• 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)

So tell me Einstein, how exactly does that refer to God? And how exactly does that infer religion and state are combined? Or that the US Constitution was written with God as an integral part of it?

Cue up the dodge.

I can't wait to hear this! It's going to be a lulu of conservative glossing!
 
I can't wait to hear this! It's going to be a lulu of conservative glossing!

I wouldn't hold your breath for anything substantive. The next time he posts something meaningful will be his first.
 
Whose and Which God(s). There are religions that have different interpretation of God and even the number of Gods. Which one(s) supersede's Federal Laws?

There is one one Creator of Heaven and Earth. Jehovah, Allah, different religions have different names for him, that doesn't make him multiple Gods any more than you split into multiple people whenever your friends have opinions of you different than each others' opinions of you. His laws supersede every government's laws at all times. This only poses a problem for evil governments, because God tells us to obey the government, even when the government is being unfair. God says only to disobey the government when the government tells you to do something evil (including telling you not to something, where the lack of action would be evil, like telling you not to follow your own religion) . The religions with multiple "gods" , are worshiping angels, which were created by God. These angels are arrogant, and deceive humans into worshiping them by posing as "gods", but they're not superior to humans. If one of them tells you to do something or not do it, that's just a random opinion from a random person, not a Law.
 
Not in my goverment. Get back to me when you find God in the US Constitution.

I find God everywhere. His Law supersedes the Laws of every government in the world. If there's a place where you can't find God, I recommend leaving that place.
 
I find God everywhere. His Law supersedes the Laws of every government in the world. If there's a place where you can't find God, I recommend leaving that place.

I did leave that place to save my soul.
 
Actually it doesn't.

But if you're talking about Christianity, then Paul says in Romans 2 that anybody who condemns gays is a sinner. I guess they didn't teach you that in rightwing christian Sunday School

Yes, I am talking about Christianity, and they did teach me that in Sunday School, in a church where politics weren't preached from the pulpit. They also taught me where God told Daniel that humans must obey the government even when the government is being unfair, but if the government tells you to do something that God has called evil, you must disobey the government. How does that apply to gay marriage? If the government tells you that you have to be gay when you're straight, or have to be straight when you're gay, that's unfair, because you can't choose to be gay or straight unless you're Bi. But it's not evil to be gay or straight, so rebelling against the government about it would be wrong. If the government tells you that you have to have gay sex when you're straight or have to have straight sex when you're gay, that's still unfair, but now it's wrong. It's a sin to have gay sex and it's a sin to have straight sex with anyone but the person to whom you have 100% committed yourself to in marriage, and gay people just can't commit themselves 100% to people they have no attraction for at all. Then it's not only okay to rebel against the government, it's mandatory. But it's still okay ONLY to rebel against that ONE law, you still have to obey all the other ones. If the government tells straight people that they have to have sex with straight people and gay people that they have to have sex with gay people, Then it's unfair, because sex is a personal choice, and it's wrong, because gay sex is a sin. It's okay to rebel against the government if the government orders gay people to have sex with each other. It's not only okay to rebel against the government, it's mandatory. But it's still okay ONLY to rebel against that ONE law, you still have to obey all the other ones. If the government passes a law saying that being single is illegal for everyone above age 19 and that everyone has a year to find a mate, and that every straight person must marry a straight person and every gay person must marry a gay person, that would be unfair. It might be very difficult for everyone to find their soul mate that fast. But unless that law also requires that the couple must have sex, it's not a wrong law, just an unfair one. It would not be okay to disobey that law. If the government passes a law that straight people may marry straight people or remain single, gays may marry gays or remain single, that wouldn't be unfair. Now some people might feel like it's unfair. Some people pay big money to be members of exclusive clubs. It makes them feel superior when they have something that others don't have. If they spend ten thousand dollars to join a country club with no Jews allowed, and Jews build a country club identical to theirs across the street , with everyone allowed, they feel like they've been cheated out of ten thousand dollars. They also feel like they've been cheated out of superiority. They feel that if everyone else also gets rights or privileges they've always had, they've lost something themselves. They feel like their own marriages are less valuable because gays across the street have marriages just like theirs, just like they feel their country club has lost value because Jews across the street have a country club just like theirs. This is not Christianity. This is asshole-ism. So is it an unfair law? If it isn't unfair, God says to obey it. If it is unfair, God STILL says to obey it. A law is only wrong if the law tells people to do something that God says is wrong, and the only thing God forbade only gays from doing, is having gay sex. So the government may pass laws requiring or allowing gays to do anything other than sex, and it wouldn't be wrong, regardless of whether it's fair or not. Not if this were 12th Century England, sex out side of marriage were illegal, and and couples were required by government law to have sex on their wedding night, then a law allowing gay marriage would be wrong. But this is 21st Century America, sex outside of marriage is legal, marriage without sex is legal, and therefore a law allowing gay marriage wouldn't be wrong. It might be unfair because marriage typically encourages or validates sex, but God said to obey unfair laws. .
 
The rightwingers miss the days when all blacks were independent

slavery.gif

Thumbs down.
 
The ultimate goal of conservatism is to misuse political labels because conservatives can't make arguments on the merits of anything.

Yes, that's it. Precisely. Conservatives can't offer any argument of merit.

I always appreciate your "clarifications"; they're so simply and stupidly easy to digest.

I'm just astonished that somebody as smart as you obviously are is so willing to so frequently proffer dumb cheap shots.
 
Yes, I am talking about Christianity, and they did teach me that in Sunday School, in a church where politics weren't preached from the pulpit. They also taught me where God told Daniel that humans must obey the government even when the government is being unfair, but if the government tells you to do something that God has called evil, you must disobey the government. How does that apply to gay marriage? If the government tells you that you have to be gay when you're straight, or have to be straight when you're gay, that's unfair, because you can't choose to be gay or straight unless you're Bi. But it's not evil to be gay or straight, so rebelling against the government about it would be wrong. If the government tells you that you have to have gay sex when you're straight or have to have straight sex when you're gay, that's still unfair, but now it's wrong. It's a sin to have gay sex and it's a sin to have straight sex with anyone but the person to whom you have 100% committed yourself to in marriage, and gay people just can't commit themselves 100% to people they have no attraction for at all. Then it's not only okay to rebel against the government, it's mandatory. But it's still okay ONLY to rebel against that ONE law, you still have to obey all the other ones. If the government tells straight people that they have to have sex with straight people and gay people that they have to have sex with gay people, Then it's unfair, because sex is a personal choice, and it's wrong, because gay sex is a sin. It's okay to rebel against the government if the government orders gay people to have sex with each other. It's not only okay to rebel against the government, it's mandatory. But it's still okay ONLY to rebel against that ONE law, you still have to obey all the other ones. If the government passes a law saying that being single is illegal for everyone above age 19 and that everyone has a year to find a mate, and that every straight person must marry a straight person and every gay person must marry a gay person, that would be unfair. It might be very difficult for everyone to find their soul mate that fast. But unless that law also requires that the couple must have sex, it's not a wrong law, just an unfair one. It would not be okay to disobey that law. If the government passes a law that straight people may marry straight people or remain single, gays may marry gays or remain single, that wouldn't be unfair. Now some people might feel like it's unfair. Some people pay big money to be members of exclusive clubs. It makes them feel superior when they have something that others don't have. If they spend ten thousand dollars to join a country club with no Jews allowed, and Jews build a country club identical to theirs across the street , with everyone allowed, they feel like they've been cheated out of ten thousand dollars. They also feel like they've been cheated out of superiority. They feel that if everyone else also gets rights or privileges they've always had, they've lost something themselves. They feel like their own marriages are less valuable because gays across the street have marriages just like theirs, just like they feel their country club has lost value because Jews across the street have a country club just like theirs. This is not Christianity. This is asshole-ism. So is it an unfair law? If it isn't unfair, God says to obey it. If it is unfair, God STILL says to obey it. A law is only wrong if the law tells people to do something that God says is wrong, and the only thing God forbade only gays from doing, is having gay sex. So the government may pass laws requiring or allowing gays to do anything other than sex, and it wouldn't be wrong, regardless of whether it's fair or not. Not if this were 12th Century England, sex out side of marriage were illegal, and and couples were required by government law to have sex on their wedding night, then a law allowing gay marriage would be wrong. But this is 21st Century America, sex outside of marriage is legal, marriage without sex is legal, and therefore a law allowing gay marriage wouldn't be wrong. It might be unfair because marriage typically encourages or validates sex, but God said to obey unfair laws. .

