Once Republicans have killed off all the wimmens, who do we target next?

[Bricker]

@Lobohan

Bricker thinks people who can’t afford health care should die. That’s certainly evil. Especially because he likes to say he’s a Christian, although I think it’s fair to say that Christ would rebuke him utterly. Do you think that Republicans get a bad rep, maybe, just maybe, because they do and say insane things?

[url=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12041602&postcount=246]

My actual quote, of course, was, “It is acceptable for…” not “Should die.”

It’s acceptable for children to die so that we can have airlines.

It’s acceptable for cute puppies and kittens to die to we can have car travel.

Because children are killed in airline crashes, and cute kittens and puppies are killed by cars. And neither inevitability causes us to stop using those methods of transportation.

From another post in that same linked thread:

@Ruminator

All of us (including the liberals) have all answered like Bricker did – at least implicitly – through our actions. We all assign a “cost” to helping people. All of us do it.

You are sitting there at your computer typing your post is consuming electricity that could warm a homeless person on this cold winter’s night. We could certainly tax all citizens more to the point that they can no longer afford to turn their thermostats up as high. Big deal, they can just wear sweaters so that the homeless and poor can stop shivering. We take away a little comfort from the people in heated homes to give warmth to poor folks that have no heat at all. I see no liberals volunteering for such an arrangement. There’s a word for that type of inconsistent behavior: it starts with an “h”.

There are infinite ways we can help society that can be reworded into gotcha questions of selfishness and morality.

For example, we could propose to post guards at all bus stops to prevent child abduction. If someone dares to raise the issue of cost, we can just use the weapon of emotional appeal, “the cost estimations are irrelevant because us moralists on our high-horse believe it is our societal duty to prevent a child from being kidnapped.”

You can use that technique for everything.

These cost-benefit questions are obvious to everyone (except, apparently, Lobohan, whose grasp of basic economic concepts is on par with Snooki’s grasp of modesty.)

My only question for Lobohan would be: do you KNOW you’re this foolish? Or do you think of yourself as pretty bright?