Republican Debate - South Carolina

[Play Angry]

Sometimes I think khan is secretly an ultra right wing conservative who purposely argues the liberal viewpoint as poorly as possible on here. There are smart and well-reasoned arguments in favor of most of the left's policies, many of which I disagree with wholeheartedly, but none of which are presented on this forum in an organized and persuasive manner, ever.

Somebody email Mel Khan (surely coincidental, right?) and tell him to start posting.

[shocka khan]

Sometimes I think khan is secretly an ultra right wing conservative who purposely argues the liberal viewpoint as poorly as possible on here. There are smart and well-reasoned arguments in favor of most of the left's policies, many of which I disagree with wholeheartedly, but none of which are presented on this forum in an organized and persuasive manner, ever.

Somebody email Mel Khan (surely coincidental, right?) and tell him to start posting.

You have never, not one time, debated me or provided any evidence to refute my sttatements. Just name calling.

Do you think calling me names makes you smart to other people or do you think presenting an argument or facts make you look smart to others?

[Play Angry]

I don't think you know what name calling is.

You also are wrong that I have never slapped you around on the merits. A recent example, of which there are several, was when you lied and grossly mischaracterized Prescott Bush's business relationship with entities in Nazi Germany. I can link others if you would like.

Find a smart liberal friend and start plagiarizing his work.

[Kung Wu]

1. Hillary isn't lying, I think I'd be a little more circumspect in the future, here is a link from CNN. Given the same FICO score, only 10 percent of whites are rejected. Blacks and Hispanics are in the 25 percent range.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/09/real...e-white-black/

This article is very slanted and misleading.

[jdshock]

No. Syrians or any other foreigners standing on any soil other than U.S. soil or the soil of a U.S. territory have absolutely ZERO U. S. constitutional protections.

We're obviously too far apart that it's not really worth arguing about the majority of this. I do want to address your constitutional argument. First, my intention was not to start a constitutional protection argument. I merely meant that it is protected constitutionally the way race is a constitutionally protected category, not that his actions would be unconstitutional. I was unclear about that. My intention was that we should be hesitant to support an individual that advocates prejudice based on a constitutionally protected category since those protections are fundamental to the construction of our country, whether or not a person can make use of those rights.

That said, your point is not exactly right. Or, I should say, it is not certain that it is right. There is good reason to believe that if a non-US citizen applied for citizenship and was denied on the basis that they were black, it would be unconstitutional for the denying government agency to deny citizenship based on the constitutionally protected category of race. The same is likely true for a non-US citizen applying for citizenship and being denied on the basis of religion. It is likely unconstitutional for the denying government agency to deny citizenship based on the constitutionally protected category of religion.

[MoValley John]

1. Hillary isn't lying, I think I'd be a little more circumspect in the future, here is a link from CNN. Given the same FICO score, only 10 percent of whites are rejected. Blacks and Hispanics are in the 25 percent range.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/09/real_estate/zillow-mortgage-white-black/

2. It's your right to disagree, but people on the other side would say that income redistribution creates a larger middle class and a more level playing field. Besides, given your response, you should not support the current taxation system given your response to #2, as the current system is redistributing income as well.....except it's redistributing it to the rich. Are you trying to say you prefer a revenue-neutral tax system?
3. I expect that if either Sanders or Clinton get elected you will see an effort to make college tuition tax deductible or provide credits to students or some other form of making the tuition free. There has been a lot of discussion in the democratic debates on this subject. I'm betting Doc is shooting from the hip and not watching the democratic debates, as he does not tend to want to listen to alternate points of view, therefore his comment reflects his ignorance of the subject. Note in the interest of fairness, I have a friend who is republican and I've watched at least three, maybe four of the debates (mostly with him as a guest at my home). I used to think it was kind of silly, but wathing both parties debate has been an eye-opener for me.

Nowhere in the article were FICO scores mentioned. Nowhere. Income disparity was. The article was terribly slanted, but similar FICO scores were not part of the comparison. I'll read it again to quadruple check, but I'm pretty sure if a black men, with similar income and FICO scores as a white men, were denied mortgages at a disproportionate rate, that would be the crux of the story.

[MoValley John]

Read it again, FICO isn't mentioned. At all.

[JJClamdip]

Trump wins by 10%

[MoValley John]

Trump wins by 10%

What's that got to do with FICO scores or Kanye West?

[MoValley John]

FB_IMG_1456011788027.jpg

[JJClamdip]

What's that got to do with FICO scores or Kanye West?

Oh f u c k!

Sorry to hijack the thread back on topic.

[SB Shock]

Bush Drops Out