Ben Carson Reveals himself to be not only a self-righteous hypocrite but ignorant

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Simmderdown

umm...apprears you are wrong....

"No war, no death." Inncorrect, the truth is that no one knows how many deaths there were because they were all hidden. The truth is that there were very many hidden kills and assassinations. Three revolutions also took place during the cold war. In other words,
WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY DEATHS, BUT, WE KNOW THERE WERE MORE THAN 20,000!
www.answers.com...

you refute my claim by using a random person from answers.com?

Well you might as well have just made it up yourself, or linked an answer from here.

Thank for that well thought out and researched response lol

answers.com youre so funny

a reply to: Simmderdown

www.toptenz.net...

yes the viet nam war was part of the cold war, also the korean war.....

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Simmderdown

www.toptenz.net...

yes the viet nam war was part of the cold war, also the korean war.....

LoL no, no they werent

YOu apparently dont know the definition of Cold War

Do they not teach history anymore or?

originally posted by: mikell
Yes Carson would be my second choice Trump my first just because he seems to piss everybody off. Demoncrats don't seen to have any candidates as of yet.

When Trump starts pulling in the crowds Bernie Sanders is pulling in then come back with that remark. Well that and when Trump actually comes up with some kind of policy.

a reply to: buster2010

NOT hijacking the thread...just responding to a statement.

Trump (w/assistance and endorsement of Sen. Sessions of AL) came out with an incredibly detailed, hardhitting point by point plan on Immigration this past weekend.

a reply to: Simmderdown

It was also in the early 1960s that American containment policy shifted from heavy reliance on nuclear weapons to more conventional notions of warfare in pursuit of a more "flexible response" to the spread of communism. Although originally articulated by President Kennedy, it was in 1965 that President Johnson showcased the idea of flexible response when he made the initial decision to commit American combat troops to South Vietnam. American thinking had come to regard Southeast Asia as vital to its national security, and President Johnson made clear his intention to insure South Vietnam's territorial and political integrity "whatever the cost or whatever the challenge."(1) The United States ultimately fought a bloody and costly war in Vietnam that poisoned U.S. politics and wreaked havoc with its economy. The Nixon administration inherited the conflict in 1969, and although it tried to improve relations with the Soviets through detente – and even took the unprecedented step of establishing diplomatic relations with Communist China – neither development was able to bring about decisive change on the Vietnamese battlefield. The United States abandoned the fight in 1973 under the guise of a peace agreement that left South Vietnam emasculated and vulnerable.

www.gwu.edu...

the US and Russia/China never went full out on each other but they managed to get involved with many proxy wars. korea and viet nam being just two...

most of what I have read have kind of put them under the category of the cold war....

another link in case the first one isn't good enough for you....

learningenglish.voanews.com...

by the way, I learned history in school close to 50 years ago.....
have no idea what they are teaching now, by the looks of things, don't think they are doing a good job of it though!

a reply to: dawnstar

Well then , so you would agree that Iran is at war with the US and Israel via proxy

Right?

That would count as war?

I mean , that only makes sense

a reply to: Simmderdown

not sure exactly what you mean,
also, ain't really been keeping up with the news the past six months or so. kind of lost interest I guess....

so well, if you want to elaborate somewhat on what you mean okay...
but well, the tension between Iran and the US, along with what was the tension with Iraq and the US I think has more to do with the economic warfare that is going on between the US, China, and Russia..and their economic partners. in other words the US is fighting hard to keep the dollar's status as the world reserve currency while other countries are fighting hard to to change it to something more reliable... and probably also in their best interest.

but then, well when we start dropping bombs, like we did on Iraq, aren't we doing it to protect "our freedom", "our way of life", and well, "for fear for our lives possibly"

how is killing children in war any different that a women having an abortion because she doesn't want to lose her freedom, or doesn't want to lose income---her way of life, or her life???
ya see, the victims of war are living human beings, born, with families that they've built relationships with, they have hopes, the have dreams, they love, they cry... like it or not they are much more than an unborn fetus!
and well, the women, isn't looking at a possible threat, that someone is on the tv trying to convince her is a threat.....
she has first hand knowledge of the situation, she has a doctor telling her of the threat, she knows that it's gonna affect her income, she knows that it will take up much of her free time!! she knows that she will be sick, she knows it will affect her mobility, she knows it will mess up her system for awhile....
a war kills million, the pregnant women only kills one!

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
I say it's about time we aquired a man who WASN'T a lawyer OR a damn politician.
Yet has superior intelligence.
I like Dr.Carson as well.
HE isn't concerned with LEFT /RIGHT garbage.
He would pick and intelligent CABNIET as well ,not just FRIENDS who want jobs for the mney but lack sufficeint skills to execute them.
AND CERTAINLY not social ACTIVISTS who seek ONLY division.

