Support NeoGAF

[Oblivion]

Dr. Ben Carson is a Black History month staple. Each February, schoolchildren hear the story of the impoverished African-American boy from Detroit, a struggling student whose mother made him read two books a week until he bloomed into a scholar.

Leaving Detroit for Yale, Carson eventually found his way to John Hopkins, where he became one of the world's most preeminent neurosurgeons, gaining international acclaim in 1987 for performing the first separation of twins conjoined at the head. He is held as an African-American hero.

But some are calling him a token, an Uncle Tom, a traitor to his race. Why?

Because he came out of the closet. As a conservative. Maybe even a Republican. And African Americans aren't allowed to be Republican and keep full membership in their race.

...

Carson said at the prayer breakfast that "in this country, one of the founding principles was freedom of thought and freedom of expression."

Blacks have never fully enjoyed that freedom, first because of slavery, then Jim Crow, and now due to self-imposed sanctions on what African Americans can think and say politically and still keep their street cred.

If he got in the Michigan Senate race as a conservative Republican, Carson would test whether blacks are willing to extend to an African-American icon the freedom to think for himself.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/...ative-Carson-could-break-barriers-Senate-race

Looks like it's up to a Republican again to free the blahs Democratic slavery.

 

[Hitokage]

The freedom to stand proud as a token.

 

[Aaron Strife]

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/...ative-Carson-could-break-barriers-Senate-race

Looks like it's up to a Republican again to free the blahs Democratic slavery.

I'm pretty sure Michael Steele tried that in Maryland in 06 and got his ass kicked, even after sending out mailers to majority AA precincts to try and fool them into thinking he was a Democrat.

Heh, it's almost like it's in the socioeconomic interest of black people (for the most party) to vote Democratic after being disenfranchised by the party that promoted the Southern Strategy, who is now complaining about black conservatives being victimized by the media.

 

[PhoenixDark]

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/...ative-Carson-could-break-barriers-Senate-race

Looks like it's up to a Republican again to free the blahs Democratic slavery.

I'd vote for Carson over Granholm in a heart beat. Come at me bros

So from that article...if black people don't vote for Carson...they are proving themselves to be mental slaves? They can't simply not vote for Carson because they, you know, disagree with him on politics? Oh I forgot, black people don't vote based on politics, they only vote for other black people (unless the black person is conservative). No black people ever voted until Obama ran for president.

 

[Oblivion]

I'd vote for Carson over Granholm in a heart beat. Come at me bros.

Why do you hate Granholm so much, essay?

 

[Jooney]

Anyone who makes light of the fact of the complete and utter lack of WMD in Iraq should be locked in a room with the spouses of dead American solidiers and forced to hear their stories until they repent.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Why do you hate Granholm so much, essay?

She's not one tough nerd.

 

[PhoenixDark]

She's not one tough nerd.

Indeed. She was a horrible governor. Although to he fair the No Worker Left Behind act is a great program that every state should have. Michigan is lucky to have so many great community colleges which makes it a perfect program for the state.

 

[Oblivion]

I don't know much about Granholm, but I find it surprising that she could be bad enough to have you side with the teabagger.

And yes, I'm aware Snyder was supposed to be some new breed of "nerd" teabagger, but still.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

How is the media handling the Detroit takeover? You'd think the right wing nuts would be screaming about government overreach, dictators, tszars and what not.

Some interesting things here:

An estimated 6.6 million people ages 19 through 25 have been able to stay on or join their parents’ plans as result, with more than 3 million previously uninsured young adults getting health insurance.

Some 71 million Americans have received at least one free preventive service, like a mammogram or a flu shot.

an estimated 17 million children with pre-existing conditions have been protected against being uninsured.

The law also bars insurers from canceling policies on sick people; previously, 10,000 people a year had their policies rescinded.

In 2012, insurers had to pay $1.1 billion in rebates, an average of $151 per family. (...) the proportion of rate filings that sought increases of 10 percent or more fell from 75 percent in 2010 to 34 percent in 2012, and it is expected to be even lower this year. The average premium increase in 2012 was 30 percent lower than in 2010.

Most have been discussed before but it's good to see articles summing up all the positive effects of the law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/opinion/sunday/report-card-on-health-care-reform.html?hpw

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

The only person on Fox News who's a genuine believer is Hannity.

The rest are masterful trolls.

I don't believe for even one second that Hannity believes a word of his own bullshit. It's far too well rehearsed for him to buy into it.

He certainly has the ideology as his foundation, but he has to know that what he says on his shows is bullshit (but bullshit that serves a purpose).

 

[cartoon_soldier]

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/...ative-Carson-could-break-barriers-Senate-race

Looks like it's up to a Republican again to free the blahs Democratic slavery.

Hate articles that suggest black conservatives are looked down upon in circles just because they are conservative. It could be you know the fact that conservatives want to follow a set of policy goals that would negatively impact African Americans who aren't well to do like Mr. Carson

If conservatives had actual policy ideas beyond trying to be more friendly with Black people more AAs would be conservative...

 

[KtSlime]

How is the media handling the Detroit takeover? You'd think the right wing nuts would be screaming about government overreach, dictators, tszars and what not.

Some interesting things here:

Most have been discussed before but it's good to see articles summing up all the positive effects of the law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/opinion/sunday/report-card-on-health-care-reform.html?hpw

I think it's not enough, the US should do a complete Detroit take over and redesigning the major portions. Restart the Model Cities program (or something like it), see if we can try designing a city intended for the 21st century, one with a negative carbon footprint (without the use of external offsets) or some other goal that seems insurmountable to most cities but can in fact be pulled off.

The US has no aspirations, and I think that gives us way too much free time to be an international bully.

 

[speculawyer]

This has to be a shop. Glen Beck told me Obama hates crackers.

Nice.

 

[Plinko]

I don't believe for even one second that Hannity believes a word of his own bullshit. It's far too well rehearsed for him to buy into it.

He certainly has the ideology as his foundation, but he has to know that what he says on his shows is bullshit (but bullshit that serves a purpose).

Hannity believes every word he says. You can feel the hate flowing. It's disgusting, his radio show is 100 times worse, too.

Oh, and from someone who voted for Granholm, she was a HORRIBLE governor.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

I think it's not enough, the US should do a complete Detroit take over and redesigning the major portions. Restart the Model Cities program (or something like it), see if we can try designing a city intended for the 21st century, one with a negative carbon footprint (without the use of external offsets) or some other goal that seems insurmountable to most cities but can in fact be pulled off.

The US has no aspirations, and I think that gives us way too much free time to be an international bully.

I agree.

Watching J. Edgar made me kind of depressed at how many influential people in the world have a history of adultery etc. So while looking up which presidents are known to have cheated I came across this:

The economy was a direct result of congress who had enough of a majority to override Clinton on most of his economic decisions. The real economic hero was Newt, not Bill.
You really need to work on your memory skills, as most of what you said is wrong, and I can prove it by historical fact.

Gaf why have you deceived me?

Also DiCaprio deserves a shit ton of Oscars come on man.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xTBwKBSNczw

 

[Tamanon]

Yeah, J. Edgar was a great movie. Slow burn, but that's perfectly placed for it.

 

[el retorno]

I don't believe for even one second that Hannity believes a word of his own bullshit. It's far too well rehearsed for him to buy into it.

He certainly has the ideology as his foundation, but he has to know that what he says on his shows is bullshit (but bullshit that serves a purpose).

Go back and listen to some of the shows he did back in the 90s. What they did back then they believed. Now its an act. Its turned up to 11.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Ohio's come around on gay marriage - 54% now support an amendment to overturn their previous ban and legalize it

Watching J. Edgar made me kind of depressed at how many influential people in the world have a history of adultery etc. So while looking up which presidents are known to have cheated I came across this:

Gaf why have you deceived me?

You can prove it, look at all the meaningful legislation passed by the Gingrich House signed into law by Clinton:

 

[rocketknight]

Meanwhile: Young Opponents of Gay Marriage Undaunted by Battle Ahead

“The primary challenge that our side faces right now is the intense social pressure,” said Joseph Backholm, 34, the executive director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington. “To the extent that the other side is able to frame this as a vote for gay people to be happy, it will be challenging for us.”

“Proponents of same-sex marriage have done a fantastic job of telling the story of same-sex marriage through music and television and film,” said Eric Teetsel, 29, the executive director of the Manhattan Declaration, which describes itself as a movement of Christians for life, marriage and religious freedom. “I think it’s really a case where once they hear the other side of the issue, and really think about it deeply, we’re going to win a lot of those folks back.”

“In redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, what you’re doing is you’re excluding the norm of sexual complementarity,” said Mr. Anderson, the Heritage Foundation fellow. “Once you exclude that norm, the three other norms — which are monogamy, sexual exclusivity and permanency — become optional as well.”

“Most young people think if you come out with traditional marriage views, you’re a bigot,” said Thomas Peters, 27, the communications director for the National Organization for Marriage. “You can’t have that many people in the shadows.”

The issue, proponents of traditional marriage say, is one of presentation.

“These Republicans who are jumping ship are doing so because we have no way of messaging,” said Ashley Pratte, 23, the executive director of Cornerstone Policy Research and Cornerstone Action, a New Hampshire group that focuses on social issues. “Do you want to tell your friends when you’re out with them on a Friday night that they can’t get married? No, you don’t want to have that discussion, but you want to have a healthy discussion.”

Opponents of same-sex marriage say they realize they may lose the current fight, but they optimistically take the long view, pointing to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized abortion. At the time, they say, opponents of abortion were told their cause was lost, but the fight continues 40 years later.

 

[The Technomancer]

Meanwhile: Young Opponents of Gay Marriage Undaunted by Battle Ahead

“In redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, what you’re doing is you’re excluding the norm of sexual complementarity,” said Mr. Anderson, the Heritage Foundation fellow. “Once you exclude that norm, the three other norms — which are monogamy, sexual exclusivity and permanency — become optional as well.”

Man I got some real bad news for this guy...

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Man I got some real bad news for this guy...

Haha. Oh man, I thought he was going for polygamy or marrying anime characters but that... wow. Do these people not see how many people are cheating or divorcing already?

 

[B-Dubs]

Meanwhile: Young Opponents of Gay Marriage Undaunted by Battle Ahead

Man, what a bunch of jokers!

 

[Mario]

Man I got some real bad news for this guy...

Seems like they tried and failed to do a toned down version of "Once you allow that, what's stopping you from allowing a man to marry his dog?".

 

[Hitokage]

Seems like they tried and failed to do a toned down version of "Once you allow that, what's stopping you from allowing a man to marry his dog?".

If a man can find a dog able to read and understand marriage license forms as well as be able to coherently provided answers to the fields and give clear consent, I don't think marriage is even the issue anymore.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Meanwhile: Young Opponents of Gay Marriage Undaunted by Battle Ahead

haha

There's always going to be a group of young evangelicals who get off by being "oppressed" and looked down upon by TEH WORLD. Thank the based god they'll pretty much be all that's left of the anti-gay marriage movement in 4 years or so. As the republican party moves more toward libertarianism I see them completely giving up on gay marriage. Sure the south will be a major anti-gay force, but it won't matter nationally.

 

[empty vessel]

I liked this bit from a recent Bill Mitchell posting:

I had read some pretty crazy budget analyses in the last week. Take the New York Times article (March 18, 2013) – Paul Ryan’s Ax Isn’t Sharp Enough – by a Republican congressman Paul C Broun, Jr.

He considers the ultra mad budget proposal from his fellow Congress member – the former (failed) Republican Presidential running mate Paul D. Ryan – to be a Keynesian, if not socialist path to disaster.

We read that the “most pressing problem facing our nation” (the US) is – wait for it:

… runaway government spending …​

He wants to:

… stop spending money we don’t have, an idea I promote every chance I get.​

From which I conclude he lies a lot when he is talking to people.

Remember the Speech that the current Governor of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke in 2002 to the National Economists Club – Deflation: Making Sure “It” Doesn’t Happen Here. The Governor said:

But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.​

And, remember the 2009 interview that Ben Bernanke gave Scott Pelley from the US program 60 Minutes. The interview was largely a litany of mainstream statements but at one point the Chairman gives the game away to the interviewer Scott Pelley.

If you listen to the interview (the link will take you to the video and the transcript) you will realise that at around the 8 minute mark Bernanke starts talking about how the Fed (the US central bank) conducts its “operations”.

Interviewer Pelley asks Bernanke:

Is that tax money that the Fed is spending?​

Bernanke replied, reflecting a good understanding of what we call central bank operations (the way the Fed interacts with the member banks):

It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed, much the same way that you have an account in a commercial bank. So, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed.​

Please read my blog – Bernanke on financial constraints – for more discussion on this point.

I know some people out there will say – “well, so what, we all know the government can issue currency at will, why do the proponents of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) always bang on about that?”

To which I always reply – then stop saying the government can run out of money, or is “spending money we don’t have” and other versions of the same. Stop claiming that the national, currency-issuing government has financial constraints.

Then they say – “but that will just be hyperinflationary”. To which I reply – okay, now the discussion is on sensible grounds – under what conditions will government spending be inflationary? And at that point, when you indicate how much excess capacity the economy is enduring they just mouth some historical revisionist ravings about Germany in the 1920s a moment or two before they introduce the Zim-case. At that point also, I conclude the battle is over, they know nothing.

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=23125

 

[Aaron Strife]

haha

There's always going to be a group of young evangelicals who get off by being "oppressed" and looked down upon by TEH WORLD. Thank the based god they'll pretty much be all that's left of the anti-gay marriage movement in 4 years or so. As the republican party moves more toward libertarianism I see them completely giving up on gay marriage. Sure the south will be a major anti-gay force, but it won't matter nationally.

Not if the south is driving the Republican party's agenda

Consider that Democrats actually hold a majority of the House seats in every region... but the south.

 

[Link]

Considering the whole "separation of church and state" part of the First Amendment, why are we constantly hearing "The Bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman" as an argument? Call me naive, but why is this even a fucking issue? Ironically enough, it's always the same fucks that want to take the Constitution as literally and ironclad as possible.

 

[rocketknight]

Considering the whole "separation of church and state" part of the First Amendment, why are we constantly hearing "The Bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman" as an argument? Call me naive, but why is this even a fucking issue? Ironically enough, it's always the same fucks that want to take the Constitution as literally and ironclad as possible.

Because children, and morals, and building block of society, etc. I've taken to reading the comments on social issue posts on The American Conservative, and it's like a bizarro world where bigots are literate but still full of illogical nonsense.

 

[Mario]

Considering the whole "separation of church and state" part of the First Amendment, why are we constantly hearing "The Bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman" as an argument? Call me naive, but why is this even a fucking issue?

Religious conservatives don't actually want separation of church and state. They want a "nation founded on Christian principles", even if that wasn't originally the case.

The constitution will be invoked when they feel their religious rights/doctrine is being infringed, but individual rights and freedoms go out the window when the Bible is at cross purposes with the constitution.

Same goes with constitutional "freedom of religion". The constitution is top of conversation if Christian worship rights are "under threat", but religious conservatives tend not to bring it up when protesting the building of a mosque in New York.

Ironically enough, it's always the same fucks that want to take the Constitution as literally and ironclad as possible.

Well, that's why they are desperately trying to position the Founding Fathers as devote Christians in an attempt to interpret the Constitution through a Christian lens.

 

[Gotchaye]

If a man can find a dog able to read and understand marriage license forms as well as be able to coherently provided answers to the fields and give clear consent, I don't think marriage is even the issue anymore.

You've gotta lock that down.

haha

There's always going to be a group of young evangelicals who get off by being "oppressed" and looked down upon by TEH WORLD. Thank the based god they'll pretty much be all that's left of the anti-gay marriage movement in 4 years or so. As the republican party moves more toward libertarianism I see them completely giving up on gay marriage. Sure the south will be a major anti-gay force, but it won't matter nationally.

Why "young"? You're describing mainstream evangelical Christianity. At this point it's practically all about getting off on being persecuted; they love thinking that the government hates Christians and that there are baby-sacrificing Satanists hiding in their neighborhoods. There's a reason that they get angry rather than relieved when they find out they've been worried about nothing.

 

[Chichikov]

If a man can find a dog able to read and understand marriage license forms as well as be able to coherently provided answers to the fields and give clear consent, I don't think marriage is even the issue anymore.

You don't know a lot of dog owners, do you?

"My dog can totally understand this prenup, bark twice if you do Rexy! Okay, he didn't, but I can totally feel he understand, we have this connection".

It's Adam and Eve not Adam and Eve.

 

[el retorno]

Considering the whole "separation of church and state" part of the First Amendment, why are we constantly hearing "The Bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman" as an argument? Call me naive, but why is this even a fucking issue? Ironically enough, it's always the same fucks that want to take the Constitution as literally and ironclad as possible.

Thats why they use the words "traditional marriage"

 

[RDreamer]

Meanwhile: Young Opponents of Gay Marriage Undaunted by Battle Ahead

“In redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, what you’re doing is you’re excluding the norm of sexual complementarity,” said Mr. Anderson, the Heritage Foundation fellow. “Once you exclude that norm, the three other norms — which are monogamy, sexual exclusivity and permanency — become optional as well.”

Oh noes, more options! Since when did the right start hating freedom?

 

[TacticalFox88]

Did the PoliGAF blog die prematurely?



Was afraid that might happen.

 

[rocketknight]

Oh noes, more options! Since when did the right start hating freedom?

No, see, you're excluding the norm. So you're the one discriminating and hating freedom. Wake up!

 

[Hitokage]

You don't know a lot of dog owners, do you?

I wouldn't deny that dogs can be emotionally perceptive, but they certainly don't understand legal documents.

