• 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

Somewhat, but you have to actually show an abuse. You can't just scream a tyranny and expect to be taken seriously.

Do you think the federal government is corrupt?

Granted, I assume that you don't think that any LIBERAL politician is corrupt, and handing $600 million to campaign friends is perfectly reasonable to build a broken website, and exempting companies from the ACA but not individuals makes perfect sense, and you feel deep down that the Citizens United Case is really about Republican corruption and that the fact that the majority of big business donated to Democrats while being exempted from ACA is just clearly a sign that the big evil 1% have had a change of heart. In other words, I assume that the only real measure you will use for what is and isn't corrupt is the existence of an R or a D next to the name.. but if there is an R there can you agree that such actions would be corruption?

I operate on the motto "If you can't trust a power to a political rival don't wish it for your political ally". The wheel of government has ways of turning no matter how much anyone wants it to stop. Whether it is Republicans or some other party the Democrats will not go unopposed, and at some point all these powers that Obama has taken for himself, to refuse to enforce laws, to grant exemptions to friends to laws on the books, to ignore congress, to tell congress when it is and isn't in session, to compel all Americans to buy a commodity -- all of this -- will one day be placed in the hands of a politician that scares the sh*t out of you.
 
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?

To some degree there likely is a connection. The reaction to Obama gets so hyperbolic, worse than Clinton. Hell, worse than Carter, and add to it what you can hear in far too many social settings, well, the question is valid.

And I have studied the vouchers extensively, and gains have been modest or non-existent. You have to do an overall study, as we have public schools that do better and worse as well. In an overall measurement, there is literally no difference. None.
 
Do you think the federal government is corrupt?

Granted, I assume that you don't think that any LIBERAL politician is corrupt, and handing $600 million to campaign friends is perfectly reasonable to build a broken website, and exempting companies from the ACA but not individuals makes perfect sense, and you feel deep down that the Citizens United Case is really about Republican corruption and that the fact that the majority of big business donated to Democrats while being exempted from ACA is just clearly a sign that the big evil 1% have had a change of heart. In other words, I assume that the only real measure you will use for what is and isn't corrupt is the existence of an R or a D next to the name.. but if there is an R there can you agree that such actions would be corruption?

I operate on the motto "If you can't trust a power to a political rival don't wish it for your political ally". The wheel of government has ways of turning no matter how much anyone wants it to stop. Whether it is Republicans or some other party the Democrats will not go unopposed, and at some point all these powers that Obama has taken for himself, to refuse to enforce laws, to grant exemptions to friends to laws on the books, to ignore congress, to tell congress when it is and isn't in session, to compel all Americans to buy a commodity -- all of this -- will one day be placed in the hands of a politician that scares the sh*t out of you.

You misjudge me badly. I think both sides are fairly close to equally corrupt, a moving target that is worse at times with one party over another, but overall equally corrupt. But corruption doesn't equal tyranny, nor does it mean an idea is wrong, or illegal or even that we can't trust government in all areas. We have checks and balances, and we can overthrow the government every election cycle, should we choose to exercise our power.

And no, reasons for exemptions need not be across the board to be correct. There may well be sound reasoning for exempting some and not others. It all depends on the reasoning. And I doubt anyone one stood up and said I'm doing it for my political friends or kick backs. You actually have to prove those things, regardless of party. Sometimes we get so caught up in the partisanship, the distrust, that we see evils that may really be based in sound reasoning.
 
You misjudge me badly. I think both sides are fairly close to equally corrupt, a moving target that is worse at times with one party over another, but overall equally corrupt. But corruption doesn't equal tyranny, nor does it mean an idea is wrong, or illegal or even that we can't trust government in all areas. We have checks and balances, and we can overthrow the government every election cycle, should we choose to exercise our power.

And no, reasons for exemptions need not be across the board to be correct. There may well be sound reasoning for exempting some and not others. It all depends on the reasoning. And I doubt anyone one stood up and said I'm doing it for my political friends or kick backs. You actually have to prove those things, regardless of party. Sometimes we get so caught up in the partisanship, the distrust, that we see evils that may really be based in sound reasoning.


If you believe the government is corrupt then you believe in government abuse. Why should anyone need to prove to you what you already know to be true?

Thank you for playing.
 
To some degree there likely is a connection. The reaction to Obama gets so hyperbolic, worse than Clinton. Hell, worse than Carter, and add to it what you can hear in far too many social settings, well, the question is valid.

And I have studied the vouchers extensively, and gains have been modest or non-existent. You have to do an overall study, as we have public schools that do better and worse as well. In an overall measurement, there is literally no difference. None.

Well then, If you really think that the only reason that there is such push back is in large part due to some racism I can't help you. But, I sure would like you to name those politicians in office right now you think are racist. As for the push back, and why it is worse than Carter, or Clinton is because both of those Presidents at least gave the appearance of at least trying to work with the opposition. Obama, has no problem with using the most divisive language I have heard in my memory to demonize the other side when he doesn't get his way. Maybe he thinks that works, but I can tell you, and you should know, you don't get everything easily when you constantly brow beat those whom you want on your side.

As for vouchers, expanding out the successes is just another way of watering down the success of the good schools, and hiding the poor performers, which is what poor performers always opt for...;)
 
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

so your argument is that since the current version of the healthcare law did not originate in the house and was passed in a different order, it is unconstitutional? i seem to recall that was not how the plantiff's presented their case to the supreme court decision that upheld the law.
 
If you believe the government is corrupt then you believe in government abuse. Why should anyone need to prove to you what you already know to be true?

Thank you for playing.

do try to read all of what I said. You seem to have missed the actual point.
 
do try to read all of what I said. You seem to have missed the actual point.

I read everything you said. First you said that screaming tyranny doesn't make it so, you need to prove abuse... then you agree there is abuse, but it isn't tyranny... and then you finished with a asinine assertion that laws don't need to be applied evenly and uneven application of the law is sometimes justified.

In other words, you support tyranny, you just refuse to accept the definition of the word.
 
Well then, If you really think that the only reason that there is such push back is in large part due to some racism I can't help you. But, I sure would like you to name those politicians in office right now you think are racist. As for the push back, and why it is worse than Carter, or Clinton is because both of those Presidents at least gave the appearance of at least trying to work with the opposition. Obama, has no problem with using the most divisive language I have heard in my memory to demonize the other side when he doesn't get his way. Maybe he thinks that works, but I can tell you, and you should know, you don't get everything easily when you constantly brow beat those whom you want on your side.

As for vouchers, expanding out the successes is just another way of watering down the success of the good schools, and hiding the poor performers, which is what poor performers always opt for...;)

The push back is from people. But as much lying as has always gone on by presidents and congress critters, show one other instance where some one from congress yelled during a president address to congress: you lie? Are we to really believe Obama, assuming he actually lied, was the first president to exaggerate or fib? Was his really so outrageous in comparison that no other response was possible? So, asking what separates him is valid.

And that is just one example. If we discuss behavior you find in the public, well, that can get pretty ugly at times.

And Obama has been no worse, if not any better, than the vast majority of politicians in his tone, his divisiveness, or anything else. There is no logical reason for him to be treated worse. This is what makes the question valid.

And no, you're actually wrong concerning vouchers. If the system is what is effective, it would compare on the whole. An individual success would be related to a narrow group, something like better students to begin with. It would be the anomaly. To study systems, you don't focus on outliners, but the whole. And the whole shows no significant difference. And as this is with them being very selective, taking only the best most likely to succeed, you have to be less than thrilled with the results. They really should be much, much better (though leaving the most needy behind, giving up as opposed to fixing).

So I don't see the appeal.
 
The push back is from people. But as much lying as has always gone on by presidents and congress critters, show one other instance where some one from congress yelled during a president address to congress: you lie? Are we to really believe Obama, assuming he actually lied, was the first president to exaggerate or fib? Was his really so outrageous in comparison that no other response was possible? So, asking what separates him is valid.

And that is just one example. If we discuss behavior you find in the public, well, that can get pretty ugly at times.

And Obama has been no worse, if not any better, than the vast majority of politicians in his tone, his divisiveness, or anything else. There is no logical reason for him to be treated worse. This is what makes the question valid.

Joe, stick with one direction will ya? You're all over the place. Concerning the blurt from one of our fine congressmen here in SC, I have the impression that it was out before he could stop himself, but apologized for the outburst, and the apology was accepted by the President. However, that didn't stop Obama from using that incident for months to come against republicans, as well as you now trying to use it to justify your silly claims of no opposition can be had of Obama without racism. As for regular people on the street? You can probably find anecdotal, situational examples, but you are making the mistake of generalizing an entire group of people that have problems with Obama, either in character, or policy, and making it all about his race. As for the comparison to Carter, or Clinton, I simply disagree. Obama has been the most divisive liberal President in my voting lifetime. I think you are intentionally closing your eyes to it.

And no, you're actually wrong concerning vouchers. If the system is what is effective, it would compare on the whole. An individual success would be related to a narrow group, something like better students to begin with. It would be the anomaly. To study systems, you don't focus on outliners, but the whole. And the whole shows no significant difference. And as this is with them being very selective, taking only the best most likely to succeed, you have to be less than thrilled with the results. They really should be much, much better (though leaving the most needy behind, giving up as opposed to fixing).

So I don't see the appeal.

Shouldn't you as an educator want to use what works better?
 
Joe, stick with one direction will ya? You're all over the place. Concerning the blurt from one of our fine congressmen here in SC, I have the impression that it was out before he could stop himself, but apologized for the outburst, and the apology was accepted by the President. However, that didn't stop Obama from using that incident for months to come against republicans, as well as you now trying to use it to justify your silly claims of no opposition can be had of Obama without racism. As for regular people on the street? You can probably find anecdotal, situational examples, but you are making the mistake of generalizing an entire group of people that have problems with Obama, either in character, or policy, and making it all about his race. As for the comparison to Carter, or Clinton, I simply disagree. Obama has been the most divisive liberal President in my voting lifetime. I think you are intentionally closing your eyes to it.

Not all over the place. You asked about congress critters. I answered. And has your fine congressman ever had these out bursts before that he couldn't control, or is it only with Obama that he has not control? Just asking.

And yes, politicians use mistakes and poor behavior, and the sun often shines, and water is wet. Nothing shocking there.

If you really want, we can link many pictures and videos of people behaving poorly and racist. You've seen much of that over the years, so I'm not sure why you would ask for it. But if you do, I'll look it up for you when I get time.

Shouldn't you as an educator want to use what works better?

I worry j because I just told vouchers don't work better. In two posts I have laid that out. So how can you ask this question? What did you miss?
 
I like Dr Carson a lot and would love to see him run for president in 2016....To the people that say not enough experience think Obama.
 
I like Dr Carson a lot and would love to see him run for president in 2016....To the people that say not enough experience think Obama.
By all means...make him the GOP candidate!
 
I like Dr Carson a lot and would love to see him run for president in 2016....To the people that say not enough experience think Obama.

Well Dr. Carson has said that Obamacare is the worse thing that has happened since slavery. But he has not experienced either Obamacare or slavery which like a kid who says he doesn't like the veggies even though he hasn't tried them. Does that make him a good candidate for president?
 
Not all over the place. You asked about congress critters. I answered. And has your fine congressman ever had these out bursts before that he couldn't control, or is it only with Obama that he has not control? Just asking.

And yes, politicians use mistakes and poor behavior, and the sun often shines, and water is wet. Nothing shocking there.

If you really want, we can link many pictures and videos of people behaving poorly and racist. You've seen much of that over the years, so I'm not sure why you would ask for it. But if you do, I'll look it up for you when I get time.



I worry j because I just told vouchers don't work better. In two posts I have laid that out. So how can you ask this question? What did you miss?

My 'fine' congressman is Trey Gowdy....love that guy....! And no, you didn't lay out much other than your weak attempts to water down the success....What did you miss?
 
Well Dr. Carson has said that Obamacare is the worse thing that has happened since slavery. But he has not experienced either Obamacare or slavery which like a kid who says he doesn't like the veggies even though he hasn't tried them. Does that make him a good candidate for president?

Pretty sure he would know more about both than you do....
 
My 'fine' congressman is Trey Gowdy....love that guy....! And no, you didn't lay out much other than your weak attempts to water down the success....What did you miss?

J that's just not true. The numbers are out there. There is no overall success. You're measuring wrong. Say we have a new truck design. Your best driver does well with the truck, but overall most do poorly. Would you invest in truck? Think about it.
 
J that's just not true. The numbers are out there. There is no overall success. You're measuring wrong. Say we have a new truck design. Your best driver does well with the truck, but overall most do poorly. Would you invest in truck? Think about it.

I'd re evaluate my drivers....;)
 
I'd re evaluate my drivers....;)

You did. The drivers are fine. The trucks merely aren't suitable, and the exception can always be found with every single truck. Same with educational efforts. You have to show the system makes a difference and you can't cherry pick just those that suit you.
 
