Carson wants to talk about discrimination against Christians, not gay people

[GMDino]

(06-14-2015, 09:56 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I feel like he is doing a great job in office. His pet causes (drone use, spying, justice system reform) are pretty important.

Not sure what you're referring to in that last part.

The board problem was they changed the rules to make it only a ten year certification then you had to retake the test.  Except they grandfathered in everyone before the rule change in 1992.  

Dr. Paul didn't think that was "fair" so he started his own board.

He also doesn't think any minority needs any special rights...everyone is equal.  But he wanted rights someone else had and made a big stink about it.  I find that funny.

[GMDino]

(06-14-2015, 09:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This will most likely be lost on you, but here goes:

Paul passed the ABO certification on his first attempt. So any thing that suggests he could not or would not is incorrect. That is not focusing on one word; that is stating fact.

He also didn't want special rights for himself; as he had already been certified and that certification was good for 10 years. He merely suggested ALL optometrists should be subject to periodic certification. i am not sure how this equates to special rules for himself.

Sorry in advance if I just focused on one word.

He didn't like that someone else had rights different than him so he started his own board.

Sorry if that's the truth TommC/Larry/bfine.

I'll look for some video proof for you...

[BmorePat87]

(06-14-2015, 09:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: The board problem was they changed the rules to make it only a ten year certification then you had to retake the test.  Except they grandfathered in everyone before the rule change in 1992.  

Dr. Paul didn't think that was "fair" so he started his own board.

He also doesn't think any minority needs any special rights...everyone is equal.  But he wanted rights someone else had and made a big stink about it.  I find that funny.

I read that he wanted everyone to get recertified every 10 years instead of being allowed to just keep their certification without restesting, which makes sense.

Also, he has said that he disagrees philosophically with the government forcing people to not be racist as he thinks the market will solve that, but he is happy with the end result of these laws. While I disagree with him on the power of the market and its perfection, I obviously can see that he understands that this kind of racism is wrong.

[*bfine32*]

(06-14-2015, 10:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: He didn't like that someone else had rights different than him so he started his own board.

Sorry if that's the truth TommC/Larry/bfine.

I'll look for some video proof for you...

No need to be sorry because it is not the truth, He did not want what someone else had.

He was already "in"; certified for the next 10 years; his merely suggested all should be periodically re-certified, Nowhere did he ever suggest that he should not.

Like I said: It would be lost on you.

FWIW: I am not even a Paul fan.  

[*bfine32*]

(06-14-2015, 10:04 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I read that he wanted everyone to get recertified every 10 years instead of being allowed to just keep their certification without restesting, which makes sense.

Also, he has said that he disagrees philosophically with the government forcing people to not be racist as he thinks the market will solve that, but he is happy with the end result of these laws. While I disagree with him on the power of the market and its perfection, I obviously can see that he understands that this kind of racism is wrong.

Mark this down as once in a lifetime. 



We agree. 

[GMDino]

(06-14-2015, 10:04 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I read that he wanted everyone to get recertified every 10 years instead of being allowed to just keep their certification without restesting, which makes sense.

Also, he has said that he disagrees philosophically with the government forcing people to not be racist as he thinks the market will solve that, but he is happy with the end result of these laws. While I disagree with him on the power of the market and its perfection, I obviously can see that he understands that this kind of racism is wrong.

He wanted everyone to get re-certified because he had to.  The lifetime rule seemed just fine and dandy before that apparently.

Either way he swung his vote to the Civil Rights Act once he was called out on it.  That's good political speak.  But if doesn't like the rules he just takes his ball and goes off...that should make for a fine term as President.

And FWIW I don't think he's even worth this much time discussing.  He has little to no chance of getting a nomination let alone getting elected.

[GMDino]

(06-14-2015, 10:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No need to be sorry because it is not the truth, He did not want what someone else had.

He was already "in"; certified for the next 10 years; his merely suggested all should be periodically re-certified, Nowhere did he ever suggest that he should not.

Like I said: It would be lost on you.

FWIW: I am not even a Paul fan.  

Yes, forming his own board and leaving the other does not be "wouldn't" to you.

Of course.

And for not being a fan you are certainly upset over one word .

But then you are a troll and arguing is what you do.

Carry on...

[*bfine32*]

(06-14-2015, 10:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yes, forming his own board and leaving the other does not be "wouldn't" to you.

Of course.

And for not being a fan you are certainly upset over one word .

But then you are a troll and arguing is what you do.

Carry on...

Guy, you said he couldn't get certified. That is not "one word". that is being absolutely wrong. Nobody is upset at your assertion that it is just one word; in fact it is quite comical. "My argument that Paul couldn't get certified is rock solid except for the word couldn't. Why do folks concentrate on that one word? They should focus on the overall message of the assertion that he couldn't get certified".  

[magikod]

What a joke...

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-14-2015, 09:30 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Wasn't Paul's board harder to get certified with, as in his group expected doctors to be even more qualified in order to practice medicine? Sounds solid.

I don't believe his organization was officially recognized by anyone.  If it was recognized, it was only a handful.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-14-2015, 12:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There's a segment of the Christian population that have confused not getting your way in every possible fashion with being discriminated against.  There's also a lot of historical precedent for groups in the majority to feign persecution in order to justify their attempts to persecute or curtail the rights of others.  As for not wanting this guy to operate on you, gmdino hits the nail.  If someone's publicly stated positions are so far beyond the boundaries of logic and common sense, to you, it makes you question their competency in just about everything else.  That being said religion does tend to make intelligent people say and do dumb things.

I agree somewhat with you here. Some try to hard to put their beliefs on others. Which I don't agree with ....

[GMDino]

(06-14-2015, 11:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Guy, you said he couldn't get certified. That is not "one word". that is being absolutely wrong. Nobody is upset at your assertion that it is just one word; in fact it is quite comical. "My argument that Paul couldn't get certified is rock solid except for the word couldn't. Why do folks concentrate on that one word? They should focus on the overall message of the assertion that he couldn't get certified".  

And I corrected that as I had not read he passed the real board's test.

The rest, concerning his creating a board that was neither certified but recognized by anyone but him, is exactly correct.

He left the board that is legitimate because he was upset he couldn't get rules changed that he had to follow.  And he claimed to be "board certified" by a board he made up and passing a test he wrote.

Points that you will not refute but keep bringing up something I already corrected and admitted to.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-15-2015, 09:41 AM)GMDino Wrote: And I corrected that as I had not read he passed the real board's test.

The rest, concerning his creating a board that was neither certified but recognized by anyone but him, is exactly correct.

He left the board that is legitimate because he was upset he couldn't get rules changed that he had to follow.  And he claimed to be "board certified" by a board he made up and passing a test he wrote.

Points that you will not refute but keep bringing up something I already corrected and admitted to.

A test to be certified is irrelevant the point of a certification is the continuing education. You are confusing a licensure with a board certification.

Board certs are private and nothing more than basically a club of professionals within one profession that wish to seperate themselves from competitors by having additional standards above the standard licensure requirements.

Writing the test doesn't matter.... He didn't fake continuing education or professional development.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

So what's with doctors wanting to go into politics these days?  I know it's not exactly new.  However I'm surprised they seemed so concerned about social issues such as SSM or the LGBT community in general.  I'd be more curious to know what they'd like to do about our health care system.  Is it possible to have quality coverage for everybody, or is health coverage still only going to be for the well to do?  Btw as liberal on social issues as I may be, I've never been a fan of the AFA (Obama care).

[*bfine32*]

(06-15-2015, 09:41 AM)GMDino Wrote: And I corrected that as I had not read he passed the real board's test.

The rest, concerning his creating a board that was neither certified but recognized by anyone but him, is exactly correct.

He left the board that is legitimate because he was upset he couldn't get rules changed that he had to follow.  And he claimed to be "board certified" by a board he made up and passing a test he wrote.

Points that you will not refute but keep bringing up something I already corrected and admitted to.

First you stated his motivation for creating the Board was because he couldn't pass the ABO
 
 
When shown that was wrong, you then changed his motivation “because he had to follow rules." He had already followed the rules. His concern was that older doctors never had to recertify.
 
 
I don't know about you, but it seems like a pretty good idea to me that someone messing with folk’s eyes are required to periodically prove they are still capable. Seems the ABO came around as well. I read on their Website that all certifications are only good for 3 years and must be renewed before they expire.
 
 
So everything in your original post and following posts is incorrect (has been refuted); except the fact that he created a board. One that was more stringent.

The fact that you think you did/are making "solid points" and folks are just focusing on "one word" is telling.
 

[GMDino]

(06-14-2015, 07:28 PM)GMDino Wrote: From what I have read Carson is an excellent doctor.  He just has some bad/crazy ideas about life in general that would make him an awful President.

Paul couldn't get board certified...so he created his own board and certified himself.  

(06-14-2015, 07:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually it wasn't the fact that Paul couldn't get certified (He actually passed the Board on his 1st attempt). He just disagreed with the Board giving older doctors a lifetime exemption and not requiring them to re-certify. 

(06-14-2015, 08:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: Sorry.  Not "couldn't"...although I never read where he passed the board...but "wouldn't" because he wanted special rights.

Again, odd.

Edit: I must admit TommC/Larry/bfine you are good at picking out one wrong word and making it appear the entire argument is wrong.

If there was an award for wanting each response worded perfectly so you could understand it I'd give it to you.

(06-14-2015, 08:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So disputing the claim that Rand Paul couldn't get certified is "picking out one wrong word" but not showing that the entire argument is wrong?

Kinda strict guidelines you have there. You could have just said 'Please don't refute anything I say".

(06-14-2015, 08:49 PM)GMDino Wrote: No, no...disputing "couldn't" (which I was wrong about) and "wouldn't" (which shows he did indeed form a board to certify himself).

You got one word right.

Congrats!

(06-15-2015, 01:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: First you stated his motivation for creating the Board was because he couldn't pass the ABO
 
 
When shown that was wrong, you then changed his motivation “because he had to follow rules." He had already followed the rules. His concern was that older doctors never had to recertify.
 
 
I don't know about you, but it seems like a pretty good idea to me that someone messing with folk’s eyes are required to periodically prove they are still capable. Seems the ABO came around as well. I read on their Website that all certifications are only good for 3 years and must be renewed before they expire.
 
 
So everything in your original post and following posts is incorrect (has been refuted); except the fact that he created a board. One that was more stringent.

The fact that you think you did/are making "solid points" and folks are just focusing on "one word" is telling.
 

He took his ball and went off to create another board that required testing...and he passed the test...which he wrote.  

Wouldn't belong to the official board because he wanted testing and they offered testing...just not to everyone.  

Wouldn't.

[*bfine32*]

(06-15-2015, 01:55 PM)GMDino Wrote: He took his ball and went off to create another board that required testing...and he passed the test...which he wrote.  

Wouldn't belong to the official board because he wanted testing and they offered testing...just not to everyone.  

Wouldn't.

I am not going to debate the definition of wouldn't (but no doubt I am the one focusing on one word). I'm just going to let you go on thinking you are making solid points in this discussion. Unfortunately for you, most members of this board can read.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-15-2015, 01:05 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: So what's with doctors wanting to go into politics these days?  I know it's not exactly new.  However I'm surprised they seemed so concerned about social issues such as SSM or the LGBT community in general.  I'd be more curious to know what they'd like to do about our health care system.  Is it possible to have quality coverage for everybody, or is health coverage still only going to be for the well to do?  Btw as liberal on social issues as I may be, I've never been a fan of the AFA (Obama care).

I agree ..:: but the media would rather give republicans nonsense gotcha questions like these.... Honestly gay "rights" is nothing but a myth. We have way bigger fish to fry. Sorting out gay rights nonsense is like painting your shutters instead of patching the hole in your roof.

And before all the crusaders come out .... Not saying they don't have real concerns .... But it's not warranted for time when so much affects the majority of the nation instead of the small group.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(06-15-2015, 02:07 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I agree ..:: but the media would rather give republicans nonsense gotcha questions like these.... Honestly gay "rights" is nothing but a myth.   We have way bigger fish to fry.   Sorting out gay rights nonsense is like painting your shutters instead of patching the hole in your roof.

And before all the crusaders come out ....   Not saying they don't have real concerns .... But it's not warranted for time when so much affects the majority of the nation instead of the small group.

Well this isn't exactly what I meant.  I'm still all for any legislation that would provide equal rights, honestly I think it's easier to tackle that first,  SSM is going to happen regardless.  If I were a conservative, I'd just be done with it and move on to bigger issues.  And if I'm a doctor, that issue would be healthcare.

[GMDino]

(06-15-2015, 02:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I am not going to debate the definition of wouldn't (but no doubt I am the one focusing on one word). I'm just going to let you go on thinking you are making solid points in this discussion. Unfortunately for you, most members of this board can read.

Maybe you should ask them for some help in that department?