• 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. Benjamin Carson

What do you think of Dr. Carson?

  • The man is obviously God

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • He should be President, and anyone who disagrees is a racist

    Votes: 2 9.1%

  • Sent by Satan

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • An apparently good man and good doctor, but not President.

    Votes: 9 40.9%

  • Sloppy Joe's rule!

    Votes: 11 50.0%
  • Total voters
    22
What the newest conservative hero needs to learn about civil rights

By Michael Meyers / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Excerpt
I watched and cringed when Carson, on “Hannity,” explained the reasons he is opposed to same-sex marriage. I wept when I heard his subsequent “apology” for having compared same-sex marriage to bestiality and pedophilia — and, again, when he lashed out against his “liberal” detractors.

I am a liberal, a black one, and took offense to his charge that white liberals are “the most racist people there are” — because they, according to the diagnosis of Dr. Carson, “put you in a little category, a box. You have to think this way; how could you dare come off the plantation?”
Click to expand...


Read more: Dr. Carson, heal thyself - NY Daily News
 
I would need to hear more of his policy stances before endorsing him as a potential presidential candidate, but I think he's incredibly wise and would be an asset to the country.
 
Lightning said:
Well it's not like were dealing a historical religious event, which we as citizens of this country are free to participate in under the Constitution. And its not like our ability as citizens to freely say "merry Christmas" to whoever we want too is protected under the first amendment or anything.

And when it comes to changing the pledge of allegiance, I'm pretty sure its not just the Christian community that gets annoyed with the thin skins of atheists when this issue comes up, but every "patriot" of you will. They want to alter a traditional creed that we have just because they're scared of the unknown of something most of them do not understand..... No, actually I know I'm right.
Click to expand...

Ah, so it's OK to go on a rampage when it's something that you agrees with. Got it.
 
Lightning said:
They want to alter a traditional creed that we have just because they're scared of the unknown of something most of them do not understand..... No, actually I know I'm right.
Click to expand...

I'd also like to point out that you "knowing" you are right is clearly a delusional belief here. The actual reason that "under god" was added to the traditional creed (which is socialist propaganda, BTW) was because of people who were scared of the unknown of something that most of them did not understand.

The people who wish to have the term "under god" removed from the traditional creed are merely seeking a reversion to a time when the ignorant and fearful were not given serious consideration. Ironically, most of them have no knowledge of this.

And going further, the pledge of allegiance is a socialist brainwashing tool. I find it truly disgraceful that our education system has gotten so horrible that nobody seems to have a damned clue about the history of a creed they recited on a daily basis as a child. There is nothing patriotic about the pledge. It is anathema to everything for which the constitution stands and to what the founders were trying to create.
 
Tucker Case said:
I'd also like to point out that you "knowing" you are right is clearly a delusional belief here. The actual reason that "under god" was added to the traditional creed (which is socialist propaganda, BTW) was because of people who were scared of the unknown of something that most of them did not understand.

The people who wish to have the term "under god" removed from the traditional creed are merely seeking a reversion to a time when the ignorant and fearful were not given serious consideration. Ironically, most of them have no knowledge of this.

And going further, the pledge of allegiance is a socialist brainwashing tool. I find it truly disgraceful that our education system has gotten so horrible that nobody seems to have a damned clue about the history of a creed they recited on a daily basis as a child. There is nothing patriotic about the pledge. It is anathema to everything for which the constitution stands and to what the founders were trying to create.
Click to expand...

So you mean to tell me sir, that "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. is an anathema to the Constitution? Makes a lot of since....
 
Lightning said:
So you mean to tell me sir, that "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. is an anathema to the Constitution? Makes a lot of since....
Click to expand...

Of course. As I said, it's a matter of knowing history. It's "We the people of the United States..." not "We the mindless subjects of the United States". The pledge was created by a socialist in order to promote socialist ideas. True story.
 
Tucker Case said:
Of course. As I said, it's a matter of knowing history. It's "We the people of the United States..." not "We the mindless subjects of the United States". The pledge was created by a socialist in order to promote socialist ideas. True story.
Click to expand...

I know about Francis Bellamy, you don't have to lecture me.... but besides the pledging of allegiance....there really is no socialist idea in the Pledge even in its original form...
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
Of course. As I said, it's a matter of knowing history. It's "We the people of the United States..." not "We the mindless subjects of the United States". The pledge was created by a socialist in order to promote socialist ideas. True story.
Click to expand...

How the hell did we freaking end up talking about the pledge in a Dr. Benjamin Carson thread...
 
Lightning said:
In what am I doing that or am I implying this is ok?
Click to expand...

One example: By pretending that being told that saying Merry Christmas to everyone is offensive to those who are non-christian is a first amendment issue. Only someone who is in the midst of supporting a rampage could possibly pull off that kind of irrational victim-mentality nonsense. Being told that something is offensive is, in no way shape or form, a threat to one's ability to speak freely.

