• 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

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.

I cited the Origination Clause (Art. I, Sec. 7). Pretty specific. You "seeming to recall that was not how the plantiff's presented their case to the supreme court decision that upheld the law" doesn't really uh....I mean, what, am I supposed to guess what it is that refutes my very specific argument?
 
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.

Brilliant. I couldn't have put it better myself...and I'm pretty damn GOOD!
 
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.

"Bill Clinton Blames Kennedy for No Child Left Behind Flaws"
Bill Clinton Blames Kennedy for No Child Left Behind Flaws - ABC News

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.

And you fail to grasp that our teachers are failing out kids Joe...

"Education is deteriorating and the nation’s children are not learning. Maybe it’s because the education programs are failing to prepare educators. A recent report found that the majority of education programs that train our K-12 teachers are mediocre, at best.

At best!?

snip

But some programs, 14 percent of them, were so poor in quality that they received no stars and were slapped with a “consumer alert.”

Failing Students, Failing Teachers | Loop21

But I am sure you will now blame it on anyone, anything other than teachers, and bloated school district administration....But, we have batted this argument back and forth forever Joe...And I don't think we will settle it in a thread you derailed here either....Good day.
 
"Bill Clinton Blames Kennedy for No Child Left Behind Flaws"
Bill Clinton Blames Kennedy for No Child Left Behind Flaws - ABC News

Which means absolutely nothing to what I have said. Do you understand this?

And you fail to grasp that our teachers are failing out kids Joe...

"Education is deteriorating and the nation’s children are not learning. Maybe it’s because the education programs are failing to prepare educators. A recent report found that the majority of education programs that train our K-12 teachers are mediocre, at best.

At best!?

snip

But some programs, 14 percent of them, were so poor in quality that they received no stars and were slapped with a “consumer alert.”

Failing Students, Failing Teachers | Loop21

But I am sure you will now blame it on anyone, anything other than teachers, and bloated school district administration....But, we have batted this argument back and forth forever Joe...And I don't think we will settle it in a thread you derailed here either....Good day.

You think a maybe from one source ends the debate? You lack a complete view. First, we do about what we've always done with education. The fact is the rest of world has just improved (largely with socialistic efforts by the way), and not that we've deteriorated. Second, you fail to consider the multitude of factors involved. Like too many, you want an easy scape goat. No one denies there are some poor teachers just as there are poor truck drivers and poor CEO's. But they do not represent a majority.

BTW, the same teachers you call failing are actually in the other schools. There is little difference between them or between schools. The major difference is often the students they have.
 
j-mac;1062456616Home schooling does better than public education....That is a fact... [url=http://www.home-school.com/news/homeschool-vs-public-school.php said:
Homeschool World - News - Some Fascinating Facts About Homeschool vs Public School[/url]

Amateurs....pfft!

Assuming the parents take an educator role, you are correct. However, not every parent can or has the educational ability to homeschool. I've seen the effects from both good homeschooling and bad homeschooling. One parent actually hurt their childs education progress and the child was forced to go back to public school because the inability of the parent to homeschool.

Homsechooling isn't the answer for every child or parent.
 
I cited the Origination Clause (Art. I, Sec. 7). Pretty specific. You "seeming to recall that was not how the plantiff's presented their case to the supreme court decision that upheld the law" doesn't really uh....I mean, what, am I supposed to guess what it is that refutes my very specific argument?

Your argument on the healthcare law being unconstitutional was not the issue the Supreme Court was dealing with when they upheld the law.
 
Which means absolutely nothing to what I have said. Do you understand this?



You think a maybe from one source ends the debate? You lack a complete view. First, we do about what we've always done with education. The fact is the rest of world has just improved (largely with socialistic efforts by the way), and not that we've deteriorated. Second, you fail to consider the multitude of factors involved. Like too many, you want an easy scape goat. No one denies there are some poor teachers just as there are poor truck drivers and poor CEO's. But they do not represent a majority.

BTW, the same teachers you call failing are actually in the other schools. There is little difference between them or between schools. The major difference is often the students they have.

Well, the fact of the matter is that public education is failing our kids and all you have is excuse after excuse. Typical.

So it's clear that you don't want to stay on topic, so I'm done with it here.

If you want to continue, start a thread.
 
Well, the fact of the matter is that public education is failing our kids and all you have is excuse after excuse. Typical.

So it's clear that you don't want to stay on topic, so I'm done with it here.

If you want to continue, start a thread.

Hardly. I work every day trying to improve it.

And you have been the one moving the topic, and not me. So I'm not sure why you all of the sudden get huffy about your diversions. I'll answer anything you put up. If you don't want to discuss those things, don't put them up. So perhaps you should take your own advice?
 
Rule of law is not tyranny.

Because "tyranny" has a specific definition, your statement cannot be true even as a matter of opinion.

At some point the hyperbole becomes cartoonish.

It's your defense mechanism shielding you from the trauma of having to have your reality shattered. Disable it, then go and have your BS meter recalibrated.


This is why your leaders lose credibility so quickly.

Leaders? What leaders? I belong to no party. The parties were created to divide the people and make for easier manipulation. The "electoral" voting process was introduced so that candidates who didn't have the most votes could win. Now that machines count the votes, there will never be another "true" election anyway. How much do you want to bet that if the people demanded a hand count, and organized volunteers to do it, the gov would deny them? The machines guarantee them rigged elections with little to no effort, they will not give that up

I don't have "leaders" telling me to write this, I'm merely posting the results of my objective observations.

You're entire response fits that category.

Okay, good idea. Let's categorize responses.

In my response I gave a full explanation, textbook style, citing Article 1, section 7 of the constitution. It was very detailed and articulate, with reasoning that is very easy to understand.

Your response can be categorized somewhere between nothing and barely an opinion. Your statement "rule of law is not tyranny" doesn't even really apply as a response. A sort of disconnect on your part is apparent. Your other statements are just your opinion, applied very thinly with nothing else. If I state my opinion, I will always follow it up with my reasoning for that opinion. You should try that. You'll come across more effectively.
 
Last edited:
Because "tyranny" has a specific definition, your statement cannot be true even as a matter of opinion.



It's your defense mechanism shielding you from the trauma of having to have your reality shattered. Disable it, then go and have your BS meter recalibrated.




Leaders? What leaders? I belong to no party. The parties were created to divide the people and make for easier manipulation. The "electoral" voting process was introduced so that candidates who didn't have the most votes could win. Now that machines count the votes, there will never be another "true" election. I don't have "leaders" telling me to write this, I'm merely posting the results of my objective observations.



Okay, good idea. Let's categorize responses.

In my response I gave a full explanation, textbook style, citing Article 1, section 7 of the constitution. It was very detailed and articulate, with reasoning that is very easy to understand.

Your response can be categorized somewhere between nothing and barely an opinion. Your statement "rule of law is not tyranny" doesn't even really apply as a response. A sort of disconnect on your part is apparent. Your other statements are just your opinion, applied very thinly with nothing else. If I state my opinion, I will always follow it up with my reasoning for that opinion. You should try that.

Yes, tyranny has a specific definition, and nothing about the health care law fits that definition, let alone slavery.

And yes leaders. Your credibility doesn't matter that much. But when Leaders, often if the Tea Party strip, stand and say the silliness vomited in the op and those of similar stripe, they lose all credibility.

I don't recall your opening post, but as I've seen these sections posted before, I've noticed that many who post them don't understand them. For some strange reason they think with next to no actual knowledge they can read and interpret better than the scholars and judges who have ruled on the. Now that's hubris. Understand, the Constitution is something the judges have read and consulted. It's not a secret.
 
Your argument on the healthcare law being unconstitutional was not the issue the Supreme Court was dealing with when they upheld the law.

You said that already. Soooo....that's it? You're not going to maybe say what the issue was, then, and refute my argument?
 
Yes, tyranny has a specific definition, and nothing about the health care law fits that definition, let alone slaveAnd yes leaders. Your credibility doesn't matter that much. But when Leaders, often if the Tea Party strip, stand and say the silliness vomited in the op and those of similar stripe, they lose all credibility. I don't recall your opening post, but as I've seen these sections posted before, I've noticed that many who post them don't understand them. For some strange reason they think with next to no actual knowledge they can read and interpret better than the scholars and judges who have ruled on the. Now that's hubris. Understand, the Constitution is something the judges have read and consulted. It's not a secret.

You're beginning to display the telltale signs of a shill, but you're still in the "benefit of the doubt" phase. One of the first signs is the Mr. Magoo posting that display signs of confusion or dimentia. They need to establish this because all of their future posts rely on this feigned "confusion" to completely ignore every valid point you've just made. In this way, they keep the thread running in circles and no progress is made.

For you, it's too early to tell if you are really just confused or not but the red flag was that you threw in "let alone slavery" as if you were completely unaware that the slavery clause I mentioned in a previous post is in executive order 13603. I never said it was part of obamacare and I find it difficult to confuse obamacare with EO 13603. Let it be duly noted - I now welcome all shills. If you're a shill, I'm going to expose you, humiliate you as a beneficiary of my unparalleled wit, and then have you banned. I'd much rather have a true debate.
 
