Ah ok. Thanks for clearing all of that up for us.

 

I was mistaken, I agree with some of what Paul stated tonight in the debate.

One of the things people also don't remember is that Guiliani tried to use 9/11 to either stop the 2001 Mayoral election altogether or delay it for 3 to 6 months so he could maintain his grip on the mayor's seat.

 

And that's fine to call that s*** out, but why do it on that day unless you're just being an attention whore like the people you're complaining about.

The largest audience cheers in the Republican presidential debate came when Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul whether he wanted an uninsured 30 year old with a treatable disease to die because he didn't have health insurance. You can hear the crowd shout, "let him die."

 

Alan Grayson's response:

 

What you saw tonight is something much more sinister than not having a healthcare plan. It's sadism, pure and simple. It's the same impulse that led people in the Coliseum to cheer when the lions ate the Christians.

Edited September 13, 201114 yr by BigSqwert

Alan Grayson's response:

Well first off, if you watch what happens and the hypothetical that is brought up... this is a guy who has a good-paying job and elected not to pay for health insurance (because apparently this hypothetical person is a moron). Then he gets very sick. If you believe in real personal freedom and a libertarian mindset, then I have zero problem with Paul's answer there. As for the crowd chanting "let him die", it sounds to me like a few in the crowd are crass imbeciles, I don't disagree there (even if you think the person is responsible this way, there is no cause for being an ass about it).

 

The implication here is that the tea party movement is hateful and angry and illogical. There certainly are some in the movement who that's true for, and it disturbs me too. No doubt there is more of it there in that movement than in any other significant political group I have seen in my lifetime. But it is not entirely so, and ultimately the idea here is that personal responsibility should be a hallmark in this country. Yes, that means some people will pay more dearly for their lack of planning and forethought... but also yes, there are many benefits to those who take that responsibility. So let's not make the leap from a few jackasses to the implication that the tea party is like a mongol hoard either.

 

If I re-post the video of the crowd last week giving their loudest cheer of the night to Rick Perry's total number of executions, is that enough to establish that they're a Mongol Hoard beyond a reasonable doubt, or are we just at a preponderance of evidence?

The tea party is generally pretty authoritarian, so it shouldn't come as a surprise to see cheers for executions or for the death of people who chose poorly. It fits with that sense of justice and punishment.

Well first off, if you watch what happens and the hypothetical that is brought up... this is a guy who has a good-paying job and elected not to pay for health insurance (because apparently this hypothetical person is a moron). Then he gets very sick. If you believe in real personal freedom and a libertarian mindset, then I have zero problem with Paul's answer there. As for the crowd chanting "let him die", it sounds to me like a few in the crowd are crass imbeciles, I don't disagree there (even if you think the person is responsible this way, there is no cause for being an ass about it).

 

The implication here is that the tea party movement is hateful and angry and illogical. There certainly are some in the movement who that's true for, and it disturbs me too. No doubt there is more of it there in that movement than in any other significant political group I have seen in my lifetime. But it is not entirely so, and ultimately the idea here is that personal responsibility should be a hallmark in this country. Yes, that means some people will pay more dearly for their lack of planning and forethought... but also yes, there are many benefits to those who take that responsibility. So let's not make the leap from a few jackasses to the implication that the tea party is like a mongol hoard either.

 

Why stop now?

If I re-post the video of the crowd last week giving their loudest cheer of the night to Rick Perry's total number of executions, is that enough to establish that they're a Mongol Hoard beyond a reasonable doubt, or are we just at a preponderance of evidence?

 

Ah yes, example #1.

Ah yes, example #1.

Well, at least we know 1 thing...when you see a crowd that cheers loudly for 350 executions, and people in a separate crowd yell "Let him die" in a hypothetical case about insurers...you don't feel those are disturbing enough to criticize...but if anyone generalizes from those crowds at all to say, the rest of the political group...you immediately rise to their defense.

Well, at least we know 1 thing...when you see a crowd that cheers loudly for 350 executions, and people in a separate crowd yell "Let him die" in a hypothetical case about insurers...you don't feel those are disturbing enough to criticize...but if anyone generalizes from those crowds at all to say, the rest of the political group...you immediately rise to their defense.

 

So when the news shows a bunch of Muslims jumping up and down in front of a crashed US helicopter, or there are mass celebrations for attacks on US (or generally, the West) targets, I can assume you'll be fine with me concluding that all Muslims are terrorists that hate America and the West and want them to die. Yes?

Edited September 13, 201114 yr by Jenksismybitch

And that's fine to call that s*** out, but why do it on that day unless you're just being an attention whore like the people you're complaining about.

 

So what you're saying is, its fine to have feelings about the way 9/11 was handled by politicians and opportunists as long as you don't have them on 9/11? Gotcha.

 

This wasn't an article in the New York Times. He made a short post on his blog. If he was really trying to be an opportunist about it, he probably should have written his 9/11 column in the actual paper about it.

 

 

Well, at least we know 1 thing...when you see a crowd that cheers loudly for 350 executions, and people in a separate crowd yell "Let him die" in a hypothetical case about insurers...you don't feel those are disturbing enough to criticize...but if anyone generalizes from those crowds at all to say, the rest of the political group...you immediately rise to their defense.

 

Speaking of generalizes... But I am used to the one-sidedness here so carry on.

So when the news shows a bunch of Muslims jumping up and down in front of a crashed US helicopter, or there are mass celebrations for attacks on US (or generally, the West) targets, I can assume you'll be fine with me concluding that all Muslims are terrorists that hate America and the West and want them to die. Yes?

