Video: GOP debate audiences cheer for executions, applaud letting people go without health care, and boo call to not blame all Muslims for terrorism. Who are these people?

It is honestly pretty easy. See the thing about the Tea Party is that they have made active hate as the 'in thing' to do for politics, but they didn't make it fashionable. Look at any reality based television show and tell me about the controversies and the viseral hatred, the scheming and back stabbing. Hatred is now a fashion statement and tearing down one another a media art-form.

Alex, I understand the source of the hate towards humanity. I just don't understand, and hope I never do, any HATE TOWARDS HUMANITY.

It is indefensible and reprehensible.

FR sent-I like the way you think.

I agree, Alex. Watch ten minutes of any reality show--sadly now even including ones like Project Runway and Top Chef that used to focus more on talent and creation--and you see mean-ness and rudeness.

I don't know if anyone watched the first season of Top Chef Just Desserts last year. They had a contestant who was so obviously having a breakdown, instead of pulling him from the show, they made a spectacle of him until the point that he ended up in the hospital after a major panic attack. The producers seem more concerned with ratings than decency.

JonesGirl

These very same people who applaud the "let 'em die" agenda are the very same who are the self-professed protectors of "family" and "Christianity" morals, value and ethics.

I fail to see their logic. If they are trying to lead by example, they are failing miserably.

If these are the best examples of "Christians" they have, they have failed miserably.

FR sent. I feel the need to cling to all the sanity I can find today. It is indeed a day filled with vile madness.

Emmadadog

And the Koch TParty claim to represent family and Christianity? It defies logic.

EMMA (rarf arf to you!)

Here is what you don't get:

If you can convince 12 Idiots to take a gun & rob a store,

give you the loot & you'll give them a Puppy & a Dollar,

YOU can rightfully claim to "Represent Them".

THAT is what the Koch Bros. are doing !

Now HOW can they do that..?

EASY!!

They believe in the core of their being, that little people, the ones who have to work to survive, are DISPOSABLE because "They make no difference.."

They believe that little people have no right to the truth, fact or protection because their are insignificant .

They use people up like a tool & then when they are broken they toss them in the rubbish....

they have to sense of HUMANITY, MERCY or CONSCIENCE.

That's how they can claim to represent & what they do....

and what they will do WHOLESALE IF they ever gain any more power than they have right now....

and THAT is TOO MUCH..!

Ron Paul said that when he was practicing medicine and someone didn't have healthcare, the churches took care of the bill. I have a very simple question to make: What is the difference between the community giving to their church who then takes care of the disadvantaged, and the community giving to their government who then takes care of the disadvantaged? I would think that either would be in keeping with the same spirit of brotherhood! These people just want to decentralize everything and eliminate the central government. What a hypocritical stance.

Mister Fids:

grrrrrrrrrrrrrr back at ya. (little dog, big attitude)

The reason they get away with it, IMO, is because they play to the fears, prejudices and nightmares of the uneducated, uninformed and unknowing.

The Koch TParty, The dominionists and Alec will continue to tell their followers the lies they near to hear. And their followers will continue to be deaf, dumb and blind and be lead by the leash of their false "Christianity."

FR sent-as I said before, I'm searching desperately for sanity.

Radagast - the charity route won't work - how many people do they think they could help with medical costs being what they are, today? Paul was talking about many, many years ago that churches and charities would help out. Sure - if a total hospital bill was about $100K. Today? You're probably looking at 10X the cost for the same procedures/meds/hospital stay. And, with the mentality of these teeth gnashers, do we really expect them to support charitable organizations whose mission it is to help people without insurance?????

Emmadadog - You are right that they will continue to cater to the lowest common denominator - and Fox News is doing a fantastic job of dumbing down the electorate, day after day, after day, after day, after......

Many, many years ago when there were no government programs, too many people were dying and suffering and they decided to create those programs.

These very same people who applaud the "let 'em die" agenda are the very same who are the self-professed protectors of "family" and "Christianity" morals, value and ethics.

You forgot to mention their very restricted definition of "pro-life" that attempts to almost redefine the meaning of the word "life."

There is no cult no hate just responsibility.If you act irresponsible then you must pay for your arrogance.What is so difficult about that?

http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779

This ex-GOP operative begs to differ.

I don't understand how these people think that, just because some people don't have health insurance, it is a matter of choice. Automatically, they are placed in the "dregs of society" column.

There is no cult no hate just responsibility.

I'm still waiting for the TP, or any elected republican for that matter, to hold Joe Walsh to that standard.

f you act irresponsible then you must pay for your arrogance.What is so difficult about that?

