Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Al Doggity on March 26, 2015, 10:34:21 AM
-
Interesting guy.
What if Sarah Palin Were a Brain Surgeon?
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/201504/ben-carson-tea-party?currentPage=1
By his own admission, Carson's serious interest in Republican politics is rather recent. As a young man, he was a "radical, wild-eyed, left-wing Democrat" who crossed over to the right during the Reagan years. After the impeachment of Bill Clinton, he was so sickened by the hypocrisy of adulterous congressional Republicans that he became an independent. He only rejoined the GOP last year as a matter of convenience. "If I weren't thinking about running for office, I would remain an independent," he told me.
And yet today's GOP has proven to be a comfortable fit. Carson, to be sure, is a longstanding conservative in both temperament and ideology. His message of self-empowerment is part of a black-conservative tradition that dates back to at least the nineteenth century and Booker T. Washington. But Carson—who was understandably busy with his medical career, not to mention his philanthropic efforts aimed at African-American youth—didn't begin paying serious attention to broader issues until more recently. Which, of course, is right around the time that large portions of conservatism went insane. As a result, Carson's ideology of late appear to have been formed in the fever swamps of right-wing websites and Fox News—where Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are portrayed as Manchurian candidates sent by Saul Alinsky to undermine the United States. He's taken the same sincere up-by-the-bootstraps message that he once preached to black children and grafted it onto a worldview promulgated largely on conservative talk radio, validating many of the most provocative sentiments popular on the far right by repeating them in his mellifluous tone. He's that rarest of breeds: a soft-spoken demagogue.
Carson is so certain of the rightness of his views that he's practically incapable of admitting error. The controversies he's ignited with his overheated rhetoric are, in his telling, the result of "political correctness run amuck." He complains, "We've reached a point where if you say the word 'slavery' or you say the word 'bestiality,' it's like you've sprayed a fly with Raid—people start spinning, and they just can't function anymore."
On several occasions, I tried to get Carson to concede that his analogy likening the U.S. to Nazi Germany was out of line (he's said that Americans under Obama are as intimidated and afraid to criticize their government as Germans under the Third Reich). But he refused to give any ground. Our longest discussion about the matter came in Jerusalem, in the cafeteria of the Holocaust museum at Yad Vashem. We'd spent the previous ninety minutes touring the museum, followed by Carson entering Yad Vashem's Hall of Remembrance and, black kippah atop his head, laying a wreath made of red, pink, and orange poppies that read "Courage and Truth Will Win: In loving memory the 6 million." Given all this, I asked Carson, did it make him reconsider his analogy?
"Not at all," he said. "It makes it even stronger."
-
I made it through the first part. It is false. Dr. Carson's interest in public policy did not start recently.
-
I made it through the first part. It is false. Dr. Carson's interest in public policy did not start recently.
Not surprised that you would only be able to manage a sentence or two before spewing off about how you don't understand what was written.
-
Not surprised that you would only be able to manage a sentence or two before spewing off about how you don't understand what was written.
Not surprised you swallowed some commentary written by a hack, particularly for hacks, that is based on a false premise. But facts don't matter to hacks.
-
Not surprised you swallowed some commentary written by a hack, particularly for hacks, that is based on a false premise. But facts don't matter to hacks.
You're the king of hacks. ::) You started off by saying you formed your opinion based on one sentence and that sentence was not even representative of the very brief excerpt I posted.
-
You're the king of hacks. ::) You started off by saying you formed your opinion based on one sentence and that sentence was not even representative of the very brief excerpt I posted.
::)
From your article: "But Carson—who was understandably busy with his medical career, not to mention his philanthropic efforts aimed at African-American youth—didn't begin paying serious attention to broader issues until more recently."
False. But as I said, the facts don't matter to hacks, which explains why you just eat this stuff up. That's why those folks have an audience.
-
::)
From your article: "But Carson—who was understandably busy with his medical career, not to mention his philanthropic efforts aimed at African-American youth—didn't begin paying serious attention to broader issues until more recently."
::) He was not a political person outside of a few areas up until recently.
-
Not political but followed policy and politics....
-
::) He was not a political person outside of a few areas up until recently.
And another thing about hacks: they don't hesitate to twist, contort, embellish, and flat out invent facts.
The article didn't say he was "not a political person outside of a few areas." ::) It says he "didn't begin paying serious attention to broader issues until more recently." Absolutely false.
-
Not political but followed policy and politics....
He did not.
-
And another thing about hacks: they don't hesitate to twist, contort, embellish, and flat out invent facts.
