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: 7
24
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: NavyDoc

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


Fair enough. I guess it depends on what you consider a flaw. A politician might be the nicest guy in the world with the cleanest reputation and loved by all, but if he isn't going to do right by me, then I don't want him and will pick the jerk who will do right by me and mine even if he's a bundle of personal flaws.




posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

I like the idea of term limits. Yes, we would lose people like Ron Paul, but we would also lose people like Pelosi and Reid. Oh, yes, they could still run for other offices. But their power would be curtailed.

And let's be truthful here, even though Paul seemed like a good guy, how much power did he really have to change things? Pelosi and Reid did have that power.

So yea, I'm all about term limits.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   
This is very pleasant news to hear, I have always appreciated Dr. Carson's calm demeanor, and wondered if he would take the leap into the vicious grinder that is the US Presidential race.

40 Minute intro the the people should be interesting to say the least, I will withhold my thoughts on his chances until viewing this intro, but I am pleased to see a political outsider toss their hat into the ring.

I was pleased to see the influx of fresh faces win seats in Congress this past week, and hope that in two years we will see even more fresh new faces win an opportunity to turn this country around, and no I am not talking about more Reps, I am talking changing of the guard, out with the old lifer Congress, in with new Reps & Dems who want to get to work..

It will take time, but piece by piece, the folks are starting to change the face of DC, and that is a good thing..



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: TDawgRex

Charities should be for the needy and not the Gov't. Gov't takes in to much through taxes and squanders it.

Typo maybe? And if so, can you provide the proof? Because I haven't heard that.


LOL! Maybe if I say it slightly differently:

~He thinks charities should provide for the needy, the government should not provide for the needy.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: TDawgRex

I agree with you. But as it is, the government IS involved and probably won't be willing to let go anytime soon. I think a lot of people will eventually stop getting legally married (it is our choice, after all) and then it will become less of an issue. But I firmly believe in the 14th amendment. If there are laws in a state, they should apply equally to all.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: TDawgRex

Charities should be for the needy and not the Gov't. Gov't takes in to much through taxes and squanders it.

Typo maybe? And if so, can you provide the proof? Because I haven't heard that.


LOL! Maybe if I say it slightly differently:

~He thinks charities should provide for the needy, the government should not provide for the needy.


I think I understand what he is saying here. Yes it is charities responsibility to help the needy, that is why they were created. It is not the Gov't job to do so though. Maybe give the needy a hand up, but not a hand out. (Of course there are always exceptions to the rule)

When you boil it all down. The Gov'ts job is infrastructure and National Security. Both jobs they are currently failing miserably at because they are concentrating on other problems.

Let the States take care of their problems...it's not the Feds job. They've wandered out of their lane as far as I'm concerned.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Has anyone in recent memory announced 2 years in advance and then went on to even get their party nomination? I wonder if the party is throwing this guy under the bus to make a more moderate candidate seem more palatable. The GOP has to know that they can't get elected with a candidate that doesn't support same sex marriage and has such a strong stance against marijuana. It's just not going to happen anymore.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: AgentShillington

Good point.

I can't recall any from either party.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: AgentShillington
Has anyone in recent memory announced 2 years in advance and then went on to even get their party nomination? I wonder if the party is throwing this guy under the bus to make a more moderate candidate seem more palatable. The GOP has to know that they can't get elected with a candidate that doesn't support same sex marriage and has such a strong stance against marijuana. It's just not going to happen anymore.


Hillary Clinton.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: AgentShillington
Has anyone in recent memory announced 2 years in advance and then went on to even get their party nomination? I wonder if the party is throwing this guy under the bus to make a more moderate candidate seem more palatable. The GOP has to know that they can't get elected with a candidate that doesn't support same sex marriage and has such a strong stance against marijuana. It's just not going to happen anymore.


Hillary Clinton.


I'm sorry, when did Hilary get the Democratic nomination?



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: AgentShillington
Has anyone in recent memory announced 2 years in advance and then went on to even get their party nomination? I wonder if the party is throwing this guy under the bus to make a more moderate candidate seem more palatable. The GOP has to know that they can't get elected with a candidate that doesn't support same sex marriage and has such a strong stance against marijuana. It's just not going to happen anymore.


Hillary Clinton.


But she didn't cut the mustard either back in '08.

Just sayin'



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: AgentShillington

True, but if she does get the party nomination, then it will apply.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TDawgRex

originally posted by: beezzer


originally posted by: AgentShillington

Has anyone in recent memory announced 2 years in advance and then went on to even get their party nomination? I wonder if the party is throwing this guy under the bus to make a more moderate candidate seem more palatable. The GOP has to know that they can't get elected with a candidate that doesn't support same sex marriage and has such a strong stance against marijuana. It's just not going to happen anymore.




Hillary Clinton.




But she didn't cut the mustard either back in '08.



Just sayin'


Well, she's no Sarah Palin. . . .



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Hilary hasn't announced she's running yet, has she? Last I heard she is being coy, but not actually verifying or denying anything.

I'm talking about official announcements 2 years out.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
Well, she's no Sarah Palin. . . .


Dontcha know...eh?


I'd actually love to have a Prez that talked like that or have a deep southern drawl (Sam Elliot type) to attain office. It'd drive the left coast insane.

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



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: beezzer

Hilary hasn't announced she's running yet, has she? Last I heard she is being coy, but not actually verifying or denying anything.

I'm talking about official announcements 2 years out.


Last time I checked, there was an old man, he lived in an abandoned mine shaft 15,000 feet below ground. He's been there for 40 years, he has had no television, no radio, no newspaper, no human contact or electrical appliances for the past 4 decades.

And even HE knew that Hillary was running.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Thank you for sharing your opinion, however I was looking for facts.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: TDawgRex

Ain't tha accint that bothas us.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Iffin' ya be livin' inna a city. Y'all know tha' ain't tru.

Ah'm jest sayin'.

Them thar demon-graphics sez such.
edit on 7-11-2014 by TDawgRex because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: muse7
Great another crazy hell bent on getting rid of the social strides we have made during the last 50 years, I'm sure Conservatives will love him.


We need to get rid of all of the social strides made in the last 50 years. Get up off of you ars and go to work. lmao



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join