• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

the lying liberal media lies again


I read both of the articles and they compare to, "Carson used the word "fart"!!!!!!" :scared::scared::scared::scared: OMG!!!!

Hypersensitive and oblivious over the top nonsense.
 
Uh, no. Carson DID compare a rabid dog to to a Syrian / ME immigrant: "if there;s a rabid dog running around in yor neighborhood, you're probably not going to assume anything good about it".

So, how did he go from immigrants to rabid dogs and make the rabid dog a different subject? Was he commenting on his veterinarian skills? Is that his new talent now?

No, of course not. He was applying the analogy of a rabid dog onto a Syrian refugee. So, clearly he's just an idiot and the media knows it.

Sorry, but I'm not seeing where your claim is accurate. From the provided links in post #2, I believe.
MOBILE, Ala. – Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson said Thursday that blocking potential terrorists posing as Syrian refugees from entering the U.S. is akin to handling a rabid dog.
At a campaign stop in Alabama, Carson said halting Syrian resettlement in the U.S. doesn't mean America lacks compassion.
"If there's a rabid dog running around in your neighborhood, you're probably not going to assume something good about that dog," Carson said. "It doesn't mean you hate all dogs, but you're putting your intellect into motion."
Carson said that to "protect my children," he would "call the humane society and hopefully they can come take this dog away and create a safe environment once again."
He continued: "By the same token, we have to have in place screening mechanisms that allow us to determine who the mad dogs are, quite frankly. Who are the people who want to come in here and hurt us and want to destroy us?"
GOP candidate Ben Carson compares screening Syrian refugees for threats to handling 'mad dogs' | Fox News

It's reasonable to screen dogs for being rabid. The same way it's reasonable to screen refugees for militant Islamic extremists who would do the general public harm.

In an expanded quotation from another web site:
Thursday in Mobile, AL, Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson sounded off on the potential that the United States would allow Syrian refugees in the United States by drawing an analogy to current situation to that of a parent protecting a child from that of a “rabid dog.”
Carson said, “We must always balance safety against just being a humanitarian. For instance, if there’s a rabid dog running around your neighborhood, you’re probably not going to assume something good about that dog, and you’re probably going to put your children out of the way. It doesn’t mean you hate all dogs by any stretch of the imagination, but you’re putting intellect into motion and thinking, ‘How do I protect my children?’”
Carson continued “At the same time, I love dogs and will call the Humane Society and hopefully they can come take this dog away and create a safe environment once again. By the same token, we have to have in place screening mechanisms that allow us to determine who the mad dogs are, quite frankly, who are the people who want to come in here and hurt us and destroy us? Until we know how to do that, just like it would be foolish to put your child out in the neighborhood knowing that’s going on, it’s foolish for us to accept people if we can not have the appropriate type of screening.”
Watch: Carson Makes 'Rabid Dogs' Analogy to Describe Possible Terrorists Entering U.S. as Refugees - Breitbart

No where in either of the quotations is there a comparison between the Syrian refugees and rabid dogs. Only the screening of Syrian refugees being a similar self-protective measure as is screening for rabid dogs.

I'm seeing this as yet another dishonest liberal biased lame stream media attack on a conservative. Read the quotations yourself. I'm not seeing anything here. :shrug:
 
Do you post similar rants when the lying conservative media does exactly the same kinds of things? On a regular basis?

Do you post similar rants when the lying liberal media does exactly the same kinds of things? On a regular basis?
 
This lying liberal media is completely worthless. You might as well turn off the news, 'cause you already know you're not going to get the truth.

The lying liberal media lied again tonight. All over the airwaves. On practically every channel in existence.

"Carson compares immigrants to rabid dogs". That was the headline on the ABC Evening News. David Muir said that.

But I listened to what Carson actually said. He was making a statement about "stupid policy". He wasn't comparing anything to anything.

The lying liberal media utters a collective "gasp" every time they hear the word "immigrant". (And then the next word that comes out of their lying liberal mouths is "racist").

The lying liberal media is owned lock stock and barrel by their advertisers. They're not giving you the "news", they're telling you what their advertisers want you to hear.

They're certainly entirely devoid of credibility as a legitimate journalistic enterprise.

oh if Carson is nominated.. You will think the media is the kkk. They will bring up all kind of lies about him to stop him from winning.
 
Sorry, but I'm not seeing where your claim is accurate. From the provided links in post #2, I believe.


It's reasonable to screen dogs for being rabid. The same way it's reasonable to screen refugees for militant Islamic extremists who would do the general public harm.

In an expanded quotation from another web site:


No where in either of the quotations is there a comparison between the Syrian refugees and rabid dogs. Only the screening of Syrian refugees being a similar self-protective measure as is screening for rabid dogs.

I'm seeing this as yet another dishonest liberal biased lame stream media attack on a conservative. Read the quotations yourself. I'm not seeing anything here. :shrug:


Your sources are both Right Wing. :lol:
 
Your sources are both Right Wing. :lol:

And your sources have questionable impartiality.

The sources don't really matter much anyway. What matters is if you think that ISIS / Daesh's terrorist attacks in other nations is 'contained' or not.

My point being that it doesn't seem to fall within common use, so I'm left with the impression that Obama's playing semantic word games again.
 
So you are partisan that it automatically disqualifies them?

If that'd be the case, then there would be many of Pete's sources and citations that would be equally disqualified.
 
I'm pretty sure, that if you ask anyone in Brussels at this moment, they'll tell you how "contained" ISIS is.

They don't need no "fact checkers" to tell 'em what reality is.

They don't need domass politicians telling 'em that what they're seeing with their own two eyes isn't real.

Wake up, America. This fool Obama is playing us just like that last joker Bush did.

Don't you remember Obama's debates with Romney, in 2012? Don't you remember that second debate? Don't you remember how Obama declared the terrorist threat was "contained"?

You remember what was happening right then, right? Benghazi. Same stupid sh*t, Obama said the terrorists were "contained" within a week of a massive attack.

And then after that the whole White House jumped through hoops for twelve whole days so they wouldn't have to utter the word "terrorist", and they still can't bring themselves to say "Islamist extremist". These idiot liberals are scared to communicate. As far as they're concerned, the terrorists have already won, 'cause they're afraid to call something by its real name. They've been terrorized, cowed into psychological submission by a bunch of Islamist extremist terrorists.

And, the media fed right into it. They jumped on Romney and jumped to Obama's defense. Remember Candy Crowley? Remember the weasel press secretary? All that... was only three years ago. My, how quickly we forget.
 
I'm pretty sure, that if you ask anyone in Brussels at this moment, they'll tell you how "contained" ISIS is.

They don't need no "fact checkers" to tell 'em what reality is.

They don't need domass politicians telling 'em that what they're seeing with their own two eyes isn't real.

Wake up, America. This fool Obama is playing us just like that last joker Bush did.

Don't you remember Obama's debates with Romney, in 2012? Don't you remember that second debate? Don't you remember how Obama declared the terrorist threat was "contained"?

You remember what was happening right then, right? Benghazi. Same stupid sh*t, Obama said the terrorists were "contained" within a week of a massive attack.

And then after that the whole White House jumped through hoops for twelve whole days so they wouldn't have to utter the word "terrorist", and they still can't bring themselves to say "Islamist extremist". These idiot liberals are scared to communicate. As far as they're concerned, the terrorists have already won, 'cause they're afraid to call something by its real name. They've been terrorized, cowed into psychological submission by a bunch of Islamist extremist terrorists.

And, the media fed right into it. They jumped on Romney and jumped to Obama's defense. Remember Candy Crowley? Remember the weasel press secretary? All that... was only three years ago. My, how quickly we forget.

I'd say that some sure do seem to forget rather quickly. Others, umm, not so much.
 
So you are partisan that it automatically disqualifies them?

And your sources have questionable impartiality.

The sources don't really matter much anyway. What matters is if you think that ISIS / Daesh's terrorist attacks in other nations is 'contained' or not.

My point being that it doesn't seem to fall within common use, so I'm left with the impression that Obama's playing semantic word games

My point is your Right-Wing sources agree with the mainstream media.
 
Whatever he said or did not say...

...if his comments are reflective and indicitive of his abilities to speak to complicated issues...

...I sure as hell would not want him speaking for America anywhere in the world.

The comment was an abomination...no matter which interpretation we use of it.
 
Sorry, but I'm not seeing where your claim is accurate. From the provided links in post #2, I believe.


It's reasonable to screen dogs for being rabid. The same way it's reasonable to screen refugees for militant Islamic extremists who would do the general public harm.

In an expanded quotation from another web site:


No where in either of the quotations is there a comparison between the Syrian refugees and rabid dogs. Only the screening of Syrian refugees being a similar self-protective measure as is screening for rabid dogs.

I'm seeing this as yet another dishonest liberal biased lame stream media attack on a conservative. Read the quotations yourself. I'm not seeing anything here. :shrug:

One source for the quote would be here Republican Ben Carson compares Syrian refugees to 'rabid dogs' | Reuters

I also saw the news story that showed him making that exact quote.
 
One source for the quote would be here Republican Ben Carson compares Syrian refugees to 'rabid dogs' | Reuters

I also saw the news story that showed him making that exact quote.

The exact same quote:
"If there is a rabid dog running around your neighborhood, you're probably not going to assume something good about that dog,” Carson, a front-runner in some opinion polls, said Thursday at a campaign event in Mobile, Alabama.

"By the same token, we have to have in place screening mechanisms that allow us to determine who the mad dogs are, quite frankly,"

So where in this quote is Carson saying something to the effect of 'The Syrian refugees are like rabid dogs' ?

I'm not seeing it. He's saying that there is no reason to view the Syrian refugees assuming they are something good for the nation.

Whether they are or are not is an arguable point.

But that Carson called he Syrian refugees rabid dogs is simply not accurate.
 
The exact same quote:


So where in this quote is Carson saying something to the effect of 'The Syrian refugees are like rabid dogs' ?

I'm not seeing it. He's saying that there is no reason to view the Syrian refugees assuming they are something good for the nation.

Whether they are or are not is an arguable point.

But that Carson called he Syrian refugees rabid dogs is simply not accurate.

He was talking about the Syrian refugees. Or, are all of those credibly news outlets just stupid.
 
He was talking about the Syrian refugees. Or, are all of those credibly news outlets just stupid.

Dammit, do you depend on the opinion of some "stupid news outlet" for the truth?

Open your eyes. Read the words. WHERE does Carson make the comparison?

Answer: he doesn't. Read the damn words. Use your noggin.

Goddamit, this country is completely f*cked if we're going to start accepting the word of the lying media as "truth".
 
You are reading lies.

At no time did Ben Carson compare Syrian refugees to rabid dogs.

The headline by Reuters is a lie.

Well, here it is out of Carson's mouth:



So, I don't know how Reuters and every other credible journalistic source is lying.
 
Well, here it is out of Carson's mouth:

So, I don't know how Reuters and every other credible journalistic source is lying.

I dunno. Do you not understand simple English? Have difficulty with basic analogies?

Carson clearly and unequivocally implies that the terrorists are the rabid dogs, not the refugees.

The lying liberal media is the one who put "refugees" in there, not Carson.

Carson never once compared refugees to rabid dogs.

The proof is in the very video you posted. Everyone should watch it.

(And tune out the scurrilous lies of the "mainstream" media).
 
I dunno. Do you not understand simple English? Have difficulty with basic analogies?

Carson clearly and unequivocally implies that the terrorists are the rabid dogs, not the refugees.

The lying liberal media is the one who put "refugees" in there, not Carson.

Carson never once compared refugees to rabid dogs.

The proof is in the very video you posted. Everyone should watch it.

(And tune out the scurrilous lies of the "mainstream" media).

And the terrorists are - going to come in - what? on a boat that says "Terrorist Express"!? OR, are they feared to be coming in with Syrian refugees, putting all the refugees as dogs on the street? What is the subject of discussion that Carson is responding to?

So it's not at all a lie, it's how Carson - thinks.
 
The comment was an abomination...no matter which interpretation we use of it.

Horsepucky. The comment was right on target. Terrorists are exactly like rabid dogs, they try to bite you for no reason and whenever they get their paws on someone their disease is in danger of being transmitted.

God Bless Donald Trump and Ben Carson, and everyone else who's willing to speak the truth louder than the PC Gasp Machine.

Dude - not only are they rabid dogs, these scumbag terrorists need to be exterminated, just like you'd shoot a rabid dog. Shoot them dead, kill every last man woman and child.

Our Jackass-in-Chief thnks we can "contain" people like that, but we can't. If we were any good at "containing" them, they wouldn't just have bombed Paris, and we wouldn't have had a 9/11, and right now the country of Belgium and the city of Brussels wouldn't be terrorized into a state of complete lockdown.

Dammit, we pay our military 700 billion dollars a year, and I am entirely certain they can take out 50,000 fanatical extremists. I say we let 'em do it. Now. Quickly. Before our "containment" plans end up failing again, and they end up bombing Canada next, or Puerto Rico, or even Los Angeles.

Our Idiot-in-Chief is completely incompetent as a defender of national security. He's shaking in his boots at the idea of "occupying" a part of the Middle East again. He's pulled off 75% of our air sorties against ISIS 'cause he's scared of shooting a few civilians. And meanwhile, every minute our "containment" policy continues to fail, is a minute that Abdul and Mohammed get to catch a plane through Turkey or wander up through Greece so they can cause more damage someplace new.

Yeah, they're rabid dogs, and they need to be shot dead like any rabid dog would be shot.

And after that, we can wrap their bodies in bacon and stick a football in their dead hands and leave their dead bodies for the maggots.

I want these people dead. You understand that, right? I pay my government to take people like this off the planet.

Do we or do we not have a military, and an intelligence community, and a desire to maintain some semblance of stability in the world in the interest of national security?

Blowbama's been twiddling his butt for nine whole months, he had a window of opportunity and he missed it. Now he's dealing with the consequences.

Even Robert Kagan is scared shirtless about the idea of "occupying" any part of the Middle East.

And I repeat, do we or do we not care about national security and the stability of the world?

Anyone with a brain cell and at least one 'nad is going to occupy, and occupy again, and keep occupying until those fools show the world they're capable of governing themselves.

Which includes protecting their people against forces like ISIS.

ISIS is a clear and immediate and very present threat to all of humanity and every single country on the planet.

They need to be wiped out. I don't want them in jail, I don't want them waterboarded, I want them dead. Removed entirely from the playing field. Now. Quickly.

Our Goofball-in-Chief is highly illogical. We've all seen the result of his "containment" policy live and in color in our living rooms for the past week.

At least the French didn't dally like our Fool-in-Chief.

700 billion dollars a year. How hard can it be? What would it take, a dozen bunker busters? Two dozen? How hard could it be to deprive those idiots of their revenue-generating oil fields, all of which are geographically localized and exposed to both land and air?

WHY haven't we decapitated those *ssholes yet?

Why?
 
This lying liberal media is completely worthless. You might as well turn off the news, 'cause you already know you're not going to get the truth.

The lying liberal media lied again tonight. All over the airwaves. On practically every channel in existence.

"Carson compares immigrants to rabid dogs". That was the headline on the ABC Evening News. David Muir said that.

But I listened to what Carson actually said. He was making a statement about "stupid policy". He wasn't comparing anything to anything.

The lying liberal media utters a collective "gasp" every time they hear the word "immigrant". (And then the next word that comes out of their lying liberal mouths is "racist").

The lying liberal media is owned lock stock and barrel by their advertisers. They're not giving you the "news", they're telling you what their advertisers want you to hear.

They're certainly entirely devoid of credibility as a legitimate journalistic enterprise.

lol. by labeling the media, you hope to negate it. academia also. This leaves us with Rush for our news...
 
lol. by labeling the media, you hope to negate it. academia also. This leaves us with Rush for our news...

No, it leaves us with this forum. And the rest of the internet. And the shortwave radio. And the regular radio. And word of mouth. And billboards, and street signs, and the circulars they nail to the church doors (they still do that, right?).

What about you, you get your "news" from ABC? A half hour's worth of sound bites, and perhaps you think that's enough?

What half of America knows about Syria it got from David Muir. (Or worse yet, Brian Williams).

You don't really need to engage your brain to actively "label", while you're watching you can read the internet at midnight and then listen to David Muir the next day at 6pm. If you do that five days in a row you too will label the content as lies.

And besides, there's only two wire services anymore, Reuters and AP. If Reuters issues a lie, then David Muir will repeat it.

The media's not only lazy, they're also stupid, as clearly demonstrated by their complete misunderstanding of Dr Carson's simple analogy on terrorists.

The American mainstream media should hang its head in shame and do a gigantic mea culpa live and on the air, but of course we know their corporate sponsors would never agree to them representing themselves as a bunch of stone cold liars.
 
No, it leaves us with this forum. And the rest of the internet. And the shortwave radio. And the regular radio. And word of mouth. And billboards, and street signs, and the circulars they nail to the church doors (they still do that, right?).

What about you, you get your "news" from ABC? A half hour's worth of sound bites, and perhaps you think that's enough?

What half of America knows about Syria it got from David Muir. (Or worse yet, Brian Williams).

You don't really need to engage your brain to actively "label", while you're watching you can read the internet at midnight and then listen to David Muir the next day at 6pm. If you do that five days in a row you too will label the content as lies.

And besides, there's only two wire services anymore, Reuters and AP. If Reuters issues a lie, then David Muir will repeat it.

The media's not only lazy, they're also stupid, as clearly demonstrated by their complete misunderstanding of Dr Carson's simple analogy on terrorists.

The American mainstream media should hang its head in shame and do a gigantic mea culpa live and on the air, but of course we know their corporate sponsors would never agree to them representing themselves as a bunch of stone cold liars.

you didn't address my point, which is that simply labeling the media produces negative thoughts and behaviors towards it. This serves to silence it. This labeling process has been proven in studies of the brain- although I too am lazy, and will not look it up for you.

I haven't darkened a church door in ages, but don't see any papers on them when I pass by. I will not listen to radio politics, too much obvious propaganda. And billboards and street signs-wtf? I use original source info as much as possible. What are you a prof of anyway?
 
Back
Top Bottom