An honest answer.......

[GACMAN]

no longer is accebtable. Ben Carson answers a question about a muslim being president and is now getting hammered for his answer.....so when the question is asked do they NOT want you to answer honestly or are they HOPING for an honest answer do they can jump on you? He did not hammer the current POTUS...matter of fact he was far from that......he simply said that he did not think that a muslim president would be appropriate for the USA.....now what the f*&( is wrong with saying that????? I hate the liberal media and the BS that they spew.......political correctness is a purge on our society....

 

[Heels in Space]

he simply said that he did not think that a muslim president would be appropriate for the USA.....now what the f*&( is wrong with saying that?????

How about, just for starters, that it's unconstitutional: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." - Article IV, Paragraph 3.

Is the US Constitution PC now?

 

[Blue2010]

no longer is accebtable. Ben Carson answers a question about a muslim being president and is now getting hammered for his answer.....so when the question is asked do they NOT want you to answer honestly or are they HOPING for an honest answer do they can jump on you? He did not hammer the current POTUS...matter of fact he was far from that......he simply said that he did not think that a muslim president would be appropriate for the USA.....now what the f*&( is wrong with saying that????? I hate the liberal media and the BS that they spew.......political correctness is a purge on our society....

I agree on the gist of this post. I wrote a longer reply, but choosing to shy away from this one...

 

[Nuk'EM Heels]

How about, just for starters, that it's unconstitutional: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." - Article IV, Paragraph 3.

Is the US Constitution PC now?

This is all about the media coming to the aid of HRC, deflecting attention away from her email scandal...

 

[gunslingerdick]

How about, just for starters, that it's unconstitutional: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." - Article IV, Paragraph 3.

Is the US Constitution PC now?

Ok. Great. What's your point? Carson didn't say that he would amend the constitution to deny muslims the right to serve as President. He said, "I would not advocate that we put a muslim in charge of this nation." But here we go with another liberal mouthpiece representing some pop-up, nonsensical leftist organization:

Carson's comments drew strong criticism from the country's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations.


"To me this really means he is not qualified to be president of the United States," said the group's spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper. "You cannot hold these kinds of views and at the same time say you will represent all Americans, of all faiths and backgrounds."

The question I would pose to Mr. Hooper is, "how is this different than when Obama claimed that marriage was between one man and one woman?" The SCOTUS has declared that belief is unconstitutional yet no one had a problem with Obama saying it when he said it and now they're championing his ability to "evolve". Carson isn't granted the same leeway?

More liberal idiocy. Y'all aren't even consistent in your bitching and moaning.

 

[DeanFor President]

The point is he was asked his opinion. He gave it. They didn't like it, and are now hammering him for having an opinion with which the media disagrees.

They don't even pretend to be impartial anymore.

 

[Heels in Space]

Ok. Great. What's your point? Carson didn't say that he would amend the constitution to deny muslims the right to serve as President. He said, "I would not advocate that we put a muslim in charge of this nation." But here we go with another liberal mouthpiece representing some pop-up, nonsensical leftist organization:

Carson's comments drew strong criticism from the country's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations.


"To me this really means he is not qualified to be president of the United States," said the group's spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper. "You cannot hold these kinds of views and at the same time say you will represent all Americans, of all faiths and backgrounds."

The question I would pose to Mr. Hooper is, "how is this different than when Obama claimed that marriage was between one man and one woman?" The SCOTUS has declared that belief is unconstitutional yet no one had a problem with Obama saying it when he said it and now they're championing his ability to "evolve". Carson isn't granted the same leeway?

More liberal idiocy. Y'all aren't even consistent in your bitching and moaning.

When Obama said that, the SCOTUS had not yet decided that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional. And he came out in support of it before the decision.

To be sure, it's not unconstitutional for Ben Carson to refuse to support an entire class of people based on their religion. But the position he's taking would be unconstitutional if it were law. It's certainly newsworthy for a candidate for the highest office in the land to take a position that's at odds with an express right in the Constitution.

Question: If a Democratic candidate for president said that he does not support the right of Americans to own guns, would you criticize him for that statement?

 

[JuleZ '02 HEEL]

Step 1: He was asked for his opinion.
Step 2: He gave his opinion.
Step 3: Those who disagree with his opinion criticize him for it, while those who agree with him stand up for his opinion and criticize those who are criticizing him.

Sounds like politics, or a family dinner. What's the issue again?

 

[gunslingerdick]

When Obama said that, the SCOTUS had not yet decided that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional. And he came out in support of it before the decision.

The SCOTUS decision is irrelevant. Obama was in favor of denying rights to a certain segment of the population. And it's not surprising that you're excusing it. My question hits the mark precisely. He made those statements before he became President and no one came out and said that those beliefs should keep him from being President (although had I known then what I know now, I would have been the biggest mouthpiece for gay rights and would have taken Obama to task over that to prevent his election).

To be sure, it's not unconstitutional for Ben Carson to refuse to support an entire class of people based on their religion. But the position he's taking would be unconstitutional if it were law. It's certainly newsworthy for a candidate for the highest office in the land to take a position that's at odds with an express right in the Constitution.

Agreed. Although I find it hilarious when a liberal starts propping up the constitution now when it's in the agenda of fighting those horrible Christians but they've turned a blind eye to it otherwise. But is it not just as newsworthy when a candidate for the highest office in the land makes a remark in support of denying rights to a particular people?

Question: If a Democratic candidate for president said that he does not support the right of Americans to own guns, would you criticize him for that statement?

I'd criticize them for representing an evil party that preys upon the weak minded and the poor by manipulating them into thinking they need saving instead of empowering them to take responsibility for their own lives. The gun control issue would be a small part of why I would criticize them.

 

[Heels in Space]

The gay marriage argument is a red herring. Lots of liberals criticized Obama for opposing gay marriage, myself included. But what choice did they have? Every major candidate opposed it.

Julez got this right. It's just politics. Carson took a controversial stance ("Muslims across the board are unfit to be president") and he's catching some heat for it. What's the big deal? If Bernie Sanders said he wouldn't support a Jew for president, you don't think people would flip the f___ out?!

 

[gunslingerdick]

The gay marriage argument is a red herring. Lots of liberals criticized Obama for opposing gay marriage, myself included. But what choice did they have? Every major candidate opposed it.

Julez got this right. It's just politics. Carson took a controversial stance ("Muslims across the board are unfit to be president")

That's not what he said, but you knew that. You stated it as such for sensationalism. I thought you were an attorney, not an MSNBC journalist. Regardless, you're definitely a brainwashed liberal.

 

[GACMAN]

The gay marriage argument is a red herring. Lots of liberals criticized Obama for opposing gay marriage, myself included. But what choice did they have? Every major candidate opposed it.

Julez got this right. It's just politics. Carson took a controversial stance ("Muslims across the board are unfit to be president") and he's catching some heat for it. What's the big deal? If Bernie Sanders said he wouldn't support a Jew for president, you don't think people would flip the f___ out?!

Bull Shit!!! You know that is an incorrect statement...the Liberal media will do all it can to protect the Libs

 

[Heels in Space]

That's not what he said, but you knew that. You stated it as such for sensationalism. I thought you were an attorney, not an MSNBC journalist. Regardless, you're definitely a brainwashed liberal.

Whatever. Carson's statement that he would not support any Muslim for president (happy?) is controversial, and you're dodging the issue by calling me names.

If Bernie Sanders said he would not support any Jew for president, do you think he would get criticized in the media? Yes or no?

 

[TarHeelNation11]

When Obama said that, the SCOTUS had not yet decided that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional. And he came out in support of it before the decision.

To be sure, it's not unconstitutional for Ben Carson to refuse to support an entire class of people based on their religion. But the position he's taking would be unconstitutional if it were law. It's certainly newsworthy for a candidate for the highest office in the land to take a position that's at odds with an express right in the Constitution.

Question: If a Democratic candidate for president said that he does not support the right of Americans to own guns, would you criticize him for that statement?

This response...............LOL. I don't even know where to begin.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Whatever. Carson's statement that he would not support any Muslim for president (happy?) is controversial, and you're dodging the issue by calling me names.

You intentionally tried to make it worse than it was. For that, you deserved to be called names.

If Bernie Sanders said he would not support any Jew for president, do you think he would get criticized in the media? Yes or no?

No. Especially if he went after Jews. It's trendy to hate Jews right now. You must not have gotten to that page in your liberal playbook yet (spoiler alert). There might be a little backlash, but nothing at all like what Carson (or any conservative) faces.

Speaking of dodging the issue, you still don't seem like you want to tackle that Obama stance of denying a certain population the same rights as others.

 

[gunslingerdick]

This response...............LOL. I don't even know where to begin.

 

[Heels in Space]

It's trendy to hate Jews right now.

Now you're just making shit up. You know everyone would flip out about this, but it doesn't fit with your "conservative as martyr" narrative, so you deny it. The GOP candidates are falling all over themselves to prove that they hate Muslims and Mexicans more than the others, and you think it's trendy to hate Jews?! Give me one example of a Democrat publicly disparaging Jewish people as a group.

Speaking of dodging the issue, you still don't seem like you want to tackle that Obama stance of denying a certain population the same rights as others.

I already did. I said that I and many other progressives criticized him about this position. He was wrong. I said it then, and I'll say it now. Unfortunately, it wasn't controversial at the time because it was the exact same position held by every other candidate in the race. I wish Obama (and everyone else) had been called out for it.

 

[DeanFor President]

When Obama said that, the SCOTUS had not yet decided that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional. And he came out in support of it before the decision.

To be sure, it's not unconstitutional for Ben Carson to refuse to support an entire class of people based on their religion. But the position he's taking would be unconstitutional if it were law. It's certainly newsworthy for a candidate for the highest office in the land to take a position that's at odds with an express right in the Constitution.

Question: If a Democratic candidate for president said that he does not support the right of Americans to own guns, would you criticize him for that statement?

You seem to be trying very hard to NOT get this. His OPINION is not illegal, or contradictory to the law. He did not say that a Muslim should be PROHIBITED from being president, but HIS OPINION is that he would not be in favor of it.

 

[DeanFor President]

Whatever. Carson's statement that he would not support any Muslim for president (happy?) is controversial, and you're dodging the issue by calling me names.

If Bernie Sanders said he would not support any Jew for president, do you think he would get criticized in the media? Yes or no?

You mean when he called you an attorney? Yeah, that would tick me off too.

But the issue that generated that was your deliberate, blatant LIE about what Carson said.

 

[Heels in Space]

You seem to be trying very hard to NOT get this. His OPINION is not illegal, or contradictory to the law. He did not say that a Muslim should be PROHIBITED from being president, but HIS OPINION is that he would not be in favor of it.

We've already covered this. Try to keep up.

You mean when he called you an attorney? Yeah, that would tick me off too.

But the issue that generated that was your deliberate, blatant LIE about what Carson said.

I shouldn't have put quotes around it because I was paraphrasing. Either way, Carson was saying he doesn't believe Muslims should be president.

And I still don't understand why this justifies personal attacks. That's usually a sign that you don't have anything intelligent to offer. Your lawyer "joke" is exhibit A.

 

[Nuk'EM Heels]

So, we are at war with a growing, fascist, extremely ruthless and hyper-radical Islamic enemy who has carried out terrorist attacks on America here at home and abroad... and, some idiots out there would be OK with electing some theoretical Muslim POTUS... hhhmmmmmmmmm... ooooooooookay. Many Muslims believe in implementing religious-based Sharia law both locally, state-wide, and nationally - as do our avowed Islamo-fascist enemies ISIS and AQ. Wouldn't such a goal be antithetical to the US Constitution?

Let me put it slightly differently. What if the GOP nominated a Nazi to run against FDR in 1944? Would FDR have been wrong to suggest Americans should not elect a Nazi as POTUS? I guarantee DEMs would be defending FDR in such circumstances...

 

[strummingram]

It's "trendy to hate Jews right now?" At Klan meetings and PLO keggers maybe!

 

[Nuk'EM Heels]

It's "trendy to hate Jews right now?" At Klan meetings and PLO keggers maybe!

You really don't get out much, do you?

 

[Heels in Space]

So, we are at war with a growing, fascist, extremely ruthless and hyper-radical Islamic enemy who has carried out terrorist attacks on America here at home and abroad... and, some idiots out there would be OK with electing some theoretical Muslim POTUS... hhhmmmmmmmmm... ooooooooookay. Many Muslims believe in implementing religious-based Sharia law both locally, state-wide, and nationally - as do our avowed Islamo-fascist enemies ISIS and AQ. Wouldn't such a goal be antithetical to the US Constitution?

Let me put it slightly differently. What if the GOP nominated a Nazi to run against FDR in 1944? Would FDR have been wrong to suggest Americans should not elect a Nazi as POTUS? I guarantee DEMs would be defending FDR in such circumstances...

Nazism is not a religion; it is a political ideology. If Carson had said he wouldn't advocate a communist or socialist becoming president, no one would have batted an eye. But discounting an entire group based on their religion is un-American. In fact, Nazi Germany was Christian. Maybe we should have refused to support any Christian candidates for president. After all, many of them also want to implement a theocracy on all levels of government.

Nuk', do you think American Muslims are our enemies in this fight?

 

[strummingram]

In fact, Nazi Germany was Christian.
Nuk', do you think American Muslims are our enemies in this fight?

I can't hardly wait for this...

 

[strummingram]

You really don't get out much, do you?

No, I guess not. I'm fortunate, I guess.

 

[Nuk'EM Heels]

Nazism is not a religion; it is a political ideology. If Carson had said he wouldn't advocate a communist or socialist becoming president, no one would have batted an eye. But discounting an entire group based on their religion is un-American. In fact, Nazi Germany was Christian. Maybe we should have refused to support any Christian candidates for president. After all, many of them also want to implement a theocracy on all levels of government.

Nuk', do you think American Muslims are our enemies in this fight?

A quick primer on religion in post-WWI Germany. Organized religion had crumbled in post-WWI Germany. Affiliation and attendance were at all-time lows. The Nazis ushered in a new religion to replace orthodox Christianity. Watch the History Channel. They have great shows about just this thing... Bottom-line: Nazi politics was their religion that included all sorts of weird rituals... At the very least, the line between politics and religion had become so blurred that most Germans couldn't understand what hit them when the Nazis came to power, or they chose to look the other way because they were intimidated and fearful of the prevailing Nazi political religion. So, Nazi Germany was no more Christian than the US is today... ironic...

Muslim Americans are going to Syria to fight with ISIS. Muslim Americans are killing Americans in the US in the name of ISIS. We have been fortunate to catch some of them, but most go undetected until they show up in Syria on the side of ISIS or AQ or have murdered US servicemen in Texas, Missouri, or Tennessee... Muslim Americans are being radicalized in US mosques... I'm sorry, but we're at war and Muslim Americans are waging it against the US at home and abroad. We are at war. Period. Obama's, other liberal politician's, and liberal media's refusal to recognize this fact notwithstanding...

 

[DeanFor President]

We've already covered this. Try to keep up.

I shouldn't have put quotes around it because I was paraphrasing. Either way, Carson was saying he doesn't believe Muslims should be president.

And I still don't understand why this justifies personal attacks. That's usually a sign that you don't have anything intelligent to offer. Your lawyer "joke" is exhibit A.

I'm already keeping up, and clearly I'm way ahead of you. If we had covered it, why do you still have your head up your ass on this topic?

You should look up paraphrase. It usually means that the paraphrase will convey the same message as the actual quote. You engaged in deliberate and gross distortion. Don't cry because you got called out for it.

And that attorney comment was not a joke. Truth hurts sometimes. You were complaining about name calling, and that's the only name I saw in his post. Unless you were talking about "brainwashed liberal," and that clearly falls under statement of fact. Your posts are exhibit A, B, C, D, ad infinitum.

 

[strummingram]

Bottom-line: Nazi politics was their religion.

Just like you! Your religion (whether or not you see it or admit it) is the Neo-Conservatism politics and it's agenda. The Bible gets token mention to make it look official and/or Divine. From what you have displayed on this board, which is my only exposure to you, reveals that you worship Neo-Conservatism politics. Christianity (or, the teachings of Jesus Christ) has no more to do with that than it did with National Socialism. But, I'm sure that many, MANY Nazis prayed, just like you, every day.

God doesn't care which mythology you use to bolster your political beliefs. It's part of our Free Will.

 

[Nuk'EM Heels]

I can't hardly wait for this...

Just like you! Your religion (whether or not you see it or admit it) is the Neo-Conservatism politics and it's agenda. The Bible gets token mention to make it look official and/or Divine. From what you have displayed on this board, which is my only exposure to you, reveals that you worship Neo-Conservatism politics. Christianity (or, the teachings of Jesus Christ) has no more to do with that than it did with National Socialism. But, I'm sure that many, MANY Nazis prayed, just like you, every day.

God doesn't care which mythology you use to bolster your political beliefs. It's part of our Free Will.

Just like you, more personal attacks and new age drivel. Whether you admit it or not. Can you ever conduct a constructive conversation without you plunging it into one personal attack after the other? You start it every time and it is really old, so you will now be ignored...

 

[Heels in Space]

You should look up paraphrase. It usually means that the paraphrase will convey the same message as the actual quote. You engaged in deliberate and gross distortion.

You're splitting hairs because you have no argument. To say you would not support any Muslim for president is materially no different than saying you think Muslims are unfit to be president. The effect of both statements is exactly the same: Muslims should not be president. That's what he meant. He even doubled down on it this morning, saying Muslims shouldn't be president because their religious views are incompatible with the Constitution (the same Constitution that says that there shall be no religious test for any office).

 

[strummingram]

Just like you, more personal attacks and new age drivel. Whether you admit it or not. Can you ever conduct a constructive conversation without you plunging it into one personal attack after the other? You start it every time and it is really old, so you will now be ignored...

Awww, doggonit. I'll just go out and look for that trendy Jew hatred.

 

[strummingram]

You're splitting hairs because you have no argument. To say you would not support any Muslim for president is materially no different than saying you think Muslims are unfit to be president. The effect of both statements is exactly the same: Muslims should not be president. That's what he meant. He even doubled down on it this morning, saying Muslims shouldn't be president because their religious views are incompatible with the Constitution (the same Constitution that says that there shall be no religious test for any office).

Well, we are a "Christian Nation", just ask people who call themselves Christian.

 

[Nuk'EM Heels]

You're splitting hairs because you have no argument. To say you would not support any Muslim for president is materially no different than saying you think Muslims are unfit to be president. The effect of both statements is exactly the same: Muslims should not be president. That's what he meant. He even doubled down on it this morning, saying Muslims shouldn't be president because their religious views are incompatible with the Constitution (the same Constitution that says that there shall be no test for religion for any office).

Muslims should absolutely not be POTUS as long as radical Islam exists in a state of war with the USA. What about that is unclear? OBTW, Muslim religious views require that every effort be made to impose Sharia law everywhere that Muslims live. Sharia law is incompatible with the US Constitution. A person's religious views - in this case, imposition of Sharia Law that would essentially undo the US Constitution outside of the Constitutional framework for changing the US Constitution - should automatically disqualify a person from POTUS if those views include imposition of a system of government that is not Constitutional. How is that in any way unclear or disagreable?

 

[DeanFor President]

You're splitting hairs because you have no argument. To say you would not support any Muslim for president is materially no different than saying you think Muslims are unfit to be president. The effect of both statements is exactly the same: Muslims should not be president. That's what he meant. He even doubled down on it this morning, saying Muslims shouldn't be president because their religious views are incompatible with the Constitution (the same Constitution that says that there shall be no religious test for any office).

Good thing you are not an English teacher. Let's simplify it for you so you can understand:
I would not, and do not support Romney, McCain, Walker, Bush, or Bugs Bunny (substitute "a Muslim" for those names) for the presidency. I, in no way, just said that ANY OF THEM are unfit to be president. I just said I wouldn't support them. Words mean things.

You know as well as I do, or maybe you don't, that Islam is not only a religion, it is a socio political system that governs their entire lives. It is a theocracy. If you can't state that Islam is not compatible with our laws and constitution, then you are simply being obtuse.

 

[Heels in Space]

I would not, and do not support Romney, McCain, Walker, Bush, or Bugs Bunny. . . for the presidency. I, in no way, just said that ANY OF THEM are unfit to be president. I just said I wouldn't support them. Words mean things.

I agree 100% with the statement above. But there could be any number of reasons you're not supporting those people (like the fact that they are all completely insufferable, except for Bugs). But when you say you would not support any member of a particular group, regardless of what else you know about them, you're saying that you're not supporting them because they're in that group. You're saying members of that group are not fit to be president.

Anyway, why are you so hung up on the word "unfit?" Do you really think Carson thinks Muslims are "fit" to be president? Of course not. You're just being argumentative.

 

[Heels in Space]

Muslims should absolutely not be POTUS as long as radical Islam exists in a state of war with the USA. . . . . How is that in any way unclear or disagreable?

Because you're stereotyping American citizens as radical Islamists based on nothing but how they choose to worship, which is a fundamental freedom guaranteed in this country.

 

[strummingram]

You know as well as I do, or maybe you don't, that Islam is not only a religion, it is a socio political system that governs their entire lives. It is a theocracy. If you can't state that Islam is not compatible with our laws and constitution, then you are simply being obtuse.

Governs their entire lives? Who are you talking about? Islam is now a socio-political system, too? No more than any other religion, or the way that those who subscribe to the religion apply it to their social and political actions and attitudes. I realize most of you people are petrified of Islam, but, Islam is no different than any other Abrahamic religion. Some of the members can get a bit extreme, but that doesn't make the entire religion dangerous to everyone else that is not a member or believer. You guys and your religion worship need to try to learn to be more accepting of each others' clubs. Moses, Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, Muhammad, are all the same person for different cultures.

 

[Nuk'EM Heels]

Because you're stereotyping American citizens as radical Islamists based on nothing but how they choose to worship, which is a fundamental freedom guaranteed in this country.

The vast majority of nations that have significant Muslim populations with enough Muslim political power have imposed Sharia law locally, regionally, and nationwide to one degree or another. So, when your liberal sensibilities ultimately result in implementation of Sharia law at any or all levels of government in this nation, suck it up. You asked for it.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care if I'm stereotyping Muslims. They do what they do in the implementation of Sharia law out of religious imperative. I understand that and I'll oppose it with all my being. I do that because I have served in nations that live like that, and I don't want to live in it here at home... That certainly includes election of Muslims to high office.

 

[UNC71-00]

Because you're stereotyping American citizens as radical Islamists based on nothing but how they choose to worship, which is a fundamental freedom guaranteed in this country.

Don't you mean choose to worship or assemble devices intended to look like a bomb, lie about building it from scratch, then show it around with the hopes of being detained in order to claim discrimination?

#muslimprivilege