Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Ben Carson isn't backing down on what he said about gun control and the holocaust:



http://www.aol.com/article/2015/10/11/ben-carson-sticks-to-his-guns-on-controversial-holocaust-comment/21247802/



Good for you, Ben.

So instead of admitting that what he said wasn't full of facts, he doubles down like Trump.

Anyhow, he's been putting foot-to-mouth more and more, he's likely not even going to be a viable VP soon, should he want that.

Originally posted by Robtard
So instead of admitting that what he said wasn't full of facts, he doubles down like Trump.

Anyhow, he's been putting foot-to-mouth more and more, he's likely not even going to be a viable VP soon, should he want that.

So you don't criticize Obama lying about the ACA, but you criticize Carson for not having all the facts..

Lets see:

Blatant Lie affecting 300 million people >Not fully informed on the "facts: of his opinion.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So you don't Obama lying about Obama care, but you criticize Carson for not having all the facts..

Lets see:

Blatant Lie affecting 300 million people >Not fully informed on the "facts: of his opinion.




LOL@Rob for claiming Carson doesn't have all the facts because he himself (a liberal) says he doesn't. LMAO. I'm pretty sure Carson has much more of "the facts" than retard does.


When it comes to deciding who is telling the truth between a good knowledgable man like Carson and the typical lying lib I"ll take the good man every single time.

omg someone with a different opinion. lets bash him in the 3rd person amongst ourselves like a bunch of sour old ladies in a sewing circle.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So you don't criticize Obama lying about the ACA, but you criticize Carson for not having all the facts..

Lets see:

Blatant Lie affecting 300 million people >Not fully informed on the "facts: of his opinion.

What does 'Obama is the d3v!l' have to do with Ben Carson?

Carson's digging a hole for himself, just watch.

Originally posted by Robtard
What does 'Obama is the d3v!l' have to do with Ben Carson?

Carson's digging a hole for himself, just watch.

Your right, he's telling the truth, where is Obama ran on a campaign of lies, then got in office and decided the constitution was not for him.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Your right, he's telling the truth, where is Obama ran on a campaign of lies, then got in office and decided the constitution was not for him.

More Obama deflection (aka irrelevant ranting). Do you have anything else?

Doubling down on nonsense worked for Trump, doesn't mean that tactic will work for Carson. Even Trump's sliding down now.

Originally posted by Robtard
More Obama deflection (aka irrelevant ranting). Do you have anything else?

Doubling down on nonsense worked for Trump, doesn't mean that tactic will work for Carson. Even Trump's sliding down now.

You keep saying trump is sliding, however he's not. Hilary has slide more.

And now polls show Carly beating Hilary in a head to head election.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You keep saying trump is sliding, however he's not. Hilary has slide more.

And now polls show Carly beating Hilary in a head to head election.

3weeks ago Trump was slightly over 30, today he's 23-24. You don't have to be a mathematical genius like me to see that 23-24 is lower than 30.

Good for Carly. But let us see what those polls look like after two Dem debates; that would be a fair comparison.

BTW, good job deflecting away from Carson's goofs "Mission Accomplished"

Originally posted by Robtard
3weeks ago Trump was slightly over 30, today he's 23-24. You don't have to be a mathematical genius like me to see that 23-24 is lower than 30.

Good for Carly. But let us see what those polls look like after two Dem debates; that would be a fair comparison.

I can almost bet you this debate will be be bias and moderated differently.

Wolf will not pit the candidates against each other and force them into a argument like Jake Tapper did.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I can almost bet you this debate will be be bias and moderated differently.

Wolf will not pit the candidates against each other and force them into a argument like Jake Tapper did.

So you're already preempting 'If the Dems come out shining, it's because they're cheating'. Alright then. No way it could be that they just come out looking good because they stick to the topics instead of blame-shifting and trying to eat each other. Your bias is REALLY showing here.

The Reps fought among themselves regardless, you even had some of them pointing out how disorganized and childish others were acting. The embarrassment of the Rep debates is the fault of the participants, even if goaded, they're grownups and should be able to control their emotions for a couple hours. Period.

So you show no blame to Jake Tapper, your bias is showing. Everyone else saw it, even reported on it, nice to try and sideline the obvious facts but it won't work.

No, I don't blame-shift, every single participant up there was an adult, if they were goaded and took the bait, it's their fault for doing so. They should have pointed it out and embarrassed Tapper, if that was the case.

These are supposed to be intelligent and professional people. When are you going to stop making excuses for them?

Tell me, was Trump "tricked" when he opened up with a childish insult to Rand Paul?

Originally posted by Robtard
No, I don't blame-shift, every single participant up there was an adult, if they were goaded and took the bait, it's their fault for doing so. They should have pointed it out and embarrassed Tapper, if that was the case.

These are supposed to be intelligent and professional people. When are you going to stop making excuses for them?

Tell me, was Trump "tricked" when he opened up with a childish insult to Rand Paul?


If they didn't take the bait they were forgotten about, like Carson, who would not attack trump and then was forgotten about for 30-40 minutes.

Look who is Blame shifting now.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
If they didn't take the bait they were forgotten about, like Carson, who would not attack trump and then was forgotten about for 30-40 minutes.

Look who is Blame shifting now.

The hell are you talking about, Carson had the 4th amount of speaking time with 12:36 minutes, just behind Carly, in the 2nd debate. Trump had the most (18:47) because he initiated fights and interrupted people.

As pointed out and explained above in previous post, you're the one that's blame-shifting.

Originally posted by Robtard
The hell are you talking about, Carson had the 4th amount of speaking time with 12:36 minutes, just behind Carly.

As pointed out and explained above in previous post, you're the one that's blame-shifting.

You seem really mad now. You refuse to accept the obvious and are pretty much ignoring it.

The good ole "you mad now" when the facts go against you

Look up the time stamps if you don't believe me. Carson was 4th, Carly 3rd, Bush 2nd and Trump 1st. 4th out of eleven participants isn't getting the shaft. You were clearly wrong again.

They might have had similar time stamps but the fact remains when he didn't take the debate he was left out for a long period of time.

Also it was obvious he was doing the "what do you think about what Trump said about you."

It was high school and you know it.

He seems to imply gun control lead to the holocaust. Surely he isn't that stupid?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So you don't criticize Obama lying about the ACA, but you criticize Carson for not having all the facts..

Lets see:

Blatant Lie affecting 300 million people >Not fully informed on the "facts: of his opinion.

Oh, let's see Obama's ACA 'lies.' He said everyone could stick with their insurance- and it turned out they could unless they effectively had insurance-in-name-only, at which point they got better insurance. Result: People get much better healthcare. Turned out to come under budget too. And note, how the Republican party lied like dogs, collectively, in mass number, about almost every facet of the ACA and it's 'failure,' and were proven wrong. They lied in saying they were willing to work on health care, as a strategy to try and sink it and Obama. They lied about 'death panels.' They lied about what it'd do. They lied about having a better alternative- when they had no plan other than the old failing status quo. And they, were, wrong. So sure, did Obama play things a bit fast and loose? Yep. Did your party prove themselves to be by far the biggest liars in the room? Many times over.


Carson sticking with a frankly offensive lie is not comparable.




Ah yes, when he ran promising healthcare (Done!), stimulus (Done!), and trying to work with the other side (tried but rejected). Politifact truth-o-meter, a non-partisan site that tracks both parties shows that he kept 45% of his promises, compromised on 25%/got them part way, and 8% are stalled or in the works. He did break 22%, but that leaves 78 vs 22 ratio in his favor. And note, just because a promise was broken also doesn't mean it wasn't intended to be followed through on, in some cases it's simply being thwarted.


The GOP in the same time, kept 38%, compromised on 30%, and broke 32%, a significantly inferior ratio to Obama.


That's policies. Let's go to statements, which is specifically checking how factually accurate someone is and even has a category for blatant lies, 'pants on fire'.

Obama's got a 21/27/27 ratio of things that are true/mostly true/half true, putting him at 77% half or more. And only 2% are rated 'pants on fire.'

Joe Biden, 19%/20/29, for the same true/mostly true/half true categories, adds up to 68% half-or-more, and 6% pants-on-fire.

And Hillary, despite her reputation, is only moderately behind Barack. 30/21/20 (actually higher in completely true, if lower in mostly and half), for 71% half or more, and the same 2% pants on fire.


Now let's compare to, say, Mitt Romney from his campaign. 15/16/28% in the same categories, putting him at 59% half-or-more true, and 9% pants-on-fire, below any of the Democrat big three.

To move to a current campaign, Marco Rubio has better scores, 16/26/20, or 61% half-or-more, and a small 2% pants-on-fire. Not quiet as factually accurate as Biden, but does seem to speak quite truthfully.

John Boehner, 25/6/16, 47% half or more, though a very small 3% pants-on-fire. So he says a lot of incorrect things- more than not, it turns out, but isn't much of an actual liar either.

Donald Trump? He's got less statements total so that's something of a disadvantage, but 46% 'false,' and 17% 'pants on fire'.

I know you're not a big fan of Jeb, but at 24/24/20, he gets up to 68% half-or-more true, and 3% pants-on-fire. So that, at least, is not his problem.


When it comes to lies, we know who the winners are, when you're either talking individuals or parties, because nowadays people write this stuff down and check.

And no, no matter how you try, you cannot define 'universal healthcare' as unconstitutional. Indeed, the Supreme Court ruled on the ACA, and declared it specifically constitutional.

Unconstitutional does not mean 'something I don't like,' and it never will.

An offensive lie?

Do you live to be offended by what other people say that doesn't even concern you?

Originally posted by Q99


And no, no matter how you try, you cannot define 'universal healthcare' as unconstitutional. Indeed, the Supreme Court ruled on the ACA, and declared it specifically constitutional.

Unconstitutional does not mean 'something I don't like,' and it never will.

See caught you doing what you normally do, mis quoting me and then making my statement imply something it was not.

Quote me saying the ACA was unconstitutional or retract your claim.

Originally posted by Surtur
He seems to imply gun control lead to the holocaust. Surely he isn't that stupid?



No. If you actually watched the entire video you would hear where he said near end of it that Hitler's ability to murder 6 million jews would've been "greatly diminished" if they (the jews) hadn't had the means to protect themselves taken away. And Carson is 100% correct too. Carson is actually one of the smarter candidates on either republican or democratic (smarter than all of those) side.

Originally posted by Star428
No. If you actually watched the entire video you would hear where he said near end of it that Hitler's ability to murder 6 million jews would've been "greatly diminished" if they (the jews) hadn't had the means to protect themselves taken away. And Carson is 100% correct too. Carson is actually one of the smarter candidates on either republican or democratic (smarter than all of those) side. You see this an argument that isn't valid. It assumes the jews could have stopped Hitler from doing these things if they were somehow armed. This a terrible argument. It wasn't like the german jews were a tight army that could have kept the masses at bay.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
See caught you doing what you normally do, mis quoting me and then making my statement imply something it was not.

Quote me saying the ACA was unconstitutional or retract your claim.

"Your right, he's telling the truth, where is Obama ran on a campaign of lies, then got in office and decided the constitution was not for him." -Time-Immemorial, in a post replying to Robtard replying to Time-Immemorial's post on 'Obama lying about the ACA'. Direct chain of conversation with no stated or implied change of subjection.

Quoted.

I do not know why you think this would be hard, it was just the last page and the way you worth the statements certainly implied that, unless you simply forgot to include that you were changing subjects to something else by accident through a course of direct replies on the ACA.

Assuming that was the case and you forgot to mention you were changing subjects, what else do you think he was doing that's unconstitutional? Is this just a vague "Obama's unconstitutional! What, specifically? Well, *mumble-no-answer-mumble*" on your part?

Violating the constitution is a specific claim. If you cannot name specifically what, then you should probably think twice about throwing accusations around.

Lol

Originally posted by Surtur
He seems to imply gun control lead to the holocaust. Surely he isn't that stupid?


Ben Carson's thing seems to, in large part, be based on the belief that as he's a really smart neurosurgeon, that makes him good to simply figure out most things and not having to do the research.


But, well, check his page on politifact. He's yet to get a single mostly-true fact checkable statement.

He hasn't actually studied most of the stuff, so in terms of factual accuracy does pretty poorly, and he messes up some stuff even medicine related, like how vaccines work (he recommends lowering the dosage/frequency during the debate... which causes them to not function nearly as well).

A lot of his stances on a variety of issues are thus fairly off-the-wall and not really based on knowledge of the situations.


(And politifact does go statement by statement down the page, so you can examine all the statements they declare false yourself, and judge if you agree or not on each particular ones)

Nice dodge Q.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Only the liberal media can turn saying "Jews would have had a way to defend themselves" and say this is "SO CONTROVERSIAL."

Originally posted by Q99
"Your right, he's telling the truth, where is Obama ran on a campaign of lies, then got in office and decided the constitution was not for him." -Time-Immemorial, in a post replying to Robtard replying to Time-Immemorial's post on 'Obama lying about the ACA'. Direct chain of conversation with no stated or implied change of subjection.

Quoted.

I do not know why you think this would be hard, it was just the last page and the way you worth the statements certainly implied that, unless you simply forgot to include that you were changing subjects to something else by accident through a course of direct replies on the ACA.

Assuming that was the case and you forgot to mention you were changing subjects, what else do you think he was doing that's unconstitutional? Is this just a vague "Obama's unconstitutional! What, specifically? Well, *mumble-no-answer-mumble*" on your part?

Violating the constitution is a specific claim. If you cannot name specifically what, then you should probably think twice about throwing accusations around.

Wrong again, I never said the ACA was not constitutional, I was talking about all the other stuff he's done to bypass the constitution. You know this, but your a shady and shameful poster.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Only the liberal media can turn saying "Jews would have had a way to defend themselves" and say this is "SO CONTROVERSIAL."

Funny thing, it turns out that some random disorganized mostly untrained civilians with sidearms? Not so effective against the organized police forces and militaries of a nation.

Actual militaries failed to stop the Nazis, remember. Militaries with tanks and airplanes and artillery.

This has a near-zero percent chance of stopping anything, though a much larger chance of being used to manufacture violent incidents to blame on them and use as yet another excuse for the killings.





Do you not care when people are clearly lying about others to promote something that's false, and using someone else's tragedy to do so?

Also, Ben Carson is a presidential candidate. What he says and believes does concern me.

Nice dodge again.

And you are lying.

The Jews were disarmed, saying they were not is an outright lie.

Originally posted by Q99
Oh, let's see Obama's ACA 'lies.' He said everyone could stick with their insurance- and it turned out they could unless they effectively had insurance-in-name-only, at which point they got better insurance. Result: People get much better healthcare.


That is an inaccurate statement regarding the healthcare plans people that that lost coverage unless you believe that everyone that lost their coverage was on a "minimed" plan which they weren't.

Define better insurance also while you are at it since many of the plans in the ACA don't have many if any first dollar benefits.

All together result of the ACA many of the self run state health pools are in the RED and going to tank without more money.

Obama did lie, he was called on it and thats that.

Now in the case of who lies more democrats or republicans I don't care.

Carson's statements regarding an "armed" germany seem far fetched for sure.

Originally posted by Q99
Funny thing, it turns out that some random disorganized mostly untrained civilians with sidearms? Not so effective against the organized police forces and militaries of a nation.

Actual militaries failed to stop the Nazis, remember. Militaries with tanks and airplanes and artillery.

This has a near-zero percent chance of stopping anything, though a much larger chance of being used to manufacture violent incidents to blame on them and use as yet another excuse for the killings.




I love this type of argument. The old "they would have been exterminated anyways, so who cares."

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Wrong again, I never said the ACA was not constitutional, I was talking about all the other stuff he's done to bypass the constitution. You know this, but your a shady and shameful poster.

One, you did not actually say any of this. You just, apparently, in a response to a direct response to your ACA statement, changed the subject without saying you were doing so, and now you're getting huffy about me noting you never actually made a statement that indicated you were changing the subject.

Language works in a certain way, and that way works by putting what you mean into words.


Time, you've been caught and quoted and now you're accusing me of being 'shady' for not reading your mind and picking up on something you didn't actually says.


Also, again, what specifically do you think he's done ? It really is just 'mumblemumbleit'stotallyunconstitutionaltrustme* isn't it? You aren't saying what you meant, you're just getting annoyed at me for having initially thought you meant one thing while curiously avoiding bringing up what other thing you were apparently talking about.

Almost as if you wanted to lay a 'gotcha' where you make a vague statement and whenever someone calls you on any specifics you just wanted to pounce, because you didn't have any specifics in mind in the first place.


For someone accusing others of being shady, you're being pretty active about dodging explaining what you meant.

So someone saying that if defenseless people who were slaughtered had been armed that it would've been harder for the murdering bastards to murder them seems "far-fetched"? LOL. Oooookay, snowdragon.

Originally posted by Q99
One, you did not actually say any of this. You just, apparently, in a response to a direct response to your ACA statement, changed the subject without saying you were doing so, and now you're getting huffy about me noting you never actually made a statement that indicated you were changing the subject.

Language works in a certain way, and that way works by putting what you mean into words.


Time, you've been caught and quoted and now you're accusing me of being 'shady' for not reading your mind and picking up on something you didn't actually says.


Also, again, what specifically do you think he's done ? It really is just 'mumblemumbleit'stotallyunconstitutionaltrustme* isn't it? You aren't saying what you meant, you're just getting annoyed at me for having initially thought you meant one thing while curiously avoiding bringing up what other thing you were apparently talking about.

Almost as if you wanted to lay a 'gotcha' where you make a vague statement and whenever someone calls you on any specifics you just wanted to pounce, because you didn't have any specifics in mind in the first place.


For someone accusing others of being shady, you're being pretty active about dodging explaining what you meant.

Wont work, sorry.

He bypassed congress with executive amnesty, something he ran on saying he would not do.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I love this type of argument. The old "they would have been exterminated anyways, so who cares."




It's always liberals who make retarded statements like that, TI. What do you expect? They're too ****ing stupid to understand that it's much better to die free while fighting and take out as many of the murdering bastards as possible than to give up one's freedom and life without a fight. Liberals are a lost cause. Logic and liberals don't mix well.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I love this type of argument. The old "they would have been exterminated anyways, so who cares."


It's much more, "This would not have prevented these actions, so advocating it as a prevention is bad, as it gives people the wrong idea what sort of action would have actually prevented that."


You're being sarcastic here, but the fact is, the statement was 100% wrong, and trying to play on a great tragedy for political gain on a falsehood isn't good.

Just throwing sarcasm doesn't make something false not-false.




Except no-one said they weren't disarmed, what was said was their armament or not would not have prevented the holocaust.

You can't make up stuff about other people's statements and expect it to stick.

For someone so sensitive about wanting people to prove you quoting stuff, you sure do like to outright insert words into other people's mouths that flat contradict what they said a lot.

Originally posted by Q99
It's much more, "This would not have prevented these actions, so advocating it as a prevention is bad, as it gives people the wrong idea what sort of action would have actually prevented that."


You're being sarcastic here, but the fact is, the statement was 100% wrong, and trying to play on a great tragedy for political gain on a falsehood isn't good.

Just throwing sarcasm doesn't make something false not-false.




Except no-one said they weren't disarmed, what was said was their armament or not would not have prevented the holocaust.

You can't make up stuff about other people's statements and expect it to stick.

For someone so sensitive about wanting people to prove you quoting stuff, you sure do like to outright insert words into other people's mouths that flat contradict what they said a lot.

The old "they would have no chance, so it doesn't matter"

Shameful post

Even if they were only able to kill 100,000 Germans, that would have been better then killing none.

You make me sick.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The old "they would have no chance, so it doesn't matter"

Shameful post




Exactly, and they call themselves "Americans" too. LOL. Can u imagine if the Revolutionary War had been fought by people like them? We'd still be living under the British, for certain.

Yes according to people like him and others, shootings matter, but standing up for yourself does not.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Wont work, sorry.

He bypassed congress with executive amnesty, something he ran on saying he would not do.

Yay, an actual specific! You stopped dodging!- even though it was not mentioned in your original post, or the first page of the thread at all, so it is pretty obviously you're retroactively coming up with something, but hey, better late than never, eh?

... but, alas, not something actually unconstitutional. The president does have a lot of discretion over what the DoJ focuses on and always has, Reagan and Bush have done so in the past. when two Republican presidents have directly done similar things via executive orders without calls of unconstitutionality, that rather says the objection is more political opposition rather than actually constitutional in nature. The courts have also ruled on the matter, and found this to be the case.


Yes, he did originally intend not to do so without congress, and this is one of the things politifact called him on, but that doesn't mean it is not within his power.

Originally posted by Q99
Yay, an actual specific! You stopped dodging!- even though it was not mentioned in your original post, or the first page of the thread at all, so it is pretty obviously you're retroactively coming up with something, but hey, better late than never, eh?

... but, alas, not something actually unconstitutional. The president does have a lot of discretion over what the DoJ focuses on and always has, Reagan and Bush have done so in the past. when two Republican presidents have directly done similar things via executive orders without calls of unconstitutionality, that rather says the objection is more political opposition rather than actually constitutional in nature. The courts have also ruled on the matter, and found this to be the case.


Yes, he did originally intend not to do so without congress, and this is one of the things politifact called him on, but that doesn't mean it is not within his power.

Not really, the SC held up Obama care and said it was constitutional, so why would I argue otherwise?

Caught ya again.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The old "they would have no chance, so it doesn't matter"

Shameful post

Even if they were only able to kill 100,000 Germans, that would have been better then killing none.

You make me sick.


Ah, goalpost shifting!

Now your argument is "Well, sure it would've happened, but at least they'd taken Nazis with them!".

Sure, while taking down Nazis is a nice cause, it does not actually have anything to do with preventing them from getting killed- which was the actual claim Carson made.


Spending effort getting out of the country was a much better use of their effort.

And no, disorganized civilians vs police and military are not going to result in anything like that kind of casualties. Again, there were armies with tanks and artillery that didn't do so.

This 'the Jewish population of Germany-' who, btw, were themselves German and thus often going to be reluctant to take up arms against their own country, even if it was turning against them- 'spontaneously turns into an effective guerilla army' is a fun fantasy, but that is what it is, a fantasy, and trying to base policy on fantasy is not very sensible.


Also I like how you're trying to turn 'calling on someone trying to use the holocaust for a pet cause' into something shameful. It's pretty blatant, you're trying to reshape the conservation by mimicing other people's responses, but it doesn't really work because in the case of Carson's statements it *is* a fantasy, it is still factually incorrect, and dancing around the words won't change that.

Is Ben Carson the same guy who said Obamacare was as bad as slavery?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Not really, the SC held up Obama care and said it was constitutional, so why would I argue otherwise?



It hardly matters why, what matters is that is what you actually wrote, and tried to act defensive about a change of subject you did not, in fact, include in your statements.

You asked for quote, quote was provided. Now you're trying to argue motive and such- but you're still asking people to have 'naturally' assumed you were talking about a topic change you forgot to include.

And moving on to further 'gotchas,' and since you have moved on to the subject of examining motive, when then called on this, you were quite evasive on providing what you did mean, requiring multiple posts to do so, suggesting that you were scrambling backwards and did not have a specific other 'unconstitutional' act in mind.




You have an interesting definition of 'caught'


You've been factually caught out on every turn here, you just act like accusing others in response and pretending the wounded party changes that you were, in fact, factually wrong.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Is Ben Carson the same guy who said Obamacare was as bad as slavery?

E-yup.


... he's really got a history about attaching whatever politics he's talking about at the time to unrelated tragedies, doesn't he?

Originally posted by Q99
It hardly matters why, what matters is that is what you actually wrote, and tried to act defensive about a change of subject you did not, in fact, include in your statements.

You asked for quote, quote was provided. Now you're trying to argue motive and such- but you're still asking people to have 'naturally' assumed you were talking about a topic change you forgot to include.

And moving on to further 'gotchas,' and since you have moved on to the subject of examining motive, when then called on this, you were quite evasive on providing what you did mean, requiring multiple posts to do so, suggesting that you were scrambling backwards and did not have a specific other 'unconstitutional' act in mind.




You have an interesting definition of 'caught'


You've been factually caught out on every turn here, you just act like accusing others in response and pretending the wounded party changes that you were, in fact, factually wrong.

This is coming from the guy who said guns would not have helped innocent people defend themselves against the ****ing Germans.

Originally posted by Star428
No. If you actually watched the entire video you would hear where he said near end of it that Hitler's ability to murder 6 million jews would've been "greatly diminished" if they (the jews) hadn't had the means to protect themselves taken away. And Carson is 100% correct too. Carson is actually one of the smarter candidates on either republican or democratic (smarter than all of those) side.

The problem is the Jews didn't have enough weapons to protect themselves to begin with.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
This is coming from the guy who said guns would not have helped innocent people defend themselves against the ****ing Germans.
How exactly do you envision a bunch of Jewish civilians organizing armed resistance against the German military in a country where they had essentially no allies among the civilian populace?

There's one case of Jews taking up arms against the Germans. The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. It was an absolute massacre. Something like two dozen Germans killed with thousands of Jewish casualties.

So better be killed without being able to die trying to live.

Have you never heard of the "Ill die trying."

So the Jews having guns... Wouldn't have stopped the holocaust. Just made it bloodier?

Pretty sure we we agreed to not talk to each other.

Did we?

I'd have to check.

Pretty sure we did, and you know it.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
This is coming from the guy who said guns would not have helped innocent people defend themselves against the ****ing Germans.

Because even you admit that it wouldn't have saved them, which was the actual claim Carson made. You're just upset because you've attached another requirement beyond that. That's called shifting goalposts*.

Also, they were Germans themselves, you know.



*You know, I have noticed a tendency in your part to be more interested in 'winning' a conversation, even if it means moving off the original subject and onto something else, than discussing the original point. Stuff like 'ah ha, prove I said X!' 'but at least they'd have taken down a lot of Nazis with them,' etc.. And when caught, you simply shift over to a new topic.

So thinking about this and what to do about it, I say.... go ahead, blame the big bad Q all you want Obviously, this is my fault.

That's right, it's really my fault for not picking up on your prior unstated topic shifts, or the other times you've demanded proof of someone calling you on something to get out of an argument, even when I'm not the one in the thread. And this one here? Why, it's also my fault for not knowing that by 'defend themselves and prevent the holocaust' when what was obviously actually meant was 'take some people with them'.

Congratulations! You can now feel good about yourself!

*Applause*

So wait a minute, when did humans give up the right to defend themselves based on winning or losing a holocaust?

I love how you are blatantly trolling here.

Once again you prove your loyalty to anything that lives and breaths big government.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Pretty sure we did, and you know it.

I know you tried to harass me in PMs, but I don't remember agreeing to anything. I'm not saying I didn't agree, just that I don't remember.

I'll have a look.

Edit: I just checked. Nope, I never agreed to that. I told you that you didn't have to reply to anything I wrote though. That's still your right.

Q?

What u expect from a liberal? Course they love big government.

Its so funny all the people that believe in big government and zero lack of leadership go for people like Hilary. She can't even run a foundation or a email server.

Carson is a neurosurgeon and Trump runs a billion dollar empire. I know the big government loons will say civilian achievements mean nothing.

Yet Hilary can do what? She couldn't even pick up the phone.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So wait a minute, when did humans give up the right to defend themselves based on winning or losing a holocaust?

It doesn't, but, hello? The original quote we're talking about was the idea that some civilians with guns would've stopped the holocaust.

It's not true, because army, or even police force, > civilians with small arms.

This is factual.

Even you admit that it's factual, but now you're trying to shift it onto the topic off that you were defending a quote that isn't factual, and trying to move it onto a new one.

First you tried to move it to 'but at least they'd take some with them,' which is, to state the obvious

Now you're trying to move it on to the abstract of self defense in general- but, of course, civilians with small arms don't make effective self defense in this situation, not in the slightest. Like you yourself admit, it would not have stopped the holocaust. In order to defend themselves, the Jewish Germans would've needed political protection so that the police could not be used against them and the SS not formed, not some side-arms.

And the original quote was about guns stopping the holocaust. That's the topic.






In that I'm taking blame for all your goalpost shifting? Why certainly ^^ I thought you'd be happy to hear someone take credit for being at fault for you jumping topic to topic and justify being able to claim wins even when you're blatantly factually incorrect on the original topic.


Heck, I'll even pre-emptively take the blame for the next topic you're going to move to.

So everyone? Just be aware, whatever Time moves to next after having already used up 'they'll take some with them'* and 'basic right to self defense,'** is totally my fault.


* (doesn't make the original quote less wrong)
**(likewise, doesn't make the original quote less wrong, as it doesn't actually provide a useful self defense)



*Edit*

Ah, it seems you've posted while I'm writing this. The new topic? Start talking about something else and hope that no-one noticing that you shifted off the actual facts in question! ^^

LOL. Very true, TI. Now she's desperately trying to weasel out of what she did.

Originally posted by Q99
It doesn't, but, hello? The original quote we're talking about was the idea that some civilians with guns would've stopped the holocaust.

It's not true, because army, or even police force, > civilians with small arms.

This is factual.

Even you admit that it's factual, but now you're trying to shift it onto the topic off that you were defending a quote that isn't factual, and trying to move it onto a new one.

First you tried to move it to 'but at least they'd take some with them,' which is, to state the obvious

Now you're trying to move it on to the abstract of self defense in general- but, of course, civilians with small arms don't make effective self defense in this situation, not in the slightest. Like you yourself admit, it would not have stopped the holocaust. In order to defend themselves, the Jewish Germans would've needed political protection so that the police could not be used against them and the SS not formed, not some side-arms.

And the original quote was about guns stopping the holocaust. That's the topic.






In that I'm taking blame for all your goalpost shifting? Why certainly ^^ I thought you'd be happy to hear someone take credit for being at fault for you jumping topic to topic and justify being able to claim wins even when you're blatantly factually incorrect on the original topic.


Heck, I'll even pre-emptively take the blame for the next topic you're going to move to.

So everyone? Just be aware, whatever Time moves to next after having already used up 'they'll take some with them'* and 'basic right to self defense,'** is totally my fault.


* (doesn't make the original quote less wrong)
**(likewise, doesn't make the original quote less wrong, as it doesn't actually provide a useful self defense)



*Edit*

Ah, it seems you've posted while I'm writing this. The new topic? Start talking about something else and hope that no-one noticing that you shifted off the actual facts in question! ^^

Are you a fortune teller? I didn't know you could look back and see the past and decide their fate.

Who the hell are you to say they could not have stopped it, or at least slowed it down?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Are you a fortune teller? I didn't know you could look back and see the past and decide their fate.

Who the hell are you to say they could not have stopped it, or at least slowed it down?




He/she is a liberal, TI. Don't you realize that they know everything?


Who are we to question their "all-knowingness"?

I love these stupid arguments, it just shows their hatred to Israel.

Hatred of Israeli policy, not hatred of Israel. It's annoying that you don't understand the difference.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Hatred of Israeli policy, not hatred of Israel. It's annoying that you don't understand the difference.
Why can't we hate both? Why do we have to pretend to like those bastards?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I love these stupid arguments, it just shows their hatred to Israel.

"You hate Israel!"

Is this the new "you don't support the troops!" that was rampant in the early to mid years of the Iraq war as a means to bully people into silence whenever someone said anything remotely negative about the US invading Iraq?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Hatred of Israeli policy, not hatred of Israel. It's annoying that you don't understand the difference.

Then you should hate Obamas policies.