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: 12
24
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Yes, makes perfect sense.

Oh, there must be some ridiculous story why Liberal is used politically. I really don't know. Was just using it to be "post creative".




posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247




Do you see what you're missing here? If it weren't for the initial assistance for either person, they may not be where they are today.


No, I'm not missing it at all. I merely see it for what it is. Welfare is a bandaid at best, and should not be seen as the answer to our problems. It is a safety net for the most desperate people, but some people apparently believe that a fully developed socialist nanny state will fix all these problems and it won't.
I recognize that some people have been in poverty and rose up out of it. Welfare didn't fix their problem, they fixed it themselves.
Perhaps you agree with the Prez that people didn't build their businesses.....



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus



Perhaps you agree with the Prez that people didn't build their businesses


People build small businesses and occasionally make it big. Typically, tax payers build large corporations and then pay all their Executives and give them bonuses, then subsidize their workforce with welfare and food stamps because only 'socialists' expect 'employers' to pay living wages.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74




Typically, tax payers build large corporations



Typically, small business owners built their business from scratch with at best a small business loan or from savings. Typically large corporations have investors. Typically a small business which grew to be large had investors that believed in their product.
Businesses have to pay a Capital gains tax...and so typically that whole "tax payers built your business for you" is just more bogus Marxist propaganda.
edit on 8-11-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus



Welfare is a bandaid at best, and should not be seen as the answer to our problems.


I don't believe anyone suggested as much.



It is a safety net for the most desperate people


Have you ever been desperate or in a situation where you have not been able to feed your kids, let alone yourself? Some people have, through no fault of their own.



but some people apparently believe that a fully developed socialist nanny state will fix all these problems and it won't.


Again, no one is suggesting that it will.



I recognize that some people have been in poverty and rose up out of it.


Thanks god they had something to fall back on, huh? From socialism to success?



Welfare didn't fix their problem, they fixed it themselves.


Incorrect. They had help from a "socialist" program, correct?



Perhaps you agree with the Prez that people didn't build their businesses....


That's a propaganda talking point. I don't fall for it. Please take it elsewhere or use it one someone dumb enough to engage such a silly statement.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Ben Carson would never stand a chance at winning pres. IMO. I say that for a variety of reasons. However, even if we discarded all those reasons, this one thing right here would completely destroy his chances with the Right.




posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247




Have you ever been desperate or in a situation where you have not been able to feed your kids, let alone yourself? Some people have, through no fault of their own.



Excuse me, but did I not say that welfare is a bandaid to be used in desperate times? Not to be a lifestyle for people who keep having more kids to get more welfare.... and not to be permanent.

I have to bite my tongue not to say what I really think sometimes about people who make ridiculous judgements and refuse to read what I'm actually saying.

When did I say it was anyone's fault? I did not. But my point is and was that it should not be a permanent fix. Abuses should not be acceptable in society. What's an abuse? Well how about giving illegals amnesty while they are gaming the system?
If you cannot see that, I don't know what to say, but as difficult as things are for me right this minute, why should I have to pay for people gaming the system, and why should I let the government do that to me?
There is a truth that you and many others refuse to see, and that is that while we should feed and clothe the poor, we should not be doing it through "mandatory state socialism".
Why has the government made it illegal for private individuals to feed the homeless? The only answer can be that socialists in power want state socialism and not private charity.



posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Are children responsible for the culture of their parents?

Is generational poverty and welfare a culture? Culture, one of the most difficult things to change in the minds of people.

Should we remove children from this type culture, so we can be in charge of how their cultural minds develop?

Should we take those children and put them in state run institutions to remove them from their parents generational culture of poverty thinking.

It's not cut and dry. It's far more complicated then saying: get a job, be responsible etc.

Interesting to me that Right of Choice is deemed complicated, but generational welfare is deemed a simple fix.



posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus



Excuse me, but did I not say that welfare is a bandaid to be used in desperate times? Not to be a lifestyle for people who keep having more kids to get more welfare.... and not to be permanent.


Yes you did. I was asking you a question. Have you ever been in a desperate situation and had to get some sort of assistance? This question, depending on your answer, was an attempt to open the conversation a bit wider.



I have to bite my tongue not to say what I really think sometimes about people who make ridiculous judgements and refuse to read what I'm actually saying.


I read and understood your statement clearly and did not come to any sort of judgement. It was a question directed at you. That's why there was a
at the end of it.

Perhaps it is you that is not comprehending or simply being presumptuous.



But my point is and was that it should not be a permanent fix.


I agreed with that.



Abuses should not be acceptable in society. What's an abuse? Well how about giving illegals amnesty while they are gaming the system?


I agree again. Abuse is bad. But it a very small percentage of the overall system. I'd rather deal with the rare cases of fraud then put tighter controls on the people that really need the assistance.



If you cannot see that, I don't know what to say, but as difficult as things are for me right this minute, why should I have to pay for people gaming the system, and why should I let the government do that to me?


I don't know why you are worked-up over something so small, when our government does other things with our tax dollars that really hurt us in our pocket books. Why aren't we talking about the war in the Middle East? How about the war on drugs? Let's look at the subsidies given to corporations and the ridiculous subsidies to water down our gasoline with ethanol. How about we look at the Department of Homeland Security and the monstrosity that has become?

No...we can't actually look at changing things in our society that actually matter, and the Republicans will never look in that direction to implement "fiscal responsibility". They want to go after welfare programs and "entitlements", because we all know that is where all the money is really being wasted.....right?

Please. This entire discussion is ridiculous! If you were really interested in reigning in the government and finding ways to save money, welfare would not be anywhere near the top of the list.



we should not be doing it through "mandatory state socialism".


Why not? I believe we should and that the constitution allows that through the General Welfare Clause. Wouldn't you rather let the government spend a little of our money so people can eat? I would. It's better than giving it to the corporations that were supposed to be very strictly limited by our constitution in the first place.

Forgive me if I don't crap myself over the use of the word socialism. I think we need more of it. Instead, today we have a corporate-fascist government that does more for the special-money interests than it does for it's own people.....and the money is THE PEOPLE'S to begin with.

And, sadly, the Republicans follow blindly with a smile on their face while the propaganda is pumped in to their brain.
edit on 11/9/2014 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247

I'm not going to tell you what my personal situation is. I'm not going to fall for that guilt trip or insinuation that I must be well off or I would sympathize with people of poverty. Socialists never run out of other people's money. I have not said to eliminate programs which temporarily help people. The Progressives are forever trying to imply that Republicans are rich selfish pigs who don't care about anyone else and that is just not true. In fact, it has been said that conservatives give more to private charity than Progressives. And there are plenty of wealthy Progressives. Why doesn't Nancy Pelosi give away her millions for all these people????? She won't because she doesn't do what she tells the rest of us to do.
The Welfare Clause? Really are you going to go there? I don't believe the Founding Fathers meant socialism and the state providing everything for all the citizens. That is where this is all going by the way. Socialists are not happy with some programs to help some people. That is where you do not seem to understand the true agenda and motivation, unless you do and you are just scamming people with guilt????
General welfare does not mean state socialism. If it did, why would the Founders have originally written "life, liberty, and PROPERTY"? Because they believed in private property and state socialism does not.
Have you ever heard of Fabian socialism? Well, it is socialism implemented in increments so that it goes a bit undercover and under stealth. Notice the advocates of socialism in this country are not happy with Obamacare because it didn't give them Single Payer?
Socialism is but a bridge to communism. Marx said it.
With so many people around the current occupier of the WH, such as Van Jones and Valerie Jarrett and Bill Ayers, who have communist ties, why would you think their plan is any different?



Forgive me if I don't crap myself over the use of the word socialism


Of course, because everyone knows it's popular now. Forgive me if I don't cave to the guilt trip.

But hey just because you want the clause to mean what you want, doesn't make it so.


Let us start with the author of the Constitution James Madison:With respect to the two words “general Welfare” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the “Articles of Confederation” and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former taken for granted.” (Translation: If you have not been given the power to do something, you cannot use “general Welfare” as a justification for doing it. This is not the intention of these words.)

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” (Translation: Just because you feel sorry for someone, the federal government has no authority to help him).
“The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government.” (Translation: Just because you feel sorry for someone, the federal government has no authority to help him). “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one … ” (Translation: Once you start spending money willy-nilly to promote the general welfare you have destroyed the entire concept of limited government.) “As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.” (Translation: When the government gets too big you will lose your freedom.) “There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” (Translation: Eighty years of gradual socialism is just as dangerous as any sudden usurpation.) “The powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.” (Translation: Reread Article 1 Section 8 and the Tenth Amendment if you haven’t grasped it yet.)

www.usfreedomarmy.com...

So there it is in the words of Madison himself. Another interpretation given by statists is simply propaganda.
And the opinion of the blogger which I agree with

The Welfare Clause is the most abused part of the United States Constitution. The forces of socialism claim it gives them the authority to pass any type of law they want to help people; this claim is false. They then cite certain Supreme Court rulings to buttress their claim; those rulings were invalid since the courts may not contradict the Constitution.


How ironic is it that you pretend to be against fascism which is Statist totalitarianism, and yet you embrace the totalitarian nanny state.

edit on 9-11-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus



The Progressives are forever trying to imply that Republicans are rich selfish pigs who don't care about anyone else and that is just not true.


Some of the whacko progressives, which there are very few of, may think that. I think what the others are saying is that the Republicans SERVE the rich, selfish pigs that don't care about anyone else.

That would be correct. And I also believe that the Democrats, by and large, serve the same master. They are not liberal or progressive. They are fascists right along with the rest of the neocons.



Why doesn't Nancy Pelosi give away her millions for all these people?????


Because she is selfish and does not want to. She's a hypocrite.



I don't believe the Founding Fathers meant socialism and the state providing everything for all the citizens.


I never posited anything of the sort. You are taking what I said to the extreme by saying "everything" and "all". That is not what I think they intended and it's not what I want. But we can have a system similar to what we have today and still be within the confines of the constitution.

You believe in some sort of safety net, correct? Well, then you believe in a tiny bit of socialism. There's nothing wrong with that.



If it did, why would the Founders have originally written "life, liberty, and PROPERTY"? Because they believed in private property and state socialism does not.


Socialism can exist in a free society. By definition, it has always existed in America and we reap the benefits daily. Police force, firemen...socialism. Churches and their gracious contributions to society.....socialism. What's wrong with that?



Notice the advocates of socialism in this country are not happy with Obamacare because it didn't give them Single Payer?


I am one of those people. Why can't we create an efficient system that uses the purchasing power of the people as a whole to provide healthcare for the entire population? Obamacare is a piece of trash that forces you to pay for a corporate product or pay a fine to the government.....that's fascism and it was written and served to us by the Republicans. Obama did their bidding.



With so many people around the current occupier of the WH, such as Van Jones and Valerie Jarrett and Bill Ayers, who have communist ties, why would you think their plan is any different?


If you have to use Van Jones and Ayers in your argument, I can only assume that you have fallen for the propaganda. Those particular names mean nothing to me, but they have been part of a massive propaganda campaign as buzzwords to drive opinion and direct thought.

As a person who studies propaganda, I sense it a mile away and don't fall for it.



Of course, because everyone knows it's popular now. Forgive me if I don't cave to the guilt trip.


Not a guilt trip. It was an honest question. I know you don't want to get too personal, but I was wondering if you have ever benefited from the socialist program that is welfare. I know that I am broke as a joke and have very little to my name, but I haven't. Not once have I had to, or been eligible for, any sort of benefits. I just wanted to get an idea of where you were coming from. It's important to the discussion.



posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247




don't know why you are worked-up over something so small, when our government does other things with our tax dollars that really hurt us in our pocket books. Why aren't we talking about the war in the Middle East?


I thought this was a thread about Dr. Carson getting into the Presidential race for 2016? This is not really a thread about war in the Middle East, unless you want to discuss what Dr. Carsen believes about it. Dr. Carson clearly believes in the Capitalist system, with limited government, so haven't we covered that now? Dr. Carson clearly does not approve Obamacare, and I think the whole general welfare clause in Madison's words cover that nicely.
The Constitution does allow for the general defense of the nation. I would argue that some of these wars are not directly related to the defense of our nation, but the argument was made when 9-11 happened and the Twin Towers fell, and it was declared to have been done by foreign terrorists.
There are plenty of conspiracy theories about that which no doubt you have heard.
I have never said I was for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was against involvement in Libya, and in fact our President overstepped his bounds in that arena too.
I believe Dr. Carson has more respect for the Constitution.
One last thing, Dr. Carson presents a threat to the agendas of the socialists in the US and worldwide, and I think they would do anything to tarnish him and keep him out of the Presidency.




As a person who studies propaganda, I sense it a mile away and don't fall for it.


Yet somehow you cannot smell it on yourself......
edit on 9-11-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus



I believe Dr. Carson has more respect for the Constitution.


I disagree. Did you see the video posted earlier with his comments on the 2nd amendment? He interprets the constitution as he see fits just like everyone else.

But as a staunch pro-2nd guy, that really bothers me. He is willing to make caveats for certain rights depending on certain circumstances and that does not highlight his "respect" for the constitution.

He's no different than anyone else that is already in DC.

ETA:



Yet somehow you cannot smell it on yourself......


Nice edit. Isn't it funny that I am not the one throwing around propaganda buzzwords and names pushed on the MSM like a good little drone, yet you are?

Perhaps my sense of smell is better than your's.

edit on 11/9/2014 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I like him.
conservativetribune.com...
I too am sick of products of BUISNESS and the legal system.
THAT alone shoud make every PROG spout their assumptions. THEY sure can pick 'em.



posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

So he changed his mind now that he's noticed the NWO taking over has he. Too bad for him that also means he'll never get elected because of that now.

Let's face it. Until this nation is able to actually put someone in charge who isn't a corporate puppet there are really only two choices. Either beat them or join them. So if you like your guns then good, hang on to em and be prepared to use them. Because there is no way in hell we are going to just Elect our way out of the situation we're in now and it's only going to get worse in the future.

Of course we weren't supposed to have standing armies either let alone the massive Military that we currently have. Not to mention the Chemical and Biological Weapons and Nuclear, etc. All the guns in the world aren't gonna help us there.
edit on 9-11-2014 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 03:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
I don't think there will be much dirt to find on this guy, that said... he has no chance of winning. He's another Conservative set on throwing us back to the 50's. Entirely unelectable on the national stage.


Are you serious? America during the 50's was amazing. If we were back in the 50's unemployment would be half of what it is now.

America in the 50's



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: bismos

originally posted by: Kali74
I don't think there will be much dirt to find on this guy, that said... he has no chance of winning. He's another Conservative set on throwing us back to the 50's. Entirely unelectable on the national stage.


Are you serious? America during the 50's was amazing. If we were back in the 50's unemployment would be half of what it is now.

America in the 50's


The thing about the "Good Old Days" is selective memory.

I was there. No thanks.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:14 AM
link   
a reply to: bismos

They were amazing if you were a white male Christian.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: DuckforcoveR
reply to: gatorboi117

sorry, small screen, big thumb.

they'll find he's somewhat of a fraud. Benefiting from ALL of the social programs he complains about now, he's flipped on gay marriage, gun rights, and immigration. And he fits the bill for what the GOP is TOLD they need. Basically, he's a black guy. The need that, women, and a few Hispanics to prove they aren't what some think they are.

I don't agree with the way politics are, I don't make the rules, I just know he's a convenient distraction to the eventual GOP nominee. Whoever that may be.


Oh please. After 40 years it's not flip flopping, it's wisdom. What you believe in when you're 20 changes when you are 40. Obama has flip flopped on major policies just in the last week.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74 Yeah, he needs to be running on throwing us back to the 1930s then he can Nationally compete with the Democrats.




top topics



 
24
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join