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

NavyDoc

Pejeu
When all else fails: resort to ad hominem.

Brilliant.

Just goes to show the lack of any merit to your argument.

Basically an admission of defeat.

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

Sorry, you started out with ad hominums..."Neanderthal" and "selfish" and so forth. Thus you admitted to defeat from the very beginning?

LOL.

Hypocrite much?

I didn't call or imply that you yourself, personally, were one.

You identified with them on your own.

Indigo5
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Wow...So you pay a tax to partially fund the construction and upkeep of roads that you communally share in expense and use with everyone else? thus it is different???

And you see that different than socialized healthcare how?

And what you propose is in this analogy is since you do not want to use the road, ever...that the roads be torn up?

Or is the demand that none of your personal local or federal tax dollars go to fund any transportation projects that you do not personally utilize? Will that include mail, fire or police that might use that road to reach your home? Public utility companies that need that road to service your home? Or at some point do you acknowledge it is better for everyone that there be a damn road nearby?

Honestly...the mental contortions required in the upkeep of these kinds of arguments is amazing.

I disagree and would suggest that your mental gymnastics to justify healthcare are pretty amazing. If I use the road, I pay for it. If I don't use the road, I don't. The entire purpose of gasoline tax is to fund the road that is used.

Unlike the roads, where I kick in for what I use, in addition to many other services, socialized medicine, is like me footing the bill for people who to use the roads who contribute nothing to the roads. They want to use the roads but they want SOMEONE ELSE to buy the gas and pay the gas tax.

And that is what people want with socialized medicine...they want something for "free" meaning they want someone else, "the evil rich," to foot the bill.

Pejeu

NavyDoc

Pejeu
When all else fails: resort to ad hominem.

Brilliant.

Just goes to show the lack of any merit to your argument.

Basically an admission of defeat.

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

Sorry, you started out with ad hominums..."Neanderthal" and "selfish" and so forth. Thus you admitted to defeat from the very beginning?

LOL.

Hypocrite much?

I didn't call or imply that you yourself, personally, were one.

You identified with them on your own.

Typical leftist...have no trouble saying awful things about anyone who disagrees with their ideology and wants government to force them to their belief system but get all teary-eyed when the favor is returned.

What you said about those who are against government control of healthcare was a flat out lie and a bigoted one at that.

reply to post by Pejeu


*sigh...* if you weren't so up your own ass in your ideology you'd know that there are two differing interpretations of that clause. Taxing and Spending Clause

James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.[16][17]

Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified,[18] argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.[19]

Pro tip: Your opinion isn't the only opinion on this planet, it also isn't anymore correct than any other opinion. Just because someone has a different opinion on something doesn't make them a Neanderthal or stupid or any of the other insults you've labeled the right in this thread. Actually of all the posters in this thread, left and right wing, I'd say that you are closer to those labels than any other person for your failure to recognize that someone may view something in a different way than you.

The people on the right have brought up very good reasons why the ACA is a failure. The people on the left have brought up great reasons for universal healthcare. Now let's look at these two statements. First off the ACA isn't universal healthcare, it is going to screw over FAR more people than it will help. Universal healthcare IS a good thing, I have no problems with the systems in place in Europe, but we didn't get those systems, we got the abortion known as Obamacare. That's like all the kids on the block getting a brand new PS4 and you get a brand new Atari Jaguar. Yea they are both video game consoles, but be real here, the Atari Jaguar blows chunks and is severely outdated. Now the concept of universal healthcare is a good idea in my opinion. I like the systems that Europe has, to bad we didn't get one here (well technically we did, but somehow we forgot to leave the insurance companies out of it).

How about instead of BLINDLY following what the people on the left say, you stop and think about things for a minute. The concerns the right bring up about the ACA are entirely justified. It sucks.

NavyDoc
Typical leftist...have no trouble saying awful things about anyone who disagrees with their ideology and wants government to force them to their belief system but get all teary-eyed when the favor is returned.

What you said about those who are against government control of healthcare was a flat out lie and a bigoted one at that.

Yes. Because I specifically said Republicans and their voters.

You chose to identify yourself as either a Republican or a voter thereof.

There is a qualitative difference in insulting your interlocutor, specifically, and supposedly insulting (really telling it like it is) a group your interlocutor, which wasn't even your interlocutor at the time you said that, happens to belong to.

Which is what motivated him or her to join the discussion in the first place.

