Because I'm not really criticizing him. I'm criticizing the Republican party and how they view him and others like him. Proclaiming that they have black friends or gay friends doesn't change the actual results of their policies.
You know, you were discussing the fact that "we're no further along" with all of the politicians in favor of pot legalization. That has been proven categorically untrue.Fascinating. And since none of it has to do with the actions of the President of the United States,
I definitely misspelled the word. That was my error. It was tertiary.
It seems my mistakingly leaving out the second "t" in tertiary, in a post where I had previously used the words "primary" and "secondary" in describing the first two of three things, caused you to be completely and utterly unable to gleam what word I was meaning via contextual clues and thus unable to comprehend the entire post I made.
As such, now that I've explained what the word was (tertiary, meaning "third in order), you can better understand what my previous post said. Or if you'd like I'll try a bit more basic summary of it below.
Holding elected office is experience related to being President, an elected office.
In terms of direct experience related to the Presidency...ie the Chief Executive and the Commander in Chief of the United States...there are generally three teirs of experience in my opinion, which is backed by the general broad thought process within the Political Science community and by history itself.
Category 1 (Best Experience)
1a. Executive experience in government (VP, Governor, perhaps to a lesser degree a mayor of a large city or lt. governor)
1b. High ranking military command, typically when an election is during a time of war or heightened concerns on national security
Category 2 (Lesser Experience)
2a. Part of the US Senate
2b. Part of the US House
2c. A highly regarded executive cabinet member (like Secretary of State)
Category 3 (Least Exeprience)
3a. State legislature experience
3b. Lower to mid ranking military experience
3c. Executive experience in the private sector in a large capacity (large corporation, non-profit, big event like the olympics)
While other types of experience may prove useful in various fashions...like being a Doctor as it relates to issues of health policy, or being a constitutional scholar...they are less direct primary experience to the job of the Presidency and are more, for lack of a better term, resume fillers.
The vast majority of our Presidents in history have had category 1 experience (can't remember the exact percent, but I believe it was over 90% prior to Obama coming into power and I haven't recalculated since). 100% of our Presidents in history have had AT LEAST Category 2 experience. We have never elected a President who at best had Category 3 direct experience, let alone someone without ANY direct experience. I can't think of a major party nominee that would fit that bill either, though admittedly I know those off the top of my head less than I do the Presidents.
Ben Carson does not even have experience that would merit a legitimate claim for falling within Category 3. He would be abjectly and unquestionably the least qualified President we would ever have, and would quite possibly...if he made the republican ticket...be the least Qualified major party presidentical candidate in at least the past 75 years.
No, by calling him a "token" you're not criticizing him at all. Of course you're not.
You know, you were discussing the fact that "we're no further along" with all of the politicians in favor of pot legalization. That has been proven categorically untrue. Now, you're moving on to focusing on the POTUS alone. Ignoring the fact that the DEA - which is ... you know... the office in charge of dealing with the enforcement of drug laws - would be under the domain of the POTUS. This is point number 3 in my previous post. So yes, it does have to do with the position of POTUS.
Because the one we have now hasn't done anything either.
Lets find out together. /QUOTE]
How many times must I shun you before you get the idea I'm not your "type"
Well done.You know what? I'm sorry I posted 4 lines about your original post now. I don't know what "tertiary" means either. It isn't a word I use. But congratulations if your intent was to display how intelligent you are and how stupid I am because I don't know what "tertiary" means. Between this and your complete lack of comprehension on my question to you, it wasn't worth the effort. Thanks.
You know what? I'm sorry I posted 4 lines about your original post now. I don't know what "tertiary" means either. It isn't a word I use. But congratulations if your intent was to display how intelligent you are and how stupid I am because I don't know what "tertiary" means. Between this and your complete lack of comprehension on my question to you, it wasn't worth the effort. Thanks.
Democrats today are like the dentist in Seinfeld who became a Jew just so he could make Jew jokes. Todays Democrats chose the Democrat party so that they could be racists and misogynists.
Because the President of the United States and his opinion on the legalization of marijuana doesn't seem relevant. Why? Because the one we have now hasn't done anything either.
When the President of the United States has done something to make marijuana legal in this country, let me know. Until then, Dr. Ben Carson's opinion on the matter isn't relevant. If you want to not vote for Carson because of his opinion on the legalization of marijuana, that's fine, I'm sure. I personally don't care either way. Mkay?
No, by calling him a "token" you're not criticizing him at all. Of course you're not.
No. I'm criticizing the role that he is playing within the Republican party and the message that his presence is calculated to send. It seems you're having trouble getting beyond this simple choice of a word and digging any deeper into the situation. Do you deny that the Republican party has a lot of trouble appealing to blacks? Do you deny that it is often perceived as embracing anti-black racism? Do you deny that many blacks, a significant portion of whom are poor, see Republican policies as detrimental to them? Actual black membership in the Republican party is very little. And what few blacks rise to prominence within it do so by echoing the party line... which is seen by a majority of blacks in this country as anti-black. Do you not see the problem here?
Lets find out together. /QUOTE]
How many times must I shun you before you get the idea I'm not your "type"
You aren't straight? I support your right to get married. :2wave:
I'm amazed how a brain surgeon can be so stupid.
Ben Carson: Prisons prove being gay is a choice - CNN.com
What's that old will Rodgers saying?
"There's nothing as stupid as an educated man when you get him off of what he was educated in."
You seem to be under the impression that he hasn't done anything. This is once again demonstrably false. The extent to which Obama can actually legalize it is restricted federal lands and prosecution. Even if the Obama administration were to legalize it across the country local ordinances and state laws would still keep it illegal without some sort of amendment (which wouldn't be the domain of Obama). With that said, the current budget would legalize marijuana in DC which is a step closer to legalization than the prohibition we had 40 years ago.
Psssst - even if the president made marijuana legal - which he can't - state laws would keep it illegal for many. See: 21st amendment. A president who is against marijuana? I'm not worried about him keeping it illegal. He can't. What he can do is order federal agencies to prosecute pot smokers under federal law, which Obama hasn't done as far as states who legalize pot are concerned.
No. I'm criticizing the role that he is playing within the Republican party and the message that his presence is calculated to send. It seems you're having trouble getting beyond this simple choice of a word and digging any deeper into the situation. Do you deny that the Republican party has a lot of trouble appealing to blacks? Do you deny that it is often perceived as embracing anti-black racism? Do you deny that many blacks, a significant portion of whom are poor, see Republican policies as detrimental to them? Actual black membership in the Republican party is very little. And what few blacks rise to prominence within it do so by echoing the party line... which is seen by a majority of blacks in this country as anti-black. Do you not see the problem here?
Now, if I were criticizing Carson, I would do so by noting that he is simply safely toeing the party line, and especially pandering to the anti-gay, hyper-religious, anti-science Republican base. If he were making some kind of waves, being somewhat of a maverick, and pushing policy that was actually beneficial to people other than rich (mostly white) men, then he would be worthy of note.
Don't you understand? It was fine for Republicans to say that Obama was an affirmative action president, and that Obama's political experience was none, and that people were voting for him because of white guilt. You haven't been here as long as I have so you probably didn't see the years where every other thread was about Obama's lack of experience.
Now, they have their own black person with literally zero experience and it's all fine and dandy. The funniest part is that with Obama you can show that he's at least run a government office and has played a role in the legislative process. Ben Carson hasn't even held an alderman position. The guy has never even run for any political office but they're parading him like he's got anything new and exciting to say. He doesn't.
No. I'm criticizing the role that he is playing within the Republican party and the message that his presence is calculated to send. It seems you're having trouble getting beyond this simple choice of a word and digging any deeper into the situation. Do you deny that the Republican party has a lot of trouble appealing to blacks? Do you deny that it is often perceived as embracing anti-black racism? Do you deny that many blacks, a significant portion of whom are poor, see Republican policies as detrimental to them? Actual black membership in the Republican party is very little. And what few blacks rise to prominence within it do so by echoing the party line... which is seen by a majority of blacks in this country as anti-black. Do you not see the problem here?
Now, if I were criticizing Carson, I would do so by noting that he is simply safely toeing the party line, and especially pandering to the anti-gay, hyper-religious, anti-science Republican base. If he were making some kind of waves, being somewhat of a maverick, and pushing policy that was actually beneficial to people other than rich (mostly white) men, then he would be worthy of note.
And after many posts about the states making marijuana legal, and the DEA, and so on, your bolded words are what I have been saying all along. Ben Carson's opinion on marijuana isn't relevant because he wouldn't be able to do anything about it anyway.
While its true some are raped (and are considered therefore gay by other inmates), for others that's clearly not the case and it appears to be by choice.
Prison sexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You are mistaking orientation(which is based on lifelong attraction to a particular gender) and actions. The two are not the same thing. What Carson said is painfully ignorant of what we know about orientation.
It need only be a pattern, not permanent.
Sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?