GOP candidate: Don't ask for our help, if you get cancer that's your problem

Pejeu

NavyDoc

Pejeu
Again, you chose to identify yourself as a right winger.

No, you labeled anyone one who disagreed with your ideology as such and your attempts to sidestep is weak at best. You have your ideology and you want to force anyone who disagrees with it to comply. Just on the last page you went on about how you would be happy when I die. Cool. Got to love the "tolerant" left.

Does it bother you that I'm honest and outspoken?

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Max Planck

He wasn't right just about scientific truths.

Outspoken? Not a problem.

I've seen a rabid amount of dishonesty however...not in perhaps how you feel...I think it obvious that your distain for other people with a differing viewpoint and an almost fascist need to force compliance on them and a desire to see them die quite honest, however, your portrayal of those who disagree with you have been very dishonest.

It seems to me that you are the type of person who would be quite happy to force people into the camps if you thought it was for their own good.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - Copy to Clipboard
-- C.S. Lewis

Indeed I would.

I believe most people are too stupid to know better than they think they know and are wholly inadequate for a position to even marginally influence the decision of where society is to go.

And that the smartest should lead. Not just show the way and lead by example but actually coerce the masses into following on the path set forth for them.

If it were up to the masses we'd still be in the dark ages, trying to decide whether to adopt Arab numerals and the concept of zero or trying to solve the quadratic.

Most people are too bloody stupid to understand banks issue new money out of nothing each time they extend a loan, for instance.

Pejeu
Indeed I would.

I believe most people are too stupid to know better than they think they know and are wholly inadequate for a position to even marginally influence the decision of where society is to go.

And that the smartest should lead. Not just show the way and lead by example but actually coerce the masses into following on the path set forth for them.

If it were up to the masses we'd still be in the dark ages, trying to decide whether to adopt Arab numerals and the concept of zero or trying to solve the quadratic.

Most people are too bloody stupid to understand banks issue new money out of nothing each time they extend a loan, for instance.

edit on 2013/10/15 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

Exactly what I thought. Rule by the elite. Rule by dictate. No democracy. No freedom. Re-education camps. Coerce for "our own good" like MAO and Stalin and Hitler. Ceaușescu would be proud.

And you are wrong. It was the individual and individual thought, not the ruling elite that brought us out of the dark ages. You and yours would take us back to one. Of course, your ilk always imagines yourself as the one best able to lead. LOL.

reply to post by Pejeu


Tell you what, When the United States Of America becomes part of Romania you can give us your opinion til then we do not need you to school Americans about America.
Fix your own countries problems first.

watchitburn
reply to post by CB328

 

If I happen to get cancer, I don't expect the rest of the country to take care of me. Where in our constitution does it say we should enrich insurance companies and hospitals to provide care to other people?
Don't worry about that, I got you. The answer is no where.

I'm no expert, but I know what screwed up looks like, and this country looks screwed up.

Awesome point. Star for ya. Couldn't have said it better. Some good points being made.

Healthcare shouldn't really be a question in modern times. It should be available to all, affordable to all and compassionately offered to all. Dont care what side of the political spectrum your soapbox is on.

Its not like some diseases can be cured. At best they treat the symptoms if you are lucky enough to get an early, accurate diagnosis that ends up costing you a fortune and prolonging your life "a few years".

For as long as I can remember, we are getting closer and closer to some miracule cure, yet we are still the same distance if not further than we were back then. Waiting and waiting like a fool!

Stop and think. Who benefits from keeping the average lifespan between 75 to 80? Why do they want to make you eligible for social security at 70 instead of 62? I mean it should be around 60 to allow people to live at least a few decades of peace and relaxation. They collect your contributions, put them in the general spending fund, and then go around declaring wars on everyone and their dog for the slightest of reasons.

Not to mention the georgia guidestones says "dont be a cancer on this planet". Apparently "the elite" think your a cancer, a mouth breather, a useless eater. They want the planet for themselves and a population of about 660 million. Gee what does 666 symbolise? Just one 6 short of the trifecta, I guess they couldnt make it that obvious.

The new world order needs to be crushed and the sooner the better. Lots of solutions about everything will start emerging from nowhere. GOP who said what he said was cruel but it wasnt that far from the truth either.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


The number is 500 million, actually, but it would indeed seem that there is an agenda to at the very least keep the population physically weak and docile. If the purpose is a true near-extinction, I wonder at its unusually slow pace.