You did. The drivers are fine. The trucks merely aren't suitable, and the exception can always be found with every single truck. Same with educational efforts. You have to show the system makes a difference and you can't cherry pick just those that suit you.

Or is it possible that I have drivers that are burned out, and just don't care anymore about the equipment, nor are willing to learn the new changes to equipment, and still drive it like they did 20 years ago, and blame it on the truck?

You have to look within the ranks of the teaching community, and see that there are some really bad apples among the good ones.
 
Or is it possible that I have drivers that are burned out, and just don't care anymore about the equipment, nor are willing to learn the new changes to equipment, and still drive it like they did 20 years ago, and blame it on the truck?

You have to look within the ranks of the teaching community, and see that there are some really bad apples among the good ones.

Not really.

And yes, I've look at the ranks. They mirror society. They are some excellent ones, some good ones, some average ones, some below average, and some poor ones.

Worse yet, the are idiot legislators listening to idiot voters who know knowing about the profession, leading to silly ass legislation like NCLB, or parents demanding, and getting, a rule that. A student gets 55% credit for an assignment even if they do it.

Yes, I know what is going on better than you might think.
 
Not really.

And yes, I've look at the ranks. They mirror society. They are some excellent ones, some good ones, some average ones, some below average, and some poor ones.

Worse yet, the are idiot legislators listening to idiot voters who know knowing about the profession, leading to silly ass legislation like NCLB, or parents demanding, and getting, a rule that. A student gets 55% credit for an assignment even if they do it.

Yes, I know what is going on better than you might think.

Oh, you mean that silly ass legislation that Ted Kennedy wrote? And yeah those darn parents...either you want they involvement, or you don't....Make up your mind...Or maybe you just want a scapegoat for your own inadequacy...?
 
Oh, you mean that silly ass legislation that Ted Kennedy wrote? And yeah those darn parents...either you want they involvement, or you don't....Make up your mind...Or maybe you just want a scapegoat for your own inadequacy...?

That legislation came from Texas with Bush, modeled exactly after it. So play partisan games if you want, as I didn't single out a party.

And I want rational involvement. No one benefits from amateurs wildly making rules that do more harm than good. At some point we take a malfunction car to a mechanic, a sick person to a doctor, and a building project to a contractor. There's a reason for that.
 
That legislation came from Texas with Bush, modeled exactly after it. So play partisan games if you want, as I didn't single out a party.

"The bill passed in the U.S. Congress with bipartisan support.[5]

The legislation was proposed by President George W. Bush on January 23, 2001. It was coauthored by Representatives John Boehner (R-OH), George Miller (D-CA), and Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Judd Gregg (R-NH). The United States House of Representatives passed the bill on May 23, 2001 (voting 384–45),[6] and the United States Senate passed it on June 14, 2001 (voting 91–8).[7] President Bush signed it into law on January 8, 2002."

No Child Left Behind Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I want rational involvement. No one benefits from amateurs wildly making rules that do more harm than good. At some point we take a malfunction car to a mechanic, a sick person to a doctor, and a building project to a contractor. There's a reason for that.


Home schooling does better than public education....That is a fact...

Homeschool World - News - Some Fascinating Facts About Homeschool vs Public School

Amateurs....pfft!
 
"The bill passed in the U.S. Congress with bipartisan support.[5]

The legislation was proposed by President George W. Bush on January 23, 2001. It was coauthored by Representatives John Boehner (R-OH), George Miller (D-CA), and Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Judd Gregg (R-NH). The United States House of Representatives passed the bill on May 23, 2001 (voting 384–45),[6] and the United States Senate passed it on June 14, 2001 (voting 91–8).[7] President Bush signed it into law on January 8, 2002."

No Child Left Behind Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Home schooling does better than public education....That is a fact...

Homeschool World - News - Some Fascinating Facts About Homeschool vs Public School

Amateurs....pfft!

The bill was 100% modeled after Bush's Texas program. That's just a fact. That democrats worked with to make it happen doesn't change it, nor does any of it matter to what I said. Damn man, try to grasp what's being argued.

We weren't talking about homeschooling. Home school folks who have educational background and the capabilities to teach do better at home. If everyone homeschooled, the results would be ugly. Even here you fail to see the larger truth. Home schooling is nothing more that a fringe option for a few.
 
Back
Top Bottom