The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Barseps.

Can someone point me to that moment? Must've blinked.

(I'm serious, I've watched it twice and don't know what Rick Perry did when.)

He doesn't want the government to have a comprehensive healthcare system, but it's fine if the church does?

Frankly, Law, I'm taken aback that you used aback correctly. Upvote.

Me wonder's what Ron Paul's most radical proponents think of his response here. I'd imagine much cheering when he stood his ground on people choosing their own consequences, and then a little hesitation at insisting the government shouldn't spend it's own money to save that life. Still, I do believe his Libertarian supporters were still in good agreement. Then he went and said that is something we should let the churches take care of... How does something like that sit with the radical left freedom not of but from religion Libertarian crowd?

Ditto. Where does Rick Perry come into play here?
>> ^DerHasisttot:

Can someone point me to that moment? Must've blinked.
(I'm serious, I've watched it twice and don't know what Rick Perry did when.)

>> ^bcglorf:

Me wonder's what Ron Paul's most radical proponents think of his response here. I'd imagine much cheering when he stood his ground on people choosing their own consequences, and then a little hesitation at insisting the government shouldn't spend it's own money to save that life. Still, I do believe his Libertarian supporters were still in good agreement. Then he went and said that is something we should let the churches take care of... How does something like that sit with the radical left freedom not of but from religion Libertarian crowd?


And doctors--which as a doctor he noted he ALWAYS did take care of. And another thing, churches around here raise 10K for a man who needed a lung transplant. It was enough for his medications to have the surgery done. Would it be enough for everyone? No. But Paul's view is not wrong--it just relies on people like you and me, your friends and family to work

Btw: That wasn't an insult to you. I am actually agreeing with you but for different reasons. My main point is "When you vote for someone who tells the truth you might not get anything you want. But when you vote a liar, you get what you deserve."

>> ^jcf79:

Yes, let's focus on how Rick Perry reacts for 2 seconds instead of listening to what Ron Paul is saying...


Oh God. You know I have been promoting Ron Paul this entire time on the Sift, but he isn't a feakin God. When someone else does right by God, I will point it out! I can do that, I have the right.

This is what @NetRunner was talking about. Personally, I think Perry did great. I still will vote for Paul since his views on Sept 11th seem more accurate to me, but it is the hiding of other's good that suppresses their good.

Why the fuck would I want to be good?

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^jcf79:
Yes, let's focus on how Rick Perry reacts for 2 seconds instead of listening to what Ron Paul is saying...

Oh God. You know I have been promoting Ron Paul this entire time on the Sift, but he isn't a feakin God. When someone else does right by God, I will point it out! I can do that, I have the right.
This is what @NetRunner was talking about. Personally, I think Perry did great. I still will vote for Paul since his views on Sept 11th seem more accurate to me, but it is the hiding of other's good that suppresses their good.
Why the fuck would I want to be good?


Did the embed change? They don't show Perry's reaction to the audience.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^bcglorf:
Me wonder's what Ron Paul's most radical proponents think of his response here. I'd imagine much cheering when he stood his ground on people choosing their own consequences, and then a little hesitation at insisting the government shouldn't spend it's own money to save that life. Still, I do believe his Libertarian supporters were still in good agreement. Then he went and said that is something we should let the churches take care of... How does something like that sit with the radical left freedom not of but from religion Libertarian crowd?

And doctors--which as a doctor he noted he ALWAYS did take care of. And another thing, churches around here raise 10K for a man who needed a lung transplant. It was enough for his medications to have the surgery done. Would it be enough for everyone? No. But Paul's view is not wrong--it just relies on people like you and me, your friends and family to work
Btw: That wasn't an insult to you. I am actually agreeing with you but for different reasons. My main point is "When you vote for someone who tells the truth you might not get anything you want. But when you vote a liar, you get what you deserve."


I mostly agree. I just know there is a large base of Ron Paul supporters whose extreme views on Libertarianism are matched with equally extreme views against any and all religion. Here, Ron Paul points to churches as one of the biggest examples of where the support to implement his idea would come from. I remain very curious what that base feels and thinks on hearing that. Is it glad to let the religious waste their dollars? Is it horror that the church would selectively help only those it approves of? Is it just suppressed and internalized for later?