 

"All Muslims" is a much larger and more diverse set than "politically active Americans who identify strongly as tea party members"

Well, at least we know 1 thing...when you see a crowd that cheers loudly for 350 executions, and people in a separate crowd yell "Let him die" in a hypothetical case about insurers...you don't feel those are disturbing enough to criticize...but if anyone generalizes from those crowds at all to say, the rest of the political group...you immediately rise to their defense.

1. Do you really think that the crowd at a tea party debate - and the personalities who would tend to be at something like that - are an accurate representation of the entire movement?

 

2. No one can possibly deny that there is a lot of anger and hate in the tea party movement, among some people... that doesn't make it ALL of them, or even necessarily a majority of them. I'd probably think the number is higher than SS2K5 would, but you seem to think it's 90% of that crowd that is a Mongol Hoard. I disagree vehemently.

 

3. Strange as this sounds, if the scenario were slightly different... say that 30 year old was laid off, couldn't afford insurance because the family had no income after a few months, and then got very sick... then my judgment of their behavior would be a lot different. Which brings up a discussion point... perhaps the best way to have gone about health care reform is for the government to provide health care to the unemployed (non-retired adults looking for work actively), but not provide it in any form to those who are employed and can afford it.

 

So what you're saying is, its fine to have feelings about the way 9/11 was handled by politicians and opportunists as long as you don't have them on 9/11? Gotcha.

 

This wasn't an article in the New York Times. He made a short post on his blog. If he was really trying to be an opportunist about it, he probably should have written his 9/11 column in the actual paper about it.

 

He has every right to his opinion. And I have every right to point out he's doing exactly what he thinks is awful, making him a jackass.

1. Do you really think that the crowd at a tea party debate - and the personalities who would tend to be at something like that - are an accurate representation of the entire movement?

 

2. No one can possibly deny that there is a lot of anger and hate in the tea party movement, among some people... that doesn't make it ALL of them, or even necessarily a majority of them. I'd probably think the number is higher than SS2K5 would, but you seem to think it's 90% of that crowd that is a Mongol Hoard. I disagree vehemently.

 

3. Strange as this sounds, if the scenario were slightly different... say that 30 year old was laid off, couldn't afford insurance because the family had no income after a few months, and then got very sick... then my judgment of their behavior would be a lot different. Which brings up a discussion point... perhaps the best way to have gone about health care reform is for the government to provide health care to the unemployed (non-retired adults looking for work actively), but not provide it in any form to those who are employed and can afford it.

 

Do you think that crowd what have reacted differently to your third point scenario?

1. Do you really think that the crowd at a tea party debate - and the personalities who would tend to be at something like that - are an accurate representation of the entire movement?

 

This is a fair point--this is going to be the most active, most vocal and, likely, most conservative members of the tea party, not the standard conservative who'd answer a poll saying "yes" to "do you support the tea party?"

Well first off, if you watch what happens and the hypothetical that is brought up... this is a guy who has a good-paying job and elected not to pay for health insurance (because apparently this hypothetical person is a moron). Then he gets very sick.

 

That's just an extremely insulting hypothetical in the first place. What percentage of people fit this mold? Less than 1%? People don't pay for health care because they can't afford it. Was Wolf just baiting the audience and the candidates with this ridiculous scenario?

Do you think that crowd what have reacted differently to your third point scenario?

 

I think there might be some difference, but I honestly can't say how much.

 

That's just an extremely insulting hypothetical in the first place. What percentage of people fit this mold? Less than 1%? People don't pay for health care because they can't afford it. Was Wolf just baiting the audience and the candidates with this ridiculous scenario?

 

Not many, and the question was badly worded I agree.. unless it was followed up by my scenario, and possibly another, so that a picture could be painted for the audience of where the candidates really stand.

 

That's just an extremely insulting hypothetical in the first place. What percentage of people fit this mold? Less than 1%? People don't pay for health care because they can't afford it. Was Wolf just baiting the audience and the candidates with this ridiculous scenario?

It's not a crazy scenario, a fair number of people decide to forego health insurance for that reason, and if you remove the possibility of rejection for pre-existing conditions that becomes a key flaw in the system...where you can go without insurance until you get really sick.

That's just an extremely insulting hypothetical in the first place. What percentage of people fit this mold? Less than 1%? People don't pay for health care because they can't afford it. Was Wolf just baiting the audience and the candidates with this ridiculous scenario?

 

It seems like it. It's a terrible question mean to trap the candidate into providing either a morally reprehensible answer (let him die!) or forcing a more nuanced or equivocal position that the tea party crowd wouldn't react well to.

It seems like it. It's a terrible question mean to trap the candidate into providing either a morally reprehensible answer (let him die!) or forcing a more nuanced or equivocal position that the tea party crowd wouldn't react well to.

Um, isn't that exactly what a good debate question should do?

It's not a crazy scenario, a fair number of people decide to forego health insurance for that reason, and if you remove the possibility of rejection for pre-existing conditions that becomes a key flaw in the system...where you can go without insurance until you get really sick.

 

Well isn't a standard conservative response to the individual mandate or general lack of insurance in the younger population "they don't need it!"

 

Maybe that's what Wolf's clumsy question was trying to get at?

Um, isn't that exactly what a good debate question should do?

 

Good debate questions shouldn't intentionally set up candidates in a lose-lose scenario