You mean evidence like having his Justice Department drop the slam dunk case against the New Black Panthers... or how he immediately jumped on the side of Professor Henry Lewis Gates against the white police officer doing his job and fully vindicated...hmmm...oh, it certainly could not be because Prof Gates was black was it...nah, just happenstance...probably...
Oh, then you have him getting involved in the Trayvon Martin Case, sticking his nose in, his two cents worth that just happened, somehow, to be on the side of the person that was...what race was Trayvon again, for those who may not remember....was he African American, too, was he? Why does the boob keep on sticking his nose where it doesn't belong and always end up supporting the one race over the others...
But that would not be in the least racist... or would it?
So, your case against Dr. Carson as a racist?
"The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person..." --
"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: (White) People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied, they were relieved -- such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."
"That's just how white folks will do you. It wasn't merely the cruelty involved; I was learning that black people could be mean and then some. It was a particular brand of arrogance, an obtuseness in otherwise sane people that brought forth our bitter laughter. It was as if whites didn't know that they were being cruel in the first place. Or at least thought you deserving of their scorn."
"It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere...That's the world! On which hope sits!"
"I can no more disown (Jeremiah Wright) than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."
Or....maybe its that you are not terribly bright. Leftists always throw the 'racist' card around when lost and confused, which is always..
How would you rank the good, if not great and accomplished, doctor as compared to other Black talking political heads...say compared to Jesse "extortion" Jackson, or Al "not too" Sharpton, or Eric "the bag" Holder, or Barry "the community disorganizer" Obama?
I mean, if Barry had limited himself to community organizing, if the two reverends had limited themselves to preaching what they don't practice, or if the AG had just stuck to just defending terrorists, would they, too, come across as more credible as well?
None of that suggests racism. Instead it is an effort to talk about race. Again, poor thinking on the side that criticizes Obama on this.
The hell does racism have to do with anything?
Anyway, yes, he is a brain surgeon. Kudos to him on that. But it's compartmentalized intelligence that allows highly educated people in one area to do or say extremely stupid things in other areas. There are many fantastically intelligent members on this forum who regularly go full retard when they leave the topic of their expertise. A brain surgeon comparing the health care act to the brutal enslavement of an entire race is a good example of phenomenon.
Can't answer that question because I've never listened to speeches given by Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Eric Holder or Community Organizer/Senator Obama before he became this Nation's 44th President. Moreover, I didn't listen to Dr. Carson's speech either simply because I haven't been able to find it in its entirety.
Now, if you want to what I really think about Jessie and Al, here it is: I find both to be blowhards, former Civil Rights advocates/activists, who are trying desperately to hang on to their past glory. To me, both are irrelevant. Nonetheless, none of this changes the absurdity of what Dr. Carson said. There's no rational equivalent of slavery to health care - mandatory purchase of such or otherwise. No one was forced to buy a slave, but even when one did make such a purchase the only person who was oppressed was (wait for it....) THE SLAVE! That's what makes Dr. Carson's comment so stupid!!!
This may not be a direct answer to your point, but you inadvertently hit upon something here, we do try to clump everyone in the same group. Equal protection under the law compels this. However, the basic point is this. No labor is free. Someone pays for the service given to every patient. If not the recipient, it is either the Dr. who provides his labor and expertise without cost or the taxpayer who subsidizes the insurance policy; or a combination of both. In the end someone's labor is being usurped.
None of that suggests racism? What do you think is a "typical White person"?
Do we really need to go into what Rev. Wright taught him?
Here's what he said.
Obamacare is “the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery. It is slavery because it aims to make all of us subservient to the government,” he said. “It was never about health care. It was about control. Socialized medicine is the keystone in the establishment of a socialist state.”
A generalization, a short cut that helps the discussion move forward, as in not atypical.
And You seem to lack knowledge of the good reverend's historic style, often used by such haters MLK. Many forget MLK was dis-invited to the WH when he said "The greatest purveyor in the world today is my country, the United States of America."
So, you seem to lack historical context and are prone to wild leaps. but no, this doesn't show racism at all.
But how does purchasing your own health insurance from a private insurance company make you subservient to the government? That's the ridiculous part of it! The government - state nor federal - isn't the underwriter of the insurance policies that would be found on the exchanges. Private insurance companies retain that marketplace. All the fed has done is "standardize" the essential benefits within insurance policies at all levels - Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum. Moreover, since the majority of people (the working class) still obtain their health insurance through their employer, how does anything about the acquisition of private health insurance change at this point? You can make the slippery-slope argument if you wish - that someday health insurance may become available strictly through the government, but as long as the government doesn't become the underwriter of the policies, it's still a private health insurance market. At this point, all government has done is standardize the policies, streamline the purchasing process (that is once the federal exchange website final becomes fully functional :rolls, and attempt to find ways (through taxation) to fund it all and, thus, make the system financially self-sustaining.
Again, rational people who have studied the health care and health insurance industry understand this. I'm in no way saying that ObamaCare is the best way to do it, but if you understand how the free market works (i.e., the stock exchange), then you understand the principle behind the acquisition of health insurance through ObamaCare.
All i can say is wait and see. There are believers and skeptics and I'm one of the skeptics, and as you can see from the very rocky start my skepticism is well justified.
I certainly understand how the free market works and feel it's always proven to bring the best results for everyone. It certainly wasn't socialism that made America great but, like everywhere else, lessons must be learned.
Compartmentalized intelligence? I couldn't find that term in my library of psych books. I highly doubt you are referring to compartmentalization, a defense mechanism people use to avoid cognitive dissonance, because that really doesn't make sense with the topic at hand. I'm guessing Psychology is outside the topic of your expertise. You should probably avoid talking of it because you may just demonstrate for the board someone going "full retard."
A generalization, a short cut that helps the discussion move forward, as in not atypical.
And You seem to lack knowledge of the good reverend's historic style, often used by such haters MLK. Many forget MLK was dis-invited to the WH when he said "The greatest purveyor in the world today is my country, the United States of America."
So, you seem to lack historical context and are prone to wild leaps. but no, this doesn't show racism at all.
None of that suggests racism. Instead it is an effort to talk about race. Again, poor thinking on the side that criticizes Obama on this.
Do your psych books tell you that people who are experts in one field can necessarily not be experts in others?
When Dr. Carson lectures on brain surgery I'm going to keep my fool mouth shut, but once he compares a health program to slavery I'm going to call bull****, thankyouverymuch.
Why not stick to what Barrack Obama said rather than roaming off into other areas. What is a 'typical White person" and how does it relate to a 'typical Black person', for example?
Obama's statements do nothing but highlight the differences in his perception of the races. He comes across as quite the bigot as he doesn't seriously consider other points of view. He just assumes his is the correct perception and leads one to the conclusion that "white people" can't help but be prejudiced against everyone not white. He does not note any such preponderance of fault in the typical black person. Wouldn't that lead the logical person to believe that Obama thinks one race is superior to another in their capacity to be free from prejudice?
On another tangent, any great leader seriously attempting to unite people will focus on similarities or common challenges, not differences. Obama has only shown the ability to unite two groups when he has a third group to unite them against. In almost every case so far in his presidency, that third group is made up of American citizens in one form or another.
I don't get that all, though it is true we all have difference perceptions for many reasons, race being but one. Having these, even if they are misperceptions, is not a sign of racism.
And you are reading more into his statement than there is. Highlighting the trouble with understanding each other is not racist. You can't advance understanding if you pretend there is nothing to talk about and find insult everywhere. What he attempted and said was quite proper and not at all racist.
I suggest he has mentioned many similarities, but those are seldom problematic. it isn't that differences are hidden and we wouldn't notice if he didn't talk about them. Great leaders don't pretend, but face problems as they are. I guess what I'm saying is that your premise is flawed.
Right! And that's why I give those who oppose ObamaCare a sideways look? How can you be against people "taking responsibility for their own health care"? Honestly, for those who decree "liberty" aren't speaking about "freedom" in the sense that people are free to do what they want, go where they want, say what they want under the law. Their primary reason for opposing ObamaCare centers on their fears of "economic freedom" = taxation. They piggy-back this argument with slippery-slope arguments, i.e., concerns for government encroachment into their lives". The crazy thing is nothing about ObamaCare tells you what insurance policy to buy, how much to pay for it, who to buy it from. The only thing it "limits" is the WHERE - your employer, a healthcare co-op, a health savings account, or a state- or federal-sponsored health insurance exchange. Of course, if those in opposition were smart they'd have learned more about the CLASS Act and pushed for its implementation. Why? Because EVERYONE would have paid into the system over time and our current health insurance coverage system(s) - Medicaid/Medicare and employer-sponsored health care - would have gone away.
You'd have still had the exchanges - private insurance companies would still have existed, but EVERYONE would have paid into their own health insurance same as retirees currently do with Medicare only you would have been able to utilize the insurance benefits while you worked instead of once you retired. But yes, to your larger point whether you're rich or lower middle-class and have health insurance through your employer, we're ALL subsidizing the poor who use emergency room care as walk-in clinic and welch on paying their medical bills. It still shocks me that instead of people being pissed off about this they argue over ObamaCare "mandating" that everyone purchases health insurance. Talk about fighting against your own self-interest!
That would be wonderful if he actually faced problems as they are. Unfortunately, he allows his racial stereotype of white people drive how he percieves the problems. Great leaders see things for what they are and, yes, face problems head-on. Unfortunately, Obama is incapable of that key first step of accurate perception. He sees racial strife where none exists, which damages the entire movement because it encourages those unattached to it to be apathetic to true racial strife. In short, he cries wolf too much. You have several examples of him crying wolf, which include his professor friend's arrest and the TM debacle. Both times he cried wolf based off his flawed perceptions of the event. Those flawed perceptions are driven by racial bigotry, for which he did not allow adequate time to correct before crying wolf. Eventually, you have to face up to the fact that this emperor is naked. While he may, to some people, talk a great game of being post-racial, his actions tell a different story.
So to spare the details lets boil this down. You advocate one form of usurpation of labor for another larger form, and the only difference is that the new usurpation comes with new strings attached, with no opt out. No thanks.
In Libertarian land, consumers have no rights.
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?