Irresponsibility can and does escape the individual when accounting for the myriad actions that creates the human condition. From simple follies, a poor choice, family matters, and consequences beyond one's control, an individual not having the ability to pay for their healthcare while in a coma is as a possibility as someone locking themselves out of their home.

As a business owner and a person who cares for their neighbor, I not only wish the best for the people around me but require them all to be at their best to provide their best. There will always be the occasional person who does not carry their own weight, but there are checks and balances (or at least should be) for such actions.

People across this nation take constant responsibility for their actions. One's health, however, supersedes common aspects of responsibility, and enter the world of compassion that has carried humanity to existence in this modern day.

IAS- And so what if they are Americans? That doesn't mean their ridiculous opinions have any validity or that rational people are compelled to agree with any of their nonsense.

That doesn't mean their ridiculous opinions have any validity or that rational people are compelled to agree with any of their nonsense.

You can say the exact same thing about Liberals...

They're Americans...

The worst of us. For the last half century, republicans have been telling stupid people who to hate, who to revile, who to resent and who to fear. Anyone not white, Christian, hetero (and now healthy) will do. The republican hatemongering that started as a cynical effort to achieve elective office has now become part of the republican DNA.

Clearly, America will be far worse off should any of their candidates achieve elected office.

dwillie: Well, for one thing, they don't hate unborn babies, like the Libs do. They just hate adults who are stupid, lazy, violent, losers that ruin our economy. Personally, I'd rather be accused of hating the latter......

Scrimminy Bimminy - who apparently condones hatred - proves how right I am.

Scrimminy Bimminy

would rather see millions of unwanted, underfed, under educated, unemployed, drug oriented, baby producing people dependent on tax dollars for survival than to see the problem stopped before the ball rolls out of the chute.

Scrimminy Bimminy

Has the affliction that forces him to believe that "Libs hate unborn babies" , he believes the lies that he heres from the people he listens to & respects.

Libs do not abort at a higher number than Conservatives, Physicians are largely Conservative & rich AND REAL CONSERVATIVES want a government that does not affect the private individuals choices, which abortion is, a right & a personal choice....just like being stupid, Republican or a member of the NRA is.

Scrimminy Bimminy

cannot be a Christian either because he would rather be accused of hating one group over another.

Christians are taught & trained to "Love thine enemy" "Have mercy on the poor" and to "teach those with a need or desire" and to do all with compassion.

Republicans have not exhibited one of those traits in the last 50 years!

Scrimminy Bimminy subscribes to the coat tail theories of people he is not a part of because it suits his agenda to do so & take the easy way out of his responsibilities to the rest of us citizens who retain common sense, intelligence & humanity as a means of differentiation from animal reaction.

In other words, Scrimminy Bimminy is as false as the ideas he promotes.

Mister Fids

Scrimminy Bimminy

would rather see millions of unwanted, underfed, under educated, unemployed, drug oriented, baby producing people dependent on tax dollars for survival than to see the problem stopped before the ball rolls out of the chute.

They do not want to see them dependent on tax dollars. They want to see them DEAD AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE!!!!!!

IAS- No, you can't. Fact based vs. myth based. There is a difference.

Carloz: Your point is well taken. And I would just add that if we want less people to die unnecessarily, we should de-centralize healthcare and send it back to the States. Centralized control of social programs never leads to good things, particularly with large populations like ours......bankruptcy is the best case scenario if we continue down that road.

Maybe the Feds could build 50 "Federal Hospitals" across the country that are free. Each hospital would have, say for example, a $1 billion/year budget to pay the doctors, nurses, and administrators, and to keep the on-site pharmacy stocked with meds, etc. So the truly needy and/or uninsured can go there and get services for free (although they'll have to wait longer probably). And people who are fortunate to have insurance can go to their regular private hospitals. I don't know......just a thought. That would streamline things though !! The Feds wouldn't have to worry about millions and millions of individuals, but would only have to worry about keeping the 50 hospitals funded.

The issue has never been government administration or provision of health care. That is simply a prevarication offered by the mendacious for the consumption of the morbidly obtuse. America's challenge is how to pay for health care. If one does not believe that health is a human right, then they probably do cheer the death of someone who can't get health care because they are uninsured. But if one believes that health is a right, then the system we have in place to pay for it is the worst possible system from an economic standpoint.

Anyone actually thinking beyond the bumper-sticker bromides of wing-nut bloviators knows that we actually have a system where the private sector skims off everyone it wants while leaving the taxpayer to pay for the rest. The taxpayer already pays for old people, poor people, jobless people, veterans, public employees and people who weren't sick when they got the insurance but were dropped the moment they got sick. So the taxpayer already pays for the most expensive care of the people with the least means to pay.

Further, that private sector insurance industry has over 50 companies, each with its own set of infrastructure, its own set of real-estate, its own set of management looking for increasing compensation every year and its own set of shareholders looking for top line revenue growth and increasing profitability every year, all going after smaller discreet pools of predictable, paying, and relatively healthy premium payers. Logic dictates that all of those rate payers can be serviced far cheaper in ONE pool, serviced by ONE set of infrastructure, housed in ONE set of real estate, managed by ONE management team with NO shareholders.

If the cost of care is divided by the maximum number of people serviced by a minimum set of infrastructure and management, then the per person cost of that care is minimized. A single-payer system is FAR less expensive to run.

Further, our tax structure should better reflect the risks that we take with our food and alcohol consumption. I like a great steak dinner as much as the next person - complete with a salad piled high with blue cheese dressing, a baked potato with sour cream and butter, asparagus with hollandaise and finished off with a big hunk of key lime pie, all washed down with a glass of champagne to start, a big red zin with dinner and a port or single malt scotch at the end of the evening. Oh, and don't forget the cigar. But I agree that the taxpayer shouldn't be stuck with the bill for my diabetes and cancer. If we had a system of aggressive value added taxes for the consumption of everything that has been proven to kill us, then people who eat responsibly don't have to pay for those who don't.

If we believe that everyone has a right to health, then a single-payer system paid for with a combination of flat and VAT taxes is clearly the way we should go. Insurance companies shouldn't exist because they do nothing but raise the cost of care with compensation and profit demands and with the natural inefficiencies that come from lack of scale.

GOP voters are dupes, cheering for policies that actually harm us and maximize our overall costs. No one they vote for should be allowed anywhere near the levers of power because republibaggerservatives vote their resentments, fears and hatreds. Logic is a foreign concept to them.

"...the Federal government has no constitutional authority to administer healthare. There's a good reason for that.....it causes national insolvency."

But endless, unpaid wars don't? What part of the Health Care Reform Act is Federally Administered? What government run program is in the bill? I must have missed something. How would mandating that everyone is covered cause insolvency?

This is the fundamental problem with extreme political views - "facts be damned!"

"facts be damned!"

That should be the official motto of the right.

republibaggerservatives vote their resentments, fears and hatreds.

I cannot recall when truer words have been spoken.

The bottom line is that they feel that the Federal Government should not be responsible for our individual comforts (e.g. health care).

Health care is hardly a "comfort" issue. We're not talking about making sure everyone has the premium cable TV package here.

Amen Yosho......."comfort" issue. That's sick. I wonder how much of a comfort issue it would be if that person got booted from their health insurance and had spent all of their cash fighting some hideous disease?

When children have rickets or encephalitis, is that a goddamned 'comfort" issue? These people are unbelievable.

The collectively insane never ceases to amaze!

did he say that??? hmmmmmmmm

seemed he was the only one who was against the status quo.....he was the one booed by the audience.

not sure how you can associate him with this.

not sure how you can associate him with this.

Oh I only use what Paul said himself, check it out for yourself at 1:12 into the second clip from the top of this seed.

It seems many Paul supporters have a hard time accepting Paul's actual platform. To this day I still encounter Paul supporters who say Paul is pro-choice when in fact he might even be more extreme in his anti-choice view than Bachmann.

Paul's position is that we used to have an extensive system of charity hospitals in this country before government began regulating and interfering with healthcare. I think that with today's advances in medicine and cost-saving procedures a free-market for insurance and private non-profit groups would be very much effective, provided that the government stop with the endless subsidies and regulations that allow insurance cartels and Big Pharma to make a killing.

To this day I still encounter Paul supporters who say Paul is pro-choice when in fact he might even be more extreme in his anti-choice view than Bachmann.'

Ron Paul's pro-life views stem from his experience as a bona fide OBGYN. You don't have to agree with them. But know this: Dr Paul would NEVER attempt to outlaw abortion nationwide. Instead, he believes that it is a states' issue and he's correct. He's also correct in saying that the reasoning behind Roe v Wade was flawed.

the only thing flawed about paul's position on abortion is that it runs counter to his claim of being a libertarian. if he is a true libertarian, he would oppose any government interference into the private life of any citizen. mr paul is like most self proclaimed libertarians in that it is his sole purpose to destroy the federal government by starving it to death. man up, mr. paul, and tell the nation what you really are...a Tax Evading A$$hole who hides behind a claim of being a constitutionalist when, in fact, you are just a cheap SOB unwilling to pay your taxes.

You don't have to agree with them. But know this: Dr Paul would NEVER attempt to outlaw abortion nationwide.

Never?

From Paul's own campaign website.

And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:

* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”

* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”

An act defining life as beginning at conception not only would indeed outlaw abortion nationwide it may also open up the possibility of investigations and criminal charges for women who have miscarriages.

if he is a true libertarian, he would oppose any government interference into the private life of any citizen

You're using a reverse No True Scotsman fallacy. I know plenty of libertarians that, like me, find abortion to be immoral as it violates the fetus' right to life. Of course we believe that people should have autonomy over their bodies, but the right to life is more basic than any right to choice.

a Tax Evading A$$hole who hides behind a claim of being a constitutionalist when, in fact, you are just a cheap SOB unwilling to pay your taxes.

Ron Paul pays his taxes, unlike the majority of free loaders on our welfare system that take way more than they give.

Thank you for showing that you aren't interested in having a reasonable discussion.

Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”

Consistent with his view that judicial reasoning in Roe v. Wade was flawed.

Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”

Well I disagree with him on that one....

An act defining life as beginning at conception not only would indeed outlaw abortion nationwide it may also open up the possibility of investigations and criminal charges for women who have miscarriages.

for that reason. But nevertheless that's my only real quibble with him. I still feel he's by far the best in the GOP field.

for gods sake the pure ignorance shown here in the understanding of freedom and the constitution is astounding.

abortion is not a federal government issue period...its a state issue per the constitution.

in regards to healthcare...oh yea...people were dying by the millions of famine and lack of medical care in this country compared to other countries....that is why people immigrated here by the millions.

Oh, please, when did that ever exist? There were isolated examples of such hospitals, but there was never an extensive nationwide system.

In cities there were, but due to logistical reasons rural areas weren't so fortunate. Nevertheless there is considerably more wealth today than there was 100 years ago due to advances in technology. It's not unthinkable that private groups could successfully operate a healthcare system independent of extensive government oversight and regulations, which is what Obamacare is.

Ulitmately the problem isn't the market, it's the active government collusion with healthcare providers and Big Pharma to form cartels that drive up costs across the board. Fix that, eliminate Federal laws and policies that drive up costs, and then let's see what a free market insurance industry could do coupled with private charity groups.

and the reason they are dying now is because government interference has made it unreasonable, corrupt and inefficient.

and isnt it amazing we had no famine.....prior to there being food stamps??

wow...freedom and there was no widespread famines.......wow.

Correct me if I am wrong, but if churches collected funds to help the less fortunate from the community, wouldn't that be community organizing? and we know that would be against conservative values.

Did any of these idiot loons even ask the CHURCHES if it could handle the influx of poor, sick and elderly and hungry? My guess is those same churches would be calling on the GOVERNMENT to help them serve them so what is the difference? Oh and I want a list of these so call helpful churches just for future reference in case I need it or know anyone who does.

Churches can't call on the government to help them serve. Separation of church and state, remember? That said, I think a lot of churches do an amazing job serving the poor, sick, elderly and hungry. A lot of churches of different denominations band together in the winter to take turns offering hot meals and warm beds to the homeless so that they aren't on the streets. One church that I know of goes as far as to offer homework assistance on the nights they are hosting, so that the homeless kids can get a little academic help. Most churches will say, "What more can we do?" Don't like religion? Okay, there are also plenty of non-religious charity agencies, though churches do not ask people to worship in order to receive services. Not everything needs to be handled by government. In a lot of circumstances communities can offer more services, cheaper, faster, and better than the government can.

My church gives out food for the hungry right now and guess what it is federally funded! All we do is volunteer to unload it and count and server the poor and unemployed the food. We have got to stop dealing in a the fantastical world of our own minds and deal with the world as it actually is.

If it is federally funded, it is a federal program, not a church program. It's nice of your church to volunteer man hours, but that doesn't make it a church run charity. It would only be church run if your church were using money from the coffers to pay for it. I was talking about church run programs asking for federal funds.

The fact of the matter is without the church or a church they would not have this service in that community. You just said "separation of church and state" and yet here a church doing wonders for the community by feeding hungry with both federal and state dollars. Explain that one. Oh and came I get a list of those churches you are referring I will add them to our referral list. I have another church which has a strong tutoring program and after school program and be appied for a federal grant and got it. Can you explain that one?

Sure, the after school program is not a religious curriculum, so why would it be excluded from federal grants? If it were a Bible study, it most certainly would not be eligible for the federal grant. As long as your church is not asking people to pray, worship, or receive any kind of religious education or spiritual counseling, it would be eligible, because it is basically reduced to regular, non-religious, non-profit charity status. The federal government doesn't care if you have a cross on your building, just as long as you don't ask people to kneel before it.

My point is a church can and often do receive fed money which supports my original premise that if republican/ Bagger expect all churches to assume the mantle of caring for everyone in need you should expect that federal dollars will follow.

http://plus50lifestyles.com/countries-life-expectancy/
We have only listed the Top 50 countries Life Expectancy for a full list please the source of this article Wikipedia.org
Rank Country (State/territory) Life expectancy at birth (years) Male Female1 Japan 82.6 78 86.12 Hong Kong 82.2 79.4 85.13 Iceland 81.8 80.2 83.34 Switzerland 81.7 79 84.25 Australia 81.2 78.9 83.66 Spain 80.9 77.7 84.27 Sweden 80.9 78.7 838 Israel 80.7 78.5 82.89 Macau 80.7 78.5 82.810 France (metropolitan) 80.7 78.3 84.111 Canada 80.7 78.2 82.912 Italy 80.5 77.5 83.513 New Zealand 80.2 77.8 82.213 Norway 80.2 77.8 82.515 Singapore 80 78 81.916 Austria 79.8 76.9 82.616 Netherlands 79.8 77.5 81.918 Martinique ( France) 79.5 76.5 82.318 Greece 79.5 77.1 81.920 Belgium 79.4 76.5 82.3

If those churches had been doing a great job serving poor and sick people, the government programs would never had been created.

Alex. CA: Firstly, those stats have no meaning in of themselves since it's a known fact that diet, genetics, and cultural homogenity greatly effect life expectency. For example, the Japanese have a traditional diet that is extremely healthy and is believed to contribute to longevity. But then again they also have the highest suicide rate in the world, challenging the proposition that easy access to healthcare = a happier life.

If those churches had been doing a great job serving poor and sick people, the government programs would never had been created.

Fallacy of induction. That's like saying democracy is deficient since dictatorships have arisen out of it.

I see a lot of red states at THE BOTTOM of this list too. http://www.livescience.com/13107-happiest-states-2010-list.html

The general world trends are: From dictatorship to democracy and from charity help to government help in health care.

Followed by dictatorship. Every notable democracy in history has failed, and failed big. We are just proof that history does in fact repeat itself. True democracy is unsustainable.

Jesus wasn't big on coercion. I doubt he would ever threaten someone with violence/imprisonment if they didn't pay taxes to fund a healthcare system.

He was most definitely not a statist, more like a libertarian socialist that would support voluntary contributions and charity hospitals.

Jesus also healed the sick, didn't let them die, now do people really believe "God" talks to any of the GOP candidates, NOT

Today's TEA GOP would be the Pharisees, the money-changers in the temple in Jesus's time.

Jesus also healed the sick, didn't let them die, now do people really believe "God" talks to any of the GOP candidates, NOT

I'm sure if they could heal the sick they would, but as it is you can't negate personal liberty through taxation (ie coercion) and call it virtuous. Virtue and ethics require free will.

Today's TEA GOP would be the Pharisees, the money-changers in the temple in Jesus's time.

Really? Because studies show that conservatives are more charitible with their own time and money than liberals. Is it really that noble to spend someone else's money on welfare programs? It costs you nothing and saves you from having to, you know, interact with people in need.

People die younger in red states. They want them to DIE QUICKLY!!!!
List of U.S. states by life expectancy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_life_expectancy

Fallen or DRAGGED down?

Excellent point, Rick VT .... with so many working so hard to drag us deeper into right wing waste land.

iiokiyaar

We're pathetic: we deserve everything we get.

I couldn't agree more.

The GOP is the party of DEATH!!!

The GOP has embraced them.

Here's something to ponder: these people of whom you speak have always been with us, or at least throughout my fifty years I have heard a lot of folks spewing outrageous, hateful, radical nonsense. I never took it too seriously before, because until recently the highly engineered ranting and raving of the 20th-century style "mass media" drowned them, and all of us, out.

But with this sort of interactive technology (still a very new thing, relatively speaking), the masses are the media. What I am doing right now may seem to some the ultimate realization of 1st Amndmt. liberty, and maybe it is. But the old corporate/advertiser checks on what ordinary people had to say are all but gone. What has emerged in its place is not pretty, but is it really so different from what was hidden all along behind the old Brady Bunch world picture that kept us all in the background?

My question is (and I don't presuppose the answer): have we been a nation of fanatics all along, and only now are getting to express our true sentiments unedited?

And, can we handle this new freedom?