It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Meet Ben Carson: First Republican to Throw His Hat in 2016 Ring

page: 10
24
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

And you are not on this thread making it an issue because as a Christian/womens and gay rights advocate you do not like Dr Carsen as a candidate?
You and others are already making it an issue.
Don't think I don't know you are only on gay rights/womens abortion rights threads.
And everyone can see that the liberals here are making this into an issue of Dr. Carsen's religion, and not his stance on Constitionality.
Anyway, we all can see that it is actually the current occupier of the WH who is legislating from the Oval Office.
edit on 8-11-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Like they say....

Nothing beats a successful family structure.




posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

as i said, i don't agree with abortion, on its face. but it's a difficult topic. if a woman is raped, should she be forced to carry, for 9 months, the offspring of a man who abused her in such a fashion? i don't think so, as it would not be her fault, but rather the fault of the rapist. the blood of the baby would not be on her head, but his. so why should she be forced to endure that? it's not her fault, at all. in fact, would a just god blame her if she had the baby aborted since it wasn't her fault in the first place (ya know it takes 2 to tango, right? women don't just materialize life outta thin air)?

and furthermore, how does one go about proving that a woman claiming she was raped, so she can get an abortion, was actually raped, before the woman would give birth naturally (legal system is slow, to make matters worse)? can you imagine what a mess the legal system would be?

add to this that it's extremely difficult to be a christian and a leader of a nation, as the two things are going to frequently come up against issues in today's world, that are nearly insurmountable, and still be able retain your belief system intact. such as forcing religious tenets as laws in a country that is not a religious nation. it's a secular nation. by that i don't mean to say that it wasn't founded by christian men and other religious men, but that the form of government they set up was secular, for the purpose of allowing wiggle room for other people's belief systems, but not for the purpose of allowing one belief system to force their views on the rest of the country. in short, mr. ben would be an excellent leader of a nation called to be holy priests, but not so sure about a nation designed around the secular premise of freedom for ALL (not just some)



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Like they say....

Nothing beats a successful family structure.





Define family.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

And you are not on this thread making it an issue because as a Christian/womens and gay rights advocate you do not like Dr Carsen as a candidate?



Where did I say I liked or disliked?



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

your choices are legally bound by the nation you live in, and that's the issue at hand. see my post above to third eye of horus. read the whole thing.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: undo

I am personally not an advocate for forcing a woman who was raped to carry it to term. It also depends on how far along as well, because later term abortions are different, even from the standpoint that a late term baby can survive outside the womb with a little help. But again, people here are already speaking for Dr. Carsen.


edit on 8-11-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

And you are not on this thread making it an issue because as a Christian/womens and gay rights advocate you do not like Dr Carsen as a candidate?



Where did I say I liked or disliked?



Ok then let's have the truth out now. Would you vote for Dr Carsen?? If it was between him and Hillary would you vote for him?



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
see that is the big problem:

on the one hand you have a secular form of government.
on the other hand, you have a large group of religious people of various kinds and various amplitudes.
to be a leader and a religious person, particularly of the christian faith, because so much of what jesus taught is like the opposite of government, would require, by necessity, that the leader be constantly monitoring his / her own decision making process to ensure he didn't do things he would personally feel bad about (man, that's gotta be a tough job) and that he wasn't abusing the freedom the system provides for those of other world views. i dunno if dr. carson is aware of how hard that would actually be.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: xuenchen
Like they say....

Nothing beats a successful family structure.





Define family.


I thought you would already have those answers?




posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: undo

Well, the current occupier is already legislating from the Oval Office whatever he feels like making into law based on his personal ideology and that of his base, which clearly is not inclusive of those who disagree with him.
When will the Left admit that?

The answer is that the Left wants their particular social and economic issues legislated from the Oval Office because they have cherry picked them, but they do not want the Right to do the same thing. It is just projection on their part, and the only way they can scare people is to insist that it is the Right who is going to be unconstitutional, when it is they themselves who advocate judicial and Presidential legislative action.
edit on 8-11-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Annee

your choices are legally bound by the nation you live in, and that's the issue at hand. see my post above to third eye of horus. read the whole thing.


I am fully aware of that.

At 68 years I've had a front row seat in the evolvement of personal rights.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TiedDestructor

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TiedDestructor

These victims have no voice. These victims can't vote. They're worthless in their eyes...statistics. Sick IMO.


Exactly! Your opinion, your belief.

Conservatives are great promoting their mantra of "Less Government" and personal responsibility ---- as long as it falls within their barbed wire fencing.


Thats a fact.

Read it again slowly. Rinse and repeat.

Conservatives and Liberals all promote what's within their "barbed wire fencing".

They're called "Party Lines". Just FYI.


Actually, NO!

I was Republican and Christian most of my life. I KNOW which one is more controlling.

The thing is Conservatives are stronger cohesively because of their narrow "tried and true" old standard belief system. It's interesting to me that they don't necessarily live it, but they'll "fight to the death" to defend it.

Everyone else gets thrown into the "Catch All" Liberal Bucket. But, that's just it --- they are Everyone Else. They are the Color Outside the Lines people. They are not cohesive in a same thought belief or political direction.

They lack political strength because they are varied -- they do not have same thought -- they are not single minded cohesive.










Your really flying off tangent with your responses without provocation.

That being said I'll leave you to your devices. I believe we are having two different conservations.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: undo

Well, the current occupier is already legislating from the Oval Office whatever he feels like making into law based on his personal ideology and that of his base, which clearly is not inclusive of those who disagree with him.
When will the Left admit that?



i'm not left. well, i'm left on some issues, but mostly just right of center. and i will repeat, because you and annee seem to have a problem reading what i'm saying correctly: i like him. i would like to know the rest of his platform (if he has one), but his position on gays and abortion are a sticky topic, and then mostly because this is not a religious nation (politically) but rather a secular nation governing many different types of people and walks of life.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   
religiously, i agree with him. politically, i think it would be against the premise of the nation as a secular culture. hey, if he wants to create his own nation, i'll join. i think.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Annie why do proponents of the Nanny state not defend the right of an unborn child when they are advocating the rights of dogs, rats, spotted owls, and every other species till Sunday? There is something myopic about thinking that the life in the womb is not sacred while defending smelts in a waterway.
And just for fun www.youtube.com...


That life isn't sentient. It is no more aware of the fact that it is alive than a tree... this is true of a child for a time after it's born as well. A dog is aware it's alive.

Anyways that's my stance. A more popular stance is that most of the anti abortion legislation comes from peoples interpretations of their various holy books, be it the Bible, Quran, Torah, or anything else. Those who don't follow that religion don't take kindly to the idea of having to follow laws based on that book, simply because it comes from that book.
edit on 8-11-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: undo

Where I stand politically would probably surprise you. However, I do not discuss my political stand on ATS.

But, I am definitely secular --- as this country is supposed to be.

I admire intelligence, which Dr. Carson definitely is. To say I like or dislike him is not relevant to the discussion.

Me, being strongly secular and a supporter of separation of church and state ---- should make it very clear where I stand on Dr. Carson in politics. Anyone with as strong a faith in God as he has, can not remain secular IMO.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: undo

Outlawing abortion doesn't stop abortion, it stops safe, medical abortion... leaving girls and women to 'back alley abortion'. Outlawing abortion does not save the unborn but potentially kills the girl/woman adamant that she will not have a child. Personally, I would never abort but I have no right to force my belief about abortion on anyone else.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus




It is just projection on their part, and the only way they can scare people is to insist that it is the Right who is going to be unconstitutional, when it is they themselves who advocate judicial and Presidential legislative action.


good thing i re-read your post. hehe
boy you aren't just whistling dixie. two wrongs, however, still will not make a right. if dr. carson's idea is to even out the playing field, then that's awesome to hear. but if he wants to enact laws on the whole nation, that are based solely on his personal religious views, that would be unconstitutional as well. it's not an easy job for a christian, being the leader of a secular nation, because it requires you agree to allow secular laws that are diametrically opposed to your religious views. if he's as sincere as he seems about his faith, that's not going to be easy for him at all.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Here's another thought I had. We always talk about the case of rape as a throw in concession. So here's a question for the anti abortion crowd: Why is the life of a child conceived through rape worth less than the life of a child brought about by two loving parents? Life is life is it not? Why will you defend one but not the other?
edit on 8-11-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
24
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join