>> ^braindonut:

Ditto. Where does Rick Perry come into play here?
>> ^DerHasisttot:
Can someone point me to that moment? Must've blinked.
(I'm serious, I've watched it twice and don't know what Rick Perry did when.)



@DerHasisttot too

Sorry, would have helped with this, wouldn't it. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/13/7744165-perry-taken-aback-by-debate-crowd-reaction

Perhaps if the fortunate members of society, the well-off and rich actually supported the less fortunate then freedom from big government, taxes, welfare, Robin Hood, etc then I could actually support the Libertarian ideal. But they don't and I can't. Our whole civilisation is built upon exploitation of the weak. Why would you expect our society to be any different if you gave people absolute freedom?

@Lawdeedaw, I'm confused, this video doesn't match the title. It's also very nearly a dupe of this: http://videosift.com/video/Audience-at-GOP-Debate-Cheers-Letting-Sick-Man-Die

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

And doctors--which as a doctor he noted he ALWAYS did take care of. And another thing, churches around here raise 10K for a man who needed a lung transplant. It was enough for his medications to have the surgery done. Would it be enough for everyone? No. But Paul's view is not wrong--it just relies on people like you and me, your friends and family to work

well said. Also, people can't afford or can't get health care period. Maybe when the middle class goes away and 90% of people won't be able to afford health insurance; maybe then the British health system (NHS) will start looking appealing!

>> ^NetRunner:

@Lawdeedaw, I'm confused, this video doesn't match the title. It's also very nearly a dupe of this: http://videosift.com/video/Audience-at-GOP-Debate-Cheers-Letting-
Sick-Man-Die


One big difference that makes a world of difference between the two videos--Ron Paul's compassion, his examples that he provided charity healthcare and never turned away the needy, and that the community must have this in order to succeed (Which is implied by his position.)

@Boise_Lib video kind of makes it seem like RP is an indifferent bastard and agreeing with the crowd. This is not the case even if you disagree with his position.

The crowd is just a bunch of bandwagon jumpers with little self thought.

On the other point, it was Perry's comments, linked with the description, that earned the title. I can change it if others think it doesn't fit.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

One big difference that makes a world of difference between the two videos--Ron Paul's compassion, his examples that he provided charity healthcare and never turned away the needy, and that the community must have this in order to succeed (Which is implied by his position.)

As I said in the other thread, that's just a cop out answer.

Also too, it still doesn't have anything to do with Rick Perry.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
One big difference that makes a world of difference between the two videos--Ron Paul's compassion, his examples that he provided charity healthcare and never turned away the needy, and that the community must have this in order to succeed (Which is implied by his position.)
As I said in the other thread, that's just a cop out answer.
Also too, it still doesn't have anything to do with Rick Perry.


You need the background. What comment from the audience? When? Where? It has to do with Rick Perry because he was A-in the debate, and B-commented directly off what the video said.

And I know you feel it is a cop out. I dispute that but anything I say won't change the opinion. Good deeds done for the evilest of reasons? Does that make them good actions or good people? Logically, yes and no.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
You need the background. What comment from the audience? When? Where? It has to do with Rick Perry because he was A-in the debate, and B-commented directly off what the video said.

Other than a couple-second shot of Rick Perry's face, this video doesn't feature Rick Perry saying anything, or even visibly reacting to what's happening.

This isn't some philosophical argument I'm making here, I'm saying the video doesn't at all contain what the title says it contains. Like, a video of Perry saying he was "taken aback" in some post-debate interview.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
And I know you feel it is a cop out. I dispute that but anything I say won't change the opinion. Good deeds done for the evilest of reasons? Does that make them good actions or good people? Logically, yes and no.


Well it's not just a "feeling," it's the conclusion any reasonable person should arrive at if they examine it rationally.

And we're not talking about good deeds done for evil reasons, we're talking about evil things done for evil reasons, but wrapped in spin so it sounds like it's not evil intent.

Paul gave his real answer to the question before Wolf brought death up explicitly. Paul just shrugged his shoulders and said "that's what freedom is about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to take care of everybody <cut short by overwhelming applause from the crowd>".

The "let him die" was a follow-up to that answer, and while Paul was unwilling to admit it directly, he did pretty much say "it's not me who'd be letting him die, it's churches and charities who'll let him die." After all, he's just an innocent bystander to what happens after he dismantles government health care provisions.