View Full Version : The 2016 Race Officially Has Its First Contender: Ben Carson
The 2016 Race Officially Has Its First Contender: Ben Carson
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/07/ben-carson-2016_n_6120878.html
"Dr. Ben Carson has long fanned speculation that he may pursue the Republican nomination for president in 2016. That speculation will turn to reality this weekend, as ABC News has confirmed the conservative plans to air a 40-minute ad announcing his bid."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/meet-ben-carson-republican-throw-hat-2016-ring/story?id=26735300
Heard on the radio he has changed his affiliation from "I' to "R". He's also modified his anti-2A stance to say "assault rifles" are OK in rural areas but not in urban areas.
..............not in urban areas.
That's gonna be a problem for him.
BoringGuy45
11-07-14, 12:18
Heard on the radio he has changed his affiliation from "I' to "R". He's also modified his anti-2A stance to say "assault rifles" are OK in rural areas but not in urban areas.
He won't get my vote then.
brickboy240
11-07-14, 12:23
Yeah...that anti gun stance is a deal killer.
Lets look for a better candidate and stop this "look...we too can elect a black guy...see...we are not racist" nonsense.
...next
thopkins22
11-07-14, 12:32
The fact that he's a dick killed him for me long before I learned of his 2A position. While he was a gifted surgeon, if you ever meet him you'll be left with the impression that he believes himself to be God's gift to medicine and perhaps all of humanity.
And no black rifles for 81% of America(probably half or more of the members here?) Go **** yourself repeatedly Ben.
Voodoo_Man
11-07-14, 12:38
If it comes down to him or hillary, ill vote for him.
If you dont vote you dont count, a good turn out is the only way to move us forward.
It is still early and we dont know exactly what his stances are.
Yeah...that anti gun stance is a deal killer.
Lets look for a better candidate and stop this "look...we too can elect a black guy...see...we are not racist" nonsense.
...next
Unless it's Alan West! ;)
Heard on the radio he has changed his affiliation from "I' to "R". He's also modified his anti-2A stance to say "assault rifles" are OK in rural areas but not in urban areas.
BUZZZZZT! Wrong answer, Ben...Thanks for playing, maybe next time... I guess the next big question for him would be for him to explain what exactly constitutes a "Rural area" and who exactly, would decide that...
If it comes down to him or hillary, ill vote for him.
If you dont vote you dont count, a good turn out is the only way to move us forward.
It is still early and we dont know exactly what his stances are.
Exactly how far would you take that sentiment? Chris Christie? Jeb Bush? Mitt Romney (again)?
Exactly how far would you take that sentiment? Chris Christie? Jeb Bush? Mitt Romney (again)?
I would take them all over Hillary.
Voodoo_Man
11-07-14, 15:10
Exactly how far would you take that sentiment? Chris Christie? Jeb Bush? Mitt Romney (again)?
Not voting when someone like hillary or Obama is/was running is not an option. If you dont vote everyone loses.
The "I dont vote because everyone sucks" thing is extremely short sighted. We should vote regardless of one issue, because not voting is the same as letting those like obama and hillary win by default.
Eurodriver
11-07-14, 15:16
because not voting is the same as letting those like obama and hillary win by default.
Did you ever stop and consider that some people might prefer a Hillary and Obama to a RINO? It's much easier for a pro-gun Congress to draw a line in the sand and say "No." to Obama passing legislation than it would have been to say that to Romney.
Newsflash: Republicans are not entitled to Libertarian votes because they are "the lesser of two evils".
Newsflash #2: If you nominate another Romney, expect another Obama.
Exactly how far would you take that sentiment? Chris Christie? Jeb Bush? Mitt Romney (again)?
...
D. Mitt Romney
E. Someone other than the above.
My worst fear is that the Republican Congress will do little other than pay retribution to those Democrats that were in charge for the past few years, pass little legislation that actually does something other than increase the size of government, tax burden and their power, try to "save face" and compromise with O and the opposition due to being raped in the Main Stream Liberal Media. The electorate has a very short memory and I'm afraid that Hillary will be seen as the best of show in 2016 by the great unwashed masses. Hopefully if elected, she'll come out of the closet, declare herself openly gay and we can cross off that "first" also.
Not voting when someone like hillary or Obama is/was running is not an option. If you dont vote everyone loses.
The "I dont vote because everyone sucks" thing is extremely short sighted. We should vote regardless of one issue, because not voting is the same as letting those like obama and hillary win by default.
I have drawn a line after 2012. I will NEVER vote for Christie or any other uber-RINO again. Give me someone at least palatable (i.e. not one of the three I mentioned). I am not alone in that sentiment, and it should serve as a warning to Republican primary voters to grow a pair in the primary booth and pull the lever for a conservative and TOTALLY discard that spineless, loser notion of "electability". That is what happened in 2008 and again in 2012. Don't do it again or you WILL have Hillary taking the oath in January of 2017.
Just a warning shot over the bow. There are enough of us out here that refuse to do it again that it should be foremost on your minds come primary time. If Hillary wins because a RINO was nominated then it will rest squarely on the shoulders of Republican primary voters and no one else! Trying to pass the blame won't cut it.
Did you ever stop and consider that some people might prefer a Hillary and Obama to a RINO? It's much easier for a pro-gun Congress to draw a line in the sand and say "No." to Obama passing legislation than it would have been to say that to Romney.
Newsflash: Republicans are not entitled to Libertarian votes because they are "the lesser of two evils".
Newsflash #2: If you nominate another Romney or Christie, expect another Obama.
FIFY and well said!
I have drawn a line after 2012. I will NEVER vote for Christie or any other uber-RINO again. Give me someone at least palatable (i.e. not one of the three I mentioned). I am not alone in that sentiment, and it should serve as a warning to Republican primary voters to grow a pair in the primary booth and pull the lever for a conservative and TOTALLY discard that spineless, loser notion of "electability". That is what happened in 2008 and again in 2012. Don't do it again or you WILL have Hillary taking the oath in January of 2017.
Just a warning shot over the bow. There are enough of us out here that refuse to do it again that it should be foremost on your minds come primary time. If Hillary wins because a RINO was nominated then it will rest squarely on the shoulders of Republican primary voters and no one else! Trying to pass the blame won't cut it.
I hope you understand this goes both ways. Unless you put up a candidate that moderate R's can vote for, your candidate will lose and it will be your fault.
....if you ever meet him you'll be left with the impression that he believes himself to be God's gift to medicine and perhaps all of humanity.
I don't know about the rest of everything said on here, and I am disappointed in his 2A stance... but this statement above is way off-base. Met the man three different times, once before he became national news... and I have to say that this statement is incorrect. Did you actually ever meet the guy or are you getting this from your cousin's friend's housecleaner's pool boy that did a sloppy job of cleaning Carson's pool? Would love to hear your evidence.
I meet and assess people for a living and I received no such vibe as you describe in any of the three times. I didn't get even a hint of this arrogance in Carson... . yet you are absolutely sure of your assassination of his character.
Love to hear more.
Not so fast, read this, got it from ABC news website:
CORRECTION: Due to an editing error, an earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that Ben Carson made an opening bid for the Republican presidential nomination. Carson has not made a formal announcement for president, but has said he is “starting to think about it.” ABC News regrets the error.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/meet-ben-carson-republican-throw-hat-2016-ring/story?id=26735300
Not so fast, read this, got it from ABC news website: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/meet-ben-carson-republican-throw-hat-2016-ring/story?id=26735300
Way to go ABC! This makes more since as I thought it odd he would announce on ABC rather than FOX, which has given him way more air time.
He can think about all it he wants to. Really doubt he has the backing to see it through the first few primaries and most likely will figure that out pretty quickly.
Voodoo_Man
11-07-14, 16:11
Just so we are on the same page here, you guys are advocating either voting for hillary (another obama, possibly worse) over any republican candidate that does not fit your specific requirements?
I got the news flashes, here is one for you guys - you will never have another Reagan. You will not find a candidate that stands exactly where you do on every single category and subject that will get a national nomination to run for president.
There is a reason the right is so messed up, and it is not about RINO's or teaparty types, it is because we are hard headed and do not back the people that we should based on one or two very small specifics.
Do not take what I am saying out of context, which will undoubtedly occur since this is a very heated subject.
I am on the side that tells people to get out and vote. If you sit home and do not vote because the candidate which was presented does not meet your personal requirements you are allowing the left to win, because they will bring BUS loads of people out to vote and they don't care about the issues like you do.
I take the right to vote very seriously and as a personal responsibility, not voting is throwing away that right and seeing people hint to that makes me believe they do not care about their rights as much as they say they do.
Just so we are on the same page here, you guys are advocating either voting for hillary (another obama, possibly worse) over any republican candidate that does not fit your specific requirements?
I got the news flashes, here is one for you guys - you will never have another Reagan. You will not find a candidate that stands exactly where you do on every single category and subject that will get a national nomination to run for president.
There is a reason the right is so messed up, and it is not about RINO's or teaparty types, it is because we are hard headed and do not back the people that we should based on one or two very small specifics.
Do not take what I am saying out of context, which will undoubtedly occur since this is a very heated subject.
I am on the side that tells people to get out and vote. If you sit home and do not vote because the candidate which was presented does not meet your personal requirements you are allowing the left to win, because they will bring BUS loads of people out to vote and they don't care about the issues like you do.
I take the right to vote very seriously and as a personal responsibility, not voting is throwing away that right and seeing people hint to that makes me believe they do not care about their rights as much as they say they do.
I think most on here are tired of holding their noses and would like to have someone at least closer to their own view point other than what has been offered up the past few election cycles. We (at least I know) there is no "perfect" candidate, heck I even had problems with some of what Reagan did, but he was leagues away from the current crop. I'd rather have a choice of Reagan "lite" v. RINO Socialist Lite.
I am on the side that tells people to get out and vote. If you sit home and do not vote because the candidate which was presented does not meet your personal requirements you are allowing the left to win, because they will bring BUS loads of people out to vote and they don't care about the issues like you do.
Agree with this 100%!
Lets look for a better candidate and stop this "look...we too can elect a black guy...see...we are not racist" nonsense.
Democracy is a popularity contest, not a job offering to the most qualified candidate.
platoonDaddy
11-07-14, 18:01
Heard on the radio he has changed his affiliation from "I' to "R". He's also modified his anti-2A stance to say "assault rifles" are OK in rural areas but not in urban areas.
For sure he is learning fast! No way, I would vote for him in the primaries!
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Ben_Carson_Gun_Control.htm
I hope you understand this goes both ways. Unless you put up a candidate that moderate R's can vote for, your candidate will lose and it will be your fault.
I don't give a shit what moderate R's can vote for. They've had it their way the last two POTUS elections and it didn't work, even with the rest of us holding our noses. Now it's the conservative's turn and the moderates can hold their noses for a change..
Just so we are on the same page here, you guys are advocating either voting for Hillary (another obama, possibly worse) over any republican candidate that does not fit your specific requirements?
I got the news flashes, here is one for you guys - you will never have another Reagan. You will not find a candidate that stands exactly where you do on every single category and subject that will get a national nomination to run for president.
There is a reason the right is so messed up, and it is not about RINO's or teaparty types, it is because we are hard headed and do not back the people that we should based on one or two very small specifics.
Do not take what I am saying out of context, which will undoubtedly occur since this is a very heated subject.
I am on the side that tells people to get out and vote. If you sit home and do not vote because the candidate which was presented does not meet your personal requirements you are allowing the left to win, because they will bring BUS loads of people out to vote and they don't care about the issues like you do.
I take the right to vote very seriously and as a personal responsibility, not voting is throwing away that right and seeing people hint to that makes me believe they do not care about their rights as much as they say they do.
First bold: I will NEVER hit a "D" lever in my life (unless a Zell Miller or such ran). I just will skip the POTUS lever and go on down to the Congressional and state races.
Second bold: Just exactly who should we vote for? Wimpy, spineless "moderates" gonna dictate that again? I don't think so.
Third bold: I have a problem with how the candidate is "presented" in our fvcked up primary system where we allow the same wishy-washy states to begin the culling process every time (I say ALL primaries in one night). I also have a fundamental problem with primary voters going into the booth thinking about "electability" (I cannot express how much I hate that term).
Just to clarify something......I'm conservative but not a fan of the "Religious Right" morality pushers. While I think abortion is abhorrent it isn't my make-or-break issue. Neither is gay marriage (although I think each state should decide; want it enforced nationally? Then I get national CCW reciprocity). Being tough on foreign enemies, truly pro-gun without backtracking from previous stances to get elected, fiscally conservative, anti-illegal immigration, those are the issues I stand for and want 100% of in a candidate. Not too much to ask.
Since we couldn't get a moderate Republican elected the last two times around, nor against Clinton, maybe it's time to throw down a hard nosed pro-gun, pro-god, pro-close the border, and fiscal conservative into the nomination and see what happens. I bet the GOP would be surprised and he/she would get elected.
Eurodriver
11-08-14, 07:08
I don't give a shit what moderate R's can vote for. They've had it their way the last two POTUS elections and it didn't work, even with the rest of us holding our noses. Now it's the conservative's turn and the moderates can hold their noses for a change..
Yep.
Personally? I would prefer we push this whole bus off the cliff earlier rather than later. Let's look at the reality of my situation:
I have over half a decade to live. We already owe 17,000,000,000,000 dollars+, I will never see a dime of SS but they take 12.4% of my pay. Probably won't see Medicare either, and they're taking a cut too. Everyone deserves something from somebody else. I have no pension plan, no retirement plan, and while a bit far fetched today, it's not entirely impossible that my 401k will not ever be seized to "redistribute" to those who decided to rent rims instead of save money.
To be honest, I'd rather vote for Hillary than Christie or any other bullshit "mainstream", "Electable", "diverse" candidate the GOP decides to put as their front runner. Why? Because, as I said, it's easier to fight the devil you know than the devil you don't. Also, we just might have an economic collapse and I won't be affected by it nearly as bad as you old folks with skin in the game.
I have over half a decade to live...
???
Hopefully, we all do. You know something we don't?
Singlestack Wonder
11-08-14, 07:49
Sad state of affairs in the U.S.A when we are trying to vote in candidates who if successful, will only serve to stop the other party from passing their will onto the country. Neither party of which has the best interest of our country in their heart.
Sad state of affairs in the U.S.A when we are trying to vote in candidates who if successful, will only serve to stop the other party from passing their will onto the country. Neither party of which has the best interest of our country in their heart.
I am a voter, and I approve of this message.
I don't give a shit what moderate R's can vote for.
Which is why your candidate will never win, and why the moderate candidate won't win either. The fractured right is condeming us to a lifetime of left presidents.
Its no longer about voting FOR someone as much as it is voting AGAINST someone.
Eurodriver
11-08-14, 09:54
Which is why your candidate will never win, and why the moderate candidate won't win either. The fractured right is condeming us to a lifetime of left presidents.
So why is the suggestion always that the very far right must yield it's wishes to the moderates?
Why must I always have to vote for their guy? Why can't they vote for my guy? It certainly isn't because their candidates are more electable. Romney and McCain didn't lose because of guys like me.
So why is the suggestion always that the very far right must yield it's wishes to the moderates?
Why must I always have to vote for their guy? Why can't they vote for my guy? It certainly isn't because their candidates are more electable. Romney and McCain didn't lose because of guys like me.
Spot on. Not only within our own party is that question posed, but nationally. Why can the Democrats nominate and run (winning TWICE no less) a far-left libtard like Obama but we have to put up a milquetoast RINO? If they can forward a leftist then we should be able to nominate a right-leaning conservative!
So why is the suggestion always that the very far right must yield it's wishes to the moderates?
Simple math, until it changes otherwise, there are way more moderates, and both groups together are needed to beat the dims.
Why can the Democrats nominate and run (winning TWICE no less) a far-left libtard like Obama...................
He didn't run as far left, and the dims vote as a block once the primary is over. He may seem far left to you and me, but he is only moderate within his party.
Heard on the radio he has changed his affiliation from "I' to "R". He's also modified his anti-2A stance to say "assault rifles" are OK in rural areas but not in urban areas.
Modified, *until * there is a major rural incident with someone using a semiautomatic rifle, then its flip flop time for him and for the lines " for the good of all " and " lets do it for our kids" to be used again. It is either or for me. Not what he or any other person or candidate thinks is the way it should be, but what does the 2nd amendment say.
thopkins22
11-08-14, 15:21
I'm waiting on the pro-gun republican who doesn't brag about his religion and doesn't care what women do to their babies and isn't concerned with whom marries whom.
Want to see a landslide? Find that guy and don't tear him apart.
I know SO MANY women who would vote republican but for those two issues. I know SO MANY moderate democrats who would consider voting for a republican but for those two issues. Stop alienating the vast majority of the electorate for the benefit of a noisy few who can't seem to mind their own business.
montanadave
11-08-14, 15:45
I'm waiting on the pro-gun republican who doesn't brag about his religion and doesn't care what women do to their babies and isn't concerned with whom marries whom.
Want to see a landslide? Find that guy and don't tear him apart.
I know SO MANY women who would vote republican but for those two issues. I know SO MANY moderate democrats who would consider voting for a republican but for those two issues. Stop alienating the vast majority of the electorate for the benefit of a noisy few who can't seem to mind their own business.
I'm your huckleberry.
He didn't run as far left, and the dims vote as a block once the primary is over. He may seem far left to you and me, but he is only moderate within his party.
That's because the electorate-at-large is largely retarded. There are those of us conservatives who know what we want, those diehard libtards who know what they want, and the retarded middle who is either too damn fickle to think for themselves or "trendy", i.e "Ain't it so cool we elected the first black president?"
MountainRaven
11-08-14, 23:33
Not voting when someone like hillary or Obama is/was running is not an option. If you dont vote everyone loses.
The "I dont vote because everyone sucks" thing is extremely short sighted. We should vote regardless of one issue, because not voting is the same as letting those like obama and hillary win by default.
"If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for...but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong. If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires."
-Robert Heinlein
I'm waiting on the pro-gun republican who doesn't brag about his religion and doesn't care what women do to their babies and isn't concerned with whom marries whom.
Want to see a landslide? Find that guy and don't tear him apart.
I know SO MANY women who would vote republican but for those two issues. I know SO MANY moderate democrats who would consider voting for a republican but for those two issues. Stop alienating the vast majority of the electorate for the benefit of a noisy few who can't seem to mind their own business.
Hell, even I would consider voting for this hypothetical presidential candidate.
I'm your huckleberry.
Wait, does this mean you're announcing you are putting your name in on the bid for El Presidente de Estados Unidos?
You took the thought right from my brain.
I'm waiting on the pro-gun republican who doesn't brag about his religion and doesn't care what women do to their babies and isn't concerned with whom marries whom.
Want to see a landslide? Find that guy and don't tear him apart.
I know SO MANY women who would vote republican but for those two issues. I know SO MANY moderate democrats who would consider voting for a republican but for those two issues. Stop alienating the vast majority of the electorate for the benefit of a noisy few who can't seem to mind their own business.
The whole issue of abortion, according to the Supreme Court Justices in their opinions or Senate confirmation hearings, is settled law and Roe v. Wade is precedent. Rather that taking the bait and going through the whole divisive "pro-life/pro-choice" dialog, all someone has to do is just say "The Supreme Court says it is settled law, and unless that changes, I am going to respect the rulings of the court. If you're asking what my private views are, ask me at the dinner table, not in a public forum." And then keep their mouth shut. Pandering to either viewpoint never ends well for a Republican in a national race.
If Obama's election has taught us anything, it is that people will vote for a candidate they know nothing about if he/she is packaged right. Do the right packaging and coach the candidate on the discipline of what not to say, and you have a chance.
the whole wasted vote thing ?
well democrats are you know whats coming at leaf but rino folks well you are not sure cause they are a wolf in sheeps clothing
Belmont31R
11-09-14, 03:24
Just so we are on the same page here, you guys are advocating either voting for hillary (another obama, possibly worse) over any republican candidate that does not fit your specific requirements?
I got the news flashes, here is one for you guys - you will never have another Reagan. You will not find a candidate that stands exactly where you do on every single category and subject that will get a national nomination to run for president.
There is a reason the right is so messed up, and it is not about RINO's or teaparty types, it is because we are hard headed and do not back the people that we should based on one or two very small specifics.
Do not take what I am saying out of context, which will undoubtedly occur since this is a very heated subject.
I am on the side that tells people to get out and vote. If you sit home and do not vote because the candidate which was presented does not meet your personal requirements you are allowing the left to win, because they will bring BUS loads of people out to vote and they don't care about the issues like you do.
I take the right to vote very seriously and as a personal responsibility, not voting is throwing away that right and seeing people hint to that makes me believe they do not care about their rights as much as they say they do.
I didn't see anyone say they would vote for Hillary.
I hope you understand this goes both ways. Unless you put up a candidate that moderate R's can vote for, your candidate will lose and it will be your fault.
Goes both ways.
Which is why your candidate will never win, and why the moderate candidate won't win either. The fractured right is condeming us to a lifetime of left presidents.
The difference is moderate Dems can lean towards the center but will vote leftist everytime it counts. Moderate Republicans will lean towards the center but vote left everytime it counts. Just look at how many times a RINO senator has voted for cloture knowing doing so would cause the final vote to pass which is 51/49 rather than 60/40.
Simple math, until it changes otherwise, there are way more moderates, and both groups together are needed to beat the dims.
I don't really think so but we're stuck with this dumb 2 party system with politicians that match.
He didn't run as far left, and the dims vote as a block once the primary is over. He may seem far left to you and me, but he is only moderate within his party.
Of course he didn't run as far left. He's been lying since day 1. Of course the dems vote as a block. They aren't plagued with DINO group in charge of their caucus. And they are much more willing to go far left when the opportunity presents itself. The GOP isn't that smart. I've tried to get involved in local politics, and change things from within. Got enough 1st hand knowledge of how things work out here in Wilco, and reading other 1st hand accounts of people trying to do similar things (even in other states), and I can get the hint the GOP has no use for libertarians besides expecting a vote when they need one. I know people out here who have tried to become active in the Wilco GOP, and they went so far as to break their own by laws to keep voting dates a secret.
Then on a national level people associated with the Tea Party caucus and other unfortunates have been removed from leadership positions in Congress en masse, and they changed the rules of the National Convention so if they don't like the results of the delegate's votes the GOP can elect anyone they want to.
All of this has told me I'm not welcome in the Republican party unless I vote straight R and keep my mouth shut. Don't get involved locally unless you plan to support their good ole boy candidate. And if you try to stir things up they circle the wagons.
All of that is the exact opposite of the Democrats where I doubt most of them are in the far far left communist camp yet the communist camp seems to run the roost over there.
If you look at Obama's voting record, even before he ran, he has always been further left of Hillary. But maybe party means something different here. We can only go off his voting record, and he has been ranked as the most liberal senator at least once. The controllers of the purse strings within the GOP would rather lose an election than support a Tea Party candidate or heaven forbid a libertarian. In fact, in many recent elections, the GOP has spent more money trying to defeat the mentioned non-establishment right wing candidates that they did trying to defeat the running Democrat. Karl Rove and his band have been especially anti far right wing.
So...yes the right is fractured, and as a libertarian I think it's important to get our message out about what we are doing, and I just want to reiterate that many of us have tried to incorporate ourselves into the GOP and become involved. The lack of unification isn't coming from our end.
I'm waiting on the pro-gun republican who doesn't brag about his religion and doesn't care what women do to their babies and isn't concerned with whom marries whom.
Want to see a landslide? Find that guy and don't tear him apart.
I know SO MANY women who would vote republican but for those two issues. I know SO MANY moderate democrats who would consider voting for a republican but for those two issues. Stop alienating the vast majority of the electorate for the benefit of a noisy few who can't seem to mind their own business.
Neither Romney nor McCain ran on a platform of overturning R v. W. or banning gay marriage. They made it abundantly clear in debates that their personal opinions would not become the law of the land. In addition, gays turned out in droves for Obama in 2008 despite his position against gay marriage in that election. The bottom line is that single issue voters on abortion and gay marriage are generally useless idiots who will find an excuse to vote with liberals 90% of the time. All of that crap about wanting to vote Republican "only if" is pure bullshit; they are liberals at heart.
People who think that the GOP is trying to send women back into the dark alleys for abortions or punish men who drive Miatas are going to be disappointed when next year's GOP Congess doesn't bring forward a single bill dealing with abortion or gay marriage.
....if you ever meet him you'll be left with the impression that he believes himself to be God's gift to medicine and perhaps all of humanity.
I don't know about the rest of everything said on here, and I am disappointed in his 2A stance... but this statement above is way off-base. Met the man three different times, once before he became national news... and I have to say that this statement is incorrect. Did you actually ever meet the guy or are you getting this from your cousin's friend's housecleaner's pool boy that did a sloppy job of cleaning Carson's pool? Would love to hear your evidence.
I meet and assess people for a living and I received no such vibe as you describe in any of the three times. I didn't get even a hint of this arrogance in Carson... . yet you are absolutely sure of your assassination of his character.
Love to hear more.
I figured you were just posting to read your own typing. Bring facts, not unsubstantiated "I heard he was an ass, just sayin, I called it years ago" garbage.
Still disappointed in his 2a point of view. I still find him to be an upstanding member of society. Willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until something tangible is provided that shows otherwise.
Neither Romney nor McCain ran on a platform of overturning R v. W. or banning gay marriage. They made it abundantly clear in debates that their personal opinions would not become the law of the land. In addition, gays turned out in droves for Obama in 2008 despite his position against gay marriage in that election. The bottom line is that single issue voters on abortion and gay marriage are generally useless idiots who will find an excuse to vote with liberals 90% of the time. All of that crap about wanting to vote Republican "only if" is pure bullshit; they are liberals at heart.
People who think that the GOP is trying to send women back into the dark alleys for abortions or punish men who drive Miatas are going to be disappointed when next year's GOP Congess doesn't bring forward a single bill dealing with abortion or gay marriage.
Yep. It's not an issue problem, it's an image/advertising problem.
But people vote for candidates for a buncha reasons, and if someone votes for/against a Republican because of their values (anti-abortion, anti-gay, whatever), I have no problem with that.
thopkins22
11-10-14, 14:36
I figured you were just posting to read your own typing. Bring facts, not unsubstantiated "I heard he was an ass, just sayin, I called it years ago" garbage.
Still disappointed in his 2a point of view. I still find him to be an upstanding member of society. Willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until something tangible is provided that shows otherwise.
I'm so sorry to have missed your initial response. Met him while I was in high school to interview him and I left absolutely disgusted with his ego.
Met him years later at a cocktail party(after his e-fame) because my fiancé at the time was/is the chief of staff at the largest medical center in the world and I got to ride along.
It's wonderful that you didn't get that vibe, but I said what I said based on first hand experience of multiple interactions with the guy...and I'm not alone in that sentiment. And neither interaction was in a professional setting, I'm sure he's just wonderful to actually work with. :roll eyes:
So I suppose it's possible that he doesn't like polite high school kids(but why accept the interview?)
I also find his opposition to the profit motive in health care to be abhorrent and ignorant of basic economics. Of course ignoring facts could explain his position on the drug war as well. This guy is NOT from the political right despite his opposition to the ACA and abortion.
I really liked Ben until I found out what his 2A stance is. You don't need to worry about a Ben Carson Vs. Hillary matchup, Ben will never get past the primaries.
Ben Carson, you are a fool.
I'm so sorry to have missed your initial response. Met him while I was in high school to interview him and I left absolutely disgusted with his ego.
Met him years later at a cocktail party(after his e-fame) because my fiancé at the time was/is the chief of staff at the largest medical center in the world and I got to ride along.
It's wonderful that you didn't get that vibe, but I said what I said based on first hand experience of multiple interactions with the guy...and I'm not alone in that sentiment. And neither interaction was in a professional setting, I'm sure he's just wonderful to actually work with. :roll eyes:
So I suppose it's possible that he doesn't like polite high school kids(but why accept the interview?)
I also find his opposition to the profit motive in health care to be abhorrent and ignorant of basic economics. Of course ignoring facts could explain his position on the drug war as well. This guy is NOT from the political right despite his opposition to the ACA and abortion.
Excellent response. Glad to hear your info is from first-hand knowledge instead of the baseless innuendo. The next time I meet him I will keep a keen eye out for such tendencies. I will have my sensors on full alert this time instead of passive mode....
The Republicans are just trying to jump on the race wagon (ya i'll say it). Ben Carson is Fox News' (also known as Faux News) wet dream.
And I'd personally feel a little better about "my political party" if a person with some morals was chosen to represent the party....you know...someone who doesn't believe in murder. But hey, morals have no place in politicking these days.
thopkins22
11-10-14, 16:18
Excellent response. Glad to hear your info is from first-hand knowledge instead of the baseless innuendo. The next time I meet him I will keep a keen eye out for such tendencies. I will have my sensors on full alert this time instead of passive mode....
I'll concede that is entirely possible that I just caught him on bad days, and that my experience of his personality is an outlier. I'm certain there are people who met me on the occasional bad day who probably don't think I'm all that swell either. ;)
Voodoo_Man
11-10-14, 16:37
Ben Carson posted this on his facebook - https://www.facebook.com/realbencarson
I feel that the Second Amendment is vitally important. I would NEVER COMPROMISE the Second Amendment in any way. It was put there for very specific reasons: so that the people could act and support the military in case of an invasion, but more importantly, so the people could protect themselves from an overly aggressive government. We absolutely cannot compromise that. You have a right to bear arms.
There are areas of our society where there is an inordinate amount of gun violence, and sometimes very heavy weaponry is utilized. What we need to be able to do is sit down and have a discussion, such as the following: “Is there a way to ameliorate that situation? Is there a way to keep weapons out of the hands of people who are mentally ill without compromising any provision of the Second Amendment?” We need to be able to do that.
Yeah, he pretty much blew it.
I really liked Ben until I found out what his 2A stance is. You don't need to worry about a Ben Carson Vs. Hillary matchup, Ben will never get past the primaries.
Ben Carson, you are a fool.
This statement is as idiotic as the interview with Glen Beck.
Ben Carson posted this on his facebook - https://www.facebook.com/realbencarson
I feel that the Second Amendment is vitally important. I would NEVER COMPROMISE the Second Amendment in any way. It was put there for very specific reasons: so that the people could act and support the military in case of an invasion, but more importantly, so the people could protect themselves from an overly aggressive government. We absolutely cannot compromise that. You have a right to bear arms.
There are areas of our society where there is an inordinate amount of gun violence, and sometimes very heavy weaponry is utilized. What we need to be able to do is sit down and have a discussion, such as the following: “Is there a way to ameliorate that situation? Is there a way to keep weapons out of the hands of people who are mentally ill without compromising any provision of the Second Amendment?” We need to be able to do that.
Sounds like someone is calling him on his stance and he's already maneuvering like a seasoned politician. And what exactly may I ask, constitutes "heavy weaponry"? In other words, where does he draw the line firepower wise with regards to certain, un-named "areas of our society"? Who and by what criteria judges the "mentally ill"? Make the guidelines loose enough and we're all lumped into that category just because of our hobby/passion/participation. Just pointing out the possibility in the last sentence, not saying he or his appointed minions would necessarily subscribe to a Joe Stalin School of Mental Health and Competence definition of "mental illness" to limit our 2A rights. But as we've seen, a phone and pen can wreak a lot of havoc if left unchecked.
SeriousStudent
11-10-14, 23:14
"There are areas of our society where there is an inordinate amount of gun violence, and sometimes very heavy weaponry is utilized. What we need to be able to do is sit down and have a discussion, such as the following: “Is there a way to ameliorate that situation? Is there a way to keep weapons out of the hands of people who are mentally ill without compromising any provision of the Second Amendment?” We need to be able to do that. "
Every time they say "they want to have a discussion"; somebody tries to take my shit, and I get nothing in return.
From one of my heroes, a Texas lawman affectionately named "Lawdog": http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html
Keep your hands off my cake, Ben.
Belmont31R
11-10-14, 23:23
"There are areas of our society where there is an inordinate amount of gun violence, and sometimes very heavy weaponry is utilized. What we need to be able to do is sit down and have a discussion, such as the following: “Is there a way to ameliorate that situation? Is there a way to keep weapons out of the hands of people who are mentally ill without compromising any provision of the Second Amendment?” We need to be able to do that. "
Every time they say "they want to have a discussion"; somebody tries to take my shit, and I get nothing in return.
From one of my heroes, a Texas lawman affectionately named "Lawdog": http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html
Keep your hands off my cake, Ben.
A discussion mean's they're weaseling their way into something where they don't belong. Just having a discussion seems innocent enough like they're on a level playing field right from the start when in reality they're pushing for ideology outside of the discussion.
Liberals are masters about framing a discussion before the discussion has even started. And then controlling the narrative once any opposing viewpoints have come forward.
It takes someone with discerning BS filters to see through it. Which is the unfortunate thing about it, and why they're so successful. By the time people realize they're full of shit the damage is done, and we got towards the next hot topic which is then controlled by the narrative they have already pre-established.
MountainRaven
11-11-14, 00:56
A discussion mean's they're weaseling their way into something where they don't belong. Just having a discussion seems innocent enough like they're on a level playing field right from the start when in reality they're pushing for ideology outside of the discussion.
Liberals are masters about framing a discussion before the discussion has even started. And then controlling the narrative once any opposing viewpoints have come forward.
Yup.
Which is why I am always sure to frame the "discussion": You want compromise? OK, let's compromise. Somewhere between all guns are legal for anybody to buy anywhere and carry any time and nobody can ever have a gun. Now, what we've got right now is a compromise between those two positions, wouldn't you say? We're not compromising on the issue of gun control if you assume that my starting position is the status quo - that's like saying that compromise is you driving for a touchdown from the 50 yard line, not from your own end zone. And if you earnestly believe that what we're doing now doesn't work, then let's do things scientifically: Consider the potential impacts on society across the full-spectrum from anybody can own a nuke to licensing to buy a handgun, balanced by the fact that every human being has a right to protect their lives and property with the arms most appropriate to do so.
This usually ends any such desire for discussion or compromise on any level, as the gun grabber in question rapidly disengages and fades back into the woodwork.
:)
"There are areas of our society where there is an inordinate amount of gun violence, and sometimes very heavy weaponry is utilized. What we need to be able to do is sit down and have a discussion, such as the following: “Is there a way to ameliorate that situation? Is there a way to keep weapons out of the hands of people who are mentally ill without compromising any provision of the Second Amendment?” We need to be able to do that. "
Every time they say "they want to have a discussion"; somebody tries to take my shit, and I get nothing in return.
From one of my heroes, a Texas lawman affectionately named "Lawdog": http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html
Keep your hands off my cake, Ben.
Exactly!
I've said it before but I'll say it again....."compromise" with the Left goes like this:
You---getting ready to eat a really nice sammich.
Libtard---"Give me your sammich."
You---"Get screwed, no way."
Libtard---"Okay, just give me half."
You (like an idiot)---"Well, okay."
What just happened here? You had a nice sammich but now you have half of it. And what did YOU get in return? Not a damn thing!
brickboy240
11-11-14, 11:35
Give me someone that does not have a problem with me owning an AR, is not hung up on homos marrying or abortions and can stop the wasteful spending.
...that is all I want
The difference is moderate Dems can lean towards the center but will vote leftist everytime it counts. Moderate Republicans will lean towards the center but vote left everytime it counts.
Pretty much what I was going to say and almost nothing is a loss for the left anymore. They just keep gaining ground and we're always on defense.
Give me someone that does not have a problem with me owning an AR, is not hung up on homos marrying or abortions and can stop the wasteful spending.
...that is all I want
It flys for me, but I suspect it doesn't for some people on here.
Give me someone that does not have a problem with me owning an AR, is not hung up on homos marrying or abortions and can stop the wasteful spending.
...that is all I want
You forgot tough on illegal immigration as well as merciless on foreign enemies. Then I'm on board that train.
You forgot tough on illegal immigration as well as merciless on foreign enemies. Then I'm on board that train.
Add that to my train as well.
montanadave
11-11-14, 20:40
And lest we forget: "A chicken in every pot!"
:laugh:
SeriousStudent
11-11-14, 20:46
And lest we forget: "A chicken in every pot!"
:laugh:
With inflation, you will have to settle for a small, under-nourished quail.
With inflation, you will have to settle for a small, under-nourished quail.
Well, they do sell those frozen Cornish hens, but then again they ain't cheap by weight!
montanadave
11-11-14, 23:00
With inflation, you will have to settle for a small, under-nourished quail.
Is this due to inflation triggered by quantitative easing or austerity measures related to fiscal restraint? It's all so confusing. **** it! I'm not waiting till 2016. I'm gonna go buy me a big, fat capon, soak him in brine, and shove him in the Traeger.
I have a few problems...
http://www.ontheissues.org/Ben_Carson.htm
Semi-automatic weapons ok in countryside, but not cities. (Mar 2013)
Free speech is wonderful, but hate speech causes actual harm. (Jan 2012)
Tithing teaches about not hoarding as capitalist greed. (Jan 2012)
On "Stand Your Ground": Turn down the rhetoric. (Jul 2013)
Rome's decline began with immoral lifestyle; like in America. (Jan 2012)
Deportation is moral low road; create guest worker program. (Jan 2012)
Not running for office, but God may call on me. (Mar 2013)
2010: Vetted for Lt. Gov., but decision to run "up to God". (Feb 2013)
All religions provide beliefs that make us reasonable. (Jan 2012)
Bible endorses flat tax--10% tithing. (Feb 2013)
Better response than post-9-11 invasions: oil independence. (Jan 2012)
I'm in line with a LOT of his positions, but where we aren't in line, there is a lot of distance and a bit too "preachy" for me. Not somebody I could support or vote for.
Give me someone that does not have a problem with me owning an AR, is not hung up on homos marrying or abortions and can stop the wasteful spending.
...that is all I want
As a bonus, doesn't want to amnesty a bunch of illegals and I'm there.
If it comes down to him or hillary, ill vote for him.
If you dont vote you dont count, a good turn out is the only way to move us forward.
It is still early and we dont know exactly what his stances are.
So let me ask you this, if it comes down to a Democrat who PROMISES to ban assault weapons running against a Republican who PROMISES to ban assault weapons, what then?
I'm personally getting tired of this "you MUST vote for this retard or you are responsible for President Hillary" nonsense. It is the responsibility of the Republican party to NOT nominate a retard I can't support. By running McCain in 2008 they secured Obama's presidency.
thopkins22
11-12-14, 00:38
Free speech is wonderful, but hate speech causes actual harm. (Jan 2012)
I tend to align myself with some of the more radical atheists when it comes to "hate speech." I find the notion that I can't say a word to be far more offensive than any offensive word. That's not to say that I think we should all be vulgar and use epithets, but that free speech is very specifically there for those who say things we find offensive. It exists to protect gonzo pornographers, racists, rap artists, the girls in "2 Girls One Cup," and even the creators of the most offensive thing I've ever seen... the movie Alex & Emma.
This and the anti-greed bullshit(which despite his sentiments on the ACA are pervasive in his thoughts on medicine as well) SHOULD be the nail in the coffin for any thinking person.
The most elementary economics class will clearly demonstrate how unless there is fraud or theft, that greed can only benefit everyone involved.
wildcard600
11-12-14, 08:52
The most elementary economics class will clearly demonstrate how unless there is fraud or theft, that greed can only benefit everyone involved.
i think you may find there are alot of people who lost jobs, investments, homes etc to greed may disagree with that.
thopkins22
11-12-14, 10:28
i think you may find there are alot of people who lost jobs, investments, homes etc to greed may disagree with that.
They can disagree all they want, but what I said is demonstrable. Greed and capitalism doesn't lead to zero unemployment, or zero problems. But it does mean that unemployment as an example is only cyclical and frictional as opposed to structural which takes much longer to correct.
If my company destroys yours because I'm much more efficient(and want to dominate the market,) it also benefits you because now you're able to work in a sector that allows you to be more efficient and more useful. It's not perfect in the near term, but it is the best way to have the best results for the largest number of people over the long term.
If I get greedy and start packaging bad debt as a financial product, then one of two things will happen. The number of investors will remain low because it is risky and I have been honest, or I have been dishonest and didn't sell it as risky which means I committed fraud. We did the exact opposite of what should happen in a greedy, free market, capitalist economy. We ignored the fraud, AND protected the investors, which means there's no incentive to not continue investing in bad debt.
brickboy240
11-12-14, 10:36
Oops!
I left off the border security part....sorry.
Yes..no more talk about abortions, homos marrying or other social issues. The left and big media love nothing more than to trip us up with those issues as our candidates stammer and stutter and trip over their tongues. Lets be smarter this time.
When our candidate says, "I don't care if homos get married" then it totally shuts them down....they have nowhere to go.
Most of you all probably don't even KNOW any gay people and they have zero impact on our daily lives.
Lets focus on big picture issues that affect ALL of us. The economy, the border and fiscal issues...ok?
Tired of losing because of homos and abortions.
-brickboy240
wildcard600
11-12-14, 11:24
They can disagree all they want, but what I said is demonstrable. Greed and capitalism doesn't lead to zero unemployment, or zero problems. But it does mean that unemployment as an example is only cyclical and frictional as opposed to structural which takes much longer to correct.
If my company destroys yours because I'm much more efficient(and want to dominate the market,) it also benefits you because now you're able to work in a sector that allows you to be more efficient and more useful. It's not perfect in the near term, but it is the best way to have the best results for the largest number of people over the long term.
If I get greedy and start packaging bad debt as a financial product, then one of two things will happen. The number of investors will remain low because it is risky and I have been honest, or I have been dishonest and didn't sell it as risky which means I committed fraud. We did the exact opposite of what should happen in a greedy, free market, capitalist economy. We ignored the fraud, AND protected the investors, which means there's no incentive to not continue investing in bad debt.
you should have prefaced with "in a perfect world".
who is in charge of defining what is "fraud" ? who is in charge of punishing those who commit said fraud ? Some clown in washington or wall street does that. Probably put there due to personal greed and the greed of the FSA or other clowns who stand to benefit at the cost of others.
Phillygunguy
11-18-14, 06:26
The fact that he's a dick killed him for me long before I learned of his 2A position. While he was a gifted surgeon, if you ever meet him you'll be left with the impression that he believes himself to be God's gift to medicine and perhaps all of humanity.
And no black rifles for 81% of America(probably half or more of the members here?) Go **** yourself repeatedly Ben.
Don't all surgeons think they are God?
Alpha Sierra
11-18-14, 06:52
I have a few problems...
http://www.ontheissues.org/Ben_Carson.htm
Semi-automatic weapons ok in countryside, but not cities. (Mar 2013)
When someone shows you who they are, believe them.
He's shown us who he really is, and he's dead to me.
I can make accomodations on many issues, but the right to keep and bear arms is not among them.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.