Ben Carson stands by his controversial comments

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.

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.

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.

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.

Time-Immemorial An offensive lie?

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

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.

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

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.