• 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

Boo Radley said:
In that few take it seriously, I agree it's not a big deal. But the comparison is outrageously misguided.

As for yet another silly "leftist" comment, do you even read what you guys post calling all kinds of democrats names? You seem comically unaware of yourself and those like you.
Click to expand...

I have no respect for leftists and sometimes inadvertently let it show.
 
Boo Radley said:
In that few take it seriously, I agree it's not a big deal. But the comparison is outrageously misguided.

As for yet another silly "leftist" comment, do you even read what you guys post calling all kinds of democrats names? You seem comically unaware of yourself and those like you.
Click to expand...

It will never compare to what the leftist boobs say about Conservatives.
 
j-mac said:
And there are those that think his comparison was apt...So? :shrug: I think maybe you don't like the comparison because it hits a little close to the truth.
Click to expand...

Maybe we don't like his comparison because it's stupid.
 
Grant said:
I have no respect for leftists and sometimes inadvertently let it show.
Click to expand...

But you should know, you're the same. Just the flip side of the same coin.
 
Grant said:
What Dr.Carson said was no big deal, and everyone knows it.

What the leftists are trying to do is immediately undermine any candidate who might be a threat to Hillary. They are not interested in policies, they are only interested in attacking the person. It is this attitude which has poisoned American politics and leads to incompetents like Barrack Obama, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi being elected.

Debating nonsense like this only make their arguments seem debate worthy.They should be ignored.
Click to expand...

This isn't just a problem of leftists, either. If anyone doesn't hold your exact beliefs, we have a huge habit in this country of instantly degrading those people to being more wrong than a farmer nailing his goat.
 
hjl1991 said:
This isn't just a problem of leftists, either. If anyone doesn't hold your exact beliefs, we have a huge habit in this country of instantly degrading those people to being more wrong than a farmer nailing his goat.
Click to expand...

I thought Obama was supposed to be the great unifier...
 
j-mac said:
I thought Obama was supposed to be the great unifier...
Click to expand...

Yes, expectations were high.[FONT=times new roman,times]

Barrack Obama - "Understand where the vision for change comes from. First and foremost [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]it comes from me. That's my job, is to provide a vision in terms of where we are going, and to make sure, then, that my team is implementing."[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Susan Sarandon -[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]"He is a community organizer like Jesus was ... And now, we're a community and he can organize us." [/FONT]
 
hjl1991 said:
This isn't just a problem of leftists, either. If anyone doesn't hold your exact beliefs, we have a huge habit in this country of instantly degrading those people to being more wrong than a farmer nailing his goat.
Click to expand...

We can all understand different beliefs but electing an inexperienced naivety like Barrack Obama was largely the fault of leftists.
 
Grant said:
We can all understand different beliefs but electing an inexperienced naivety like Barrack Obama was largely the fault of leftists.
Click to expand...

I haven't voted in either of the last two elections (I'm 22, didn't vote last year and wasn't old enough for his first term), but ultimately if you pick better (and by better, I mean more likeable and moderate) candidates than McCain and Romney, you might win an election.

Personally, I didn't mind McCain, but he killed himself when he picked Palin as his running mate. As for Romney, if the guy actually had a solid position that he stood by, he would have gotten my vote, but he changed his mind on everything over and over again on every topic imaginable.
 
hjl1991 said:
I haven't voted in either of the last two elections (I'm 22, didn't vote last year and wasn't old enough for his first term), but ultimately if you pick better (and by better, I mean more likeable and moderate) candidates than McCain and Romney, you might win an election.

Personally, I didn't mind McCain, but he killed himself when he picked Palin as his running mate. As for Romney, if the guy actually had a solid position that he stood by, he would have gotten my vote, but he changed his mind on everything over and over again on every topic imaginable.
Click to expand...

How could a candidate be more 'likeable' or 'moderate' than McCain or Romney? How were either of them immoderate?

Do you believe Joe Biden was a good selection for VP or that Barrack Obama had the experience to be President or that he didn't change his positions?

I'm genuinely interested in your response.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
How could a candidate be more 'likeable' or 'moderate' than McCain or Romney? How were either of them immoderate?

Do you believe Joe Biden was a good selection for VP or that Barrack Obama had the experience to be President or that he didn't change his positions?

I'm genuinely interested in your response.
Click to expand...

