White men and black women as well _ like Loving vs Virginia... But I don't think the definition of marriage is color coordinated. And are you seriously comparing being homosexual to being black...? He didn't say that glynch. And have you ever took the time to listen to his alternative..??? Because he has one which is better than obamacare IMO. By the way, he just didn't donate money to build reading centers and giving scholarships _ he donated his time... Showing poor kids that they can succeed in life if they apply themselves like he did. He also stated after listing those groups "that it doesn't matter what they are". He also even explained his statement when it was brought up and said he believes all people should have equal rights. He didn't say gay couples shouldn't have the same rights as men and women couples. But I'm not the one to tell you what to be offended by and if you believe that statement makes him a bigot _ fine... And learn to read C'mon on man.
Remii: Well he did. see: Dr. Ben Carson, a rising star in conservative circles, on Friday compared President Obama's health-care law to slavery. "You know Obamacare is really I think the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery," Carson, who is African American, said Friday in remarks at the Values Voter Summit in Washington. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...n-carson-obamacare-worst-thing-since-slavery/ Please share his alternative? . This is very admirable on a personal level and I am sure rewarding for the relatively small number of kids he has talked to. So we should expect that he will devote most of his time as president "donating his time to tell poor kids personallyto work hard? Frankly this would be a very silly and a waste of time for the president of the United States, who should be insuring that there are hundreds of thousands of social workers, coaches, teachers etc doing this. .[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter "what" they are, everyone deserves equal protection under the law. Except that he doesn't. He doesn't believe that homosexuals should have the right to marry. He admits merely that they now have the legal right, one which he would change, given the opportunity. http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/26/ben-carson-acknowledges-gay-marriage-is-now-the-law-of-the-land/ No, he just said he thinks it is wrong that they do. Not offended in any way. Not just that one. There are others and he has flat out said, and apologized for, many disparaging, inaccurate, and bigoted statements in the past. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/04/ben-carson-apologizes-prison-gay_n_6804464.html If you're willing to ignore his bigotry, that is your choice. If you're a Republican, you have few candidates who don't hold similar biases against homosexuals. The confused emoticon is appropriate in your case. You were actually of the opinion that Carson did not equate homosexuality, bestiality, and pedophilia. C'mon on man.
To be fair, your original statement was that Carson said Obamacare was "worse" than slavery. A quibble, nothing more.
No glynch... I said he didn't say anything about depriving "millions of poor people of health care"... The part of your post I bolded. As far as the "slave" comment you're so upset about... Here's another video touching on that ---> http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/533312 But of course people who are focused on racism will only focus on him saying "worst thing since slavery." So you just attack this man and try to get black folks (and others) worked up about the slavery comment and haven't listened to his alternative... Figures.
I can't tell... Seems to be your major complaint. Anywayssss, check out the 2:45 mark of this video _ https://youtu.be/m-HrSqewI34 He said he doesn't have a problem with gay couples having legal rights so this is just about the definition of the religious meaning of the word marriage. Which is a straight Christian vs gay Christian issue. Not my concern.
Well I read up on Ben Carson's healthcare plan. Just your typical simplistic libertarian dream world stuff. Give everyone a Health Savings Account at Birth and the market will do the rest. Oh, he is sophisticated enough to realize that folks born poor can't put enough in at birth to fund their health care so we should put tax dollars in their HSA's. If they irresponsibly spend it I suppose they deserve to die from lack on insulin or whatever. Or perhaps we can set up a bureaucracy to determine if each time they withdraw it is for worthy health care. How to fund the HSA for the poor? His solution it can come out of the only tax America needs --a flat tax of 10% (self serving but no doubt with his income in the hundreds of thousands !! he would claim that is just accidental. How this 10% is supposed to fund the whole government plus put lots of money in Health Savings Account for poor folks is not explained. I suspect he thinks the Bible proves this is possible since he mentioned this as the basis of his tax policies. Hey the Koch and the Waltons would like a tax rate of 10% for themselves. Would be interesting to see who is funding his campaign. Well we know he is a climate change denier, so what more could the Koch's and friends want.
And Bernie is your typical dream world crackpot socialist. Free shyt for all and maybe he'll legalize rape since he claims all women fantasize about it.
That's the way God intended it, obviously. I like to think of the market as a magical angel, spreading joy and happiness.
Yeah, proposing a health care and educational systems that have actually worked in numerous western countries for hundreds of millions of folks for at least 75 years is a dream world akin to libertarian schemes that have never put in place in any major country. You have still not explained how free shyt like health care and college education does not "empower" poor folks. You do realize that there is no reason that Ben Carson and the like can still try to "empower" folks by urging them to work hard and not have bad habits etc. as well as pray and read the Bible for that mattter when they are educated and have health care. It might even be more effective then.
I think Carson's ideas for insurance works better in this country. Family members can even pass their accounts amongst each other and pass it on to a family member when they die. Employers can even add to the savings account if they don't want to carry a health care provider. This isn't a small country in Europe and some of those countries are nose diving. And poor folks in our country already get free health-care.... Free college... Lol. A big percentage of college freshman have to take remedial courses so the focus should be on the education of children 1st. Hell, there's people with degrees who can't find jobs and or working low wage jobs anyway. Waste of tax dollars. But no worries, Carson will never win. Too many people like you will concentrate on him using the word slavery or what he said about homosexuals but Bernie can talk about his lust to rape women and you and others don't say shyt (I guess because he's white). And how much of Bernie's $200K a year he makes has he been giving to the poor...??? Or does he not walk his talk...?
Rape is a republican platform. But seriously you need to actually read some of Mr. Sander's platform statements instead of adopting the propaganda. He's really not that radical and he plans on paying for his programs by eliminating tax loopholes for high earners. I think Mr. Trump even believes that higher earnings should be taxed at a higher rate. Your political assumptions and hyperbolic rhetoric just show you immaturity and isolated sources. You should probably be listening and learning instead of posting. But this is a Trump thread so I guess hyperbolic posturing should be posted here.
Yea, Dr Carson has been saying the same thing. https://youtu.be/0T73LS6e1Rc Which why some people (probably not you guys) are actually listening to a logical brilliant man like Dr Carson instead of career slick talking politicians who will say anything to get a vote. But you're right, this is a Trump thread.
Bullsh!t. The variable with the single biggest correlation to higher incomes is education level. In addition, degreed people have exceptionally low unemployment rates, particularly in comparison to those who lack a degree. Education is one of the things that government can do that, without question, would have positive ROI.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Donald Trump: I just spoke to Tom Brady — he is 'so thrilled and so happy' <a href="http://t.co/FK0PyoX9A2">http://t.co/FK0PyoX9A2</a></p>— Business Insider (@businessinsider) <a href="https://twitter.com/businessinsider/status/639516333579874304">September 3, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I liked this article on Trump: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/trump-tea-party-populist-exposed-213111 [rquoter]How Trump Exposed the Tea Party The proof is in: the GOP base isn’t small-government libertarian; it’s old-fashioned populist. By Michael Lind 09/03/15, 05:00 AM EDT Here are some of the things that have been said by the guy who has galvanized the GOP’s Tea Party base and taken the lead in the Republican presidential race: “Every Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security, they want to do it on Medicare, they want to do it on Medicaid. And we can’t do that.” “As far as single payer [health care], it works in Canada, it works incredibly well in Scotland. … You can't let the people in this country, the people without the money and resources, to go without healthcare." “People as they make more and more money can pay a higher percentage” of taxes. Only one of two conclusions can be drawn here. Either the Tea Party base—which the media would have us think mainly consists of angry libertarians inveighing against taxes and runaway big government—hasn’t really been listening to Donald Trump, who made all the above statements, or, alternatively, most of the media have read the Tea Party and its true aims and ambitions entirely wrong. I suggest the latter is the correct answer. The success of Trump’s campaign has, if nothing else, exposed the Tea Party for what it really is; Trump’s popularity is, in effect, final proof of what some of us have been arguing for years: that the Tea Party is less a libertarian movement than a right-wing version of populism. Think William Jennings Bryan or Huey Long, not Ayn Rand. Tea Partiers are less upset about the size of government overall than they are that so much of it is going to other people, especially immigrants and nonwhites. They are for government for them and against government for Not-Them. This is what explains a lot of what’s going on now. After all, according to the commentariat, the Summer of Trump was supposed to have been the Summer of Rand Paul. It seems like only yesterday that the media were interpreting the rise of the Tea Party as a triumph of anti-statism and predicting that Paul, with his libertarian views on national security and data privacy, represented the future of the American right. But Paul has all but disappeared from view, polling in the low single digits, while Trump has soared into the lead, and nothing he says, no matter how outrageous, seems to sour the right-wing base on him. Trump is no libertarian; quite the opposite. He is a classic populist of the right who peddles suspicion of foreigners—it’s no accident that he was the country’s leading “birther” raising questions about Barack Obama’s citizenship—combined with a kind of “producerism.” In populist ideology, society is divided not among rich and poor but among producers and parasites. Populists are suspicious of unearned wealth, including the interest charged by bankers who manipulate “other people’s money” (to use the phrase of Louis Brandeis). And populists the world over are hostile to the idle or undeserving poor who allegedly live on welfare at the expense of productive workers and capitalists. Populists tend to attribute the existence of large numbers of the idle rich and the idle poor to government corruption. In the words of the 1892 People’s Party platform: “From the same prolific womb of governmental injustice we breed the two great classes—tramps and millionaires.” To anyone paying attention, it should have been clear from the 2010 elections onward that Tea Party voters were at odds with the libertarians in the Republican donor class and Beltway think tanks. Further confirmation came when David Brat, an obscure college professor, defeated Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a 2014 Republican primary in a shocking upset. Cantor was punished for supporting more legal immigration and amnesty for illegal immigrants, something favored by Republican elites but opposed by conservative voters. Of immigration, Brat told Fox News: “It’s the most symbolic issue that captures the differences between me and Eric Cantor.” The hostility of the Republican right to illegal immigration is usually attributed by establishment pundits to pure racism, no doubt correctly in many cases. After all, according to traditional free-market libertarianism, open borders are good (“There shall be open borders,” was the mantra of the late Robert Bartley of the Wall Street Journal, summarizing the credo of the free-market right). But in the moral universe of populists, illegal immigrants of any race are classic “parasites” preying on hard-working producers. To begin with, they are all cheaters by definition, violating U.S. immigration laws, unlike legal immigrants who obey the law and wait in line for limited quotas. In addition, according to recent data, 51 percent of immigrant households receive some kind of welfare, compared with 30 percent for native-led households. Reflecting differences in education and income, welfare use is much higher for immigrants from Latin America than from South Asia, East Asia and Europe. Inasmuch as the populist right in the U.K. is galvanized in part by opposition to “Polish plumbers,” it is a mistake to attribute the opposition of populists solely to racism. Populist fears that the country is becoming a welfare magnet for the foreign-born poor also play a part. Trump has catered to these fears while alienating the Republican establishment by delivering xenophobic putdowns of Mexicans and saying he wants to build a wall along the Mexican border: “I want it to be so beautiful because some day they’re going to call it the Trump wall.” When it comes to trade, Trump is an economic nationalist who has called for tariffs on imports from China and Mexico. In domestic policy, Trump’s rejection of orthodox conservatism is just as dramatic. The establishment right supports cuts in Social Security and the voucherization of Medicare; Trump does not. No apostasy on Trump’s part is more unforgiveable to the conservative elite than his heresy on taxes. Conservative orthodoxy holds that the rich—no matter how they make their money—are by definition “wealth creators” and “job creators” and that the best way to grow the economy is to lower their taxes further. Trump, however, favors progressive taxation and despises “paper-pushers” on Wall Street: “The hedge fund guys didn’t build this country. These are guys that shift paper around and they get lucky…. But a lot of them—they are paper-pushers. They make a fortune. They pay no tax. It’s ridiculous, ok?” A Marist poll of April 18, 2011, proves that Trumpist populism was a fully fledged worldview among Tea Party voters years before Donald Trump announced his run for the Republican presidential nomination. In the survey, 81 percent of self-identified Tea Party supporters opposed raising the federal debt ceiling. But majorities of Tea Party supporters also favored reducing the federal debt by raising taxes on those with incomes over $250,000 (53 percent) and opposed cuts to Medicare and Medicaid (70 percent). It was the Great Recession that catalyzed the contemporary Tea Party movement. Like Occupy Wall Street activists, but from the right, Tea Party conservatives objected to the federal government’s bailouts of what they perceived as the rich parasites of the financial sector. The famous on-air rant on February 19, 2009, by Rick Santelli of CNBC that helped to inspire the movement targeted a second group of parasites or moochers or takers—the potential beneficiaries of a proposal to bail out some homeowners threatened with losing their homes because of their inability to pay their mortgages. In classic producerist fashion, Santelli denounced the unfairness of bailing out “losers” while other hard-working Americans had to struggle to make their mortgage payments: Government is promoting bad behavior. … Do we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages? This is America? How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage? President Obama, are you listening? How about we all stop paying our mortgages? It’s moral hazard. A further clue to the values of the Tea Party right was provided by Representative Rob Inglis (R-S.C.), who was reportedly told by a constituent, “Keep your government hands off my Medicare.” This was widely interpreted by snobbish progressives to indicate that Tea Partiers are too stupid to understand that Medicare is a government benefit. But in fact Tea Party populists are being consistent, if selfish, in favoring universal, earned benefits that benefit people like them, while opposing means-tested welfare, which they suspect is encouraging laziness among the “idle poor.” Trump’s establishment rivals, like Jeb Bush, accuse him of not being a true conservative. That is true, if conservatism is defined by the beliefs of the Republican Party’s elite donors and the think tank experts whom they subsidize. But if conservatism is defined by what the voters who make up the conservative base actually believe, then it is the deviations of the GOP establishment from right-wing populist orthodoxy that must be explained. For years the Republican elite has gotten away with promoting policies about trade and entitlements that are the exact opposites of the policies favored by much of their electoral base. Populist conservatives who want to end illegal immigration, tax the rich, protect Social Security and Medicare, and fight fewer foreign wars have been there all along. It’s just that mainstream pundits and journalists, searching for a libertarian right more to their liking (and comprehension), refused to see them before the Summer of Trump.[/rquoter]
Did you miss the last four words of that sentence? That was the statement to which I was referring. I completely agree, but post high school education is appropriate for just about everyone, whether that is trade school for plumbers or electricians or other types of school for people with other aptitudes.
