Of course, even if such libertarian purity does make sense, that cannot excuse the emotional response to the issue in the crowd last night. Maybe a tragedy like the death of a feckless twentysomething is inevitable if we are to restrain healthcare costs. But it is still a tragedy. It is not something a decent person cheers. Similarly the execution of hundreds, while perhaps defensible politically and even morally (although I differ), is nonetheless a brutal, awful business. You don't delight in it. And the same is true of torture. Even if you want to defend its use in limited circumstances, it remains an absolute evil, no humane person would want to do it, and no civilized person would brag of it or dismiss any moral issue with it at all. And yet that is what Dick Cheney and Liz Cheney have repeatedly done. They are positively proud of their torture record.

The fish rotted from the head down. Last night, we got a whiff of the smell.

The applause isn't for letting uninsured people die. The applause is for returning to a society where the responsibility returns to the individual, and that nurtures and reinforces and values the notion of self-preparedness.

The applause isn't for letting uninsured people die. The applause is for returning to a society where the responsibility returns to the individual, and that nurtures and reinforces and values the notion of self-preparedness.

I didn't watch the debate, but I'd be interested to know what his answer to that part was.

I'm not sure I agree - there's often a sense of smug shadenfreude that comes through in conversations about these things; a sense of satisfaction at the idea that the guy got what he deserved. That said, even under the more charitable interpretation you're suggesting, I think there's a real moral failing on display. "Letting uninsured people die" is perceived and applauded as a stand-in for the abstract idea of "individual responsibility"; "executing people" is a stand-in for "tough on crime"; "torturing people" is a stand-in for "tough on terrorism"; and so on. In each case, actual death and suffering of actual human beings is cheered...as a stand-in for some abstract talking point the base likes. At best, that's moral blindness.

The applause isn't for letting uninsured people die. The applause is for returning to a society where the responsibility returns to the individual, and that nurtures and reinforces and values the notion of self-preparedness.

You're right, the applause isn't for letting uninsured people die. The multiple shouts of "YEAH!" are.

I've always stood by my opinion that libs ideas on personal responsibility is way, way, way, way down the chain of important things to live by.

This just shows your ignorance.

That's just your lib blinders on dude. The vast majority of conservatives I know, on this board, all over have no real desire for anyone to die just to die. Those same folks though have a real desire for them, and everyone else to be held personally responsible for their lives. You've been brainwashed to believe that the majority of conservatives don't give a rip and want people to die. It's not true. It's just scare tactics that have been beat into your brain for so long you just assume it must be true.

I don't think most Republicans (which is who I'm talking about, since I don't think "conservative" is really an appropriate label for the Republican base anymore) actually want people to suffer and die, and I know that in their personal lives, the vast majority are obviously decent, reasonably generous and compassionate people. However, in political discussions, it's like a switch gets flipped and callous disregard for death and suffering gets worn like a badge of honor while compassion is dismissed as bleeding-heart liberal nonsense.

I'm not sure I agree - there's often a sense of smug shadenfreude that comes through in conversations about these things; a sense of satisfaction at the idea that the guy got what he deserved.

There's often a sense of smug schadenfreude that comes through about these things; a sense of satisfaction of the idea of taking away from rich fat cats and destroying businesses people that aren't even wealthy worked their entire lives to build.

See, I can make up things too!

Conservatives will put forth that there are two, and only two, reasons for being poor:

1. The government **** with something.
2. Moral weakness or laziness on the poor person's part.

Conservatives advance that if you're poor, it's because you're lazy or because of government interference, pretty much without exception and thus you deserve everything that happens to you. You see, most conservatives are not willing to take the at least honest argument of, "yes, some people are poor through no fault of their own, and that sucks for them, but life isn't fair and we're overall better off without government programs to help them." They can't bring themselves to make such a "callous" argument, and will say that people who become poor through no fault of their own should receive help. But at the same time they don't want to give up their money, so the easy way out is to just demonize the entire group of poor/unemployed/uneducated individuals as lazy and useless and thus not deserving of assistance.

Who? When? I'm conservative and I'm not only thinking those things. Maybe I'm not a real conservative?