Can you say paragraph?
 
So the 14th amendment is invalid and rich conservatives can still own slaves, just like the OT taught?

You are wrong on both counts. The Old Testament said that buying a kidnapping victim and owning them as a slave is wrong and must be punished with death, and that a citizen of one country buying a prisoner of war from a citizen of another country that won the war, is wrong and must be punished with death. Also, God said to obey the nation's laws unless you are told to do something wrong. While a soldier keeping a prisoner of his own country's war as a slave during the war and setting them free after the war, isn't in and of itself, Biblically wrong, it's illegal. Doing illegal things, is forbidden by God and therefore Biblically wrong. Now if the government were to tell you to allow your neighbor to keep a kidnapping victim as a slave, or tells you to allow your neighbor to keep someone as a slave who was captured in a war, and sold by the winning tribe to slave merchants, and changed hands until ending up in your neighbor's yard, then the government is telling you to do something wrong, because God told you to go next door, kill your neighbor, and set the slaves free. That is when you must disobey the government. If your Afghan-veteran neighbor currently has some middle eastern guy chained up in his basement, well then that's none of your business. If America gets out of the war in the middle east, and your neighbor still has the guy chained up in his basement, then you must kill your neighbor and set the slave free.
 
Black Liberal claims racism against them
Conservative reaction: RACE CARD, RACE CARD!!!!!!

Black Conservative claims racism against them
Conservative reaction: LIBERALS ARE RACISTS!!!!

And the juvenile "Everyones a racist" Spinning wheel continues unabated in American politics.
 
Yeah...he IS wrong. liberals dont like him because he is a black CONSERVATIVE. When it is black liberals or just people like Lewis Farrakhan (cuz...he isnt really a black 'liberal'), the preferred liberal response is to merely eat it and swallow. But with a black conservative they are free to use derogatory racial epithets, etc.

No...not liking Dr Carson doesnt make liberals racist. But the fact that liberals consistently ignore violent crime, death unemployment in the black community...all the while celebrating the blood orgy involving cute little pink children...THAT kinda does. Liberals dont like black people. Well...they like their votes. So...more accurately...liberals TRULY couldnt give a **** about black people beyond their token status.


Liberals dont like black people. Well...they like their votes. So...more accurately...liberals TRULY couldnt give a **** about black people beyond their token status.

Liberals don't like Black people? Most blacks tend to be pretty liberal. Do you think they don't like themselves? Do you think all liberals are white? You must, because you're excluding Blacks as being something else. By your statement you seem to think that there are no black liberals? Yet about 95% of Blacks voted for Obama. Is he a liberal? I think most people would say yes. Of course they tend to vote for other liberals as well. So, when you say "liberals TRULY couldnt give a **** about black people beyond their token status"...you seem to be assuming that there are no black liberals, and those that are, don't give a **** about their own interests and see themselves as a token. So there are liberals...and then there are Blacks. But Liberals are all white...except for when there is a black conservative? Is that what you're saying? Blacks can't be liberals? But occasionally they might be conservative?? Yet the very issue here is over a Conservative Black guy and you say that liberals don't like him because he's a "Black Conservative"? Liberals don't like conservatives anyway. What difference would it make if this one is Black? If they don't like Conservatives what does their race have to do with it? They don't like conservatism regardless of who it is.

Do you have even the remotest clue as to just how stupid and racist your comment is? :lamo Probably not. I'll bet you can't actually look at what you wrote and see how totally stupid it was.
 
Liberals don't like Black people? Most blacks tend to be pretty liberal. Do you think they don't like themselves? Do you think all liberals are white? You must, because you're excluding Blacks as being something else. By your statement you seem to think that there are no black liberals? Yet about 95% of Blacks voted for Obama. Is he a liberal? I think most people would say yes. Of course they tend to vote for other liberals as well. So, when you say "liberals TRULY couldnt give a **** about black people beyond their token status"...you seem to be assuming that there are no black liberals, and those that are, don't give a **** about their own interests and see themselves as a token. So there are liberals...and then there are Blacks. But Liberals are all white...except for when there is a black conservative? Is that what you're saying? Blacks can't be liberals? But occasionally they might be conservative?? Yet the very issue here is over a Conservative Black guy and you say that liberals don't like him because he's a "Black Conservative"? Liberals don't like conservatives anyway. What difference would it make if this one is Black? If they don't like Conservatives what does their race have to do with it? They don't like conservatism regardless of who it is.

Do you have even the remotest clue as to just how stupid and racist your comment is? :lamo Probably not. I'll bet you can't actually look at what you wrote and see how totally stupid it was.
Now in spite of your blather....the fact remains. Dead cute little pink kids...its front page news and we are still using them as the cause celebre. 4 dead black people in Chicago...that's a slow news day. Black unemployment rates? No worries.

Face it. Liberals don't give a **** about blacks beyond their token status and their vote. You can make it be about me all you want. In fact...you kinda don't have a choice. You HAVE to make it be about me because you damn sure cant make it be about the facts.
 
You are wrong on both counts. The Old Testament said that buying a kidnapping victim and owning them as a slave is wrong and must be punished with death, and that a citizen of one country buying a prisoner of war from a citizen of another country that won the war, is wrong and must be punished with death. Also, God said to obey the nation's laws unless you are told to do something wrong. While a soldier keeping a prisoner of his own country's war as a slave during the war and setting them free after the war, isn't in and of itself, Biblically wrong, it's illegal. Doing illegal things, is forbidden by God and therefore Biblically wrong. Now if the government were to tell you to allow your neighbor to keep a kidnapping victim as a slave, or tells you to allow your neighbor to keep someone as a slave who was captured in a war, and sold by the winning tribe to slave merchants, and changed hands until ending up in your neighbor's yard, then the government is telling you to do something wrong, because God told you to go next door, kill your neighbor, and set the slaves free. That is when you must disobey the government. If your Afghan-veteran neighbor currently has some middle eastern guy chained up in his basement, well then that's none of your business. If America gets out of the war in the middle east, and your neighbor still has the guy chained up in his basement, then you must kill your neighbor and set the slave free.

I love it when the Christian Right glosses the plain language of the bible so won't sound so bad.
 
Yes, I am talking about Christianity, and they did teach me that in Sunday School, in a church where politics weren't preached from the pulpit. They also taught me where God told Daniel that humans must obey the government even when the government is being unfair, but if the government tells you to do something that God has called evil, you must disobey the government. How does that apply to gay marriage? If the government tells you that you have to be gay when you're straight, or have to be straight when you're gay, that's unfair, because you can't choose to be gay or straight unless you're Bi. But it's not evil to be gay or straight, so rebelling against the government about it would be wrong. If the government tells you that you have to have gay sex when you're straight or have to have straight sex when you're gay, that's still unfair, but now it's wrong. It's a sin to have gay sex and it's a sin to have straight sex with anyone but the person to whom you have 100% committed yourself to in marriage, and gay people just can't commit themselves 100% to people they have no attraction for at all. Then it's not only okay to rebel against the government, it's mandatory. But it's still okay ONLY to rebel against that ONE law, you still have to obey all the other ones. If the government tells straight people that they have to have sex with straight people and gay people that they have to have sex with gay people, Then it's unfair, because sex is a personal choice, and it's wrong, because gay sex is a sin. It's okay to rebel against the government if the government orders gay people to have sex with each other. It's not only okay to rebel against the government, it's mandatory. But it's still okay ONLY to rebel against that ONE law, you still have to obey all the other ones. If the government passes a law saying that being single is illegal for everyone above age 19 and that everyone has a year to find a mate, and that every straight person must marry a straight person and every gay person must marry a gay person, that would be unfair. It might be very difficult for everyone to find their soul mate that fast. But unless that law also requires that the couple must have sex, it's not a wrong law, just an unfair one. It would not be okay to disobey that law. If the government passes a law that straight people may marry straight people or remain single, gays may marry gays or remain single, that wouldn't be unfair. Now some people might feel like it's unfair. Some people pay big money to be members of exclusive clubs. It makes them feel superior when they have something that others don't have. If they spend ten thousand dollars to join a country club with no Jews allowed, and Jews build a country club identical to theirs across the street , with everyone allowed, they feel like they've been cheated out of ten thousand dollars. They also feel like they've been cheated out of superiority. They feel that if everyone else also gets rights or privileges they've always had, they've lost something themselves. They feel like their own marriages are less valuable because gays across the street have marriages just like theirs, just like they feel their country club has lost value because Jews across the street have a country club just like theirs. This is not Christianity. This is asshole-ism. So is it an unfair law? If it isn't unfair, God says to obey it. If it is unfair, God STILL says to obey it. A law is only wrong if the law tells people to do something that God says is wrong, and the only thing God forbade only gays from doing, is having gay sex. So the government may pass laws requiring or allowing gays to do anything other than sex, and it wouldn't be wrong, regardless of whether it's fair or not. Not if this were 12th Century England, sex out side of marriage were illegal, and and couples were required by government law to have sex on their wedding night, then a law allowing gay marriage would be wrong. But this is 21st Century America, sex outside of marriage is legal, marriage without sex is legal, and therefore a law allowing gay marriage wouldn't be wrong. It might be unfair because marriage typically encourages or validates sex, but God said to obey unfair laws. .

A whole paragraph violating Paul's simple admonition: don't judge others. Romans 2:1.

More evidence that the Christian Right are heretics and should be banished from the real church of Jesus. Stop using my religion to propagate your hatred and prejudice.
 
Yes, that's it. Precisely. Conservatives can't offer any argument of merit.

I always appreciate your "clarifications"; they're so simply and stupidly easy to digest.

I'm just astonished that somebody as smart as you obviously are is so willing to so frequently proffer dumb cheap shots.

Are you coming on to me? Again!
 
A whole paragraph violating Paul's simple admonition: don't judge others. Romans 2:1.

More evidence that the Christian Right are heretics and should be banished from the real church of Jesus. Stop using my religion to propagate your hatred and prejudice.

I didn't judge anybody in that paragraph. Stop using your irrational emotional responses to my religion, as an excuse to violate the precepts of my religion.
 
I didn't gloss a damn thing, That's exactly what it's said for thousands of years.

The OT condones slavery. Indeed, regrettably, so does Paul.

Just admit what the texts say and move on in life.
 
The OT condones slavery. Indeed, regrettably, so does Paul.

Just admit what the texts say and move on in life.

The OT is a book, not a person. There are people in it who condoned slavery and people in it who didn't, and the only opinion that matters to my religion is Jehovah's opinion. The NT is a book, not a person. There are people in it who condoned slavery and people in it who didn't, and the only opinion that matters to my religion is Jesus Christ's opinion. You're falsely implied that Jehovah and Jesus Christ, and therefore my religion, condone slavery, and you were caught out in that lie. Admit it and move on.
 
I didn't judge anybody in that paragraph. Stop using your irrational emotional responses to my religion, as an excuse to violate the precepts of my religion.

Why is it that I constantly have to point out to fundies what they just wrote?
 
The OT is a book, not a person. There are people in it who condoned slavery and people in it who didn't, and the only opinion that matters to my religion is Jehovah's opinion. The NT is a book, not a person. There are people in it who condoned slavery and people in it who didn't, and the only opinion that matters to my religion is Jesus Christ's opinion. You're falsely implied that Jehovah and Jesus Christ, and therefore my religion, condone slavery, and you were caught out in that lie. Admit it and move on.

Yes, yes, the gloss.

The OT condones slavery and polygamy. You can pretend to wish it to the cornfield, but nobody's buying it. If the OT condemned slavey and polygamy, it could have just said: slavery is a sin; polygamy is a sin. Instead, some of the most heroic figures of the OT were slaveowners and polygamist.

Your fundie mind tricks won't work here.
 
Back
Top Bottom