I just can not get the people justifying something like this. Such people should not exist and I sincerely hope he would never get elected. Saying something so self-centered is simply inhumane.

For me it sounds as extreme egoism, nothing. Everything is about me, my money, I,I,I.

Many Americans believe in Constitutional rights. 5th amendment declares the unalienable rights for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. I say again unalienable right, not privilege, for life. What that guy is stating is literally privilege. If you don´t have the privilege for wealth, the government should just let you die off...

Cancer is not something one can control, there are millions of things that can cause cause and it largely comes down to genetics.

Even wealth comes down to genetics up to some point. If you have been born withunder 90 IQ and average physical skills, however hard you work, it will be near to impossible becoming very successful financially, especially when you come from a poor family, who has no time to deal with you when you are young (care within first years of life matters a lot, when it comes to development), you recieve worse education while having to non-quality food, which also has large influence on development.

Should people be punished for having worse genetics than others?

Does a person who chose a meaningful career such as teacher or engineer have less right to live than the person who went for real estate business, where the money lies?

Everybody has an eqaul right to live, that´s why I believe in universal healthcare, which loses healthcare being a privilege, but makes it a right for all the citizens, the right to live.

"Either pay or die off "is a sentence that no one in the world should here when they get cancer.

Without the free market, corruption builds to draconian levels and only rebellion can stop it.

reply to post by jonnywhite


...and there's no corruption in the oil industry, banking industry, insurance industry, last time I checked they all have cornered the market and charging outrageous prices for their products. We can also look at corporate giants who get so big by buying out smaller companies, they can easily set the price they want and gouge the consumer.

Can't sell this idea to me.

Cabin
I just can not get the people justifying something like this. Such people should not exist and I sincerely hope he would never get elected. Saying something so self-centered is simply inhumane.

For me it sounds as extreme egoism, nothing. Everything is about me, my money, I,I,I.

Many Americans believe in Constitutional rights. 5th amendment declares the unalienable rights for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. I say again unalienable right, not privilege, for life. What that guy is stating is literally privilege. If you don´t have the privilege for wealth, the government should just let you die off...

Cancer is not something one can control, there are millions of things that can cause cause and it largely comes down to genetics.

Even wealth comes down to genetics up to some point. If you have been born withunder 90 IQ and average physical skills, however hard you work, it will be near to impossible becoming very successful financially, especially when you come from a poor family, who has no time to deal with you when you are young (care within first years of life matters a lot, when it comes to development), you recieve worse education while having to non-quality food, which also has large influence on development.

Should people be punished for having worse genetics than others?

Does a person who chose a meaningful career such as teacher or engineer have less right to live than the person who went for real estate business, where the money lies?

Everybody has an eqaul right to live, that´s why I believe in universal healthcare, which loses healthcare being a privilege, but makes it a right for all the citizens, the right to live.

"Either pay or die off "is a sentence that no one in the world should here when they get cancer.

Of course everyone has a right to life (except the unborn it seems--but that is another argument), however, the philosophical disagreement is not whether one has a right to something, but whether or not a right to something also includes a financial obligation on the part of another person. This is the real crux of the debate.

You have the right of free speech, however, does that mean that this right obligates someone else to buy you a computer? Printing press? Radio station?

You have the right to keep and bear arms, but does that mean the taxpayer must provide you with an AR-15 free of charge?

There is an old saying that one person's right to swing their fist ends at another person's nose.

One has a right to life, but so does his neighbor. His neighbor also has a right to his property and the fruits of his labor. Why should one person's right to life supersede his neighbor's right to life? After all, it takes a portion of your life to earn the money that someone else wants to take to pay their bills. You never get that portion of that life back. If I didn't have to spend half my time working to pay taxes, I could spend that time with my family, or write another novel, or garden, or take up painting...but I cannot because I have to dedicate almost half of my productive time working to pay the taxman so that other people don't have to foot their own bills. Those people believe they have more right to their life than I have to mine...sounds pretty self-centered to me.

StoutBroux

buster2010
This has been the Republican healthcare plan for a while now.

Notice that's a democrat holding up that sign, putting words in another's mouth. Propaganda is all that is. At least have a real quote to submit instead of that crap.

Yes he is a Democrat but you seem to have missed the point he was making. The TP cries get rid of the ACA but have nothing to replace it with no do they have any ideas how to fix it.