• 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!

Ben Carson: Liberals Don’t Like Me Because They’re ‘Racist’ (AUDIO)

I'm not sure how anybody could like Ben Carson....his pseudo-morals belong in the 17th century.
 
I think you're forgetting the context of the comparison and his main point, that he doesn't think that anyone has the right to change the definition of marriage. I think his other examples were poor, but it would've made no difference if he said whether it be "homosexuals, polygamists, polyamorists, or what have you." His point was he doesn't think anyone should change the definition of marriage, regardless, including homosexuals. I may disagree with him over that point, but let's not twist it into something else.

His choice of word must have been a complete accident. :roll:
 
Sort of how your liberal Congressmen and women have been playing you all along? ;)

Anyone stupid enough to defend a brilliant man for his intentional choice of words, as if somehow they were accidental, is getting played. You got played.
 
Oh here we go again. Please, run him for POTUS. Please. And while you're at it, why not put Sarah on the ticket. I'm shaking in my boots here.

You righties are like the Black Knight. (no pun here)
I doubt Dr. Carson has any desire to run for POTUS. He said what he had to say about Obamacare and it caused people like you to spin off into a tizzy. We shall find out very soon if he was correct. If he is(and I believe he is) Obamacare is going to be the albatross around the neck of the Democrats for a generation.

Then you just might get your wish.
 
I'm not sure how anybody could like Ben Carson....his pseudo-morals belong in the 17th century.

Yea what the world needs are the morals of Karl Marx or something

What could possibly go wrong?
 
Vance, you really are getting weak. Your argument is vapid. But hey, not at all surprising since you don't even have the stones to admit you're a righty.
And yet...you never do address those problems. Nor SHOULD you. Truly. its NOT like you care and I can at least respect the fact you arent making some weak ass attempt NOW to pretend you do.
 
Anyone stupid enough to defend a brilliant man for his intentional choice of words, as if somehow they were accidental, is getting played. You got played.

If life has taught me anything, its not to be worried about what people say, but rather what they don't say. I have yet to see Carson say anything other then what is on his mind, and for that I cannot fault him. If he meant to directly compare homosexuals to NAMBLA, then I'm sure he would've owned up to it.
 
His choice of word must have been a complete accident. :roll:

I never said it was a complete accident. What I am saying was, he was arguing something different then what you are attempting to attribute to him. He was arguing against changing the definition of marriage. Now this is the same guy who said outright that believing in evolution means one does not have a moral code (which is laughable). But my point is I may disagree with him but I think the man would own up to his position if that is what he meant to say.
 
I never said it was a complete accident. What I am saying was, he was arguing something different then what you are attempting to attribute to him. He was arguing against changing the definition of marriage. Now this is the same guy who said outright that believing in evolution means one does not have a moral code (which is laughable). But my point is I may disagree with him but I think the man would own up to his position if that is what he meant to say.

The point is that he was listing groups who shouldn't be able to change the meaning of marriage. The liberals, as usual, act like all offended as if Dr. Carson was comparing a homo getting a human dick or a horse dick up the ***.
 
The point is that he was listing groups who shouldn't be able to change the meaning of marriage. The liberals, as usual, act like all offended as if Dr. Carson was comparing a homo getting a human dick or a horse dick up the ***.

So those are the only groups who shouldn't be able to change the meaning of marriage.

So I guess all the other groups should be able to.
 
The point is that he was listing groups who shouldn't be able to change the meaning of marriage. The liberals, as usual, act like all offended as if Dr. Carson was comparing a homo getting a human dick or a horse dick up the ***.

Hypersensitivity is the WMD for quelling dissent and controlling the conversation.
 
So those are the only groups who shouldn't be able to change the meaning of marriage.

So I guess all the other groups should be able to.

No, he was just listing a few before saying "it doesn't matter who you are, you don't get to change the definition."
 
No, he was just listing a few before saying "it doesn't matter who you are, you don't get to change the definition."

And that's why he's a moron when it comes to politics

The truth is, we are getting to change the definition.

It's happened in several states, and it will continue to change
 
Would still be a better alternative to Ben Carson, hell, even eugenics would be.

Are you aware how racist Marx and Engels were towards blacks, jews, and hispanics?

Are you aware how racist the founders of the eugenics movement were as well? Especially towards blacks

I'm curious why you support a political ideology that is rooted in racism
 
The point is that he was listing groups who shouldn't be able to change the meaning of marriage. The liberals, as usual, act like all offended as if Dr. Carson was comparing a homo getting a human dick or a horse dick up the ***.
It's the same old, same old.

Liberals don't give a **** AT ALL that he said what he said. They only care as much as they can use it to bash him with. They are constantly looking for imperfections that they can use against conservatives to attack them personally when they have no logical argument to dispute their ideas. It's their playbook and they play it well. Conservatives have a habit of not doing themselves any favors, also. They say some pretty stupid **** sometimes.
 
So those are the only groups who shouldn't be able to change the meaning of marriage.

So I guess all the other groups should be able to.

Why don't you answer the following question as today's pop quiz question in English? If I say "Your arm and leg are attached to your body." then does that mean your head isn't?
 
And that's why he's a moron when it comes to politics

The truth is, we are getting to change the definition.

It's happened in several states, and it will continue to change

Is marriage a civil right?

If gays get the special right to change the definition of marriage, then why can't other sexual interest groups have the same right?
 
Why don't you answer the following question as today's pop quiz question in English? If I say "Your arm and leg are attached to your body." then does that mean your head isn't?

Why don't you answer the following question; "What is the difference between the law and biology?"
 
Is marriage a civil right?

If gays get the special right to change the definition of marriage, then why can't other sexual interest groups have the same right?

Gays aren't changing the definition of marriage. The American people are.
 
And that's why he's a moron when it comes to politics

The truth is, we are getting to change the definition.

It's happened in several states, and it will continue to change

Go ahead. Doesn't affect me one bit.
 
Gays aren't changing the definition of marriage. The American people are.

And I certainly hope the buck stops at SSM. My fear isn't of gays and lesbians being able to marry; its of the slippery slope that I worry could come after it.

I'll admit I am slightly skeptical about SSM, not because I am personally opposed to it, but as a college student I am constantly exposed to some of the most "culturally sensitive" (read: pretentious dip****s) the world has ever seen. I got told by a post-grad student professor last semester that I was being "cis-centric and transphobic" because I pointed out that sex is a dichotomy marked by the presence or absence of a Y chromosome. I cannot recall ever being so stupefied in my life.
 
So the solution the rpublicans have come up with for their really bad ideas is to find uncle ruckus and pretend it is because people are racist that they disagree with his stupid comments and prejudice? Republicons are aware that just because it comes out of the mouth of a black person doesn't make it true in the liberal mind, and that the very idea it should is overwhelmingly racist, right?

To the republicons, it is OK to dislike stupid ideas no matter who they come from, or what color they are. It is OK to be prejudiced against stupid. It is OK to brush aside stupid ideas, we do not have to put every idea in place just because we don't want to seem racist. Stop trying to use the fear of racism and the idea of tolerance to promote really fail ideas. But at least you are trying to make the 5 idiots in the democrat party who think every black person needs to be taken seriously or else you are a racist food for thought not seen since herman cain's presidential run. No really, he is a doctor so he must be right, despite the reality that republicons hate the liberal educated elite today for some reason. You cannot even stick to your own rhetoric.
 
Back
Top Bottom