At least, not yet.

Thats why they use the words "traditional marriage"

Which isn't even traditional.

 

[RDreamer]

Did the PoliGAF blog die prematurely?



Was afraid that might happen.

Seems so. I didn't think it would die that quickly, since we had so many people willing to contribute. All we needed was a post every week to week and a half from most people and we'd end up having a post a day average. I know I tried to keep it going as long as I could, but then I had my jobs kind of ramp up quite a bit. I could still do a post a week or two, but then when no one else was really posting much I kind of gave up to focus on other things.

 

[PhoenixDark]

You've gotta lock that down.



Why "young"? You're describing mainstream evangelical Christianity. At this point it's practically all about getting off on being persecuted; they love thinking that the government hates Christians and that there are baby-sacrificing Satanists hiding in their neighborhoods. There's a reason that they get angry rather than relieved when they find out they've been worried about nothing.

The NY Times article focused on young anti-gay evangelicals mainly, so I was talking about them; you're right that evangelicals in general love being "persecuted." But there's definitely a difference depending on the age imo. The younger ones are just burning with resentment and an inferiority complex whereas imo a lot of older evangelicals are just tired people stuck in their ways. It certainly was frustrating back in 2003/2004 when the country was a lot more conservative and Evangelicals were running shit; a lot of young right wing "journalists" today were heavy Bush supporters back then and the general "let's laugh at the democrats" nature of that era.

But now those days are long gone and it's hard to imagine another evangelical candidate getting close to the White House. So the tables have reversed imo, republicans are now the laughing stock, and evangelicals are once again in their natural habitat: "oppressed" and dismissed by the general public. I hope it lasts forever.

 

[speculawyer]

Considering the whole "separation of church and state" part of the First Amendment, why are we constantly hearing "The Bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman" as an argument? Call me naive, but why is this even a fucking issue? Ironically enough, it's always the same fucks that want to take the Constitution as literally and ironclad as possible.

Show me where it says "Separation of Church and State" in the Constitution!

 

[ISOM]

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/...ative-Carson-could-break-barriers-Senate-race

Looks like it's up to a Republican again to free the blahs Democratic slavery.

I don't get it, so are they ignoring the train wreck that was Cain and reupping with another black republican? I think that if a white male democrat wins in 2016 you will see the disappearence of black republicans from the national republican dialogue. What reason is there to trot out these black republicans if there is no black democrat to show everyone what he is meant to be.

 

[speculawyer]

I wouldn't deny that dogs can be emotionally perceptive, but they certainly don't understand legal documents.

At least, not yet.

Soon.

 

[RDreamer]

Soon.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I don't get it, so are they ignoring the train wreck that was Cain and reupping with another black republican? I think that if a white male democrat wins in 2016 you will see the disappearence of black republicans from the national republican dialogue. What reason is there to trot out these black republicans if there is no black democrat to show everyone what he is meant to be.

During the Bush years we at least had JC Watts, who wasn't bad and has recently argued the GOP is indeed turning away blacks. Plus Powell and Rice; it's hard to ever respect Powell after his UN presentation but at least we know Rice helped ensure we didn't attack Syria and Iran. But you're right, black republicans are in vogue because of Obama. Partially as a means of "hey I'd vote for a black guy, I'm not racist" and also as a means to attack black democrats in general. Consider some of the shit Cain has said about black people
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3EUjAfNu8w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7354AsuLng

He, like Alan Keyes, says stuff white conservatives couldn't say without being called racist. That's the appeal.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Did the PoliGAF blog die prematurely?



Was afraid that might happen.

Poligaf blew its load early. For a while there were a lot of posts but it was clear that wasn't sustainable.

 

[Hitokage]

Soon.

Haha, who knows where gene tech will take us.

 

[Link]

Seems so. I didn't think it would die that quickly, since we had so many people willing to contribute. All we needed was a post every week to week and a half from most people and we'd end up having a post a day average. I know I tried to keep it going as long as I could, but then I had my jobs kind of ramp up quite a bit. I could still do a post a week or two, but then when no one else was really posting much I kind of gave up to focus on other things.

I think you should have come up with a schedule and given each person a specific day to contribute per week. Instead, everyone blew their load right away.

 

[TacticalFox88]

What scares the hell out of me is we have a President that wants to take away our guns, but yet he wants to attack Iran and Syria. So if they come and attack us here, we don't have the rights to bear arms under this Obama administration

....

....


......Fox News just made an argument against gun control based on Iran or Syria attacking the Continental USA.

Stop the planet I want off.