I believe that campaign Obama and president Obama are two totally different people. In 2008 he said what the people wanted to hear, and you couldn't help but like the guy. He didn't deliver on many of those promises, and obviously has straight up lied on many things in the time since. That being said, Joe Biden was a good pick for Obama in that he had a lot of experience and carried a lot of older votes towards the pair. We all know that Biden has a mouth, but ultimately he has a lot of support for the things that he says as well. After Obama's dismal first four years, I was ready to have someone come in who could fix our budget while keeping universal healthcare for everyone (even if that meant repeal and replace). But, I wasn't just going to vote in the same guy with a different name. I wasn't going to vote for a guy who as governor of Maine was something like 47th in job creation. I wasn't going to vote in a guy whose healthcare plan that he passed (though now I've learned he initially voted against the measure but was overridden in congress) was the model for the healthcare in this country today. I wasn't going to vote for a guy who made his money by gouging jobs and cutting people's pay. Romney was the anti- what I wanted. He was a tea party conservative whose monetary policies would have crushed this country, and whose moderate policies were more of the same that Americans didn't want. His moderate policies should have been monetary, and his tea party policies should have been on social issues. That's what a moderate republican is to me, and it is the same reason I didn't vote for McCain.

I think we have figured out money in the last century. Spend when in recession, and save when in a boom. So Bush and Obama were spot on with stimulus spending. However, what they didn't do was use stimulus properly. They didn't put men and women in work uniforms and rebuild highways, construct new windmills and hydro-plants, etc. They didn't create new wealth, they just gave companies more money to add to their existing wealth. But, because poor stimulus planning didn't work out, tea party members believe no stimulus should exist, and that's just backwards thinking. Reagan tripled the national deficit to increase growth in this country, but somehow all of these people in the Republican party today who worship Reagan can't seem to figure out that spending can be good.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes I do. It's not so hyperbolic as it defy reality. And yes, to say it is like that, it must be like that. That's what makes a metaphor work.
Click to expand...

The metaphor is correct, and has been used since the beginning of time.

Taxation as slavery is the belief that taxation results in an unfree society in which individuals are forced to work to enrich the government and the recipients of largesse, rather than for their own benefit.

Taxation as slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist 79 - "“In the general course of human nature, a power over a man’s subsistence amounts to a power over his will.”

If you go by the premise that O-care imposes in inherent debt, that you or I owe to someone that is of lessor income, and ability to earn, and that government will take my, and your monies to redistribute to that person, then what is the nature of debt? I did not break his window, I did not agree to subsidize him.

If Obama, and democrats believe that what I earn, what I get in compensation for my labor is to be determined what I can keep by the government then I don't own my own labor. Therefore, I am a slave to a master in the government.

Now, if Obamacare were to give me the option to opt out, then you could say that the argument doesn't hold, but as long as you say that I must participate, then it IS slavery, and Dr. Carson is spot on.

**{All human beings have a natural right to ownership of Person and Labor. Slavery is non-ownership of one's Person and Labor. It is involuntary servitude. His is a one-way contract he cannot opt out of. It is these aspects of O-care that tie it to slavery, and that is a fact.

You are referring to slavery as chattel slavery, the overt practice of buying, selling and owning people like farm animals or beasts of burden. Are there other forms of slavery besides chattel slavery? Ofcourse there are.}

If you consider that a scale of ownership of labor can be on a scale say 0% = total slavery, to 100% = total liberty then it is only to a degree that we are enslaved. Now some of that can be what we accept to participate in but when you have a law, that was forced through House, and Senate without one single opposition party vote, and indeed in at least a couple of cases, bribes, and promises within the democrat party, and against the polled will of the American people at the time, then yes this is exactly slavery by definition.

** excerpts taken from a 2000 article authored by Steven Yates which appeared at Is the Income Tax a Form of Slavery? – LewRockwell.com

Steven Yates has a Ph.D in Philosophy and is the author of Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (San Francisco: ICS Press, 1994). A free lance writer, lecturer, and frequent contributor to LewRockwell.com and The Edgefield Journal, he lives in Columbia, South Carolina.
 
