Ben Carson stands by his controversial comments

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.

Caught ya again.

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.

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.