- Thread starter
- #101
Thanks, this is all you needed to say. Again, until I see something that is probative of your position it is all conjecture and supposition.
You're showing your bias. You edited my post to fit your bias.
You have to take what he said in it's total context or you're lying to yourself.
I took the salient part of you post which shows that your position is no more than conjecture and speculation based upon the target of the audit. That is called selectively quoting. To me this is about an issue and facts, nothing more. The issue stands, the facts to support your position are absent.
Using only one part of a sentence and intentionally removing the context is dishonest.
You removed the real meaning by editing my statement. The purpose of the story was to show that the IRS targeted Dr Carson and you searched for something, anything, to prove he's wrong. His admission that "It could have been coincidence" is just Dr Carson trying to be fair and non-biased, and only shows his inherent objectivity. You require absolute proof and never want to put 2 and 2 together. In police work this is called probable cause. You also overlooked this statement in the article:
Asked whether he thought the audit was a retaliation for his speech, Dr. Carson quipped: “I guess I’m surprised it took them that long.”
Fact is, there will never be any real proof that Obama is doing what he's doing because it's not really him doing it, but the people that he hired to do it. He really only gives the orders or expects people to carry out his wishes, but he is or should be responsible for the actions of his administration. In this case the evidence shows it is highly likely that Dr Carson was targeted for speaking out. It wouldn't be the first time this has happened to a critic. Taken into account the spying by the NSA, Eric Holder illegally wire-tapping journalists, and the IRS doing pretty much the same exact thing to others, it doesn't take much to put 2 and 2 together,.......unless you're choosing not to do so.
Last edited: