Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Either that or drone strikes on Mexico. Not sure. Let the out trumping begin.



http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ben-carson-op...ico-border

In his defense, I think he was referring to drone surveillance as many other candidates have.  I'm not sure if it's been clarified that he was talking about strikes or not.  


 

Quote:In his defense, I think he was referring to drone surveillance as many other candidates have. I'm not sure if it's been clarified that he was talking about strikes or not.

I don't think so, TED... unless I miss read it, he mentions taking out a cave where they're hiding and "boom done"


Surveillance drones don't go boom...

I think it's best to wait for video/audio to come out of the interview, to make sure nothing is being taken out of context.


I mean I'm no fan of Carson.  He'd be one of the least likely people I'd vote for.  But everything must be taken in context.

Yeah I took boom as in drone strike but your right it could be out of context.

Considering that link is to MSNBC you can pretty much count on it.

Quote:Considering that link is to MSNBC you can pretty much count on it.

Thanks for the input. /s

For the Record: It was originally reported by a journalist in Arizona.  Not MSNBC.  If the reporter in Arizona took anything out of context, that's on him.  Of course it's possible that the reporter didn't take anything out of context.  in which case I wonder how someone who says this can claim themselves to be 'pro-life'

Quote:For the Record: It was originally reported by a journalist in Arizona. Not MSNBC. If the reporter in Arizona took anything out of context, that's on him. Of course it's possible that the reporter didn't take anything out of context. in which case I wonder how someone who says this can claim themselves to be 'pro-life'

Pro birth is probably more accurate.

You're in rare form, boudreaumw. I've chuckled at most of your posts today.


Does /s mean end sarcasm?

Quote:You're in rare form, boudreaumw. I've chuckled at most of your posts today.


Does /s mean end sarcasm?

Thanks! Yeah that's how I've always used it.

I'm not sure that he's advocating drone strikes on people. If you read the quote tweeted out very carefully, and you have to read it very carefully when dealing with someone as intelligent as Carson, it looks like he's talking about finding and blowing caves that are known lay-ups, not caves with people in them. He worded it very ambiguously, probably not by mistake.

 

As crazy (or just naive?) as Carson appears to be, somehow I doubt that even he would be willing to run on an immigration platform centered around bombing America.

Quote:I'm not sure that he's advocating drone strikes on people. If you read the quote tweeted out very carefully, and you have to read it very carefully when dealing with someone as intelligent as Carson, it looks like he's talking about finding and blowing caves that are known lay-ups, not caves with people in them. He worded it very ambiguously, probably not by mistake.


As crazy (or just naive?) as Carson appears to be, somehow I doubt that even he would be willing to run on an immigration platform centered around bombing America.

Probably and I hope that's the case. Still if what he said is not out of context hed be advocating for drone strikes either on US soil or Mexican. Don't think drones cam tell whether people are in the cave.

Quote:Probably and I hope that's the case. Still if what he said is not out of context hed be advocating for drone strikes either on US soil or Mexican. Don't think drones cam tell whether people are in the cave.

I'm presuming he'd only hit American soil (and it's not hard to tell who owns what with GPS technology and, you know, a big freaking wall there), and also assuming he'd send Border Patrol and/or National Guard in to clear and monitor the cave during the strike to ensure that people aren't in there.

 

On the face of it, the plan isn't terrible, but there really aren't that many caves along the border anyway (except, maybe, in the more mountainous regions of CA and NM), and most lay-ups are in areas of thick scrub or underneath little rock overhangs that are way too small to hit with a drone strike. I'm also not a fan of wantonly destroying the natural landscape like that, needlessly disrupting and/or killing the wildlife that relies on those caves and blowing up cash that should be used to put more feet along the border itself.

The reporter for the local news station in Arizona didn't take anything out of context at all, but let's take a look at what MSNBC is reporting and see if there is any bias.  I would encourage people to go to the link, read the story and watch the video.

 

If you follow the link to the original local broadcast and listen to what he says, he is clearly talking about eliminating some of the caves that aid in drug smuggling not specifically illegal immigration.  He says that it would be easy to eliminate those caves, but that he would leave those kinds of operations to people that are experts at what they do (the military).

 

Now take a look at the text of the MSNBC article.

Quote:Carson’s comments, first reported by the CBS5 News in Arizona, are just the latest in a series of far-flung options floated by Republican candidates, many of whom in recent weeks have discussed means to decrease the undocumented immigrant population currently in the U.S. and keep others from coming. Proposals have ranged from politically impossible to outrageously expensive, veering the immigration debate far to the right in ways that could seriously imperil the Republican Party when it comes time for the general election.

 

It's decided in this article that republican candidates' proposals with regard to dealing with illeagal immigration are "far-flung", and that he talked about a "means to decrease the undocumented immigrant population currently in the U.S. and keep others from coming".  That's not what he said or talked about at all.

