Why do conservatives come off as such idiots?

[RandomGuy]

Libertarian philosophy? Irrelevant.

"Do you find it moral to let someone bleed to death on the steps of the hospital, simply because they lack the money to pay for services?"
Moral? A morality judgement on an action that does not take place? And this is not straw, how?

A strawman is a distortion of a true position.

In this case libertarian philosophy sucha s what Mr. Paul went on a rant about in response to the question is quite relevant.

The principle of allowing it to be legal for a hospital to not treat someone because they can't pay is fully consistant with libertarian philosphy, and with this response.

An extension, but not a distortion that I could say.

The question seemed very calculated by Mr. Blitzer, who I would assume did his homework.

One might construe it as a strawman, but since Mr. Paul really didn't answer the question, it is hard to say, isn't it?

What is his real position on that question?
If it were "no, of course not" dont' you think he would have said that rather explicitly?

[TeyshaBlue]

A strawman is a distortion of a true position.

In this case libertarian philosophy sucha s what Mr. Paul went on a rant about in response to the question is quite relevant.

The principle of allowing it to be legal for a hospital to not treat someone because they can't pay is fully consistant with libertarian philosphy, and with this response.

An extension, but not a distortion that I could say.

The question seemed very calculated by Mr. Blitzer, who I would assume did his homework.

One might construe it as a strawman, but since Mr. Paul really didn't answer the question, it is hard to say, isn't it?

What is his real position on that question?
If it were "no, of course not" dont' you think he would have said that rather explicitly?

Frankly, I have no idea what he would have said. Certainly not to the point where it's going to be the straw foundation for my Fortress of Progressivenes™.

[TSA]

As I said before, I am not going to engage in a debate over gun control. I know you don't understand key concepts in how to interpret data. That's why I told you what I was discussing before. You can lead a horse to water.

Apparently, you don't grasp the concept of temporal order or conversation. I'm not being pretentious. Condescending certainly.

Where the do you get that I'm trying to debate gun control with you? What are you even talking about? You claim I'm trolling, back your claim up with some empirical evidence please.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I think letting people die because they dont have health insurance is immoral.

Ron Paul thinks that is ok.

Do you find it moral to let someone bleed to death on the steps of the hospital, simply because they lack the money to pay for services?

iirc you're thinking of when someone asked Ron Paul during a debate what should happen to someone who could afford medical insurance but simply chose not to, then got in a car accident and needed expensive medical care. It's something I agree with Ron Paul on (and I'm by no means a Ron Paul fan). Someone who could afford medical insurance but simply chose not to shouldn't be bailed out by the government.

[Clipper Nation]

Thank you! Someone gets it!

And at RandomGuy claiming Ron Paul sidesteps questions in order to not say "unelectable" things.... if that was the case, he would have never criticized our out-of-control foreign policy, police/surveillance spending, or the Federal Reserve at debates in front of a crowd of ignorant neocons, tbh.... dude gives zero s about appearing "electable" and is probably the most honest politician in recent memory.... the problem is, people don't want to hear the truth from politicians....

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Yeah seriously if there's one thing no one can criticize Ron Paul for it's him speaking what's on his mind. If he wanted to be electable he would have promised baby boomer handouts like every other candidate did.

[DarrinS]

Point taken.

That OP is pretty hackish. Mea culpa.

I noticed you didn't call TSA on his. Why is that?

Yes, the "why are liberals such pussies?" thread is hack-ish too. I didn't post in it.

[spursncowboys]

So what are examples of contemporary conservative intellectuals? The question has been asked multiple times with nary an example.

That is one basis for the question posed.

george will
Alan Greenspan
Thomas Sowell
David Horowitz
Sam Alito
Joe Scarborough
Byron York

However its pretty idiotic to assume there are no smart people in a group you don't agree with. Are you that narrow minded?

[spursncowboys]

Feel free to point them out. Please. I would prefer not to have my thinking on any given subject be flawed in that way.

Can you point one out?

(edit)

Respectfully:

I have spent more than a decade using that nizkor list, and showing how people are committing logical fallacies.

By most accounts, I am fairly bright.

I know you don't like me, and want to think that my thinking uses these logical fallacies, but come on, really? I may up occasionnaly, but don't let your dislike of my politics or me personally get the better of you. It may just be possible that someone you disagree with is fairly logical and principled, even if you don't agree with everything or even anything.

I don't dislike anyone on here, except the people making vile comments because they are anonymous. I read your posts with open mindedness until you go into troll mode. But if I have time, then yes I will start pointing it out if I notice them.

[Wild Cobra]

For a doctor I found that rather shockingly stupid and more than a bit immoral.

I don't think he has had a functiong practice in decades, and has no idea about the current landscape of health care, other than his vacuous pla udes about personal responsibility.

???

I see nothing wrong with what he said. Any specific quote? Did you maybe just not understand his point? His answer did imply changing the "current landscape" as well.

[Wild Cobra]

Libertarian philosophy? Irrelevant.

"Do you find it moral to let someone bleed to death on the steps of the hospital, simply because they lack the money to pay for services?"
Moral? A morality judgement on an action that does not take place? And this is not straw, how?

Examples like that were never mentioned. That is not the feeling of what would come.

[Th'Pusher]

iirc you're thinking of when someone asked Ron Paul during a debate what should happen to someone who could afford medical insurance but simply chose not to, then got in a car accident and needed expensive medical care. It's something I agree with Ron Paul on (and I'm by no means a Ron Paul fan). Someone who could afford medical insurance but simply chose not to shouldn't be bailed out by the government.

And tell me how that works exactly. How is it you determine this dying person cannot pay for the service before it is rendered? Untenable.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

george will
Alan Greenspan
Thomas Sowell
David Horowitz
Sam Alito
Joe Scarborough
Byron York

However its pretty idiotic to assume there are no smart people in a group you don't agree with. Are you that narrow minded?

I never said there were not any.

Greenspan said that his stance on laissez fair was wrong after the banking collapse. I beg to differ on Scarborough and York is the epitome of what I was getting at when referring to the descent of the National Review. Horowitz is of the same vein with his red scare neo-McCarthyism.

I do agree with you about Will and Sowell. Pragmatism and logic. OTOH, I don't get the impression that those guys are driving forces behind the GOP platform. The GOP changed into pop politics with the Republican Revolution and the rise of Roger Ailes and now has further schismed with the GOP's resurgence of laissez fair in the T party.

[spursncowboys]

@RG You take a high ground as if you are paying for it. I guess in a sense you are if you pay taxes, but then even someone who disagrees with it and pays taxes would then have the same amount of moral ground as you.

[spursncowboys]

I never said there were not any.

Greenspan said that his stance on laissez fair was wrong after the banking collapse. I beg to differ on Scarborough and York is the epitome of what I was getting at when referring to the descent of the National Review. Horowitz is of the same vein with his red scare neo-McCarthyism.

I do agree with you about Will and Sowell. Pragmatism and logic. OTOH, I don't get the impression that those guys are driving forces behind the GOP platform. The GOP changed into pop politics with the Republican Revolution and the rise of Roger Ailes and now has further schismed with the GOP's resurgence of laissez fair in the T party.

The heart of the Tea Party is the George Will type that puts size of govt and spending above almost all. I think you are confusing the CPAC with GOP. GOP are the ones were taking the conservatives positions of power if they sided with the Tea Party. Repubs are still ran by McCain and Grahamn and other tools.

[spursncowboys]

???

I see nothing wrong with what he said. Any specific quote? Did you maybe just not understand his point? His answer did imply changing the "current landscape" as well.

Me either. I think for that particular situation, they could open up a credit line for the person, instead of making everyone foot the bill.

[Th'Pusher]

Me either. I think for that particular situation, they could open up a credit line for the person, instead of making everyone foot the bill.

And when that person declares bankruptcy, as 40% of bankruptcies are the results of medical bills iirc, who ends up footing the bill?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

And tell me how that works exactly. How is it you determine this dying person cannot pay for the service before it is rendered? Untenable.

That's irrelevant to the question that Paul was asked as it's just a game of semantics.

[Wild Cobra]

And when that person declares bankruptcy, as 40% of bankruptcies are the results of medical bills iirc, who ends up footing the bill?

I think there would be some type of distinction based on the reason for the medical bills. I think any of you flame throwing alarmist liberals would be hard pressed to find any conservative or libertarian that goes to the nth degree as you all are causing alarm over.

I have repeatedly stated that I'm OK with social services for the elderly and handicapped. When it comes to emergency room visits for accidents, that too I think most libertarians and conservatives would agree. This is what write-offs or assistance is well used for. Just don't ask us to then agree to foot the bill for cardiac surgeries, or other optional life extending things procedures or medications. I think if you would stop accusing the right of the fears never realized, you will find that they are more than agreeable to some help in these areas.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I think there would be some type of distinction based on the reason for the medical bills. I think any of you flame throwing alarmist liberals would be hard pressed to find any conservative or libertarian that goes to the nth degree as you all are causing alarm over.

I have repeatedly stated that I'm OK with social services for the elderly and handicapped. When it comes to emergency room visits for accidents, that too I think most libertarians and conservatives would agree. This is what write-offs or assistance is well used for. Just don't ask us to then agree to foot the bill for cardiac surgeries, or other optional life extending things procedures or medications. I think if you would stop accusing the right of the fears never realized, you will find that they are more than agreeable to some help in these areas.

It's where liberalism goes wrong trying to absolve people of all personal responsibility for their health. If someone's been smoking 2 packs a day for years and gets lung cancer, the tax payers shouldn't have to put one penny towards his healthcare regardless of age. That's why I'm fine with "death panels!" that decide whether or not people deserve government funded medical care on a case by case basis.

[Th'Pusher]

That's irrelevant to the question that Paul was asked as it's just a game of semantics.

Game of semantics? How so? The reality is the policy he and you seem to be endorsing is completely impractical.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Game of semantics? How so? The reality is the policy he and you seem to be endorsing is completely impractical.

I'm not endorsing anything (if it were up to me we'd have true universal healthcare like every other modern country).

All I was speaking to is the hypothetical scenario Paul was given.

[Th'Pusher]

I have repeatedly stated that I'm OK with social services for the elderly and handicapped. When it comes to emergency room visits for accidents...

That makes up the majority of healthcare costs in the US.

[Th'Pusher]

I'm not endorsing anything (if it were up to me we'd have true universal healthcare like every other modern country).

So you are ok with using tax payer money for other people's poor health decisions?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

So you are ok with using tax payer money for other people's poor health decisions?

I'm OK with "death panels!" that decide how much tax payer money should be used on a case by case basis.

That system would greatly shrink healthcare costs in this country compared to what they are now.