You see, all I said was that people on the religious right go on a "rampage" if they are told "that saying "merry Christmas" to everyone is offensive to those who are not Christian". Instead of reacting to what I said, you invented a way that this is a way that Christians are victimized which is the first step required for those on the religious right to "go on a rampage".

Step one: Pretend that your rights are being violated and that you are being victimized
Step two: Pretend the imaginary issue that you just invented is a widespread one
Step three: Rampage/profit.
 
Lightning said:
I know about Francis Bellamy, you don't have to lecture me.... but besides the pledging of allegiance....there really is no socialist idea in Constittution even, in its original form...
Click to expand...

I didn't say that there were any socialist ideas in the constitution. The socialist ideas are in the pledge of allegiance.

And there is no pledging of allegiance in the constitution.
 
Tucker Case said:
I didn't say that there were any socialist ideas in the constitution. The socialist ideas are in the pledge of allegiance.

And there is no pledging of allegiance in the constitution.
Click to expand...

Thats a typo... meant the Pledge
 
Lightning said:
How the hell did we freaking end up talking about the pledge in a Dr. Benjamin Carson thread...
Click to expand...

Easily. Somebody started talking about the LGBT community going on "a rampage" when they feel that their rights are being violated, but decided to then pretend that the religious right doesn't go on a rampage when they feel that their rights are being violated.

The pledge is a great example of the religious right going on a rampage when they pretend that their rights are being violated. It's not as good as the imaginary War on Christmas example, but it's certainly a good example of people on the right overreacting to something utterly meaningless.
 
Tucker Case said:
One example: By pretending that being told that saying Merry Christmas to everyone is offensive to those who are non-christian is a first amendment issue. Only someone who is in the midst of supporting a rampage could possibly pull off that kind of irrational victim-mentality nonsense. Being told that something is offensive is, in no way shape or form, a threat to one's ability to speak freely.

You see, all I said was that people on the religious right go on a "rampage" if they are told "that saying "merry Christmas" to everyone is offensive to those who are not Christian". Instead of reacting to what I said, you invented a way that this is a way that Christians are victimized which is the first step required for those on the religious right to "go on a rampage".

Step one: Pretend that your rights are being violated and that you are being victimized
Step two: Pretend the imaginary issue that you just invented is a widespread one
Step three: Rampage/profit.
Click to expand...

So saying that Christmas is a historical event that has been celebrated for hundreds of years, and saying people in this country have the right to freely express their merriness of the occasion is a rampage....Tucker Case you are just a fountain of logic
 
Lightning said:
Thats a typo... meant the Pledge
Click to expand...

Oh, well then isn't the pledging of allegiance enough? Personally, I'm bothered by the "indivisible" as well. It clearly implies a single collective socialist entity rather than a collection of free individuals who are of like mind and exercise their freedom via democratic processes.

And as something designed to indoctrinate children into a group-think mentality? Terribly un-American, IMHO.
 
Tucker Case said:
Easily. Somebody started talking about the LGBT community going on "a rampage" when they feel that their rights are being violated, but decided to then pretend that the religious right doesn't go on a rampage when they feel that their rights are being violated.
Click to expand...

Not once did I say the right, which I wish to point out you are willingly apart of, never bitches about anything because they're just as bad.

The pledge is a great example of the religious right going on a rampage when they pretend that their rights are being violated. It's not as good as the imaginary War on Christmas example, but it's certainly a good example of people on the right overreacting to something utterly meaningless.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me?? The lefty atheists are the ones who bitch about "under God" all the time!!
 
Tucker Case said:
Oh, well then isn't the pledging of allegiance enough? Personally, I'm bothered by the "indivisible" as well. It clearly implies a single collective socialist entity rather than a collection of free individuals who are of like mind and exercise their freedom via democratic processes.

And as something designed to indoctrinate children into a group-think mentality? Terribly un-American, IMHO.
Click to expand...

But guess what? It is not a legally binding document!! So it doesn't matter! I understand that kids were once obligated to recite this in class, but its not like that anymore. Over 3/4 of the schools in the country don't do that anymore, if its even that low. Kids nowadays don't even know half of it. And trust me, the kids who are made to recite this creed, the only thing they're thinking about is Sally Sue, Candyland, playtime and snack time. I know, because I was one of those.
 
Lightning said:
So saying that Christmas is a historical event that has been celebrated for hundreds of years, and saying people in this country have the right to freely express their merriness of the occasion is a rampage....
Click to expand...

No, saying the above was just plain bad logic. Specifically, it was a pure non-sequitur. If you actually wish to be logical, try sticking with things which "follow". And avoid strawmen. For example, it's very clear that I (kindly) didn't even reference the above irrational gibberish in my last response. I was quite specific about the impetus for the imaginary victimization. By responding with the above gibberish, you have ignored the actual point and created an imaginary one which you could then easily "defeat". Ergo, you just committed the strawman fallacy.

