Ben Carson Says Muslims Should Be Disqualified From Presidency

[bripat9643]

I just find if funny that you actually think that the US. Constitution gives a woman the right to kill a baby she conceived, no matter what when and how.

The constitution gives a woman the right to control her own body. You insist YOU should be in control of her body.

The court clearly disagrees.

Does it? So if she's suffering from dementia and wants to die, does it give her the right to take a lethal dose of barbiturates?

What's crazy about that? Does she have the right control her own body or not?

Of course she does, but it's an attempt to dodge the abortion subject, regardless, I do support a persons right to end their own life.

So asking you to explain how your "right to control her own body" applies in other situations is a "diversion?" You believe logic and facts are "diversions."

 

[g5000]

The constitution gives a woman the right to control her own body.

It's not her body that is being killed.

Oh boy, here we go. A fetus is a fetus, it is reliant on the female body and the female has authority over the fetus, it is her body, there is no way in hell to control uterus's, it's impossible, well, unless you want to force women to give birth.

Again, it is not her body.

As for viability, there are quite a few bodies that are not viable without external help, and yet we are not allowed to kill them at will just because they are a huge financial and emotional drain or a big cost to the state.

Yes, I would force women to give birth. There is a human life at stake. We force women to keep their handicapped children on life support. There isn't any argument you could make about killing the unborn that would not apply to a one day old baby. Financial drain, emotional drain, no father around, welfare costs, viability.

No difference between the unborn and a one day old baby except GPS coordinates.

 

[Roudy]

The state cannot tell Christians how to practice their faith.

And it doesn't.

And their faith tells them that gay marriage, in the religious sense, is a sin.

And the government says they don't have to perform gay marriages.

Hey, I never said a Church has no right to perform a marriage ceremony for two gays, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a mockery and insult to one of the basic tenants of the faith. Look up Sodom and Gomorrah.

That's YOUR belief. Not everyone's.

I'm still waiting for you to tell us what two men filing a joint tax return has to do with religion.

The word marriage is a religious based word. They can file a joint return and have all the rights of married people as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Skylar]

The constitution gives a woman the right to control her own body. You insist YOU should be in control of her body.

The court clearly disagrees.

Does it? So if she's suffering from dementia and wants to die, does it give her the right to take a lethal dose of barbiturates?

What's crazy about that? Does she have the right control her own body or not?

Of course she does, but it's an attempt to dodge the abortion subject, regardless, I do support a persons right to end their own life.

So asking you to explain how your "right to control her own body" applies in other situations is a "diversion?" You believe logic and facts are "diversions."

And what relevance does that have with a woman's right to control her own reproduction? Specifically?

Remember, you're irrelevant to this entire discussion. You never get a say in how a woman will reproduce. She always does. And she's the only one.

 

[David_42]

The constitution gives a woman the right to control her own body.

It's not her body that is being killed.

Oh boy, here we go. A fetus is a fetus, it is reliant on the female body and the female has authority over the fetus, it is her body, there is no way in hell to control uterus's, it's impossible, well, unless you want to force women to give birth.

Again, it is not her body.

As for viability, there are quite a few bodies that are not viable without external help, and yet we are not allowed to kill them at will just because they are a huge financial and emotional drain or a big cost to the state.

It IS her body, the fetus relies on her body, she is the one who has full control of the fetus, not you, not the state, not old billy down the street.

 

[LittleNipper]

Hitler believed the United States would welcome his World Concept, and in fact many people did. Henry Ford, for one.

Hitler also believed England was going to be an ally with Germany in the future struggle for taking over as much of the world as possible for the white race.

And Hitler eventually killed himself. He was proven to be a false prophet!

 

[Skylar]

The state cannot tell Christians how to practice their faith.

And it doesn't.

And their faith tells them that gay marriage, in the religious sense, is a sin.

And the government says they don't have to perform gay marriages.

Hey, I never said a Church has no right to perform a marriage ceremony for two gays, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a mockery and insult to one of the basic tenants of the faith. Look up Sodom and Gomorrah.

That's YOUR belief. Not everyone's.

I'm still waiting for you to tell us what two men filing a joint tax return has to do with religion.

The word marriage is a religious based word. They can file a joint return and have all the rights of married people as far as I'm concerned.

The word marriage WAS a religious based word. Not anymore. And not for quite a while.

 

[bripat9643]

Abortion is a constitutionally protected right? Ha ha ha. What a joke!

Why many conservative politicians are trying to pass a bill making a fertilized egg a person. I guess the joke is on you.

I just find if funny that you actually think that the US. Constitution gives a woman the right to kill a baby she conceived, no matter what when and how.

The constitution gives a woman the right to control her own body. You insist YOU should be in control of her body.

The court clearly disagrees.

Does it? So if she's suffering from dementia and wants to die, does it give her the right to take a lethal dose of barbiturates?

In terms of her reproduction, it absolutely does. Her reproductive choices are hers. Not yours. And for a lot of conservatives the fact that she gets to make this decision herself infuriates them. As these conservatives feel that its a choice they should be making for her.

Nope. In the question of her reproduction......you're nobody.

"In terms of her reproduction?" That reply has earned you a trip to weasel purgatory, nitwit.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

We did go to war with Nazi Germany and many Americans died as well as 15 million Germans. I'm sure you have some pretty horrific pictures of Germans when the allies bombed the shit out of Dresden. Didn't make the Germans right though. Neither did it make the Japanese right when America cooked hundreds of Japanese by dropping the A bomb on them. Your response qualifies you for ADD treatment.

You have different standards for our murders as compared to Muslim actions

These are third world innocents murdered by US Military actions in various parts of the world...Killed in horrific way with napalm with white phosphorus with cluster bombs men women and children ...

 

[Roudy]

Here are some more present day Christians. I love the votive candles on the cross. Priceless.

Which are laughed at by the rest of the Christians. Unlike ISIS, where people all across the world are flocking to join it, including homegrown people of the Muslim faith in Western nations.

 

[bripat9643]

I just find if funny that you actually think that the US. Constitution gives a woman the right to kill a baby she conceived, no matter what when and how.

The constitution gives a woman the right to control her own body. You insist YOU should be in control of her body.

The court clearly disagrees.

Does it? So if she's suffering from dementia and wants to die, does it give her the right to take a lethal dose of barbiturates?

It's a valid question.

It's a stupid question, and the answer is yes.

Not according to the government.

 

[Skylar]

Why many conservative politicians are trying to pass a bill making a fertilized egg a person. I guess the joke is on you.

I just find if funny that you actually think that the US. Constitution gives a woman the right to kill a baby she conceived, no matter what when and how.

The constitution gives a woman the right to control her own body. You insist YOU should be in control of her body.

The court clearly disagrees.

Does it? So if she's suffering from dementia and wants to die, does it give her the right to take a lethal dose of barbiturates?

In terms of her reproduction, it absolutely does. Her reproductive choices are hers. Not yours. And for a lot of conservatives the fact that she gets to make this decision herself infuriates them. As these conservatives feel that its a choice they should be making for her.

Nope. In the question of her reproduction......you're nobody.

"In terms of her reproduction?" That reply has earned you a trip to weasel purgatory, nitwit.

As we're discussion abortion, her reproduction is immediately relevant. Your babble about assisted suicide isn't.

Again, you're nobody. You get no say in her reproduction. You never do. She always does.

See how this works?

 

[David_42]

The constitution gives a woman the right to control her own body. You insist YOU should be in control of her body.

The court clearly disagrees.

Does it? So if she's suffering from dementia and wants to die, does it give her the right to take a lethal dose of barbiturates?

It's a valid question.

It's a stupid question, and the answer is yes.

Not according to the government.

And I disagree with that, luckily, more people are coming around..

 

[David_42]

I just find if funny that you actually think that the US. Constitution gives a woman the right to kill a baby she conceived, no matter what when and how.

The constitution gives a woman the right to control her own body. You insist YOU should be in control of her body.

The court clearly disagrees.

Does it? So if she's suffering from dementia and wants to die, does it give her the right to take a lethal dose of barbiturates?

In terms of her reproduction, it absolutely does. Her reproductive choices are hers. Not yours. And for a lot of conservatives the fact that she gets to make this decision herself infuriates them. As these conservatives feel that its a choice they should be making for her.

Nope. In the question of her reproduction......you're nobody.

"In terms of her reproduction?" That reply has earned you a trip to weasel purgatory, nitwit.

As we're discussion abortion, her reproduction is immediately relevant. Your babble about assisted suicide isn't.

Again, you're nobody. You get no say in her reproduction. You never do. She always does.

See how this works?

The anti abortion right wing would love to force a women to give birth, and once the child is born, they will then tell the women it's her fault and that she doesn't deserve any evil "socialist" assistance.

 

[theHawk]

The constitution gives a woman the right to control her own body.

It's not her body that is being killed.

Oh boy, here we go. A fetus is a fetus, it is reliant on the female body and the female has authority over the fetus, it is her body, there is no way in hell to control uterus's, it's impossible, well, unless you want to force women to give birth.

A fetus has its own DNA, unique from its mother. That is of course, human DNA. A little scientific fact that liberals refuse to acknowledge.

And they accuse republicans of ignoring science.

 

[bripat9643]

The constitution gives a woman the right to control her own body.

It's not her body that is being killed.

She has the right to deny the use of her body to anyone. Or anything.

You're still weaseling. Does she have the right to end her life?

 

[bravoactual]

I've been saying it, the GOP is truly ******* insane.
Ben Carson Says Muslims Should Be Disqualified From Presidency

A supporter at a Donald Trump created quite a stir on Thursday when, among other incendiary remarks, he falsely claimed President Obama was a Muslim.

But the comment raises an interesting question: What if it were true? Why should it matter if Obama was a Muslim?

On Meet The Press, Chuck Todd posed that exact question to Ben Carson, the retired neurosurgeon who is closely trailing Trump in the polls. Carson said he would not support a Muslim president and that only candidates with a faith “consistent with the Constitution” should be President.

CHUCK TODD: Let me wrap this up by finally dealing with what’s been going on, Donald Trump, and a deal with a questioner that claimed that the president was Muslim. Let me ask you the question this way. Should a President’s faith matter? Should your faith matter to voters?

BEN CARSON: Well, I guess it depends on what that faith is. If it’s inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the constitution, no problem.

TODD: So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the constitution?

CARSON: No, I don’t, I do not.

TODD: So you–

CARSON: I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.

Maybe Carson should Article VI of the Constitution of The United States of America.

"But No Religious Test Shall Ever Be Required As A Qualification To Any Office or Public Trust Under The United States."

Religion cannot be considered or made to be a barrier to public office in our Country, not even Cons like Carson.

 

[Roudy]

Do you think American Muslims belief and interpretation of Islam is any different that those abroad? You sound like an extremely ignorant, naive person.

Using your TardLogic™, all Christians think the same as these guys:

Ha ha ha, that's the lamest response I have ever seen. I was referring to what majority of Muslims believe in regards to gay marriage, dufus.

Even with that goalpost, you are still an idiot for thinking all Muslims are the same:

5 Muslim Nations Where Gay is Legal - LGBT Muslims

Gee, five out of 51, where being gay is virtually a death sentence. You are incredibly smart. Ha ha ha.

 

[bripat9643]

Does it? So if she's suffering from dementia and wants to die, does it give her the right to take a lethal dose of barbiturates?

What's crazy about that? Does she have the right control her own body or not?

Of course she does, but it's an attempt to dodge the abortion subject, regardless, I do support a persons right to end their own life.

So asking you to explain how your "right to control her own body" applies in other situations is a "diversion?" You believe logic and facts are "diversions."

And what relevance does that have with a woman's right to control her own reproduction? Specifically?

Remember, you're irrelevant to this entire discussion. You never get a say in how a woman will reproduce. She always does. And she's the only one.

The term used was "the right to control her body." Quite trying to move the goal posts. However, that's exactly the kind of thing I expect from a champion weasel like you.

 

[Skylar]

The constitution gives a woman the right to control her own body. You insist YOU should be in control of her body.

The court clearly disagrees.

Does it? So if she's suffering from dementia and wants to die, does it give her the right to take a lethal dose of barbiturates?

In terms of her reproduction, it absolutely does. Her reproductive choices are hers. Not yours. And for a lot of conservatives the fact that she gets to make this decision herself infuriates them. As these conservatives feel that its a choice they should be making for her.

Nope. In the question of her reproduction......you're nobody.

"In terms of her reproduction?" That reply has earned you a trip to weasel purgatory, nitwit.

As we're discussion abortion, her reproduction is immediately relevant. Your babble about assisted suicide isn't.

Again, you're nobody. You get no say in her reproduction. You never do. She always does.

See how this works?

The anti abortion right wing would love to force a women to give birth, and once the child is born, they will then tell the women it's her fault and that she doesn't deserve any evil "socialist" assistance.

Absoloutely. Remmeber, there's a very vindictive strain running through social conservatives. A desire to punish. To make people suffer. They want to make her abide their will. Then they want her to suffer the consequences of their decisions.

You see the same argument in many discussions of social welfare. Where many conservatives argue that suffering will motivate people to work harder. The more you make them suffer, the harder they work. And that the reason they aren't working hard enough is that we aren't hurting them enough.

Its the Gospel of Bizzaro Jesus. Where poverty is a character flaw that needs to be punished accordingly.