You're beginning to display the telltale signs of a shill, but you're still in the "benefit of the doubt" phase. One of the first signs is the Mr. Magoo posting that display signs of confusion or dimentia. They need to establish this because all of their future posts rely on this feigned "confusion" to completely ignore every valid point you've just made. In this way, they keep the thread running in circles and no progress is made.

For you, it's too early to tell if you are really just confused or not but the red flag was that you threw in "let alone slavery" as if you were completely unaware that the slavery clause I mentioned in a previous post is in executive order 13603. I never said it was part of obamacare and I find it difficult to confuse obamacare with EO 13603. Let it be duly noted - I now welcome all shills. If you're a shill, I'm going to expose you, humiliate you as a beneficiary of my unparalleled wit, and then have you banned. I'd much rather have a true debate.

The thread is on ACA and the comparison to slavery. What are you not getting?
 
The suggestion that the ACA is as bad as slavery is a carelessly hidden insult to people who oppose slavery. While at the same time showing how the teabaggers are able to so easily make the comparison and draw a similiarity. In essence it's letting us all know that slavery was quite acceptable to them. And it's also showing us that the baggers are still whining and crying about losing the civil war and they still haven't go over it. They're using Obama and their ugly racism toward him in an attempt to fight it all over again.
 
What, exactly, are these improvements?

I work with college preparedness, and seeking to make more students college ready. I meet with high school instructors and and college faculty to see where disconnects are. I run joint sessions with each to improve communications and improve standards.
 
The suggestion that the ACA is as bad as slavery is a carelessly hidden insult to people who oppose slavery. While at the same time showing how the teabaggers are able to so easily make the comparison and draw a similiarity. In essence it's letting us all know that slavery was quite acceptable to them. And it's also showing us that the baggers are still whining and crying about losing the civil war and they still haven't go over it. They're using Obama and their ugly racism toward him in an attempt to fight it all over again.

Earth to poster, Dr. Carson is black
 
Michael66 to you. Lay off the insulting innuendos or I'll report you for harassing me.

Cry all you want, calling a black man a racist is hilarious, you are very entertaining:lamo
 
Understand, the Constitution is something the judges have read and consulted. It's not a secret.

Precisely, so when something is unconstitutional for 230+ years, then , suddenly it's not. I would question the integrity of that judge. In other words, any judge who violates the constitution should go down for felony perjury.
 
I work with college preparedness, and seeking to make more students college ready. I meet with high school instructors and and college faculty to see where disconnects are. I run joint sessions with each to improve communications and improve standards.

What's your opinion on where those "disconnects" are? Very important to figure out what these are. Too many students are unprepared for college, and I don't mean just academically, although there is that. They are also too intellectually and emotionally immature to do the work.

Remember "Why Can't Johnny Read?" That was a generation ago.
 
Which you started. ;)

Nope, sorry Joe, but I remember our conversation very well, and with the technology of being able to go back and read, it is really easy....On page 85 you started diverting into wild assertions that I never made, in fact it was like, out of a long post you were only focused on a singular aspect that was between myself, and another poster, that I had already corrected. But, for a whole page you wanted to beat that horse, and then when you realized you were starting to look foolish, you switched the tact on the next page to reparations, which, while still relevant as a side conversation, still not what Dr. Carson was talking about. Then on the next page, you took that argument about reparations, and used it to insert "education" into the conversation. It is all right here....http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...happened-since-slavery-89.html#post1062449842 and that is the first mention of education at all into the conversation, made by YOU....

Now, just to recap, you insert yourself into a conversation dispute between myself, and another that is already settled, then you shift the conversation off topic by adding another issue, then you take it a step further by changing the focus all together by arguing totally off topic about education for the next 8 pages.

Now, I really don't any longer want to talk about you, or your off topic diversions Joe, so if there is something about the thread that you'd like to discuss honestly, then by all means post it, and I will absolutely read it and respond, but I am not going to get into trouble by entertaining your wild diversions.

:2wave: :peace:
 
Precisely, so when something is unconstitutional for 230+ years, then , suddenly it's not. I would question the integrity of that judge. In other words, any judge who violates the constitution should go down for felony perjury.

There is no evidence it was unconstitutional before. If an issue hasn't been up before doesn't mean it was unconstitutional before. You're making a logic error I think.
 
Back
Top Bottom