But please continue along this path. You merely demonstrate the accuracy of my positions by adding more irrational gibberish that you can pretend are"rebuttals" to my points.

Tucker Case you are just a fountain of logic
Click to expand...

I'm certainly happy to give you a lesson on logic if you wish. You seem to be having some difficulty with presenting logically valid arguments due to the preponderance of fallacies in your posts.
 
Lightning said:
But guess what? It is not a legally binding document!!
Click to expand...

Where on Earth did you get the phenomenally silly idea that whether or not it is legally binding matters in any way shape or form?

I understand that kids were once obligated to recite this in class, but its not like that anymore. Over 3/4 of the schools in the country don't do that anymore, if its even that low. Kids nowadays don't even know half of it. And trust me, the kids who are made to recite this creed, the olnly thing they're thinking about is Sally Sue, Candyland, playtime and snack time. I know, because I was one of those.
Click to expand...

Oh, so then can I assume that you agree that the resistance to the removal of "under god" from such a meaningless "oath" is the religious right engaging in a mindless rampage?
 
Tucker Case said:
No, saying the above was just plain bad logic. Specifically, it was a pure non-sequitur. If you actually wish to be logical, try sticking with things which "follow". And avoid strawmen. For example, it's very clear that I (kindly) didn't even reference the above irrational gibberish in my last response. I was quite specific about the impetus for the imaginary victimization. By responding with the above gibberish, you have ignored the actual point and created an imaginary one which you could then easily "defeat". Ergo, you just committed the strawman fallacy.
Click to expand...

It clearly seems to me that you sir are cherry picking. That statement is the entire reason we are even having this discussion. You said that saying this statement is going on a "rampage". You are actually the one who is speaking irrationally and illogically who has not "followed" the discussion. You were the one that responded that my statement was a rampage and I have been looking for your answer to that statement ever since we started this pointless discussion.


But please continue along this path. You merely demonstrate the accuracy of my positions by adding more irrational gibberish that you can pretend are"rebuttals" to my points.



I'm certainly happy to give you a lesson on logic if you wish. You seem to be having some difficulty with presenting logically valid arguments due to the preponderance of fallacies in your posts.
Click to expand...

If thats what stops the tears darling... ;)
 
Lightning said:
Not once did I say the right, which I wish to point out you are willingly apart of, never bitches about anything because they're just as bad.
Click to expand...

If you didn't do that, then why didn't you answer teh following question "Doesn't the "entire evangelical Christian" community go on a rampage whenever some atheist openly says that they don't like "under god" in the pledge and "in god we trust" on the money or that saying "merry Christmas" to everyone is offensive to those who are not Christian?" with a soimple "yes"? Instead of saying "yes" you tried to defend them.

Are you kidding me?? The lefty atheists are the ones who bitch about "under God" all the time!!
Click to expand...

They actually have a legitimate complaint. The pledge is nothing more than a tool of indoctrination. The "Under God" was added because it was an attempt at anti-atheist indoctrination.
 
Tucker Case said:
Where on Earth did you get the phenomenally silly idea that whether or not it is legally binding matters in any way shape or form?



Oh, so then can I assume that you agree that the resistance to the removal of "under god" from such a meaningless "oath" is the religious right engaging in a mindless rampage?
Click to expand...

Yes, and its nice to see that you have finally come to your senses and that you sir finally see that the lefties who rant on about and are threatened by "under God" are just on a mindless rampage as well.
 
Lightning said:
It clearly seems to me that you sir are cherry picking. That statement is the entire reason we are even having this discussion. You said that saying this statement is going on a "rampage". You are actually the one who is speaking irrationally and illogically who has not "followed" the discussion. You were the one that responded that my statement was a rampage and I have been looking for your answer to that statement ever since we started this pointless discussion.
Click to expand...

I already addressed your lack of concern for history quite clearly by pointing out that the history of the pledge was dutifully ignored by you in your defense of it.

I also pointed out that history is of no concern for the specific claim I made regarding "Merry Christmas", one simply has to be capable of connecting the dots. (Christmas being a historical tradition doesn't invalidate the claim that it is offensive to say merry Christmas to non-Christians, ergo, your historical response is irrational gibberish spewed as a non-sequitur).

I did not cherry pick, I threw you a bone by not pointing out exactly how irrational and nonsensical your initial response was. You felt th eneed to make it's irrational nonsensical nature a primary part of the discussion, though, so I guess you only have yourself to blame for looking silly.

If thats what stops the tears darling... ;)
Click to expand...

You like to play pretend, don't you?
 
Lightning said:
Yes, and its nice to see that you have finally come to your senses and that you sir finally see that the lefties who rant on about and are threatened by "under God" are just on a mindless rampage as well.
Click to expand...

Serious question: Are you having hallucinations or do you suffer from illiteracy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom