• 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!

Dr. Carson: Obamacare The Worst Thing That Has Happened Since Slavery

WWI, WWII, Ronald Reagan, Discontinuation of the Twinkie...
There, i named a handful of things since slavery that are worse than Obamacare
 
Fruityfact said:
WWI, WWII, Ronald Reagan, Discontinuation of the Twinkie...
There, i named a handful of things since slavery that are worse than Obamacare
Click to expand...

...the remake of Robocop....
 
sKiTzo said:
No hyperbole suggested - just callin' it like it is.
Click to expand...

No, hyperbole. How it is would be saying it's the aw and SCOTUS ruled it wasn't unconstitutional.
 
Boo Radley said:
How soon do you a people recover from that condition?
Click to expand...

I would think that 150 years removed would be fair to say that if a recovery is not achieved then it is the patients problem psychologically.

When freed, were slaves instantly educated and on equal footing with their masters?
Click to expand...

Like I said, just bring one forth today, and they will get their reparations...But please let me know what health care they have to live 150 years...k?

Did whites all at once treat them as equals?
Click to expand...

Are any of them alive?

I'm not saying I'm for reparations...
Click to expand...

Oh please, you'd vote for it in a second if it assuaged a moment of the white guilt you drip.

but I think it is a bit condescending to assume that there was nothing after slavery that counted as harm.
Click to expand...

Who said that? I tell ya...That is rich....Here is what the liberal argument is lately...'irrelevant claim, irrelevant claim, irrelevant claim, strawman, concluded with ridiculous statement....

It means nothing.

The sixties were not that long ago.
Click to expand...

The sixties were 50 years ago Joe.....Clearly you haven't moved on.
 
j-mac said:
I would think that 150 years removed would be fair to say that if a recovery is not achieved then it is the patients problem psychologically.
Click to expand...

Is it? Civil rights didn't occur until the 60's. Separate but unequal went on for a long time. I wonder if your view would change is you were in the other pair of shoes.

Like I said, just bring one forth today, and they will get their reparations...But please let me know what health care they have to live 150 years...k?
Click to expand...

This doesn't address what I said. It's a diversion.


Are any of them alive?
Click to expand...

Same here.

Oh please, you'd vote for it in a second if it assuaged a moment of the white guilt you drip.
Click to expand...

Reading minds again. You're not real good at that, so you might just try to address what was said.

Who said that? I tell ya...That is rich....Here is what the liberal argument is lately...'irrelevant claim, irrelevant claim, irrelevant claim, strawman, concluded with ridiculous statement....

It means nothing.
Click to expand...

Your 150 years comment says it. That implies it ends there. So, you are saying it.



The sixties were 50 years ago Joe.....Clearly you haven't moved on.
Click to expand...

Say in context. Try to address the point.

J, it simply hasn't been that long ago that there was distinct inequity, and harm done. It didn't end with slavery. A people don't instantly change. Remember, wealth was by then all housed in white households. Education was seriously limited for minorities. Even once some sense of equality was gained in the 60's, many were already embedded in poverty and lacked any history of learning and success. This is a major huddle for a people to climb. Not impossible, but one that takes time. Lots of time.

I don't support reparations, not because they are not due, but because they won't help. The solution requires more of an education and inclusion than it does merely handing out money.
 
Boo Radley said:
Is it? Civil rights didn't occur until the 60's. Separate but unequal went on for a long time. I wonder if your view would change is you were in the other pair of shoes.



This doesn't address what I said. It's a diversion.




Same here.



Reading minds again. You're not real good at that, so you might just try to address what was said.



Your 150 years comment says it. That implies it ends there. So, you are saying it.





Say in context. Try to address the point.

J, it simply hasn't been that long ago that there was distinct inequity, and harm done. It didn't end with slavery. A people don't instantly change. Remember, wealth was by then all housed in white households. Education was seriously limited for minorities. Even once some sense of equality was gained in the 60's, many were already embedded in poverty and lacked any history of learning and success. This is a major huddle for a people to climb. Not impossible, but one that takes time. Lots of time.