The article didn't say he was "not a political person outside of a few areas." ::) It says he "didn't begin paying serious attention to broader issues until more recently." Absolutely false.
Those are exactly the same things.
-
He did not.
So I just pulled a book off my shelf called the "Big Picture" by Dr. Ben Carson. Part Three of the book has the following chapters:
11. What Ails America? Racial Diversity is a Strength
12. Finding a Cure for Racial Division
13. Education: The Great Equalizer
14. Diagnosing the Crisis in Health Care
15. Revolutionizing Health Care: One Doctor's Prescription
Published sixteen years ago in 1999. I read it. It talks extensively about public policy.
So are you going to confirm my earlier criticism of you regarding never acknowledging when you are wrong, or double down on stupid?
-
Those are exactly the same things.
lol
-
So I just pulled a book off my shelf called the "Big Picture" by Dr. Ben Carson. Part Three of the book has the following chapters:
11. What Ails America? Racial Diversity is a Strength
12. Finding a Cure for Racial Division
13. Education: The Great Equalizer
14. Diagnosing the Crisis in Health Care
15. Revolutionizing Health Care: One Doctor's Prescription
Published sixteen years ago in 1999. I read it. It talks extensively about public policy.
So are you going to confirm my earlier criticism of you regarding never acknowledging when you are wrong, or double down on stupid?
Right... because just from looking at these titles, it's obvious that they're not about race and medicine. They're about ...; international security? ::)
-
Right... because just from looking at these titles, it's obvious that they're not about race and medicine. They're about ...; international security? ::)
LOL! You are actually worse than I thought. . . . Holy smokes . . . .
-
LOL! You are actually worse than I thought. . . . Holy smokes . . . .
::) Exactly what was posted in the article.
On top of this, they weren't even traditionally conservative opinions. I just looked up his wikipedia page and he was spoke in support of universal health care and assisted dying.
-
::) Exactly what was posted in the article.
On top of this, they weren't even traditionally conservative opinions. I just looked up his wikipedia page and he was spoke in support of universal health care and assisted dying.
I'm starting to feel a little sorry for you. Are you that big of a hack that you cannot see what's staring you right in the face? What I do when people own mistakes is just let it go.
To maintain your position, you have to say that racial issues, education, and healthcare, subjects that have been dominating the scene for at least the past six years, are not "broader issues." Dr. Carson wrote about those issues sixteen years ago. Why not just admit you didn't know he was actually writing books long before his recent speech made him a presidential contender? No harm in simply not knowing.
-
I'm starting to feel a little sorry for you. Are you that big of a hack that you cannot see what's staring you right in the face? What I do when people own mistakes is just let it go.
To maintain your position, you have to say that racial issues, education, and healthcare, subjects that have been dominating the scene for at least the past six years, are not "broader issues." Dr. Carson wrote about those issues sixteen years ago. Why not just admit you didn't know he was actually writing books long before his recent speech made him a presidential contender? No harm in simply not knowing.
These are issues he expounded on as a MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL who was also A BLACK MAN. He was not speaking about broader political issues outside of race or medicine.
-
These are issues he expounded on as a MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL who was also A BLACK MAN. He was not speaking about broader political issues outside of race or medicine.
Wrong. He wrote as an American who happened to be black and a doctor. He was writing about education, race, and healthcare, which are clearly "broader issues." I read the book. I could quote passages from the book as well, but I think my work here is done. :)
But one thing you have done is shown that you really do struggle with acknowledging when you are mistaken. :-\
-
Wrong. He wrote as an American who happened to be black and a doctor. He was writing about education, race, and healthcare, which are clearly "broader issues." I read the book. I could quote passages from the book as well, but I think my work here is done. :)
But one thing you have done is shown that you really do struggle with acknowledging when you are mistaken. :-\
Ok... so if race, medicine and education were the broad issues that the article lies and says Carson only recently started paying attention to... then what were the narrow issues that he'd been focusing on until recently? According to the article?
-
Interesting guy.
What if Sarah Palin Were a Brain Surgeon?
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/201504/ben-carson-tea-party?currentPage=1
By his own admission, Carson's serious interest in Republican politics is rather recent. As a young man, he was a "radical, wild-eyed, left-wing Democrat" who crossed over to the right during the Reagan years. After the impeachment of Bill Clinton, he was so sickened by the hypocrisy of adulterous congressional Republicans that he became an independent. He only rejoined the GOP last year as a matter of convenience. "If I weren't thinking about running for office, I would remain an independent," he told me.
