|
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 17 2012 07:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 06:57 Souma wrote:On October 17 2012 06:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 17 2012 04:47 Souma wrote:On October 17 2012 04:27 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 04:17 Souma wrote:On October 17 2012 04:11 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 04:04 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:01 BluePanther wrote:
I'm telling you, the whole "terrorist" system falls apart within Islam without the religious interpretations.
Yes, yes, ideology is glue. It is not primum movens But what matters? That they hate us? Or that they're willing to blow themselves up? One of these may happen regardless of religion, the other one would not happen nearly as often. The former means nothing to Americans. Everyone hates us. And to be quite frank, we're an easy scapegoat for third-world countries. If a politician blames the Americans for domestic problems, they avoid scrutiny for themselves. It happens all over the world. So there would be a lot of anti-American sentiment regardless of what we do. However, the latter means everything to Americans. That is why the religious take on it matters more than the prior actions part. Sure, those actions would affect their view of us, but they aren't blowing themselves up and running suicide missions without the religious connection. They are protesting, they are being rude to Americans traveling, they might even be doing trade wars and such. They won't be flying jets into buildings. Pretty sure what matters is that they wouldn't be suicide bombing civilians if we didn't give them reason to. If it was just religion by itself they wouldn't go so far. But don't take it from me. On September 14 2012 22:02 Souma wrote:A couple excerpts: Americans and Europeans are no doubt looking at the protests over the "film", recalling the even more violent protests during the Danish cartoon affair, and shaking their heads one more at the seeming irrationality and backwardness of Muslims, who would let a work of "art", particularly one as trivial as this, drive them to mass protests and violence. Yet Muslims in Egypt, Libya and around the world equally look at American actions, from sanctions against and then an invasion of Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and sent the country back to the Stone Age, to unflinching support for Israel and all the Arab authoritarian regimes (secular and royal alike) and drone strikes that always seem to kill unintended civilians "by mistake", and wonder with equal bewilderment how "we" can be so barbaric and uncivilised. Russia receives little better grades on this card, whether for its brutality in Afghanistan during the Soviet era, in Chechnya today, or its open support of Assad's murderous regime. Meanwhile, the most jingoistic and hate-filled representatives of each society grow stronger with each attack, with little end in sight. ... As I flew home yesterday from Europe, unaware of what had transpired in Libya, I read through the 2008 report by the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, titled "From Exporting Terrorism to Exporting Oppression: Human Rights in the Arab Region". The report described the often unbearable levels of abuse suffered by citizens across the region is one of the most depressing reads imaginable. Every single government, from Morocco to Iraq, was defined by the systematic abuse of its citizens, denial of their most basic rights, and rampant corruption and violence. And in every case, such abuses and violence have been enabled by Western, Russian and other foreign interests. Simply put, each and all the policies and actions described in the report - and 2008 was no better or worse than the years that proceeded or followed it - are as much forms of terror as the destruction of the World Trade Centre, invasion of Iraq, or attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi. In fact, the Middle East and North Africa have for over half a century constituted one of the largest and most pernicious terror systems of the modern era. And the US, Europe, Russia, and now increasingly China have been accessories, co-conspirators, and often initiators of this terror throughout the period, working hand-in-hand with local governments to repress their peoples and ensure that wealth and power remain arrogated by a trusted few. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/201291391347458863.html You're skipping the logic behind my statements. You are right that if we make them love us, we might stop the violence. "Might". --- HOWEVER --- Without the religious backing, there isn't gross acts of terrorism. Look at allllll the groups around the world that hate us. Now think about which ones actually act violently on that hate. What do they have in common? In sum, your solution isn't wrong per se, but it's overlooking a much simpler explanation for the violence problem. How many groups have we fucked over as much as the Middle East in recent times? Once again religion is just a medium! this sentiment would make sense if we had ever fucked over the terrorists, or if the terrorists who attacked us weren't involved in a war for control with a moderate Muslim for basically the entire 90s. like i said earlier, what exactly do the terrorists have to be angry with us about? giving them the support they needed to drive out the Soviets and take over a country? refusing to give their moderate enemies weapons or support? moderate Muslims and Arabs living in the Middle East have reason to be angry us. extremists have been nothing but helped by the US for the 30+ years prior to 9/11. i've yet to see this myth of freedom-fighting terrorist shown to be true, nor have i ever been given any examples of it. at the most, we could be accused of having supported secularist dictators who wanted peace over radical "democrats" who wanted war. but even that doesn't give any excuse to the terrorists or the religious extremists. Once again where do you think terrorists come from? A vacuum? one might as well ask where the fascists came from, or the Nazis, or the soviet-communists. shit, if we wanna take it back far enough, where did the Mongols and Huns come from? well, they came from Germany, Italy, Russia, Mongolia and Turkey, but you meant ideologically, where did they come from. i would say that the religious extremist of today is the same as the dictator of yesterday and the barbarian warlord of the past. circumstances of region, religion and culture aside, if we focus on the overall goals and methods of the people we're talking about, than we can see how they work in roughly the same way. they encourage radicalism and terrorism against the state, play the part of the victimized martyr, and then use a chaos (usually driven by socioeconomic collapse and/or failure of the state) to take power. once in power they establish a totalitarian rule and they generally 1) create a discriminated class to either scapegoat or control, and, 2) engage in the conquering/infiltration of neighboring states. now if we're talking about the support that these extremists of any time and place receive from the general populace, then I think you're correct that this kind of support does not occur inside of a vacuum. certain actions by the State and/or foreign powers can, and do, contribute to the idea that extremism is necessary. this is partially illusion, but does have some basis in truth, especially where the Middle East is concerned. however, I'm not sure that there is any real wide--spread support for the extremists among the general population. at the most, I would say that any support they do get from the civilian population is usually going to be driven by fear, rather than any true loyalty or ideological agreement. anti-Americanism (more generally, anti-colonialism) does have some ground to stand on. America hasn't been perfect by any means. however, it would require a complete revision in history to suggest that the American president or soldier is a greater threat to the relative safety of an Afghan girl than the Taliban. or that an Iraqi Olympic athlete was better off under Saddam. and the Bahá'ís in Iran were almost certainly better off under the Shah than under the Ayatollah. the vast majority of the problems and struggles that the average citizen of a Middle Eastern country faces in his/her life will be from other Arabs and Muslims and not from the US or Israel. among the general populace, anti-Americanism comes from a fear of America's weakness and the extremist's strength. among the extremists, the hatred of America does come from our freedoms, which are in direct opposition to the dictatorial governments that they wish to establish. more accurately, it comes from our rather hesitant support of freedom, democracy and human rights around the world. and i'm sure that the radicalizing of Islam helps drive them deeper and deeper into the pit of hatred for the secular Western powers. Israel is a scapegoat. terrorism isn't born out of any kind of benevolence or even oppression. it's born purely out of hatred and indoctrination.
Fear of America's weakness!? Israel as a scapegoat!? Oh my jeezes freaking christ lord in heaven savior of what the flaming *#&$!?
But it's not like everything you said is crap. You're right, the general populace does not agree with extremism, and you hit on another interesting note: America may not be the greatest threat to the Arab world, and if left to their own devices the Arab world would quite possibly fall into a constant state of chaos regardless. HOWEVER!
Just because they might blow each other's heads off does not excuse any of the countless amounts of atrocities the U.S. and Israel have inflicted throughout the Middle East. You can say, "Well, Iranians were better off under the Shah than the Ayatollahs" which is highly debatable, but in the eyes of the Muslims, in what world does that justify the U.S. instigating a coup in their country and enabling a tyrant to slaughter their citizens? In what world does that justify Israelis killing off innocent Muslims while the U.S. gives murderous Zionists our blind support while neglecting oppressed Arabs? In what world does that justify the U.S. selling Iraq chemical weapons to use against Iran? In what world does that justify occupying their land and trampling on their culture? In what world does that justify the U.S. blowing up civilian airplanes? In what world does that justify the West to decide the fate of the remnants of the Ottoman Empire and do with their borders as they saw fit? Nothing is justifiable and that is why terrorism is born. Say what you will but I'm pretty sure my analogy from before hit it on the spot:
Let's put it this way: A foreign aggressor invades Wisconsin, deposes your Governor, and installs a tyrant that stands for everything you're against (in this case, let's say he's against freedom of speech) who slaughters your friends, family, and neighbors. Do you honestly think the people of Wisconsin are just gonna sit back and take it up the ass because they're Christian? Hell no! Some people might cling to God as a means to get them through the rough times. Others will cling to democracy and our freedomz as we treat that stuff like a religion as well. Anyway, it's all just a distraction to the more devastating underlying problem.
|
On October 17 2012 07:48 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 07:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 17 2012 07:37 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 07:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 17 2012 07:25 HunterX11 wrote:Wow, I know this is a few days old, but I didn't catch this particular quote from the discussion Romney when he was talking about healthcare in America because most people focused on the comments about ER care. He said, "We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance." Willard Mitt Romney, of his own volition, without coercion, spoke those words. I know there's been a lot of brouhaha over fact checking, but lying over what by the most conservative estimates are still more people than the number who died in 9/11, dying every year, is a pretty big whopper. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/10/11/health-care-called-choice.html i think he meant that people are not turned away from the ER because of a lack of insurance. by law, ER care cannot be withheld or taken away based on inability to pay. But the fact remains that thousands of people die every year because of lack of insurance, laws that the ER must stabilize people notwithstanding. The other fact remains that not having insurance doesn't mean that you get zero healthcare. Nor does Obamacare mean that everyone will have insurance. Nor does having insurance mean unlimited healthcare. These are problems that cannot be solved if you pretend people dying preventable deaths don't exist in the first place though!
You also can't come up with good solutions if you mis-represent reality.
|
On October 17 2012 02:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:
wait, do people really think the Taliban hates us because we.... what did we even do?
arm them in their fight against the Soviets?
The Taliban never fought the Soviets. They emerged as a movement in 1994.
|
On October 17 2012 08:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 07:48 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 07:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 17 2012 07:37 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 07:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 17 2012 07:25 HunterX11 wrote:Wow, I know this is a few days old, but I didn't catch this particular quote from the discussion Romney when he was talking about healthcare in America because most people focused on the comments about ER care. He said, "We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance." Willard Mitt Romney, of his own volition, without coercion, spoke those words. I know there's been a lot of brouhaha over fact checking, but lying over what by the most conservative estimates are still more people than the number who died in 9/11, dying every year, is a pretty big whopper. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/10/11/health-care-called-choice.html i think he meant that people are not turned away from the ER because of a lack of insurance. by law, ER care cannot be withheld or taken away based on inability to pay. But the fact remains that thousands of people die every year because of lack of insurance, laws that the ER must stabilize people notwithstanding. The other fact remains that not having insurance doesn't mean that you get zero healthcare. Nor does Obamacare mean that everyone will have insurance. Nor does having insurance mean unlimited healthcare. These are problems that cannot be solved if you pretend people dying preventable deaths don't exist in the first place though! You also can't come up with good solutions if you mis-represent reality.
That's exactly what I just posted?
|
|
|
Both sides misrepresent reality. The only way to escape that is to get out of "head-stuck-up-your-own-ass-partisan" land and enter the world of independent thinking and reason. The herd instinct is too strong though, everyone is a party, a group, a race, a class...