I don't support reparations, not because they are not due, but because they won't help. The solution requires more of an education and inclusion than it does merely handing out money.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't we be striving for 'equal'? Funny how someone like you is constantly looking to say how disadvantaged a group of people are so that you can set yourself up as some kind of savior figure, when in truth your own guilt of simply being born white, leads you to, through your ideology to argue that someone else by simple skin color at birth means that their treatment requires unequal treatment....It really has racist tones.
 
j-mac said:
Shouldn't we be striving for 'equal'? Funny how someone like you is constantly looking to say how disadvantaged a group of people are so that you can set yourself up as some kind of savior figure, when in truth your own guilt of simply being born white, leads you to, through your ideology to argue that someone else by simple skin color at birth means that their treatment requires unequal treatment....It really has racist tones.
Click to expand...

No where have I suggested we shouldn't be striving for equal. I merely state the reality is that we are not there yet. Better, sure. But let's not pretend that it's all disappeared and all is fine now.

And I rarely ever feel guilt about anything. I thought you'd know that by now. ;) but recognizing reality is being guilty. That too is a fall back cop out a number of conservatives use.

Nor am I asking for unequal treatment. No where have I asked for that. recognizing a problem, even addressing a problem, isn't a call for inequality.
 
Boo Radley said:
No where have I suggested we shouldn't be striving for equal. I merely state the reality is that we are not there yet. Better, sure. But let's not pretend that it's all disappeared and all is fine now.

And I rarely ever feel guilt about anything. I thought you'd know that by now. ;) but recognizing reality is being guilty. That too is a fall back cop out a number of conservatives use.

Nor am I asking for unequal treatment. No where have I asked for that. recognizing a problem, even addressing a problem, isn't a call for inequality.
Click to expand...

Where is the "inequality" today then? Explain it rather than spew platitude garbage.
 
j-mac said:
Where is the "inequality" today then? Explain it rather than spew platitude garbage.
Click to expand...

I still meet people who won't hire based on gender and race. The history still has many left and poverty and behind. I still run into students whose parents never read anything other than bills. This is all part of the original problem. So, it's easy to beat someone you have a head start on.

So, as that you will understand you got an explanation:

1) Racist hiring practices still exist.

2) Many are still recovering from generations of being denied education and having no history of success to fall back on or to inform of a better way. From personal experience I know how blind good people can be to possibilities.

3) This includes the poor education that was once based on race and now bleeds into poverty in general.
 
Boo Radley said:
I still meet people who won't hire based on gender and race. The history still has many left and poverty and behind. I still run into students whose parents never read anything other than bills. This is all part of the original problem. So, it's easy to beat someone you have a head start on.

So, as that you will understand you got an explanation:

1) Racist hiring practices still exist.

2) Many are still recovering from generations of being denied education and having no history of success to fall back on or to inform of a better way. From personal experience I know how blind good people can be to possibilities.

3) This includes the poor education that was once based on race and now bleeds into poverty in general.
Click to expand...


1) Nonsense....Bull **** claim. Prove it. Beyond your anecdotal made up crap.

2) The opportunity is there, if they don't take advantage of it, who's fault is that?

3) Poor education, yeah, ask demo's about that...You are against vouchers right?
 
Boo Radley said:
No, hyperbole. How it is would be saying it's the aw and SCOTUS ruled it wasn't unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

That ruling is just a little taste of the tyranny that you're going to start seeing more and more of. The ruling is, in fact, fraudulent.

Obama initially got people to support the bill by promising it wasn't a tax. The problem that arose was that if it wasn't a tax, it was unconstitutional. So Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote the bill as a tax because it turns out the bill could be upheld only as an exercise of Congress’s power to tax. The constitution mandates that bills for "raising revenue" must be in compliance with the Origination Clause (Art. I, Sec. 7), which requires that all tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives, from which obamacare did not.

Obamacare is, therefore, unconstitutional. So, while I was correctly calling it like it is, our supreme court justices are not. When this happens, and you have federal judges making fraudulent rulings and deceiving the American people, it is called a "rogue" government. If nobody complains, it progresses into a dictatorship (history has shown). Before you go on supporting obamacare, think about complaining. Consider that laws were broken in order to pass it. Most of all, ponder the possible reasons for why they are doing this, because if you think it's because they care about our health, then you have a lot to learn about reality.
 
sKiTzo said:
That ruling is just a little taste of the tyranny that you're going to start seeing more and more of. The ruling is, in fact, fraudulent.