 

Then "reporting" that republican's proposals are "politically impossible to outrageously expensive" is not fact, it's opinion.

 

Some more from the MSNBC article.

Quote:Meanwhile in the last few days, more than half of the GOP field has said they are open to ending birthright citizenship, a political feat that would require changing the United States Constitution.

 

As far as I know, this is outright false.  If someone can provide some kind of evidence of "more than half of the GOP field" calling for that, then I'm certainly open to seeing the evidence.

 

Here is some more from the MSNBC article.

Quote:But the option Carson is leaving on the table — military strikes against likely unarmed and unidentified targets — is clearly profound.

 

False.  He never said anything about military strikes against anyone.

 

 

I could go on, but I would rather challenge others to look at the stories themselves and draw their own conclusions.

Quote:As far as I know, this is outright false.  If someone can provide some kind of evidence of "more than half of the GOP field" calling for that, then I'm certainly open to seeing the evidence.

There are 17 candidates in the GOP field. According to this article, they identify seven candidates as being on the record against birthright citizenship. Yes, I know, it's MSNBC, but who better to hold them against than their own reporting? Seven of seventeen is not 51%. If you look at Marco Rubio's quote, who MSNBC lists as against ending birthright citizenship, he seems to be taking the position that others in this forum have--legislate around the 14th Amendment to end birthright citizenship. I'll go ahead and give MSNBC the benefit of the doubt and throw him into the "end birthright citizenship" crowd.

 

That means that as of three days ago, MSNBC had identified Trump, Paul, Santorum, Graham, Christie, Jindal and Walker as against birthright citizenship, and I've thrown Rubio in there to give them the benefit of the doubt. That's still only eight of seventeen, or 47%. If one more candidate has since come out against birthright citizenship, their claim is correct, and three days is a long time in politics, but as recently as August 18th, one of the "facts" they cited in an article dated August 19th was incorrect by their own measure.

Quote:The reporter for the<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.kpho.com/story/29834471/gop-hopeful-ben-carson-tours-border-talks-drone-strikes?autostart=true'> local news station in Arizona</a> didn't take anything out of context at all, but let's take a look at what MSNBC is reporting and see if there is any bias. I would encourage people to go to the link, read the story and watch the video.


If you follow the link to the original local broadcast and listen to what he says, he is clearly talking about eliminating some of the caves that aid in drug smuggling not specifically illegal immigration. He says that it would be easy to eliminate those caves, but that he would leave those kinds of operations to people that are experts at what they do (the military).


Now take a look at the text of the MSNBC article.


It's decided in this article that republican candidates' proposals with regard to dealing with illeagal immigration are "far-flung", and that he talked about a "means to decrease the undocumented immigrant population currently in the U.S. and keep others from coming". That's not what he said or talked about at all.


Then "reporting" that republican's proposals are "politically impossible to outrageously expensive" is not fact, it's opinion.


Some more from the MSNBC article.


As far as I know, this is outright false. If someone can provide some kind of evidence of "more than half of the GOP field" calling for that, then I'm certainly open to seeing the evidence.


Here is some more from the MSNBC article.


False. He never said anything about military strikes against anyone.



I could go on, but I would rather challenge others to look at the stories themselves and draw their own conclusions.

In other words. Drone strikes inside US soil. Like I said.


Yes yes bias. Blah blah. Nearly every link posted here including all the click baity drifter nonsense contains bias because that's how media is now. You pulled the both parties do it card in another thread recently. Does that mean you will be doing this for all links mads or just the liberal biased ones?

Also, I should mention that during the years I spent in Phoenix (albeit I left in 2007), CBS5 was, ironically enough, the most right-leaning station in the market. The NBC station also leaned right, the FOX station stayed fairly unbiased (imagine that), and the ABC station was unabashedly left-leaning in its political reporting.

I should probably put this in the Iran thread, but since the bias thing came up here, I also want to point out the flat out misrepresentation the Iran deal has gotten.


Back to this topic, I don't like the idea of us bombing to begin with, dropping bombs on our own land just seems very unreasonable...


There will always be collateral damage when air strikes are conducted. I don't think the risk is worth it. I wonder how much of what Carson is saying is an attempt to get some of the trump voters to pay attention to him...

Quote:I wonder how much of what Carson is saying is an attempt to get some of the trump voters to pay attention to him...

Wouldn't surprise me. He's in as good a position as anyone to be the dark horse that emerges as a front-runner by the time of the convention, so if he can steal voters away from Trump now, he's only helping himself later.

 

Of course, his political naivety could be in play, too. Fair or not, he's going to have to face the stigma of having zero political experience every time he says something questionable or outside the norm.