Namasute,

Left...right...what does it matter, political ideology is simply a junkie chasing a fix.
This is why going round and round over something like that is pointless.
If the roles were reversed and the Republicans were in office and the Democrats weren't, we'd just be hearing the SAME rhetoric only being spouted from the otherside.
While neither the left nor the right are there to do anything but confound the masses, it should however be pointed out that after the fall of the former Soviet Union, anyone who subscribes to the notion of socialism should really take a seat in the back of the "little yellow bus" as that is the equivalent of saying "failure is success".
Sounds like more Orwellian "double think" to me.

-Amitaba-

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Pejeu

 

*sigh...* if you weren't so up your own ass in your ideology you'd know that there are two differing interpretations of that clause. Taxing and Spending Clause

Another ad hominem. Awesome.

Keep'em coming.

What second interpretation?

Like in the 2nd amendment interpretation that it really actually refers to inns, board and lodgings and Grizzly arms, supposedly?

reply to post by Pejeu


Who cares who you were insulting? It is still bad argumentative form and doesn't help prove your point any. If anything it shows bias for one side and anyone sitting on the fence would start taking your information with a grain of salt since you can't even respect the opposing viewpoint.

Pejeu

NavyDoc
Typical leftist...have no trouble saying awful things about anyone who disagrees with their ideology and wants government to force them to their belief system but get all teary-eyed when the favor is returned.

What you said about those who are against government control of healthcare was a flat out lie and a bigoted one at that.

Yes. Because I specifically said Republicans and their voters.

You chose to identify yourself as either a Republican or a voter thereof.

There is a qualitative difference in insulting your interlocutor, specifically, and supposedly insulting (really telling it like it is) a group your interlocutor, which wasn't even your interlocutor at the time you said that, happens to belong to.

Which is what motivated him or her to join the discussion in the first place.

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

Typical squirm...insult anyone who disagrees with you and then dodge the response. Like I said, people like you do not like to take individual responsibility for your actions.
Page one you called out anyone who did not agree with you, including fellow ATS members, as

As evidenced by the right wingers on this very forum and many others.

Both the R politicians (and the dinos as well, which it seems is all almost all dems are nowadays) and their electorate are just awful human beings.

They just simply suck as people.

Either because of low intelligence, because they are uneducated or grounded in prejudice and hate and steeped in callousness and indifference.

They just simply suck as human beings.

And now, being called on it, you try to weasel out of your own words? Pathetic.

What is even more disgusting is what you said on page two of this thread:

Some has to coerce the right wing Neanderthals into a functioning society that vaguely resembles civilisation.

You want to force someone who disagrees with your ideology into conforming to your will? What a fascist, Stalinesque thing to believe! You ARE exactly who you claim to be against. See my post on psychological projection above.

Damn fools out of his mind too. If you get cancer you're screwed no matter what. NO deal! lulz


And someone might wanna remind Ol Jefferson, honest abe comes along and emancipates all the slaves in the US anyhow.

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

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Pejeu

 

Who cares who you were insulting? It is still bad argumentative form and doesn't help prove your point any. If anything it shows bias for one side and anyone sitting on the fence would start taking your information with a grain of salt since you can't even respect the opposing viewpoint.

If that were so then nearly all political discussion on ATS and elsewhere right wingers voice their opinions ought to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

reply to post by Pejeu


I posted quoted text laying down the two interpretations. If you choose not to read them, that is your prerogative, but don't pretend they don't exist.

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.

reply to post by Pejeu


Stop pushing this onto right wingers, YOU started with the ad hominem attacks by calling right wingers stupid and Neanderthals. This isn't about right wingers arguing methods. This is about YOUR arguing methods. You start with ad hominem attacks and then when people become offended and respond in kind you call them out for it. OWN UP TO YOUR MISTAKES.

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

I'm all that. Left, Right, Center.... whats it to you. wtf does it matter to "Romania" what a person in the US says.

Judging from the defense of the GOP candidate's quote, one wonders why Harry Reid's comment (where he implies that reinstating trial cancer treatments was a ridiculous notion) got so much negativity. Am I missing something?

reply to post by CB328


I guess he just volunteered to pay for his own medical off the government dime.

Lets see if he follows through,,,Bet he won't though.

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.

CB328
Well, a Republicans is telling us what he really believes- human beings have no responsibility for each other (and neither do the countries they pay taxes too apparently). It should just be a dog-eat-dog world. While I find some honesty from the GOP refreshing, I wonder how the people of New Jersey will react to this? I hope everyone takes this into account while contemplating the GOP demands to end Obamacare. Do you really believe they will support some other type of medical reform if Obamacare is defunded?

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

www.examiner.com...

edit on 12-10-2013 by CB328 because: typo

Another good christian I imagine.