|
On October 17 2012 08:07 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 08:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 17 2012 07:48 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 07:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 17 2012 07:37 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 07:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 17 2012 07:25 HunterX11 wrote:Wow, I know this is a few days old, but I didn't catch this particular quote from the discussion Romney when he was talking about healthcare in America because most people focused on the comments about ER care. He said, "We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance." Willard Mitt Romney, of his own volition, without coercion, spoke those words. I know there's been a lot of brouhaha over fact checking, but lying over what by the most conservative estimates are still more people than the number who died in 9/11, dying every year, is a pretty big whopper. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/10/11/health-care-called-choice.html i think he meant that people are not turned away from the ER because of a lack of insurance. by law, ER care cannot be withheld or taken away based on inability to pay. But the fact remains that thousands of people die every year because of lack of insurance, laws that the ER must stabilize people notwithstanding. The other fact remains that not having insurance doesn't mean that you get zero healthcare. Nor does Obamacare mean that everyone will have insurance. Nor does having insurance mean unlimited healthcare. These are problems that cannot be solved if you pretend people dying preventable deaths don't exist in the first place though! You also can't come up with good solutions if you mis-represent reality. That's exactly what I just posted?
Ermm, isn't denying that having insurance gives you access to better healthcare. I think you need to re-read what he said. He's not mis-representing reality - you are.
|
Smart move for Romney. Dumb move for Obama. At this point, Romney just has to look good. He can otherwise just go on cruise control. The onus is on Obama to draw blood tonight to undo what was done in the first debate. He is going to have a harder time doing that with these restrictions.
|
On October 17 2012 07:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 07:37 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 07:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 17 2012 07:25 HunterX11 wrote:Wow, I know this is a few days old, but I didn't catch this particular quote from the discussion Romney when he was talking about healthcare in America because most people focused on the comments about ER care. He said, "We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance." Willard Mitt Romney, of his own volition, without coercion, spoke those words. I know there's been a lot of brouhaha over fact checking, but lying over what by the most conservative estimates are still more people than the number who died in 9/11, dying every year, is a pretty big whopper. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/10/11/health-care-called-choice.html i think he meant that people are not turned away from the ER because of a lack of insurance. by law, ER care cannot be withheld or taken away based on inability to pay. But the fact remains that thousands of people die every year because of lack of insurance, laws that the ER must stabilize people notwithstanding. The other fact remains that not having insurance doesn't mean that you get zero healthcare. Nor does Obamacare mean that everyone will have insurance. Nor does having insurance mean unlimited healthcare.
Very well put! I'm gonna have to steal this post for later use. 
|
On October 17 2012 08:11 Shelke14 wrote:
prohibits follow up questions
LOL
nice "debate" you got there america
edit: we should make it three hours long and have the candidates bring a panel of staff along with them. mmm that's a nice dream
|
On October 17 2012 08:15 xDaunt wrote:Smart move for Romney. Dumb move for Obama. At this point, Romney just has to look good. He can otherwise just go on cruise control. The onus is on Obama to draw blood tonight to undo what was done in the first debate. He is going to have a harder time doing that with these restrictions.
I completely agree and that is why I am a bit annoyed with this result. I'll admit I am more of a Obama fanboy than Romney (I'm Canadian so I cannot vote) but this plays right into Romney's hands because he can basically spew what is needed to portray himself in a golden light. Hopefully Obama has grown a pair and comes out ready for this debate and really brings it too Romney.
TBH: I wouldn't even care if Romney steam rolled Obama in a debate as long as both sides were called out for lying and the moderator did his/her job correctly because it would actually be an interesting debate.
|
On October 17 2012 08:21 sam!zdat wrote:LOL nice "debate" you got there america
When I first saw myself quoted for that small bit and then the follow up "LOL". I had a feeling that my grammar was so bad that you were basically laughing at me... lol.
