Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mediaite)   Dr. Ben Carson says that all white people that do not agree with him politically are racist   (mediaite.com) divider line 231
    More: Ironic, Dr. Ben Carson, black conservatives, Herman Cain  
•       •       •

3110 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Apr 2013 at 2:18 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



231 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-03 05:19:53 PM  

mpirooz: This guy still digging?


Carson is on his ninth shovel.  His local hardware store is making a mint off him.
 
2013-04-03 05:26:30 PM  

Rann Xerox: DarwiOdrade: HighOnCraic: DarwiOdrade: HighOnCraic: DarwiOdrade: Bloody William: Serious Black: I literally had a Bible thumper make the argument that Romney won more states and more land area than Obama did, so he is the rightful winner of the election.

Why are all the people who think the American political system is a giant game of Risk the people who are too stupid to actually play Risk?

Why are all the people who think the American economic system is a giant pile of coconuts the people who are more stupid than a giant pile of coconuts?

Where'd you get the coconuts?

I dunno - some moron walked into town muttering something about keynesians and borrowing and dropped a pile of coconuts. Everyone was happy until they realized the coconuts were fake. Then the town's economy went to shiat and I left.

Are you saying the coconuts migrated?!

They certainly weren't carried by swallows.

African or European?


What? I don't know!

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
 
2013-04-03 05:26:49 PM  

gilgigamesh: So its cool to play the race card now? Awesome! I can't wait to call you all racists! Now where are my reparations?

Incidentally, I am prejudiced against Dr. Carson, because he is a doctor. Worse, he's a neurosurgeon. It is virtually impossible to have that level of intellectual focus and not have a few screws loose.



you know...
i think there is a descending level of sanity / relatability of doctors
Pediatricians
Generalists
Specialists
Surgeons
Anesthesiologist
Radiologists
Neurosurgeons
 
2013-04-03 05:27:07 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Silly Jesus:  Derp derp derp derp derp derp. Derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp

Mercutio74:  Son, you gotta relax.  Look, I know you've got a high six-digit Fark ID number so some youthful indiscretion is allowed... maybe even expected.  But trolling is a gateway behaviour.  Maybe today you're trolling a thread that's mostly about one farker reddening the bottom of another... but what's next?  I've seen some of the greatest trolls come through these parts...  masters of their art...  they could troll the Dalai Lama and have him hurling his keyboard across the room.  But every one of them either broke character, or got banned or simply faded away as the fickle fark public moved on to stupider and more disingenuous trolls.  There's no future in it, my boy.  Don't pass up your future for a few meaningless posts that'll give you that spontaneous erection you get by pretending to be a caricature of humanity on here.  That erection is going to get harder and harder to acheive, until it consumes your whole life.

Well said. My advice to Silly Jesus is much simpler: If you spend all your time on Fark pretending to be an asshole just to annoy people, then you're not really pretending, you actually are just an asshole


It's a fractal shiatbag paradigm. It doesn't matter how much you analyse it - at any level of resolution he's still a shiatbag.
 
2013-04-03 05:34:07 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Wait.

The right says that the left believes that all white people who do not agree with Barack Obama are racist.

Now this guy on the right says all white people who don't agree with him are racist?


The best part about this is that Dr. Carson's opinions on gun control makes James Brady look like Charlton Heston.

Disagree with that?  You're a racist.
 
2013-04-03 05:35:47 PM  

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: The Supreme Court has got to consider slippery slopes

you expect the Supreme Court of the United States to consider logical fallacies?

Supreme Court considers slippery slope all the time.  When they establish a precedent, they got to consider the ramifications, where it could lead.


I hate to break it to you, but a slippery slope and a potential ramification are not the same thing.
 
2013-04-03 05:38:38 PM  

SkinnyHead: Oerath: I really should know better than to respond to you, but I really can't help it this time. I have to know. Are you really too stupid to see a significant difference between Sotomayor's examples and Carson's? And if not, do enjoy doing this? Because I can't imagine it's fun to consistently make completely idiotic arguments on the internet all day... Maybe you're being paid? I would consider trolling like you do for money, but certainly not for fun.

I don't see a significant difference between Sotomayor's point and Carson's point.  This is your opportunity to explain it, so that us stupid people can understand.


Wow. Ok. If I'd known you'd ask for clarification I'd have written this up on my lunch. So the key difference here is that Adult Incestuous Marriage and Polygamy concern an agreement between consenting adults who have legal standing to make said agreements in the United States, and also have standing to potentially bring a case to court over their right to make said agreements. Neither children nor animals have that standing in the eyes of the law, and in fact have well established precedence preventing them from having said standing. So no group desiring to marry an animal or child would have even the slightest chance of making it to the Supreme Court were they to try to bring a case forward to get these rights, as a lower court would be able to cite long standing legal precedence when rejecting those cases. Neither is in any way likely to have any impact on the future definition of marriage, very much unlike an Adult Incestuous couple, or a Polygamous group (flock? gaggle perhaps?). So in short, your arguments make no sense and you should feel bad.

/Sorry to everyone else for engaging the troll.
 
2013-04-03 05:52:03 PM  

Oerath: SkinnyHead: Oerath: I really should know better than to respond to you, but I really can't help it this time. I have to know. Are you really too stupid to see a significant difference between Sotomayor's examples and Carson's? And if not, do enjoy doing this? Because I can't imagine it's fun to consistently make completely idiotic arguments on the internet all day... Maybe you're being paid? I would consider trolling like you do for money, but certainly not for fun.

I don't see a significant difference between Sotomayor's point and Carson's point.  This is your opportunity to explain it, so that us stupid people can understand.

Wow. Ok. If I'd known you'd ask for clarification I'd have written this up on my lunch. So the key difference here is that Adult Incestuous Marriage and Polygamy concern an agreement between consenting adults who have legal standing to make said agreements in the United States, and also have standing to potentially bring a case to court over their right to make said agreements. Neither children nor animals have that standing in the eyes of the law, and in fact have well established precedence preventing them from having said standing. So no group desiring to marry an animal or child would have even the slightest chance of making it to the Supreme Court were they to try to bring a case forward to get these rights, as a lower court would be able to cite long standing legal precedence when rejecting those cases. Neither is in any way likely to have any impact on the future definition of marriage, very much unlike an Adult Incestuous couple, or a Polygamous group (flock? gaggle perhaps?). So in short, your arguments make no sense and you should feel bad.

/Sorry to everyone else for engaging the troll.


Seem like the lot of people feel like engaging the papita, as he's occasionally called.
 
2013-04-03 06:01:41 PM  

SkinnyHead: Serious Black: We'll cross the rubicon when people start making arguments that there is no compelling state interest behind bans on polygamy and incest rather than making scary, stupid, slippery slope arguments..

The Supreme Court has got to consider slippery slopes before they establish a precedent creating some constitutional right to marriage equality.  That's why Justice Sotomayor's question was appropriate.  There is no need for phony outrage.


Question: could the Supreme Court find that bans on incestuous marriages were unconstitutional if they had never made a decision on whether marriages with same-sex couples were constitutional or not? How about plural marriages? If the answer is yes (which I am all but certain they could), then there is no such thing as a slippery slope with restrictions on marriage.
 
2013-04-03 06:33:04 PM  

I'm An Idiot: Seem like the lot of people feel like engaging the papita, as he's occasionally called.


Yeah. It's unusual as most of us should know better. Sometimes I'm amazed I haven't actually put him on ignore. Actually only ignored one troll so far in my time here. Best part........ forever.
 
2013-04-03 06:34:13 PM  

theknuckler_33: The only people who said that liberals think that all white people who disagree with Obama and his policies are racists are people on the right.


Yep.  That's pretty much the dumbest strawman argument that exists on Fark, and Fark is one giant pile of dumb strawman arguments.
 
2013-04-03 07:01:25 PM  

Oerath: Wow. Ok. If I'd known you'd ask for clarification I'd have written this up on my lunch. So the key difference here is that Adult Incestuous Marriage and Polygamy concern an agreement between consenting adults who have legal standing to make said agreements in the United States, and also have standing to potentially bring a case to court over their right to make said agreements. Neither children nor animals have that standing in the eyes of the law, and in fact have well established precedence preventing them from having said standing. So no group desiring to marry an animal or child would have even the slightest chance of making it to the Supreme Court were they to try to bring a case forward to get these rights, as a lower court would be able to cite long standing legal precedence when rejecting those cases. Neither is in any way likely to have any impact on the future definition of marriage, very much unlike an Adult Incestuous couple, or a Polygamous group (flock? gaggle perhaps?). So in short, your arguments make no sense and you should feel bad.


But children age 13-14 are allowed to get married in many states, with the consent of parents and/or a judge.   If the Supreme Court establishes a fundamental constitutional right to marriage equality, would it be limited to consenting adults (over 18) or could that precedent be extended to man-boy marriages between a man and a 14 year old boy?  If a man-boy couple were to petition the court to allow their marriage, could the court refuse the petition based on the view that man-boy love is seen as immoral?

As for a marriage with an animal, of course that would not be possible under the traditional view of marriage, which views marriage as a contract (exchange of vows) between two people (husband & wife).  A man and a dog are not man and woman and they cannot exchange vows.  But the issue here is whether the traditional view of marriage (husband & wife) should be abandoned to achieve marriage equality for same sex couples.  If they establish a precedent that the husband & wife aspect of traditional marriage must be abandoned to achieve marriage equality, couldn't they say that the traditional view of marriage as a contract should also give way to permit marriage equality for man-dog love?
 
2013-04-03 07:20:53 PM  

Serious Black: Question: could the Supreme Court find that bans on incestuous marriages were unconstitutional if they had never made a decision on whether marriages with same-sex couples were constitutional or not? How about plural marriages? If the answer is yes (which I am all but certain they could), then there is no such thing as a slippery slope with restrictions on marriage.


Yes, they could.  Does that mean there is no slippery slope? No.  They might think that they're only going to ski part way down the slope and stop there, but once they get going, it's hard not to ski to the bottom.
 
2013-04-03 07:27:53 PM  

SkinnyHead: Yes, they could. Does that mean there is no slippery slope? No.


You generally do a decent enough job of believably feigning misunderstanding about various issues, but there's no way you're actually going to convince anyone that you don't know what "slope" means. Revise and resubmit.
 
2013-04-03 07:37:09 PM  

onzmadi: gilgigamesh: So its cool to play the race card now? Awesome! I can't wait to call you all racists! Now where are my reparations?

Incidentally, I am prejudiced against Dr. Carson, because he is a doctor. Worse, he's a neurosurgeon. It is virtually impossible to have that level of intellectual focus and not have a few screws loose.


you know...
i think there is a descending level of sanity / relatability of doctors
Pediatricians
Generalists
Specialists
Surgeons
Anesthesiologist
Radiologists
Neurosurgeons



Good thing I am a geriatric pediatrician, it a very rare sub speciality. I did have one curious case a few years back...
 
2013-04-03 07:49:20 PM  

SkinnyHead: Oerath: Wow. Ok. If I'd known you'd ask for clarification I'd have written this up on my lunch. So the key difference here is that Adult Incestuous Marriage and Polygamy concern an agreement between consenting adults who have legal standing to make said agreements in the United States, and also have standing to potentially bring a case to court over their right to make said agreements. Neither children nor animals have that standing in the eyes of the law, and in fact have well established precedence preventing them from having said standing. So no group desiring to marry an animal or child would have even the slightest chance of making it to the Supreme Court were they to try to bring a case forward to get these rights, as a lower court would be able to cite long standing legal precedence when rejecting those cases. Neither is in any way likely to have any impact on the future definition of marriage, very much unlike an Adult Incestuous couple, or a Polygamous group (flock? gaggle perhaps?). So in short, your arguments make no sense and you should feel bad.

But children age 13-14 are allowed to get married in many states, with the consent of parents and/or a judge.   If the Supreme Court establishes a fundamental constitutional right to marriage equality, would it be limited to consenting adults (over 18) or could that precedent be extended to man-boy marriages between a man and a 14 year old boy?  If a man-boy couple were to petition the court to allow their marriage, could the court refuse the petition based on the view that man-boy love is seen as immoral?

As for a marriage with an animal, of course that would not be possible under the traditional view of marriage, which views marriage as a contract (exchange of vows) between two people (husband & wife).  A man and a dog are not man and woman and they cannot exchange vows.  But the issue here is whether the traditional view of marriage (husband & wife) should be abandoned to achieve marriage equality for same ...


You almost (almost) have a point with your first example. But considering the extreme number of limitations already placed on the marriage of minors (parent's consent, judge's consent, difference in age of the couple, likelihood of coercion, and so on) it really doesn't stand up to even the most basic scrutiny. Because basically we've already established that the minor is unable to consent and require all these other restrictions to act as a way to safe guard said minors from having that inability taken advantage of. In those rare cases where minors are allowed to marry it is usually when there has been a pregnancy between 2 minors and statutory (or normal) rape is not an issue. It is usually only approved in these types of cases, and where the parents are requesting a marriage and the judge has ruled it in the best interest of the community and couple. So... Yeah still not seeing that set a precedent for pedophiles to be able to marry their victims.

As for animals.... Well that point is practically too ridiculous to even address, but I'll try. ANIMALS ARE NOT PEOPLE AND ANY RULING ALLOWING FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF PEOPLE TO MARRY WILL IN NO WAY CREATE A LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN WHICH ANIMALS WILL BE GIVEN HUMAN RIGHTS. Now if PETA gets a ruling establishing that animals have human rights, you'll start gaining some traction with this argument, though you'll still have the issue of consent to deal with.

So.... Nice try I guess?
 
2013-04-03 07:49:56 PM  

SkinnyHead: But children age 13-14 are allowed to get married in many states, with the consent of parents and/or a judge.   If the Supreme Court establishes a fundamental constitutional right to marriage equality, would it be limited to consenting adults (over 18) or could that precedent be extended to man-boy marriages between a man and a 14 year old boy?  If a man-boy couple were to petition the court to allow their marriage, could the court refuse the petition based on the view that man-boy love is seen as immoral?


I know you're a troll and I shouldn't waste my time addressing you, but hypothetically speaking even if you have your way and the court decides marriage can only be 1 man 1 woman, under your logic what's stopping a 50 year old man from marrying a 14 year old girl? Won't your slippery slope occur anyways just with hetero pedophile relationships?
 
2013-04-03 07:56:56 PM  
Yet it's the conservatives who keep trotting him out to prove they're not racist, like the racist guy at work who tells you about his black friend. They're the ones who made a big deal about how remarkable it is to find an intelligent (though the more he opens his mouth the less intelligent he seems), black conservative.
 
2013-04-03 08:55:42 PM  

gunga galunga: AdolfOliverPanties: Wait.

The right says that the left believes that all white people who do not agree with Barack Obama are racist.

Now this guy on the right says all white people who don't agree with him are racist?

I don't want to be a racist.

Which black guy do I side with?!

I'd go with Samuel L Jackson.


I'd go ANYWHERE with Samuel L. Jackson.

But first I'd have to fold up my tongue...
 
2013-04-03 09:27:00 PM  

Biological Ali: Why are you libs so afraid of a strong, conservative, begoateed black man?


Because the "conservatives"  http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/cuccinelli-wants-rehearing-virg i nias-anti-sodomy-law are fighting for their "right" to throw me in jail because their religion says I'm a bad guy. This a-hole compares me to people who have sex with animals and children... so I would hope that I would get some bit of pardon from fellow farkers about not buying into his "small-government" mentality when he wants a government just small enough to fit in my bed.
 
2013-04-03 09:55:35 PM  
Calling Obama "fartbongo", making pictures of him with watermelon, and turning him into a racial caricature is racist.

Calling Dr. Ben Carson an idiot for conflating homosexuality with bestiality and pedophilia is not racist, because we'd do that even if he was white.
 
2013-04-03 10:20:32 PM  

MeanJean: Calling Obama "fartbongo", making pictures of him with watermelon, and turning him into a racial caricature is racist.


To be fair, I've never see anyone except Victoria Jackson do that first thing in earnest.
 
2013-04-03 10:48:06 PM  

impaler: SkinnyHead: She asked if marriage is declared a fundamental right, could the state ban incestuous marriages between a mother and child who has reached the age of consent.  Where's the outrage?

She wasn't comparing homosexuals to incest. She was discussing the legal result of the term "consenting adults" on incest.


It's almost like he wants to the government to define right and wrong, rather than individual adults. Isn't he a member of the small, unobtrusive government folks?
 
2013-04-03 11:39:10 PM  
Wow, this guy's a racist nutbag.  Like... seriously, where do they find these people?
 
2013-04-04 12:08:36 AM  
Thurstonxhowell
To be fair, I've never see anyone except Victoria Jackson do that first thing in earnest.

Hmm, well it seems to be being used more ironically now, but I've seen it used in earnest by tea party types.
 
2013-04-04 12:09:44 AM  

thurstonxhowell: MeanJean: Calling Obama "fartbongo", making pictures of him with watermelon, and turning him into a racial caricature is racist.

To be fair, I've never see anyone except Victoria Jackson do that first thing in earnest.


Try googling "Obongo."
 
2013-04-04 12:13:19 AM  
Sgt Otter

Try googling "Obongo."

Hmm, apparently its a surname as well as a racially charged epithet. Who knew?
 
2013-04-04 03:40:16 AM  

MeanJean: Hmm, well it seems to be being used more ironically now, but I've seen it used in earnest by tea party types.


Considering that "Fartbongo" specifically started as a parody of how utterly retarded Republicans and their racist nicknames for Obama are, right here on Fark, this tickles me and I need a cigarette every time I see it happen.
 
2013-04-04 11:35:44 AM  
he's a threat.
he must be destroyed.
 
2013-04-04 12:36:39 PM  

colon_pow: he's a threat.
he must be destroyed.


He's taking care of that all by himself, and quite nicely.
 
2013-04-04 02:18:46 PM  

colon_pow: he's a threat.
he must be destroyed.


Hahaha!

I want the GOP to stick with this guy.  He will provide lots of entertainment on the campaign trail.

I love his idea of strict gun control in "large cities" but lax gun control "out in the country."

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/conservative-hero-ben-carson-to-beck-you- ha ve-no-right-to-semi-automatic-weapons-in-large-cities/

I might even contribute to his campaign, if he stays around long enough.

Carson/Palin '16!
Do it for the lulz!
 
Displayed 31 of 231 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report