I don't get this at all. Why would you want a person in the most political office in the country to not be a politician? Do you know why we can never get anything done between the Executive and Legislative branches? It's because we're electing people who aren't politicians and don't know the first thing about getting things done and making deals. Everyone goes in with a mandate to do it their way or no way at all, and compromise is shunned. That doesn't get you a functional system, it gets you anarchy.

originally posted by: Glinda
a reply to: buster2010

NOT hijacking the thread...just responding to a statement.

Trump (w/assistance and endorsement of Sen. Sessions of AL) came out with an incredibly detailed, hardhitting point by point plan on Immigration this past weekend.

Trumps plan was crap. Did you actually read it? He basically wants to charge legal immigrants more to come over here in order to pay for a wall with Mexico. As other revenue sources he wants to charge Mexicans more to sell their goods here which will just mean higher costs to the American people, and he wants to charge more for diplomatic visas which will be a wash since Mexico will equally reciprocate.

a reply to: dawnstar

thanks for the 3 page reply want to answer my freaking question?

The problem I have with "pro-lifers" is a lot of them rally behind wars and the military

And torture, and killing people through pollution, unsafe work conditions, unaffordable healthcare, overworking, etc.

Pro life people support so much death and oppression I think abortion is just a front for them to lie to themselves that they aren't murderers.

And to ensure poor, ignorant people to vote their way.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

I think this is a guess. Trump has clearly stated he would use people of high skill set. Carson hasn't said anything like that.
I agree Carson is intelligent - he went to med school and is a Dr. I have to respect his skill set in medicine and his knowledge could be a boon for policy making in that field of expertise. But foreign policy, economics, etc is something Carson has no experience in. I don't care what he personally believes in about abortion, I care most how he can handle the biggest challenges. Attorney General would be appropriate for him in my book.

a reply to: CB328
the problem with this argument is that the normal Pro-Lifers believe the soul of a human is in an early fetus. So they cannot justify killing an innocent person because it would be against god.

Pro-lifers isn't a true definition. I think the Pope is probably the most definition of Pro-Life as he wouldn't condone killing anyone.

The correct term to use here is Pro-Abortionists.

a reply to: Simmderdown

all you needed was to read the first three or four lines and you'd know...
you either need to expand on the question, or rephrase it, because I am not understanding the question....

a reply to: SachaX

Haven't read the whole thread yet, so sorry if this has already been addressed.

I believe late term abortions are terrible (I think alot of people agree this no late term abortions)

What is your definition of a "late term" abortion?

Why do you think a woman would want a late term abortion? Do you think doctors will risk their reputations and licenses to perform a risky abortion because someone is mad at her "baby daddy"?

There's so much outrage and uneducated ignorance around late term abortions, while only about 1% of all abortions performed are late term. The facts are, that fetal anomalies, which are not just detrimental for the fetus, but can be turn out to be life threatening for the mother, can't be detected before 20-22 weeks.

Almost all late term abortions are performed because the fetus has catastrophic development problems, and/or the mother's health is at risk; ie, kidney failure, high blood pressure, septic shock, etc.

a reply to: SachaX

the problem with this argument is that the normal Pro-Lifers believe the soul of a human is in an early fetus.

The official pro-life stance is that "Life Begins at Conception", so if a pro-lifer believes in the soul, they believe that the soul is created immediately upon fertilization.

a reply to: windword

and close to half of them I believe are forced to exit early because of natural miscarriage, they are given little tiny harps and beautiful wings and spend the rest of their existence in music classes...

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Spacific example?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: SachaX

Haven't read the whole thread yet, so sorry if this has already been addressed.

I believe late term abortions are terrible (I think alot of people agree this no late term abortions)

What is your definition of a "late term" abortion?

Why do you think a woman would want a late term abortion? Do you think doctors will risk their reputations and licenses to perform a risky abortion because someone is mad at her "baby daddy"?

There's so much outrage and uneducated ignorance around late term abortions, while only about 1% of all abortions performed are late term. The facts are, that fetal anomalies, which are not just detrimental for the fetus, but can be turn out to be life threatening for the mother, can't be detected before 20-22 weeks.

Almost all late term abortions are performed because the fetus has catastrophic development problems, and/or the mother's health is at risk; ie, kidney failure, high blood pressure, septic shock, etc.

Late term abortions that most people are against is the type where the mother has decided to keep the baby and then at the 11th hour pulls the plug because she changed her mind. That's what I'm against, as are most everyone else. If you decided to keep it, and it's healthy and going to live, and offers no other threat; at the 11th hour it is simply baby killing - that in my opinion is a shame if anyone would do that.

I think you and I agree