(I'm extremely insecure about my English)
|
|
|
On October 17 2012 08:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 08:07 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 08:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 17 2012 07:48 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 07:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 17 2012 07:37 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 07:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 17 2012 07:25 HunterX11 wrote:Wow, I know this is a few days old, but I didn't catch this particular quote from the discussion Romney when he was talking about healthcare in America because most people focused on the comments about ER care. He said, "We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance." Willard Mitt Romney, of his own volition, without coercion, spoke those words. I know there's been a lot of brouhaha over fact checking, but lying over what by the most conservative estimates are still more people than the number who died in 9/11, dying every year, is a pretty big whopper. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/10/11/health-care-called-choice.html i think he meant that people are not turned away from the ER because of a lack of insurance. by law, ER care cannot be withheld or taken away based on inability to pay. But the fact remains that thousands of people die every year because of lack of insurance, laws that the ER must stabilize people notwithstanding. The other fact remains that not having insurance doesn't mean that you get zero healthcare. Nor does Obamacare mean that everyone will have insurance. Nor does having insurance mean unlimited healthcare. These are problems that cannot be solved if you pretend people dying preventable deaths don't exist in the first place though! You also can't come up with good solutions if you mis-represent reality. That's exactly what I just posted? Ermm, isn't denying that having insurance gives you access to better healthcare. I think you need to re-read what he said. He's not mis-representing reality - you are.
Who is he? Mitt Romney?
On October 17 2012 07:25 HunterX11 wrote:Wow, I know this is a few days old, but I didn't catch this particular quote from the discussion Romney when he was talking about healthcare in America because most people focused on the comments about ER care. He said, "We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance." Willard Mitt Romney, of his own volition, without coercion, spoke those words. I know there's been a lot of brouhaha over fact checking, but lying over what by the most conservative estimates are still more people than the number who died in 9/11, dying every year, is a pretty big whopper. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/10/11/health-care-called-choice.html
Are you denying that Romney said, "We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance." ?
|
On October 17 2012 08:23 Shelke14 wrote:
(I'm extremely insecure about my English)
Haha, no dude I'm laughing at "democracy."
You do have a subject-verb agreement problem in your post, now that I look at it, but I'm not making fun of you for that. Your English much better than my French (I assume you are francophone if not anglo-)
|
Awesome, thanks for finding out new info on it! This makes me feel a lot better about the debate again..
Thanks!
|
On October 17 2012 08:21 sam!zdat wrote:LOL nice "debate" you got there america
It's a townhall debate. It's a stupid concept from the very start. You can't just let anyone off the leash to stand up to make some stupid point with a national audience, it's opening the door to abuse. But it's meant to give the illusion that the American people have their voices heard in an intimate forum in politics, when in fact the reality is that the media controls every issue, decides what the issues are, and how to frame them.
|
On October 17 2012 08:26 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 08:23 Shelke14 wrote:
(I'm extremely insecure about my English) Haha, no dude I'm laughing at "democracy." You do have a subject-verb agreement problem in your post, now that I look at it, but I'm not making fun of you for that. Your English much better than my French (I assume you are francophone if not anglo-)
.... haha. Not at all, pure-breed B.C. anglo man. I A) Just have really shitty English comprehension B) Don't really check when I forum post on TL. What makes this worse is the fact that I am in my final year for my degree and suck this much at it...
|
On October 17 2012 08:25 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 08:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 17 2012 08:07 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 08:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 17 2012 07:48 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 07:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 17 2012 07:37 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 07:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 17 2012 07:25 HunterX11 wrote:Wow, I know this is a few days old, but I didn't catch this particular quote from the discussion Romney when he was talking about healthcare in America because most people focused on the comments about ER care. He said, "We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance." Willard Mitt Romney, of his own volition, without coercion, spoke those words. I know there's been a lot of brouhaha over fact checking, but lying over what by the most conservative estimates are still more people than the number who died in 9/11, dying every year, is a pretty big whopper. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/10/11/health-care-called-choice.html i think he meant that people are not turned away from the ER because of a lack of insurance. by law, ER care cannot be withheld or taken away based on inability to pay. But the fact remains that thousands of people die every year because of lack of insurance, laws that the ER must stabilize people notwithstanding. The other fact remains that not having insurance doesn't mean that you get zero healthcare. Nor does Obamacare mean that everyone will have insurance. Nor does having insurance mean unlimited healthcare. These are problems that cannot be solved if you pretend people dying preventable deaths don't exist in the first place though! You also can't come up with good solutions if you mis-represent reality. That's exactly what I just posted? Ermm, isn't denying that having insurance gives you access to better healthcare. I think you need to re-read what he said. He's not mis-representing reality - you are. Who is he? Mitt Romney? Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 07:25 HunterX11 wrote:Wow, I know this is a few days old, but I didn't catch this particular quote from the discussion Romney when he was talking about healthcare in America because most people focused on the comments about ER care. He said, "We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance." Willard Mitt Romney, of his own volition, without coercion, spoke those words. I know there's been a lot of brouhaha over fact checking, but lying over what by the most conservative estimates are still more people than the number who died in 9/11, dying every year, is a pretty big whopper. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/10/11/health-care-called-choice.html Are you denying that Romney said, "We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance." ?
Here's what he said:
“We don’t have a setting across this country where if you don’t have insurance, we just say to you, ‘Tough luck, you’re going to die when you have your heart attack,’ ” he said as he offered more hints as to what he would put in place of “Obamacare,” which he has pledged to repeal.
“No, you go to the hospital, you get treated, you get care, and it’s paid for, either by charity, the government or by the hospital. We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance.”
In context there is nothing, absolutely nothing incorrect about what he said. If you have a heart attack you will go to the hospital, regardless if you are insured or not, and the hospital will absolutely try to save your life.
|
On October 17 2012 08:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 08:25 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 08:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 17 2012 08:07 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 08:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 17 2012 07:48 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 07:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 17 2012 07:37 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 07:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 17 2012 07:25 HunterX11 wrote:Wow, I know this is a few days old, but I didn't catch this particular quote from the discussion Romney when he was talking about healthcare in America because most people focused on the comments about ER care. He said, "We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance." Willard Mitt Romney, of his own volition, without coercion, spoke those words. I know there's been a lot of brouhaha over fact checking, but lying over what by the most conservative estimates are still more people than the number who died in 9/11, dying every year, is a pretty big whopper. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/10/11/health-care-called-choice.html i think he meant that people are not turned away from the ER because of a lack of insurance. by law, ER care cannot be withheld or taken away based on inability to pay. But the fact remains that thousands of people die every year because of lack of insurance, laws that the ER must stabilize people notwithstanding. The other fact remains that not having insurance doesn't mean that you get zero healthcare. Nor does Obamacare mean that everyone will have insurance. Nor does having insurance mean unlimited healthcare. These are problems that cannot be solved if you pretend people dying preventable deaths don't exist in the first place though! You also can't come up with good solutions if you mis-represent reality. That's exactly what I just posted? Ermm, isn't denying that having insurance gives you access to better healthcare. I think you need to re-read what he said. He's not mis-representing reality - you are. Who is he? Mitt Romney? On October 17 2012 07:25 HunterX11 wrote:Wow, I know this is a few days old, but I didn't catch this particular quote from the discussion Romney when he was talking about healthcare in America because most people focused on the comments about ER care. He said, "We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance." Willard Mitt Romney, of his own volition, without coercion, spoke those words. I know there's been a lot of brouhaha over fact checking, but lying over what by the most conservative estimates are still more people than the number who died in 9/11, dying every year, is a pretty big whopper. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/10/11/health-care-called-choice.html Are you denying that Romney said, "We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance." ? Here's what he said: Show nested quote +“We don’t have a setting across this country where if you don’t have insurance, we just say to you, ‘Tough luck, you’re going to die when you have your heart attack,’ ” he said as he offered more hints as to what he would put in place of “Obamacare,” which he has pledged to repeal.
“No, you go to the hospital, you get treated, you get care, and it’s paid for, either by charity, the government or by the hospital. We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance.” In context there is nothing, absolutely nothing incorrect about what he said. If you have a heart attack you will go to the hospital, regardless if you are insured or not, and the hospital will absolutely try to save your life.
Not every life-threatening condition is acute. Somehow I doubt Mitt Romney is so ignorant he's never heard of things like "cancer".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