And yet today's GOP has proven to be a comfortable fit. Carson, to be sure, is a longstanding conservative in both temperament and ideology. His message of self-empowerment is part of a black-conservative tradition that dates back to at least the nineteenth century and Booker T. Washington. But Carson—who was understandably busy with his medical career, not to mention his philanthropic efforts aimed at African-American youth—didn't begin paying serious attention to broader issues until more recently. Which, of course, is right around the time that large portions of conservatism went insane. As a result, Carson's ideology of late appear to have been formed in the fever swamps of right-wing websites and Fox News—where Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are portrayed as Manchurian candidates sent by Saul Alinsky to undermine the United States. He's taken the same sincere up-by-the-bootstraps message that he once preached to black children and grafted it onto a worldview promulgated largely on conservative talk radio, validating many of the most provocative sentiments popular on the far right by repeating them in his mellifluous tone. He's that rarest of breeds: a soft-spoken demagogue.
Carson is so certain of the rightness of his views that he's practically incapable of admitting error. The controversies he's ignited with his overheated rhetoric are, in his telling, the result of "political correctness run amuck." He complains, "We've reached a point where if you say the word 'slavery' or you say the word 'bestiality,' it's like you've sprayed a fly with Raid—people start spinning, and they just can't function anymore."
On several occasions, I tried to get Carson to concede that his analogy likening the U.S. to Nazi Germany was out of line (he's said that Americans under Obama are as intimidated and afraid to criticize their government as Germans under the Third Reich). But he refused to give any ground. Our longest discussion about the matter came in Jerusalem, in the cafeteria of the Holocaust museum at Yad Vashem. We'd spent the previous ninety minutes touring the museum, followed by Carson entering Yad Vashem's Hall of Remembrance and, black kippah atop his head, laying a wreath made of red, pink, and orange poppies that read "Courage and Truth Will Win: In loving memory the 6 million." Given all this, I asked Carson, did it make him reconsider his analogy?
"Not at all," he said. "It makes it even stronger."
(http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/MjAxMy0wZWZkODIyNDRlY2Y1MDg0.png)
-
Ok... so if race, medicine and education were the broad issues that the article lies and says Carson only recently started paying attention to... then what were the narrow issues that he'd been focusing on until recently? According to the article?
Again, the article said he "didn't begin paying serious attention to broader issues until more recently." It didn't say he only recently started paying attention to "race, medicine and education." But nice try. The statement in the article was much broader. I'm the one who posted the chapter titles from his book showing he was writing books about "broader issues" that included race, education, and healthcare sixteen years ago. You really should just let this one go.
-
(http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/MjAxMy0wZWZkODIyNDRlY2Y1MDg0.png)
You know, after my exchange with Al, I'm starting to wonder about this. :-\
-
Again, the article said he "didn't begin paying serious attention to broader issues until more recently." It didn't say he only recently started paying attention to "race, medicine and education." But nice try. The statement in the article was much broader. I'm the one who posted the chapter titles from his book showing he was writing books about "broader issues" that included race, education, and healthcare sixteen years ago. You really should just let this one go.
::) What were the narrow issues? This is the sentence in full:
But Carson—who was understandably busy with his medical career, not to mention his philanthropic efforts aimed at African-American youth—didn't begin paying serious attention to broader issues until more recently.
If they weren't medical stuff and race stuff , then what were they? What could the author of that article have been referring to>
-
::) What were the narrow issues? This is the sentence in full:
But Carson—who was understandably busy with his medical career, not to mention his philanthropic efforts aimed at African-American youth—didn't begin paying serious attention to broader issues until more recently.
If they weren't medical stuff and race stuff , then what were they? What could the author of that article have been referring to>
What the heck are you talking about? Race, education, and healthcare are not narrow issues. They are unquestionably "broader issues." Dr. Carson was "paying attention" to those broader issues, because he wrote a book about those broader issues. So the author saying he wasn't paying attention is wrong. The author didn't know what he was talking about.
If you keep this up I'm going to post excerpts from the book when I get a chance. :)
-
What the heck are you talking about? Race, education, and healthcare are not narrow issues. They are unquestionably "broader issues." Dr. Carson was "paying attention" to those broader issues, because he wrote a book about those broader issues. So the author saying he wasn't paying attention is wrong. The author didn't know what he was talking about.
If you keep this up I'm going to post excerpts from the book when I get a chance. :)
If you are a DOCTOR who is BLACK who made it out of humble beginnings through a strong EDUCATION, yes they are narrow topics. They are things that relate directly to his experience, background and profession. That is the point of what the author said. Not farming, not terrorism, not international relation, not economics not related to medicine. ::) Those are BROADER issues than Carson had previously followed. They are BROADER issues that the scope of what you would expect to hear a doctor talk about. That is the very clear point the author of that article made.
-
Ok. I will post excerpts of the book when I get a chance.
In the meantime, take off those partisan blinders. You'll be able to see much more clearly. :)
-
Interesting guy.
What if Sarah Palin Were a Brain Surgeon?
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/201504/ben-carson-tea-party?currentPage=1
By his own admission, Carson's serious interest in Republican politics is rather recent. As a young man, he was a "radical, wild-eyed, left-wing Democrat" who crossed over to the right during the Reagan years. After the impeachment of Bill Clinton, he was so sickened by the hypocrisy of adulterous congressional Republicans that he became an independent. He only rejoined the GOP last year as a matter of convenience. "If I weren't thinking about running for office, I would remain an independent," he told me.
And yet today's GOP has proven to be a comfortable fit. Carson, to be sure, is a longstanding conservative in both temperament and ideology. His message of self-empowerment is part of a black-conservative tradition that dates back to at least the nineteenth century and Booker T. Washington. But Carson—who was understandably busy with his medical career, not to mention his philanthropic efforts aimed at African-American youth—didn't begin paying serious attention to broader issues until more recently. Which, of course, is right around the time that large portions of conservatism went insane. As a result, Carson's ideology of late appear to have been formed in the fever swamps of right-wing websites and Fox News—where Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are portrayed as Manchurian candidates sent by Saul Alinsky to undermine the United States. He's taken the same sincere up-by-the-bootstraps message that he once preached to black children and grafted it onto a worldview promulgated largely on conservative talk radio, validating many of the most provocative sentiments popular on the far right by repeating them in his mellifluous tone. He's that rarest of breeds: a soft-spoken demagogue.
Carson is so certain of the rightness of his views that he's practically incapable of admitting error. The controversies he's ignited with his overheated rhetoric are, in his telling, the result of "political correctness run amuck." He complains, "We've reached a point where if you say the word 'slavery' or you say the word 'bestiality,' it's like you've sprayed a fly with Raid—people start spinning, and they just can't function anymore."
On several occasions, I tried to get Carson to concede that his analogy likening the U.S. to Nazi Germany was out of line (he's said that Americans under Obama are as intimidated and afraid to criticize their government as Germans under the Third Reich). :D But he refused to give any ground. Our longest discussion about the matter came in Jerusalem, in the cafeteria of the Holocaust museum at Yad Vashem. We'd spent the previous ninety minutes touring the museum, followed by Carson entering Yad Vashem's Hall of Remembrance and, black kippah atop his head, laying a wreath made of red, pink, and orange poppies that read "Courage and Truth Will Win: In loving memory the 6 million." Given all this, I asked Carson, did it make him reconsider his analogy?
"Not at all," he said. "It makes it even stronger."
-
Ok. I will post excerpts of the book when I get a chance.
In the meantime, take off those partisan blinders. You'll be able to see much more clearly. :)
::) Then what were the "narrow topics" that the author was talking about if he wasn't talking?
-
::) Then what were the "narrow topics" that the author was talking about if he wasn't talking?
I have no idea what "narrow topics" the author was talking about. What I do know is the author made a false statement. I read the book. The author didn't. Neither did you. You probably didn't even know it existed. But no worries. I am here to help. :)
-
I have no idea what "narrow topics" the author was talking about. What I do know is the author made a false statement. I read the book. The author didn't. Neither did you. You probably didn't even know it existed. But no worries. I am here to help. :)
What the author is referring to is obvious. They are contained within the very same sentence. Not surprising that the man who is too busy to make it through a sentence before forming an opinion could also find a way to fail at reconciling the beginning of a sentence with the end of a sentence.
-
What the author is referring to is obvious. They are contained within the very same sentence. Not surprising that the man who is too busy to make it through a sentence before forming an opinion could also find a way to fail at reconciling the beginning of a sentence with the end of a sentence.
Any reasonable person can read this thread see exactly what happened. It's only going to get worse. :D
-
Any reasonable person can read this thread see exactly what happened. It's only going to get worse. :D
But Carson—who was understandably busy with his medical career, not to mention his philanthropic efforts aimed at African-American youth—didn't begin paying serious attention to broader issues until more recently.
::) Then what does this mean? He's clearly saying that Carson was paying attention to narrow issues up until recently? What could they be? Are they mentioned in the same sentence, perhaps??
-
But Carson—who was understandably busy with his medical career, not to mention his philanthropic efforts aimed at African-American youth—didn't begin paying serious attention to broader issues until more recently.
::) Then what does this mean? He's clearly saying that Carson was paying attention to narrow issues up until recently? What could they be? Are they mentioned in the same sentence, perhaps??
He wasn't writing about philanthropy in those chapters.
-
He wasn't writing about philanthropy in those chapters.
Or the medical field, either, right?
It's really hard to see how a guy that does philanthropic work with black youths could shoe-horn something called "Education: The Great Equalizer " into his work. ::)
-
comparing Palin and Carson? LMAO amazing. Polar opposites. Palin was an entertainer that lacked self-awareness, using politics and her willingness to pull a "glen rice" to move into stardom.
She didn't care about politics or fixing the nation. She was a big spending global-warming supporter until political winds changes and the frail mccain needed eye candy. Her resume sucks a bag of dicks, and Carson's resume is totally badass!
-
comparing Palin and Carson? LMAO amazing. Polar opposites. Palin was an entertainer that lacked self-awareness, using politics and her willingness to pull a "glen rice" to move into stardom.
She didn't care about politics or fixing the nation. She was a big spending global-warming supporter until political winds changes and the frail mccain needed eye candy. Her resume sucks a bag of dicks, and Carson's resume is totally badass!
As a surgeon... ABSOLUTELY! As a politician, I really doubt that. I don't think he has the temperament or even the interest. That's what the comparison was.
-
As a surgeon... ABSOLUTELY! As a politician, I really doubt that. I don't think he has the temperament or even the interest. That's what the comparison was.
he's compassionate yet a little out of control emotional. More of a bomb thrower than a sniper when it comes to political accuracy. lacks the polish to be pres, but could slip in as a decent VP choice. Stockdale and Quayle and Palin and a few other nimwits have been veep choices lol. Carson would be fine for that.
If a RINO wins, I could see a rino using Carson to try to pacify the base. BUT palin didn't convince the base to show up, Ryan didn't show the base to show up, and they're both bigger names than Carson.
Overall, Repubs woudl be smart to put their power behind Cruz.
-
he's compassionate yet a little out of control emotional. More of a bomb thrower than a sniper when it comes to political accuracy. lacks the polish to be pres, but could slip in as a decent VP choice. Stockdale and Quayle and Palin and a few other nimwits have been veep choices lol. Carson would be fine for that.
If a RINO wins, I could see a rino using Carson to try to pacify the base. BUT palin didn't convince the base to show up, Ryan didn't show the base to show up, and they're both bigger names than Carson.
Overall, Repubs woudl be smart to put their power behind Cruz.
I don't think he's interested in playing second fiddle. He only registered as a Republican because it was politically expedient.
I think Cruz is just as bad a choice. Divisive among the base, not a strong resume, etc.
-
I think Cruz is just as bad a choice. Divisive among the base, not a strong resume, etc.
Romney and mccain were both VERY strong resumes, probably the strongest we've seen in decades.
Both of them were centrists/moderates/rinos to avoid "division" on the base.
Why not run someone with a thinner resume, less baggage, and plenty of base support? Worked for dems with obama, can work for repubs with cruz.
-
Romney and mccain were both VERY strong resumes, probably the strongest we've seen in decades.
Both of them were centrists/moderates/rinos to avoid "division" on the base.
Why not run someone with a thinner resume, less baggage, and plenty of base support? Worked for dems with obama, can work for repubs with cruz.
Apples and oranges. Romney and McCain never got the base excited and neither will Cruz. Just as much as people were voting for Obama they were voting against the administration preceding him. The right voted for those dunces because they needed someone to vote for. Cruz isn't gonna galvanize the base.
-
Apples and oranges. Romney and McCain never got the base excited and neither will Cruz
how do you reach that conclusion? Cruz has a very conservative record and is with the base on religion, border, climate change, and guns. Mccain and romeny were on the WRONG sides of these issues with the base.
-
how do you reach that conclusion? Cruz has a very conservative record and is with the base on religion, border, climate change, and guns. Mccain and romeny were on the WRONG sides of these issues with the base.
Then why not run a tea party candidate? I think the GOP needs a centrist to be competitive, I just think the ones they've been stuck with have been awful.
-
Then why not run a tea party candidate? I think the GOP needs a centrist to be competitive, I just think the ones they've been stuck with have been awful.
why do you think a centrist would be competitive? The last 2 elections, repubs ran centrists, and both lost very badly.
which ones would have been better? Rudy? Christie? I think Romney and Mccain were some of the best RINO options.