hjl1991 said:
I believe that campaign Obama and president Obama are two totally different people. In 2008 he said what the people wanted to hear, and you couldn't help but like the guy. He didn't deliver on many of those promises, and obviously has straight up lied on many things in the time since. That being said, Joe Biden was a good pick for Obama in that he had a lot of experience and carried a lot of older votes towards the pair. We all know that Biden has a mouth, but ultimately he has a lot of support for the things that he says as well. After Obama's dismal first four years, I was ready to have someone come in who could fix our budget while keeping universal healthcare for everyone (even if that meant repeal and replace). But, I wasn't just going to vote in the same guy with a different name. I wasn't going to vote for a guy who as governor of Maine was something like 47th in job creation. I wasn't going to vote in a guy whose healthcare plan that he passed (though now I've learned he initially voted against the measure but was overridden in congress) was the model for the healthcare in this country today. I wasn't going to vote for a guy who made his money by gouging jobs and cutting people's pay. Romney was the anti- what I wanted. He was a tea party conservative whose monetary policies would have crushed this country, and whose moderate policies were more of the same that Americans didn't want. His moderate policies should have been monetary, and his tea party policies should have been on social issues. That's what a moderate republican is to me, and it is the same reason I didn't vote for McCain.

I think we have figured out money in the last century. Spend when in recession, and save when in a boom. So Bush and Obama were spot on with stimulus spending. However, what they didn't do was use stimulus properly. They didn't put men and women in work uniforms and rebuild highways, construct new windmills and hydro-plants, etc. They didn't create new wealth, they just gave companies more money to add to their existing wealth. But, because poor stimulus planning didn't work out, tea party members believe no stimulus should exist, and that's just backwards thinking. Reagan tripled the national deficit to increase growth in this country, but somehow all of these people in the Republican party today who worship Reagan can't seem to figure out that spending can be good.
Click to expand...


Good morning hjl. I can tell from a cursory reading of your post here that you are an almost perfect product of the public education system. I won't derail further by addressing each of the wildly wrong points you have made here, because each one of them would deserve their own thread, and could support debate on each separate issue by themselves.

However, a couple of things you got horribly wrong in your rant here;

1. Mitt Romney was Governor of Massachusetts, not Maine.

2. That you say that Romney voted against Mass health insurance mandates, but was voted down in congress, makes me wonder if you even understand governmental make up.

Massachusetts doesn't have a "congress".... As like all states they have a legislature. "Congress" is used to describe the Federal government. It's a small point I know, but accuracy here counts. So, States = Legislature, Federal system = Congress.

And lastly, if Obama has two sides, as you say, "the campaign Obama, and the President Obama".... Tell me, when do we get to see the "President Obama"??? This guy has never left the campaign.

And Biden is a joke! Probably one of the largest considerations to not impeach Obama, is because we would be stuck with that bumbling fool as President.
 
hjl1991 said:
I haven't voted in either of the last two elections (I'm 22, didn't vote last year and wasn't old enough for his first term)
Click to expand...

Why not? Couldn't be bothered, but now have an opinion? :roll:

but ultimately if you pick better (and by better, I mean more likeable and moderate) candidates than McCain and Romney, you might win an election.
Click to expand...

So, you are really for one party rule. "Likeable", "moderate" are both terms that define liberal/progressive ideology to a tee. You chose, and vote on emotion...That is a horrible way to pick who runs the country.

Personally, I didn't mind McCain, but he killed himself when he picked Palin as his running mate. As for Romney, if the guy actually had a solid position that he stood by, he would have gotten my vote, but he changed his mind on everything over and over again on every topic imaginable.
Click to expand...

No, he really didn't that was how progressives defined him in their narrative, and you bought it.
 
j-mac said:
The metaphor is correct, and has been used since the beginning of time.



Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist 79 - "“In the general course of human nature, a power over a man’s subsistence amounts to a power over his will.”

If you go by the premise that O-care imposes in inherent debt, that you or I owe to someone that is of lessor income, and ability to earn, and that government will take my, and your monies to redistribute to that person, then what is the nature of debt? I did not break his window, I did not agree to subsidize him.

If Obama, and democrats believe that what I earn, what I get in compensation for my labor is to be determined what I can keep by the government then I don't own my own labor. Therefore, I am a slave to a master in the government.

Now, if Obamacare were to give me the option to opt out, then you could say that the argument doesn't hold, but as long as you say that I must participate, then it IS slavery, and Dr. Carson is spot on.

**{All human beings have a natural right to ownership of Person and Labor. Slavery is non-ownership of one's Person and Labor. It is involuntary servitude. His is a one-way contract he cannot opt out of. It is these aspects of O-care that tie it to slavery, and that is a fact.

You are referring to slavery as chattel slavery, the overt practice of buying, selling and owning people like farm animals or beasts of burden. Are there other forms of slavery besides chattel slavery? Ofcourse there are.}

If you consider that a scale of ownership of labor can be on a scale say 0% = total slavery, to 100% = total liberty then it is only to a degree that we are enslaved. Now some of that can be what we accept to participate in but when you have a law, that was forced through House, and Senate without one single opposition party vote, and indeed in at least a couple of cases, bribes, and promises within the democrat party, and against the polled will of the American people at the time, then yes this is exactly slavery by definition.

** excerpts taken from a 2000 article authored by Steven Yates which appeared at Is the Income Tax a Form of Slavery? – LewRockwell.com

Steven Yates has a Ph.D in Philosophy and is the author of Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (San Francisco: ICS Press, 1994). A free lance writer, lecturer, and frequent contributor to LewRockwell.com and The Edgefield Journal, he lives in Columbia, South Carolina.
Click to expand...

Using something wrongly is still wrong no matter how often is is used wrongly. Do you really believe silliness is a modern invention? You are attracted to silly people, and as such you read a lot of silliness. And no matter how many you read it is still silliness. Only a fool, a jester, a joke compares such things to slavery. It insults the real pain of slavery.
 
Boo Radley said:
Using something wrongly is still wrong no matter how often is is used wrongly. Do you really believe silliness is a modern invention? You are attracted to silly people, and as such you read a lot of silliness. And no matter how many you read it is still silliness. Only a fool, a jester, a joke compares such things to slavery. It insults the real pain of slavery.
Click to expand...

You really are predictable Joe....All you did here was insult me, and give your own opinion that you think it is silly. noted. Look, if you want to go though life cherry picking definitions because you don't like things being negatively spoken about..Well, I am not interested in your hurt feelings because you don't like how some see your destructive plans. I provided how the statement is accurate, and all you have, rather than discuss it rationally, is to attack me, and provide your opinion....But guess what, I know your opinion, and don't really care particularly about it. So, unless you have something remotely educated to say about it, then the point stands whether you like it or not.
 
hjl1991 said:
I believe that campaign Obama and president Obama are two totally different people. In 2008 he said what the people wanted to hear, and you couldn't help but like the guy. He didn't deliver on many of those promises, and obviously has straight up lied on many things in the time since. That being said, Joe Biden was a good pick for Obama in that he had a lot of experience and carried a lot of older votes towards the pair. We all know that Biden has a mouth, but ultimately he has a lot of support for the things that he says as well. After Obama's dismal first four years, I was ready to have someone come in who could fix our budget while keeping universal healthcare for everyone (even if that meant repeal and replace). But, I wasn't just going to vote in the same guy with a different name. I wasn't going to vote for a guy who as governor of Maine was something like 47th in job creation. I wasn't going to vote in a guy whose healthcare plan that he passed (though now I've learned he initially voted against the measure but was overridden in congress) was the model for the healthcare in this country today. I wasn't going to vote for a guy who made his money by gouging jobs and cutting people's pay. Romney was the anti- what I wanted. He was a tea party conservative whose monetary policies would have crushed this country, and whose moderate policies were more of the same that Americans didn't want. His moderate policies should have been monetary, and his tea party policies should have been on social issues. That's what a moderate republican is to me, and it is the same reason I didn't vote for McCain.

I think we have figured out money in the last century. Spend when in recession, and save when in a boom. So Bush and Obama were spot on with stimulus spending. However, what they didn't do was use stimulus properly. They didn't put men and women in work uniforms and rebuild highways, construct new windmills and hydro-plants, etc. They didn't create new wealth, they just gave companies more money to add to their existing wealth. But, because poor stimulus planning didn't work out, tea party members believe no stimulus should exist, and that's just backwards thinking. Reagan tripled the national deficit to increase growth in this country, but somehow all of these people in the Republican party today who worship Reagan can't seem to figure out that spending can be good.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, hjl1991. A lot to think about and possibly debate there.
 
j-mac said:
Good morning hjl. I can tell from a cursory reading of your post here that you are an almost perfect product of the public education system. I won't derail further by addressing each of the wildly wrong points you have made here, because each one of them would deserve their own thread, and could support debate on each separate issue by themselves.

However, a couple of things you got horribly wrong in your rant here;

1. Mitt Romney was Governor of Massachusetts, not Maine.

2. That you say that Romney voted against Mass health insurance mandates, but was voted down in congress, makes me wonder if you even understand governmental make up.

Massachusetts doesn't have a "congress".... As like all states they have a legislature. "Congress" is used to describe the Federal government. It's a small point I know, but accuracy here counts. So, States = Legislature, Federal system = Congress.

And lastly, if Obama has two sides, as you say, "the campaign Obama, and the President Obama".... Tell me, when do we get to see the "President Obama"??? This guy has never left the campaign.

And Biden is a joke! Probably one of the largest considerations to not impeach Obama, is because we would be stuck with that bumbling fool as President.
Click to expand...

No points that you made are really valid in any way. I messed up on a state... guess what, in a conversation it would have gotten pointed out right away. Human error happens, don't sweat the small stuff - including the difference between congress and legislature. So, I use some words that are highly similar but not exact - you still know exactly to a tee what I meant.

I'm not even going to debate this any further with you. Your asinine picking just disqualifies you from the get go.
 
j-mac said:
Why not? Couldn't be bothered, but now have an opinion? :roll:



So, you are really for one party rule. "Likeable", "moderate" are both terms that define liberal/progressive ideology to a tee. You chose, and vote on emotion...That is a horrible way to pick who runs the country.



No, he really didn't that was how progressives defined him in their narrative, and you bought it.
Click to expand...

If I voted on emotion, I would have voted. I wanted a more viable candidate than Obama to emerge, and it didn't happen. Likeable and moderate are terms that can also define republicans to a tee. I'm not a liberal, but I agree with some of the things that they say based on real life experience.

Finally, I didn't just watch how progressives defined him, I watched countless videos of him flip flopping on issues throughout the year. He said whatever would make him more likeable in whatever particular town he visited that day. I'm sorry, but his campaign was nothing like his debates against Obama - and that's a huge reason why Obama was speechless during the first debate - he had no idea what to say to stances he had never heard. That was planned by design.
 
hjl1991 said:
No points that you made are really valid in any way. I messed up on a state... guess what, in a conversation it would have gotten pointed out right away. Human error happens, don't sweat the small stuff - including the difference between congress and legislature. So, I use some words that are highly similar but not exact - you still know exactly to a tee what I meant.

I'm not even going to debate this any further with you. Your asinine picking just disqualifies you from the get go.
Click to expand...


:lamo paraphrase....'I don't like where you are going, so I am kicking over the game board and going home.'....hahaha, Run along now....:lamo

If I voted on emotion, I would have voted. I wanted a more viable candidate than Obama to emerge, and it didn't happen. Likeable and moderate are terms that can also define republicans to a tee. I'm not a liberal, but I agree with some of the things that they say based on real life experience.

Finally, I didn't just watch how progressives defined him, I watched countless videos of him flip flopping on issues throughout the year. He said whatever would make him more likeable in whatever particular town he visited that day. I'm sorry, but his campaign was nothing like his debates against Obama - and that's a huge reason why Obama was speechless during the first debate - he had no idea what to say to stances he had never heard. That was planned by design.
Click to expand...

I thought you said, to quote you exactly: "I'm not even going to debate this any further with you." yet, you just can't help yourself....:lamo

Anyway, you didn't even vote, so I have little time for your criticisms now. Have a nice day. :2wave:
 
j-mac said:
You really are predictable Joe....All you did here was insult me, and give your own opinion that you think it is silly. noted. Look, if you want to go though life cherry picking definitions because you don't like things being negatively spoken about..Well, I am not interested in your hurt feelings because you don't like how some see your destructive plans. I provided how the statement is accurate, and all you have, rather than discuss it rationally, is to attack me, and provide your opinion....But guess what, I know your opinion, and don't really care particularly about it. So, unless you have something remotely educated to say about it, then the point stands whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

I have cherry picked nothing. Nor did you even give a definition. You cited some one making yet another silly comparison. That's what I addressed. Neither taxes nor ACA is anything like slavery. If they are nothing alike, they can't be compared as a metaphor. This is not rocket science. I never claimed no one ever makes silly comparison, so you giving examples of other errors doesn't prove your point. That's what I'm trying to get across to you. A metaphor is a comparison. To be valid, they must be alike.
 
Boo Radley said:
I have cherry picked nothing. Nor did you even give a definition. You cited some one making yet another silly comparison. That's what I addressed. Neither taxes nor ACA is anything like slavery. If they are nothing alike, they can't be compared as a metaphor. This is not rocket science. I never claimed no one ever makes silly comparison, so you giving examples of other errors doesn't prove your point. That's what I'm trying to get across to you. A metaphor is a comparison. To be valid, they must be alike.
Click to expand...

I am afraid that your attempt here is already past its use by date....You can tantrum all you want but your opinion on this has been debunked, now move on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom