• 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

Yes, I have talked to you about this before and from what I remember you lacked any sort of argument.

Yes, because I was too busy attempting to put the pieces of my skull back together after my head exploded from the sheer audacity it takes to compare mandatory health insurance to forcibly removing people from their homeland; shipping them across the ocean to buy and sell as chattel; forcing them to labor under grueling conditions for no pay; brutally whipping, raping and sometimes killing them; and fighting a bloody war to protect these practices when enough people finally got sick of that bull.
 
Can you prove that section 1233 didn't implement death panels? That should be easy, using the text of the bill. Yes?

You can't do it, either, but I have to ask.

Yes, I can prove that.

Nothing in the section indicated that the government would have any control over decisions made as a result of that end-of-life consultation. There was no "panel" of any kind created by that section. The only people involved would be the patient and a doctor. Medicare would pay for that consultation.

No "government bureaucrat" would be attending.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I can prove that.

Nothing in the section indicated that the government would have any control over decisions made as a result of that end-of-life consultation. There was no "panel" of any kind created by that section. The only people involved would be the patient and a doctor. Medicare would pay for that consultation.

No "government bureaucrat" would be attending.

Game, set, match.
 
Really? Did he go to law school too?

I'll take my chances with Roberts or Scalia.

Why would you have to be a lawyer to understand the constitution? About half of the men who create it were not lawyers.
 
Why would you have to be a lawyer to understand the constitution? About half of the men who create it were not lawyers.

Personally, I think anyone trying to compare a $695 penalty for not having health insurance to slavery and murder is a bit delusional. To the point where that person's interpretation of the constitution is suspect.
 
Why would you have to be a lawyer to understand the constitution? About half of the men who create it were not lawyers.
Because lay people often misread, and seldom see how one thing connects to another. Th lay person too often thinks it's clear, which is the first sign of not understanding. This is true of nearly all such documents.
 
Yes, because I was too busy attempting to put the pieces of my skull back together after my head exploded from the sheer audacity it takes to compare mandatory health insurance to forcibly removing people from their homeland; shipping them across the ocean to buy and sell as chattel; forcing them to labor under grueling conditions for no pay; brutally whipping, raping and sometimes killing them; and fighting a bloody war to protect these practices when enough people finally got sick of that bull.

Chattel slavery or otherwise known as traditional slavery is not the only type of slavery. Forcing people into service for others is involuntary servitude and a type of slavery. When a business owner has to provide a service to their employee against their will that is involuntary servitude and thus slavery. Much like it's involuntary servitude to force insurance companies to provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Involuntary servitude is not dependent on compensation nor does it call for the individual to be whipped, raped or threatened with death.
 
Chattel slavery or otherwise known as traditional slavery is not the only type of slavery. Forcing people into service for others is involuntary servitude and a type of slavery. When a business owner has to provide a service to their employee against their will that is involuntary servitude and thus slavery. Much like it's involuntary servitude to force insurance companies to provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Involuntary servitude is not dependent on compensation, nor does it call for the individual to be whipped, raped or threatened with death.

Yeah! And when a pilot is forced to be trained properly, it's a sort of involuntary servitude to his passengers!
 
Chattel slavery or otherwise known as traditional slavery is not the only type of slavery. Forcing people into service for others is involuntary servitude and a type of slavery. When a business owner has to provide a service to their employee against their will that is involuntary servitude and thus slavery. Much like it's involuntary servitude to force insurance companies to provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Involuntary servitude is not dependent on compensation nor does it call for the individual to be whipped, raped or threatened with death.

And this is where we will never, ever agree.
 
Chattel slavery or otherwise known as traditional slavery is not the only type of slavery. Forcing people into service for others is involuntary servitude and a type of slavery. When a business owner has to provide a service to their employee against their will that is involuntary servitude and thus slavery. Much like it's involuntary servitude to force insurance companies to provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Involuntary servitude is not dependent on compensation, nor does it call for the individual to be whipped, raped or threatened with death.

He's right:

Originally Posted by Kobie
Yes, because I was too busy attempting to put the pieces of my skull back together after my head exploded from the sheer audacity it takes to compare mandatory health insurance to forcibly removing people from their homeland; shipping them across the ocean to buy and sell as chattel; forcing them to labor under grueling conditions for no pay; brutally whipping, raping and sometimes killing them; and fighting a bloody war to protect these practices when enough people finally got sick of that bull.

No form of slavery is anything but but mindless exaggeration as a comparison.
 
Yeah! And when a pilot is forced to be trained properly, it's a sort of involuntary servitude to his passengers!

That is ridiculous on a few different levels. The most obvious one being that the force is on the pilot, not the passengers.
 
And this is where we will never, ever agree.

Forcing someone into service for another is involuntary servitude. Sorry, but there is nothing to disagree with.
 
That is ridiculous on a few different levels. The most obvious one being that the force is on the pilot, not the passengers.

Yes. I, as a pilot, am forced to do all sorts of things in the name of passenger safety. Like recurrent training. And having a license. Why, that dastardly government even forces me to have my plane inspected regularly!
 
Forcing someone into service for another is involuntary servitude. Sorry, but there is nothing to disagree with.
No one is forced. Period.
 
When a Democrat puts together a healthcare plan which requires that everyone carry health insurance (not exactly a terrible idea), the Right calls it akin to slavery. But, when A GOP President sends US Soldiers to war under false pretext, it's called serving your country :roll:

No wonder no one outside the crazy 27% takes these clowns serious anymore.
 
Because lay people often misread, and seldom see how one thing connects to another. Th lay person too often thinks it's clear, which is the first sign of not understanding. This is true of nearly all such documents.

Aw, I see. So the lawyers on the supreme court have never made a mistake that was later changed. They must have never missed a connection or never misread the constitution, that's impressive.
 
But, when A GOP President sends US Soldiers to war under false pretext, it's called serving your country :roll:

But what about a Dem president and our experience in Vietnam? Or a Dem president and his "surge" in Afgan? Or a Dem president and his war in Libya?
 
1. But what about a Dem president and our experience in Vietnam? 2. Or a Dem president and his "surge" in Afgan? 3. Or a Dem president and his war in Libya?
1. That's going so far back that many of the people involved with making that decision are long dead.

2. Surge was to end a war that Bush decided to put on the backburner. BHO's reasserted effort netted us OBL, BTW.

3. Soldiers didn't die in Libya until the embassy was raided, and that was not related to us helping the French oust Ghadafi.
 
Yes. I, as a pilot, am forced to do all sorts of things in the name of passenger safety. Like recurrent training. And having a license. Why, that dastardly government even forces me to have my plane inspected regularly!

Give it up. Then they don't force you to do any of it. Or do you do those things because you decided to?
 
1. That's going so far back that many of the people involved with making that decision are long dead.

2. Surge was to end a war that Bush decided to put on the backburner. BHO's reasserted effort netted us OBL, BTW.

3. Soldiers didn't die in Libya until the embassy was raided, and that was not related to us helping the French oust Ghadafi.

Oh. I see. Just another case of not holding Dems to the same standard. I got it now.
 
Yes. I, as a pilot, am forced to do all sorts of things in the name of passenger safety. Like recurrent training. And having a license. Why, that dastardly government even forces me to have my plane inspected regularly!

That is still silly. Those are requirements in order to be a pilot or continue flying a plane. Those laws have their own problems, but they are not involuntary servitude since they have are directly tied to the passenger getting service. Quality of service perhaps, but not service itself.
 
Oh. I see. Just another case of not holding Dems to the same standard. I got it now.

What part of "false pretense" do you not understand.
 
Yes, I can prove that.

Nothing in the section indicated that the government would have any control over decisions made as a result of that end-of-life consultation. There was no "panel" of any kind created by that section. The only people involved would be the patient and a doctor. Medicare would pay for that consultation.

No "government bureaucrat" would be attending.

Medicare would pay...what the IPAB says it will pay. And thats exactly how they will become a death panel by setting the rate of pay for doctors that force many out of business or long waits for treatment. It's healthcare rationing. And lets not forget, the Sec of Health and Human Services also holds life or death decision power based on whatever rules are chosen to be enforced, followed or made up. The current Sec has proven she has no problem sentencing a patient to death with that little girl a few months back. What she ended up saying was rules are rules so no treatment .
 
Back
Top Bottom