Obama initially got people to support the bill by promising it wasn't a tax. The problem that arose was that if it wasn't a tax, it was unconstitutional. So Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote the bill as a tax because it turns out the bill could be upheld only as an exercise of Congress’s power to tax. The constitution mandates that bills for "raising revenue" must be in compliance with the Origination Clause (Art. I, Sec. 7), which requires that all tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives, from which obamacare did not.

Obamacare is, therefore, unconstitutional. So, while I was correctly calling it like it is, our supreme court justices are not. When this happens, and you have federal judges making fraudulent rulings and deceiving the American people, it is called a "rogue" government. If nobody complains, it progresses into a dictatorship (history has shown). Before you go on supporting obamacare, think about complaining. Consider that laws were broken in order to pass it. Most of all, ponder the possible reasons for why they are doing this, because if you think it's because they care about our health, then you have a lot to learn about reality.
Click to expand...

i don't think you can just go around claiming the healthcare law is unconstitutional just because the supreme court made a verdict contradicting your political believes. the supreme court rules what is unconstitutional according to their understanding of the constitution.

and on a unrelated note, i think you are confusing tyranny with losing.
 
j-mac said:
1) Nonsense....Bull **** claim. Prove it. Beyond your anecdotal made up crap.
Click to expand...

The authors find that applicants with white-sounding names are 50 percent more likely to get called for an initial interview than applicants with African-American-sounding names. Applicants with white names need to send about 10 resumes to get one callback, whereas applicants with African-American names need to send about 15 resumes to achieve the same result.

Chicago GSB | Capital Ideas

Racial discrimination continues to play a part in hiring decisions | Economic Policy Institute

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/us/01race.html?_r=0

I usually stop at three, but I can provide more. I took just a couple of different sources, to show it's well covered. You can look yourself if you doubt me.


2) The opportunity is there, if they don't take advantage of it, who's fault is that?
Click to expand...

This is why I took time to explain the problem. What you can't see doesn't exist. Not for you. You can't tackle the problem if you don't understand it. You can blame the victim. You can ignore it. Or you can dig in and try to change it. but realize it's an uphill battle. And not one that will be easily fixed.

3) Poor education, yeah, ask demo's about that...You are against vouchers right?
Click to expand...

Which doesn't fix the problem, just moves a few to another area. Again, that solution shows a lack of understanding to the problem.
 
sKiTzo said:
That ruling is just a little taste of the tyranny that you're going to start seeing more and more of. The ruling is, in fact, fraudulent.

Obama initially got people to support the bill by promising it wasn't a tax. The problem that arose was that if it wasn't a tax, it was unconstitutional. So Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote the bill as a tax because it turns out the bill could be upheld only as an exercise of Congress’s power to tax. The constitution mandates that bills for "raising revenue" must be in compliance with the Origination Clause (Art. I, Sec. 7), which requires that all tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives, from which obamacare did not.

Obamacare is, therefore, unconstitutional. So, while I was correctly calling it like it is, our supreme court justices are not. When this happens, and you have federal judges making fraudulent rulings and deceiving the American people, it is called a "rogue" government. If nobody complains, it progresses into a dictatorship (history has shown). Before you go on supporting obamacare, think about complaining. Consider that laws were broken in order to pass it. Most of all, ponder the possible reasons for why they are doing this, because if you think it's because they care about our health, then you have a lot to learn about reality.
Click to expand...

Rule of law is not tyranny. At some point the hyperbole becomes cartoonish. This is why your leaders lose credibility so quickly. You're entire response fits that category.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
i don't think you can just go around claiming the healthcare law is unconstitutional just because the supreme court made a verdict contradicting your political believes. the supreme court rules what is unconstitutional according to their understanding of the constitution.

and on a unrelated note, i think you are confusing tyranny with losing.
Click to expand...

I explained exactly why it is unconstitutional, in FULL detail. Article 1, Section 7. If you take 2 minutes to check the facts, you'll find it is applicable. You didn't check. Who's gonna take 2 minutes out of their day to see that they're wrong?

I know, you refuse to accept the fact that supreme court justices would deliberately violate the law. Maybe you should take a look, then, at some other fairly recent rulings.

For example, the Chris Hedges vs. Obama NDAA lawsuit over whether it was ok for the military to snatch up american journalists and ordinary citizens and throw them in a guantanamo-like setting, indefinitely, without trlal or charge, no attorney, no notification of relatives, no 3 phone calls, nothing, gone, goodbye. US district judge Katherine Forrest found that section 1021 of the NDAA, which had been rushed into law amid secrecy and in haste on New Year's Eve 2011, was facially unconstitutional, and had a chilling effect on the 1st amendment. She permanently enjoined that section, because she repeatedly asked obamas attorneys to be more specific about the vagueness of "associated forces", and they would not.

It should be noted that when Katherine Forrest was nominated to the Southern District of New York, the ABA deemed her “unanimously well-qualified”. Don't kid yourself.Her decision was the correct decision.

The injunction was appealed, 2 corrupt judges were appointed, and it ended up being overturned. So if you insist this "contradicts my political beliefs", then I suppose it does. I was taught in school a long time ago that the constitution was non-negotiable.

The link below is the MSM soft version of the story, downplaying the seriousness of it all:
Federal judge blocks National Defense Authorization Act provision - Los Angeles Times

This link below is the Naomi Wolf version telling it like it is. She was one of only 2 reporters that covered the case. The other reporter was from The Guardian:

The NDAA's section 1021 coup d'etat foiled | Naomi Wolf | Law | theguardian.com
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
The authors find that applicants with white-sounding names are 50 percent more likely to get called for an initial interview than applicants with African-American-sounding names. Applicants with white names need to send about 10 resumes to get one callback, whereas applicants with African-American names need to send about 15 resumes to achieve the same result.

Chicago GSB | Capital Ideas

Racial discrimination continues to play a part in hiring decisions | Economic Policy Institute

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/us/01race.html?_r=0

I usually stop at three, but I can provide more. I took just a couple of different sources, to show it's well covered. You can look yourself if you doubt me.
Click to expand...

The first two articles I found interesting, and I have to say, on their face persuasive even though they are 10 years old, I am just not sure how you would battle attitudes of people entrenched in human resource depts. in all companies across the country, plus I am not sure how you would think that reparations (even though you said you weren't necessarily for them) paid to people that may, or may not be linked in any way to generations 4 or 5 times removed from any ancestors involved in servitude of any kind. The third article from the NYTimes, although had a more recent study in it, unfortunately blew any credibility of their argument by leaning on the lazy argument that in today's market, black individuals are suffering in the job market because Obama is the President, and it just must be those racist (probably conservatives) that hate a black man in the WH that are intentionally discriminating. :roll:

This is why I took time to explain the problem. What you can't see doesn't exist. Not for you. You can't tackle the problem if you don't understand it. You can blame the victim. You can ignore it. Or you can dig in and try to change it. but realize it's an uphill battle. And not one that will be easily fixed.
Click to expand...

Do you ever see a world where racism of some sort is non existent? Because surely America is not the only place on the planet where racism exists right?

Which doesn't fix the problem, just moves a few to another area. Again, that solution shows a lack of understanding to the problem.
Click to expand...

As an educator, I would think that better education would be one of your top keys to success for any young person. But, sadly I think with many educators they see school choice as a threat to their relatively protected positions mired in mediocrity, rather than putting the child's welfare educationally first.
 
sKiTzo said:
I explained exactly why it is unconstitutional, in FULL detail. Article 1, Section 7. If you take 2 minutes to check the facts, you'll find it is applicable. You didn't check. Who's gonna take 2 minutes out of their day to see that they're wrong?

I know, you refuse to accept the fact that supreme court justices would deliberately violate the law. Maybe you should take a look, then, at some other fairly recent rulings.

For example, the Chris Hedges vs. Obama NDAA lawsuit over whether it was ok for the military to snatch up american journalists and ordinary citizens and throw them in a guantanamo-like setting, indefinitely, without trlal or charge, no attorney, no notification of relatives, no 3 phone calls, nothing, gone, goodbye. US district judge Katherine Forrest found that section 1021 of the NDAA, which had been rushed into law amid secrecy and in haste on New Year's Eve 2011, was facially unconstitutional, and had a chilling effect on the 1st amendment. She permanently enjoined that section, because she repeatedly asked obamas attorneys to be more specific about the vagueness of "associated forces", and they would not.

It should be noted that when Katherine Forrest was nominated to the Southern District of New York, the ABA deemed her “unanimously well-qualified”. Don't kid yourself.Her decision was the correct decision.

The injunction was appealed, 2 corrupt judges were appointed, and it ended up being overturned. So if you insist this "contradicts my political beliefs", then I suppose it does. I was taught in school a long time ago that the constitution was non-negotiable.

The link below is the MSM soft version of the story, downplaying the seriousness of it all:
Federal judge blocks National Defense Authorization Act provision - Los Angeles Times

This link below is the Naomi Wolf version telling it like it is. She was one of only 2 reporters that covered the case. The other reporter was from The Guardian:

The NDAA's section 1021 coup d'etat foiled | Naomi Wolf | Law | theguardian.com
Click to expand...

Bravo Kit....:applaud This post, as well as your previous post that Boo chose not to address, but rather attack you, is to the point, and spot on....Thank you! :beer:
 
Boo Radley said:
Rule of law is not tyranny. At some point the hyperbole becomes cartoonish. This is why your leaders lose credibility so quickly. You're entire response fits that category.
Click to expand...

That really depends on the law, doesn't it?
 
j-mac said:
The first two articles I found interesting, and I have to say, on their face persuasive even though they are 10 years old, I am just not sure how you would battle attitudes of people entrenched in human resource depts. in all companies across the country, plus I am not sure how you would think that reparations (even though you said you weren't necessarily for them) paid to people that may, or may not be linked in any way to generations 4 or 5 times removed from any ancestors involved in servitude of any kind. The third article from the NYTimes, although had a more recent study in it, unfortunately blew any credibility of their argument by leaning on the lazy argument that in today's market, black individuals are suffering in the job market because Obama is the President, and it just must be those racist (probably conservatives) that hate a black man in the WH that are intentionally discriminating. :roll:



Do you ever see a world where racism of some sort is non existent? Because surely America is not the only place on the planet where racism exists right?



As an educator, I would think that better education would be one of your top keys to success for any young person. But, sadly I think with many educators they see school choice as a threat to their relatively protected positions mired in mediocrity, rather than putting the child's welfare educationally first.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't dismiss the NYT too much. But that is hardly the point. As I said, there's a lot out there.

Non-existent? Maybe. But it takes far more time than we've spent.

As for education, I never said I didn't think education was key. In fact, I specifically said it was. What I also said was vochers didn't fix the educational problem. If it benefited anyone at all, which is debatable, it would not benefit enough to make it a solution worth consideration. I think I made this quite clear.
 
jmotivator said:
That really depends on the law, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Somewhat, but you have to actually show an abuse. You can't just scream a tyranny and expect to be taken seriously.
 
Boo Radley said:
I wouldn't dismiss the NYT too much. But that is hardly the point. As I said, there's a lot out there.

Non-existent? Maybe. But it takes far more time than we've spent.

As for education, I never said I didn't think education was key. In fact, I specifically said it was. What I also said was vochers didn't fix the educational problem. If it benefited anyone at all, which is debatable, it would not benefit enough to make it a solution worth consideration. I think I made this quite clear.
Click to expand...


When the NYTimes takes the tact of trying to tie a serious subject like this to racial hatred of Obama simply because the opposition party is well, opposing him, then yes I will, and they should be dismissed.

Maybe? You really think that there is a place where there is 0 racism? Oh my....That is real self delusion, sorry.

For a real world example of how vouchers did make a positive difference, just take a look at DC pre Obama....Rhee was pilloried by liberal NEA types for a program that gave those children a real chance at education...Now, thanks to Obama's nod to teacher unions that is all done now, and the children suffer...But hey, as long as some useless educrat gets to keep their job, and future pension with tenure they do NOT deserve, it's all good right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom