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: 6
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: transola

I'm not a liberal or a democrat.




posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Bill Clinton redefined what the definition of "is" is.

I hate the whole marriage thing because I think it's a scam by the Gov't. The Gov't has no business in the metrics of love. I don't even think there should be benefits attached to that word. And when you boil it down, that is all marriage seems to be nowadays using the broad brush approach.

What benefits do I get?

I'd like to see a candidate come out against Gov't endorsement of marriage.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 10:29 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.


I have to agree. Nice guy, has the right values, zero government experience. Excellent Surgeon General or HHS Secretary appointee, though.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: zazzafrazz

originally posted by: beezzer

A person with values, ethics, morals.


Is that not a result of thinking?

I must say Beezer you made me laugh out loud at the comment "Do we elect someone based on what they think? " comment.

I'll make you a robo-president. will that please thee?


Perhaps I should have said, "Do we elect someone based on their opinion"?



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: zazzafrazz

originally posted by: beezzer

A person with values, ethics, morals.


Is that not a result of thinking?

I must say Beezer you made me laugh out loud at the comment "Do we elect someone based on what they think? " comment.

I'll make you a robo-president. will that please thee?


Perhaps I should have said, "Do we elect someone based on their opinion"?


How about checking their voting record?

Not as much fun as falling for the rhetoric of Carnival Barkers.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit

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.


I have to agree. Nice guy, has the right values, zero government experience. Excellent Surgeon General or HHS Secretary appointee, though.


Are you kidding, it is career politicians that have almost killed the US.

A citizen President is exactly what we need now! He can/and most likely would gather lots of advisers who know the ins and outs of navigating the slim that is dealing with the roach politicians.

Heck, most of you, in both parties have complained that professional politicians have been the problem
So let's get rid of professional politicians.
And return to what the founders of the US envisioned, a government run by the citizens.

I'd love to see all politicians limited in the US to two terms, with no pension, but a 401K
edit on 10Fri, 07 Nov 2014 10:37:23 -0600am110711amk075 by grandmakdw because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   
I liked Herman Cain at first glance as well (who was also the first to throw his hat in the ring last election cycle), but he fell apart as various closets were opened. He started out strong, and when dirty laundry appeared, he looked unprepared.

I saw all that in Obama as well back in 2008, but people didn't pay attention. Or should I say the media?

I guess we'll see in the long run weather Dr. Carson can whether having his and his families life torn through by "Investigative Journalists and DNC agents.
edit on 7-11-2014 by TDawgRex because: Grammar



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: NavyDoc

Then you should have no problem voting for Bernie Sanders right? He's honest as well.


?


Where did I say that I'd vote for anyone just 'cause they were honest?
What does this topic have to do with Bernie SAnders and I don't think he's honest anyway.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: zazzafrazz

originally posted by: beezzer

A person with values, ethics, morals.


Is that not a result of thinking?

I must say Beezer you made me laugh out loud at the comment "Do we elect someone based on what they think? " comment.

I'll make you a robo-president. will that please thee?


Perhaps I should have said, "Do we elect someone based on their opinion"?


How about checking their voting record?

Not as much fun as falling for the rhetoric of Carnival Barkers.


People get elected regardless of their voting record. (see Obama, Bush, Clinton. . . . . )



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: TDawgRex
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Bill Clinton redefined what the definition of "is" is.

I hate the whole marriage thing because I think it's a scam by the Gov't. The Gov't has no business in the metrics of love. I don't even think there should be benefits attached to that word. And when you boil it down, that is all marriage seems to be nowadays using the broad brush approach.

What benefits do I get?

I'd like to see a candidate come out against Gov't endorsement of marriage.


Me too, but until then, I am going to keep voting for expansion of marriage rights (maybe privileges is more appropriate). If government is going to allow a two opposite gendered people to get married, and two same gendered people to get married, then why not two same gendered and a opposite gendered? or 3 same gendered? or 5? 15? How about multiple marriages? As long as the contractors allow for such multiplicity, there shouldn't be any legal reason to stop it.

As long as everyone is of a legal age to sign a contract, which is all legal marriage is, as many people that want to get in on that contract should be able to do so, or I should be able to hold as many contracts as I like.

The only reason my partner and I got married was because it is legally easier to co-parent our children if we are legally married. No one in our day to day lives knows that she and I are married, and we don't refer to each other as spouses.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

This is what you said:



And that's a valid point. Too many people get wrapped up on insisting that some one agrees with them and celebrates their choices. I don't care if you like me or not, just follow the law.


To me that indicates you think people should vote for people they don't like and and don't agree with, as long as they're honest.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: mikell
a reply to: jimmyx

And there a lot of voters that have a hard time tying their shoes but still vote. And election fraud was closely watched this time that probably made a big difference.

Sending a local guy back to prison for it AGAIN!!



election fraud?....so all the millions of people that didn't come out to vote were "OBVIOUS" frauds



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: NavyDoc

This is what you said:



And that's a valid point. Too many people get wrapped up on insisting that some one agrees with them and celebrates their choices. I don't care if you like me or not, just follow the law.


To me that indicates you think people should vote for people they don't like and and don't agree with, as long as they're honest.


No, I said that I don't care if someone likes me or not, as long as they follow the law. That was a HUUUUUUUGGGGGGEEEE leap on your part.


I don't care if a politician likes gays or not, as long as he does not legislate to infringe upon their rights (or anyone's for that matter.) The point being, is that one can still act appropriately regardless of personal feelings on a matter. Professionals do this all of the time.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: mikell
a reply to: jimmyx

And there a lot of voters that have a hard time tying their shoes but still vote. And election fraud was closely watched this time that probably made a big difference.

Sending a local guy back to prison for it AGAIN!!



election fraud?....so all the millions of people that didn't come out to vote were "OBVIOUS" frauds


That's more telling--that one party couldn't motivate people to vote for them and the other could.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   
If Ben Carson is not "primaried" by crossovers I'd love to watch him in a debate with opposition candidate.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

If you say so. Personally the fact that someone believes some people aren't as entitled to protection under law is a serious character flaw, whether they act upon or not. I don't make a habit of voting for people I see as seriously flawed, do you?



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit

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.


I have to agree. Nice guy, has the right values, zero government experience. Excellent Surgeon General or HHS Secretary appointee, though.


Are you kidding, it is career politicians that have almost killed the US.

A citizen President is exactly what we need now! He can/and most likely would gather lots of advisers who know the ins and outs of navigating the slim that is dealing with the roach politicians.

Heck, most of you, in both parties have complained that professional politicians have been the problem
So let's get rid of professional politicians.
And return to what the founders of the US envisioned, a government run by the citizens.

I'd love to see all politicians limited in the US to two terms, with no pension, but a 401K


so...eliminate all the professional politicians, but make sure all the professional lobbyists remain, and all the corporate and wealthy donations keep rolling in...just what the founders envisioned...they also envisioned women not voting, black and white slaves not voting



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit

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.


I have to agree. Nice guy, has the right values, zero government experience. Excellent Surgeon General or HHS Secretary appointee, though.


Are you kidding, it is career politicians that have almost killed the US.

A citizen President is exactly what we need now! He can/and most likely would gather lots of advisers who know the ins and outs of navigating the slim that is dealing with the roach politicians.

Heck, most of you, in both parties have complained that professional politicians have been the problem
So let's get rid of professional politicians.
And return to what the founders of the US envisioned, a government run by the citizens.

I'd love to see all politicians limited in the US to two terms, with no pension, but a 401K


I didn't say "career politician", I said "zero experience". Do you like Ron Paul? Trey Gowdy? They are career politicians, more or less. They know their way around Congress' intracacies and inner workings and how to get things done.

By the way, we already have term limits, and you just saw a bunch of democrats get their terms limited. They are called "elections". I do not understand why people keep screaming about "term limits". It is retarded. Would you want ro get rid of a Ron Paul? He'd have to leave, too. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.


edit on 7-11-2014 by ScientiaFortisDefendit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: NavyDoc

If you say so. Personally the fact that someone believes some people aren't as entitled to protection under law is a serious character flaw, whether they act upon or not. I don't make a habit of voting for people I see as seriously flawed, do you?


Of course not. However, the point still stands that one can dislike another and still treat them honestly. I've disliked people personally but still have given them the best service I can. I assume that you are capable of that as well, yes?



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Of course, humans are humans. But when it comes to electing people to represent me? Sorry, your flaws count.




top topics



 
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join