question, but a taunt to Ron Paul? My hearing of it gave me the impression the shouters were satisfied with the question, as it appeared to trap Paul into a corner where he wouldn't likely give an answer that wouldn't damage his credibility in some way.

Given the booing Paul faced in other parts of the debate, it's clear there was a vocal opposition to him in the audience, and enough people there find his candidacy annoying at the very least, and so would be happy to see him embarass himself beyond recovery.

Only the few shouters themselves truly know what they meant by it though, but the most obvious interpretation of their shouts to me also happens to be the most politically useless one, and I haven't heard anyone else bring it up. More useful for Paul opponents and anti-Tea people to potray it as "Yeah! Let the poor die!" to demonize them, rather than consider that it could be true that it was Paul opponents meaning it as "Yeah, what DO you say about that [Blitzer's question], moron?"


No. The only time he was booed was when he mentioned Palestine since most of these called Tea Party people are hardcore Zionists. He was cheered on pretty much all of his other answers, even the non-interventionist stuff got cheers but these peeps will apparently throw that out the door when you mention Israel.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

14 Sep 2011, 1:04 pm

The Tea Party are not real Zionists. Israel has universal access to health care which the Tea Party considers evil socialism. Also Israel has the Kibbutz which the Tea Party has denounced as Communism.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Sep 2011, 1:07 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

My Lord, ruveyn! Are you really a closet liberal?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Not in the least. Since we are already affording everyone medical (even if one has to go to the Emergency Room to get it) why not do it well and cost effectively rather than badly and expensively?

ruveyn



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

14 Sep 2011, 1:15 pm

What Conservatives like Michael Savage really want is to have the poor denied access to emergency room treatment so the rich can get another tax break.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

14 Sep 2011, 1:29 pm

LeonKrahe wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
click to source


Quote:
Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Paul--a fierce limited-government advocate-- said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause as he added, "this whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody …"

"Are you saying that society should just let him die?" Blitzer pressed Paul. And that's when the audience got involved.

Several loud cheers of "yeah!" followed by laughter could be heard in the Expo Hall at the Florida State Fairgrounds in response to Blitzer's question.





Your mothers must be proud...


Just to address the original post, has anyone considered the possability (in my mind, the most likely explaination) that those shouts of "yeah!" weren't an answer to Blitzer's question, but a taunt to Ron Paul? My hearing of it gave me the impression the shouters were satisfied with the question, as it appeared to trap Paul into a corner where he wouldn't likely give an answer that wouldn't damage his credibility in some way.

Given the booing Paul faced in other parts of the debate, it's clear there was a vocal opposition to him in the audience, and enough people there find his candidacy annoying at the very least, and so would be happy to see him embarass himself beyond recovery.

Only the few shouters themselves truly know what they meant by it though, but the most obvious interpretation of their shouts to me also happens to be the most politically useless one, and I haven't heard anyone else bring it up. More useful for Paul opponents and anti-Tea people to potray it as "Yeah! Let the poor die!" to demonize them, rather than consider that it could be true that it was Paul opponents meaning it as "Yeah, what DO you say about that [Blitzer's question], moron?"


That's a pretty hard spin. Even the other republicans did not see it that way...

No, the audience reaction was shockingly extreme, but consistent with Tea Party values--hostile to any form of government involvement in medical care. Also, Paul got booed on his foreign policy--that's consistent with Tea Party values too (Paul isn't blindly hostile toward all Muslims).


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

14 Sep 2011, 1:35 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

My Lord, ruveyn! Are you really a closet liberal?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Not in the least. Since we are already affording everyone medical (even if one has to go to the Emergency Room to get it) why not do it well and cost effectively rather than badly and expensively?

ruveyn


And I'll ask again: what's the -> RIGHT<- way to do that?


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

14 Sep 2011, 1:46 pm

GoonSquad wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

My Lord, ruveyn! Are you really a closet liberal?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Not in the least. Since we are already affording everyone medical (even if one has to go to the Emergency Room to get it) why not do it well and cost effectively rather than badly and expensively?

ruveyn


And I'll ask again: what's the -> RIGHT<- way to do that?

maybe the danish plan healthcare on the council/county level. (we will call it ultra-federalism)
we couple it with a huge decrease in federal taxes (republicans cheer)
of course we will have offset that with an increase in local taxes.(boo)
but net taxes will be lower (cheer)
counties compete with each other to provide better more efficient care (cheer)
theyare rewarded with increases tax base i.e. companies move there so they don't have to pay
for medical care. (think Canada)
we just need a someone with an R behind their name to write it up. .)


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,748
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Sep 2011, 1:47 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

My Lord, ruveyn! Are you really a closet liberal?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Not in the least. Since we are already affording everyone medical (even if one has to go to the Emergency Room to get it) why not do it well and cost effectively rather than badly and expensively?

ruveyn


Okay, just checking. I was almost ready to ask you to take your temperature to make sure you're not feverishly lurching to the left. :lol:

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer