Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 20 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,549 posts, read 16,535,254 times
Reputation: 6032
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound
Hillary also talks about the high costs of college, even while she charges hundreds of thousands of dollars for a 1/2 speech. Isn't that a bit hypocritical? Or, does she think the audience doesn't know, doesn't connect, and doesn't care.
It's a democrat moving lips, so whatever comes forth must be good.
No, it isnt hypocritical. Capitalism allows her to charge what ever the market allows for her speech. No college is forced to pay her for a speech.
I would agree that we should not elect anyone POTUS who does not view the Constitution as our overriding law of the land, of course, right.
What is wrong with Carson's answer is that it singles out and alienates Muslims rather than simply ANYBODY who does not hold the Constitution the supreme law of the land. There are those who might argue that the Bible trumps the Constitution, but we don't hear anybody talking about how we should never elect a Christian who holds the Bible above the Constitution, even as we witness those who even practice and/or act on their faith in contradiction of the law.
Additionally, the problem is that the world is much divided today over these issues of faith. To further aggravate them with these sorts of comments strikes me as "stirring the sh*t-pot." Those so inclined should lick the spoon!
This "political correct" crap is causing more dam*ed trouble than I can believe. NO! Dr. Carson was "ASKED" specifically about a Muslim. PERIOD! He answered the question as it was asked.
What you are describing is just ridiculous, no matter what some jerk has taught you. It is wrong to jump on every word said to try to spin it, criticize same, etc., etc. Grow Up!
I usually don't get so blasted angry, but this kind of foolishness has gone far enough. People have freedom of speech. If you don't agree with it, fine...just ignore it. But you have absolutely no right to try to do "interpretive criticizim based on foolish non-comprehension.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 20 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,549 posts, read 16,535,254 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by lorrysda
This "political correct" crap is causing more dam*ed trouble than I can believe. NO! Dr. Carson was "ASKED" specifically about a Muslim. PERIOD! He answered the question as it was asked.
What you are describing is just ridiculous, no matter what some jerk has taught you. It is wrong to jump on every word said to try to spin it, criticize same, etc., etc. Grow Up!
I usually don't get so blasted angry, but this kind of foolishness has gone far enough. People have freedom of speech. If you don't agree with it, fine...just ignore it. But you have absolutely no right to try to do "interpretive criticizim based on foolish non-comprehension.
Carson was indeed asked about Islam, but he has continued to clarify his comments sense and even in that very same interview specifically saying that Islam in and of itself was not compatible with the Constitution, not just the extremist, and while that may very well be true the same case can be made of Christianity.
I would agree that we should not elect anyone POTUS who does not view the Constitution as our overriding law of the land, of course, right.
What is wrong with Carson's answer is that it singles out and alienates Muslims rather than simply ANYBODY who does not hold the Constitution the supreme law of the land. There are those who might argue that the Bible trumps the Constitution, but we don't hear anybody talking about how we should never elect a Christian who holds the Bible above the Constitution, even as we witness those who even practice and/or act on their faith in contradiction of the law.
Additionally, the problem is that the world is much divided today over these issues of faith. To further aggravate them with these sorts of comments strikes me as "stirring the sh*t-pot." Those so inclined should lick the spoon!
He was asked a question specifically regarding a Muslim being president. He answered it. If anyone was stirring the *blank* pot, it was the liberal newsman doing the interview. (can't recall his name at the moment)
Carson was indeed asked about Islam, but he has continued to clarify his comments sense and even in that very same interview specifically saying that Islam in and of itself was not compatible with the Constitution, not just the extremist, and while that may very well be true the same case can be made of Christianity.
Bull! Christianity does not conflict with the Constitution. Any conflict has arisen "BECAUSE" the Federal Government has passed laws OUTSIDE of our Constitution's jurisdiction!
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 20 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,549 posts, read 16,535,254 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by lorrysda
Bull! Christianity does not conflict with the Constitution. Any conflict has arisen "BECAUSE" the Federal Government has passed laws OUTSIDE of our Constitution's jurisdiction!
Pretty sure the Constitution allows for freedom of religion and the bible does not.
Quote:
"6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which [is] as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
7 [Namely], of the gods of the people which [are] round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth;
9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. "
No, it isnt hypocritical. Capitalism allows her to charge what ever the market allows for her speech. No college is forced to pay her for a speech.
So how is the college supposed to be able to afford her exorbitant fees if tuition is going to be free as she proposes? If we, the taxpayers, have to pay for kids' college, do we also then pay for Hillary's fees -- at whatever rate "capitalism allows her to charge" ? Where is the reasoning in that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lorrysda
This "political correct" crap is causing more dam*ed trouble than I can believe. NO! Dr. Carson was "ASKED" specifically about a Muslim. PERIOD! He answered the question as it was asked.
What you are describing is just ridiculous, no matter what some jerk has taught you. It is wrong to jump on every word said to try to spin it, criticize same, etc., etc. Grow Up!
I usually don't get so blasted angry, but this kind of foolishness has gone far enough. People have freedom of speech. If you don't agree with it, fine...just ignore it. But you have absolutely no right to try to do "interpretive criticizim based on foolish non-comprehension.
(especially the bolded part)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
Carson was indeed asked about Islam, but he has continued to clarify his comments sense and even in that very same interview specifically saying that Islam in and of itself was not compatible with the Constitution, not just the extremist, and while that may very well be true the same case can be made of Christianity.
Those who don't really comprehend Christianity say that, but it isn't so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
Pretty sure the Constitution allows for freedom of religion and the bible does not.
To put it simply, for those who are not Christians, Christianity is the New Testament, A.D. Do not quote the Old Testament (B.C.) as your idea of what Christianity is. That understanding is misguided and shows a lack of comprehension. There WAS no Christianity until Christ came along.
Please see bolded quote above: But you have absolutely no right to try to do "interpretive criticism based on foolish non-comprehension."
This "political correct" crap is causing more dam*ed trouble than I can believe. NO! Dr. Carson was "ASKED" specifically about a Muslim. PERIOD! He answered the question as it was asked.
What you are describing is just ridiculous, no matter what some jerk has taught you. It is wrong to jump on every word said to try to spin it, criticize same, etc., etc. Grow Up!
I usually don't get so blasted angry, but this kind of foolishness has gone far enough. People have freedom of speech. If you don't agree with it, fine...just ignore it. But you have absolutely no right to try to do "interpretive criticizim based on foolish non-comprehension.
Oh, yes, Carson answered the question, and I am simply pointing out why he answered the question poorly. My opinion of course. You, others, may view this as simply a matter of being "politically correct." No doubt Trump is playing to you types that seem to think this is all just a matter of semantics, probably because you too put foot in mouth on a regular basis, but this is not just about a choice word or two!
Glad to see some other comments since mine that demonstrate a bit better understanding about all this.
Kid yourself if you like, but lots of people in this country suffer from Muslim-phobia, and some politicians are obviously tapping into that phobia, regardless the larger implications, regardless the unnecessary wedges these sorts of comments tend to drive between people of different faiths. And remember, we are talking about candidates for POTUS here, not your neighbor's quip at your neighborhood BBQ.
We can and should do better, much better, or that sheet being stirred tends to splatter on all of us!
PS: I have EVERY right to criticize for any reason I deem appropriate. You don't agree, of course that is fine, but what is ridiculous is this sort of intolerant reaction. Getting "so blasted angry" is strong evidence of a mind set that is part of the problem.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 20 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,549 posts, read 16,535,254 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound
So how is the college supposed to be able to afford her exorbitant fees if tuition is going to be free as she proposes? If we, the taxpayers, have to pay for kids' college, do we also then pay for Hillary's fees -- at whatever rate "capitalism allows her to charge" ? Where is the reasoning in that?
You assume free = barter system, or nullification, and I dont know why.
Free would still mean that the university is compensated. But to be clear. Clinton never said college should be free, she said affordable.
Quote:
Those who don't really comprehend Christianity say that, but it isn't so.
To put it simply, for those who are not Christians, Christianity is the New Testament, A.D. Do not quote the Old Testament (B.C.) as your idea of what Christianity is. That understanding is misguided and shows a lack of comprehension. There WAS no Christianity until Christ came along.
Please see bolded quote above: But you have absolutely no right to try to do "interpretive criticism based on foolish non-comprehension."
This argument doesnt work for multiple reasons, the main one being that You can not simply throw out half of your religious teachings just because you cant win a debate when it is included, the first half of the bible is still Christianity.
If it were not Christianity, then it would not be included in the Holy Bible, nor would it be taught to those who call themselves Christians.
You assume free = barter system, or nullification, and I dont know why.
Free would still mean that the university is compensated. But to be clear. Clinton never said college should be free, she said affordable.
This argument doesnt work for multiple reasons, the main one being that You can not simply throw out half of your religious teachings just because you cant win a debate when it is included, the first half of the bible is still Christianity.
If it were not Christianity, then it would not be included in the Holy Bible, nor would it be taught to those who call themselves Christians.
It has been pointed out over and over again the more the government gets involved in making education "affordable" the more expensive it gets.
Why is that I wonder?
Could it be the more the government (we) pays the more universities raise their fees?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(especially the bolded part)
Who needs to grow up?
