• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

the lying liberal media lies again

Moderate Right said:
I was watching ABC news myself and thought the exact same thing. They start out with the headline and then, I'll give them some credit, they played exactly what Carson said and it didn't match their own headline at all. Just the liberal slant was presented. The thing wasn't even newsworthy at all.
Click to expand...

The headline is to keep viewers hooked, and to watch it.

Pretty bad that they have to stoop so low. I'm surprised we have viewers who are stupid enough to keep tuning to such tripe.
 
CanadaJohn said:
These comments from Carson are no more acceptable than Kerry's comments about the terrorist attacks in Paris being legitimate and rational. Both should just acknowledge they're in positions where they have an obligation to speak diplomatically and clearly on such issues and they'll choose their words more wisely next time and then move on.
Click to expand...

Kerry didn't call the attacks legitimate and rational. I know this because I read his entire statement.
 
jmotivator said:
False, he said he loved dogs but that you need to be careful with the rabid dogs, meaning Islamic militants.
Click to expand...

No, you are wrong. Also, a rabid dog is a diseased dog that is always a danger to people. It is not a healthy dog that may have behavior problems that make it dangerous. It is a diseased and always dangerous dog.

If he said that it was like there being a pack of wild dogs in a town and that people in that town have to be careful to make sure there are no rabid or dangerous dogs in that pack, that would be comparable to the Syrian refugee issue, in which you have a group of people coming into your country and you have to be careful to make sure that there are no terrorists among the group of refugees.

That is what a good and honest comparison would have been, not the rabid dog comment Ben Carson made because that is just stupid. You do not love a rabid dog, you kill it before it kills someone you love.
 
Peter King said:
No, you are wrong. Also, a rabid dog is a diseased dog that is always a danger to people. It is not a healthy dog that may have behavior problems that make it dangerous. It is a diseased and always dangerous dog.

If he said that it was like there being a pack of wild dogs in a town and that people in that town have to be careful to make sure there are no rabid or dangerous dogs in that pack, that would be comparable to the Syrian refugee issue, in which you have a group of people coming into your country and you have to be careful to make sure that there are no terrorists among the group of refugees.

That is what a good and honest comparison would have been, not the rabid dog comment Ben Carson made because that is just stupid. You do not love a rabid dog, you kill it before it kills someone you love.
Click to expand...

Nope. He didn't say what you think he said.

But tell me, did John Kerry say that the Hebdo attacks were justified or are some people just twisting the story for politics? Because that is precisely what you are doing.
 
jmotivator said:
Nope. He didn't say what you think he said.

But tell me, did John Kerry say that the Hebdo attacks were justified or are some people just twisting the story for politics? Because that is precisely what you are doing.
Click to expand...

“For instance, you know, if there is a rabid dog running around your neighborhood, you’re probably not going to assume something good about that dog, and you’re probably gonna put your children out of the way,” “Doesn’t mean that you hate all dogs by any stretch of the imagination.”

By the same token, we have to have in place screening mechanisms that allow us to determine who the mad dogs are, quite frankly,” “Who are the people who wanna come in here and hurt us and wanna destroy us? Until we know how to do that, just like it would be foolish to put your child out in the neighborhood knowing that that was going on, it’s foolish for us to accept people if we cannot have the appropriate type of screening.”
Click to expand...

In other words, it is how I said IMHO. I am giving my opinion and I am not really that bothered by his comments. I am already of the opinion that the man is totally and utterly unsuitable for the office of president because he does not have any of the experience that a presidential candidate should have at the very minimum. Obama just barely had somewhat of enough experience but Carson has none. And he is not that charismatic or visionary that he is going to hold his own on the international political or US quagmire that is Washington.

And it is not the issue what Kerry is saying because he is not running for president.
 
Cardinal said:
Kerry didn't call the attacks legitimate and rational. I know this because I read his entire statement.
Click to expand...

Yeah, most liberal apologist don't have any idea what he was saying, and they're so used to interpreting Obama's nonsense, but they're sure it was brilliant and inciteful.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Yeah, most liberal apologist don't have any idea what he was saying, and they're so used to interpreting Obama's nonsense, but they're sure it was brilliant and inciteful.
Click to expand...

It wasn't brilliant. But I did get from the beginning of his statement alllll the way to the end of it (all three sentences) and it was obvious that what he was saying is that what differentiated the Paris attack from the Charlie Hebdo attack is that there seemed to be an obvious catalyst for the Hebdo attack, not that it was justified.
 
The media is not liberal, it's corporate. They have shareholders, and make profits, which is why we see crap for ratings all the time.
 
Nilly said:
What? Read again:

"In fact, he pointed out that he loved dogs, which, when taken in the same spirit, should tell the listener that he loves Muslims."

Not sure how you can get anything else out of that. Howard said that in the analogy Carson loves dogs, which is analogous to Carson loving Muslims. Dogs compared to Muslims. That's what Howard said anyway.

For the record re: Carsons comments, I don't think he compared refugees to rabid dogs. I think he compared terrorists to rabid dogs, and refugees to non-rabid dogs, who mwhich the terrorists/rabid dogs are hiding amongst.



Erm again, what? Comparing A and B doesn't mean I am literally calling A B. I can compare a Ferrari and a Ford with each other whilst being entirely aware that they are actually completely different objects. Carson isn't literally calling Muslims dogs. But using the two in an analogous manner is an awfully stupid and offensive comparison to make, particularly when it carries many further negative connotations.
Click to expand...

Cool story. And he still didn't compare Muslims to dogs.
 
Cardinal said:
It wasn't brilliant. But I did get from the beginning of his statement alllll the way to the end of it (all three sentences) and it was obvious that what he was saying is that what differentiated the Paris attack from the Charlie Hebdo attack is that there seemed to be an obvious catalyst for the Hebdo attack, not that it was justified.
Click to expand...

So you're saying Kerry was simply ignorant and ill informed because everyone and their ugly step sister was pretty well up to date on ISIS threats to attack any country that was involved in the bombing against them in Syria and Iraq - guess someone should have explained to Kerry that might be considered a catalyst.

But hey, your President doesn't even believe Islamic terrorists exist so the fact Kerry would try to "understand" their motives is admirable, I guess.
 
Peter King said:
Well, yes, let us talk about rhetoric and the insane 8 year diatribe of republican attacks on Obama.

And yes, she was talking about fighting the terrorists and sadly I see only one side doing anything. All the other side of the isle does is whine and complain and obstruct.
Click to expand...

Obama is hardly the first President who has had "diatribes of attacks" from the opposing party. If he can't handle it, he shouldn't have the job. He IS the first President to constantly whine about it.

What can the Republicans do specifically? Can they send in ground troops? Order more drones? Close the borders? You want them to do something....what specifically would that action be? And what can, for instance, Ben Carson do? Or Chris Christie? Or Donald Trump? Or John Kasich? Does the governor of Ohio have the power to fight ISIS without the President's approval? And what are they obstructing right now that Obama would like to do but they won't let him do to fight terrorists?
 
Peter King said:
You do not love a rabid dog, you kill it before it kills someone you love.
Click to expand...

Wut? You don't stop loving your dog because it contracts a disease. You have it put to sleep for your protection as well as its protection, but you don't do it and say "I hate you now". Just like you don't stop loving your child who turns out to be a murderer. It isn't the dog's fault. And unlike people, dogs don't make conscious decisions. Islamic militants do.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
What is this then?
"If there is a rabid dog running around your neighborhood, you're probably not going to assume something good about that dog.. By the same token, we have to have in place screening mechanisms that allow us to determine who the mad dogs are, quite frankly.. And you're probably going to put your children out of the way. That doesn't mean that you hate all dogs.. We have to have in place screening mechanisms that allow us to determine who the mad dogs are. Quite frankly, who are the people who want to come in and hurt us and destroy us"
Click to expand...

Why did you purposefully leave out the phrases where he said "we love dogs?"

I can't wait to hear your excuse.
 
tres borrachos said:
Cool story. And he still didn't compare Muslims to dogs.
Click to expand...

Wow, apparently you never learnt the distinction between comparing two things and literally calling one thing another thing.

Ok, whatever. No skin off of my back. Can't teach an old dog new tricks, I guess.

That was a comparison, btw.
 
Nilly said:
Wow, apparently you never learnt the distinction between comparing two things and literally calling one thing another thing.

Ok, whatever. No skin off of my back. Can't teach an old dog new tricks, I guess.

That was a comparison, btw.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one making false claims about Carson. That's you.
 
tres borrachos said:
I'm not the one making false claims about Carson. That's you.
Click to expand...

False claims based upon your wildly inaccurate definition of what a 'comparison' is. Got it. Nilly out. :doh
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So we are agreeing now that he did in fact use "rabid dog"/dogs as a comparison for refugees?
Click to expand...

And to answer your question I didnt know it was needed... Just went through this article Ben Carson compares Syrian refugees to dogs - POLITICO Took all the direct quotes from Carsons speech...
Click to expand...

mmmm ... no.

He was comparing the ISIS murderers embedded with the refugees to rabid dogs.
Get it?
ISIS ---> rabid dogs
When I read his statements this AM it never occurred to me that there was anything there anyone could distort.
 
Nilly said:
False claims based upon your wildly inaccurate definition of what a 'comparison' is. Got it. Nilly out. :doh
Click to expand...

No, false claims as have been pointed out by me and others. He never compared Syrian refugees to rabid dogs. You think he did. You were wrong. He compared the processes, not the individuals.

There are a lot of things to criticize Ben Carson for. This isn't one of them. It's petty partisan idiocy to twist his words to something he never said. But if you're happy going along with petty partisan idiocy, don't let me rain on your parade.
 
bubbabgone said:
mmmm ... no.

He was comparing the ISIS murderers embedded with the refugees to rabid dogs.
Get it?
ISIS ---> rabid dogs
When I read his statements this AM it never occurred to me that there was anything there anyone could distort.
Click to expand...

You're wasting your time. According to the left (and ABC) he's comparing ALL refugees to rabid dogs. Their collective minds are made up. It's pretty damn sad if this is the best they have. This isn't even a story.
 
I think Ben Carson is a political idiot and has too much of a knowledge gap to be an effective representative of the American people. With that being said, I watched the video and the headline is incredibly biased. I thought Carson's analogy was fair and not offensive. It is stupid to overreach with headlines like this when there are so many honest things to attack. In my opinion, Carson sounded better here than half of the other things he's said on camera.
 
bubbabgone said:
mmmm ... no.

He was comparing the ISIS murderers embedded with the refugees to rabid dogs.
Get it?
ISIS ---> rabid dogs
When I read his statements this AM it never occurred to me that there was anything there anyone could distort.
Click to expand...
mmmm.... yes.
"rabid dog"/dogs as a comparison for refugees.
 
I read somewhere that someone in the Obama Administration, someone very close to Obama, told Sharyl Attkisson that Obama has made it clear that he's simply not interested in seeing any information about radical groups.
And it's driving people very close to him nuts that he's got such tunnel vision when it comes to that aspect of his agenda.

Now THAT'S a story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom