DescentBB

Ben Carson, I'm beginning to like this guy especially after he made Obama look bad at the National Prayer Breakfast. I like him even more after his CPAC speech (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/34 ... na-johnson) Of course those of you who are part of the mass bloc of uniformed voters, you probably haven't heard of him nor will you bother to punch in the link and listen to find out. I can see this guy running for president in 2016.

A little background. He grew up poor in a single parent (mother) household, went on to college, got his medical degree in neurosurgery and specializes in pediatric neurosurgery. So not exactly another dumb ass political type. So if you do bother to listen, post what you think about him. Kinda reminds me of Bill Cosby in his presentation.

Seven minutes on he hasn't said a single thing, just a bunch of half-anecdotes. Turning off now. If he wants to be president, he needs to learn how to get to the point.

woodchip wrote:...medical degree in neurosurgery and specializes in pediatric neurosurgery. So not exactly another dumb ass political type...

Just because he is a brain surgeon doesn't mean he is politically smart. Also is it bad that I read that as pedantic neuroticism the first time?

all the rage with the conservative faithful.....I got regaled up at fishing camp by one of the faithful over the weekend. Interesting fellow, but hardly more than a passing fad, that I can see.

Maybe and Maybe not Slick. Seems he is retiring from the medical field in the next few months so we will see what happens. Too bad Obama can't run again as these two would make for a interesting debate.

He's definitely charming, but needs a lot of work on his speaking. He seems to do a lot of rambling in that CPAC address. Unfortunately, the problem with the current conservatives isn't personality, it's content. unless the message changes, there probably won't be a Republican president for some time.

I think I couldn't agree with you more while completely disagreeing with you, vision. Personality is not what's at stake. You're right, there. I'm not impressed with this guy, I'm in agreement with you there too. He may be a good doctor, he may be a good guy, but as far as I'm concerned he's nothing but a racial feel-good intellectual showman, politically. Ron Paul was the measure, in our generation, of what a political representative needs to be, IMO, and anyone who can't begin to measure up to that just needs to take their good intentions and go waste time in the private sector. And we need people in media who will hold these folks to a higher standard than a likable demeanor and a ****load of funny stories. This is government, not a reality show. I want to see someone who talks about what government should be and what it shouldn't be, and demonstrates an understanding of our founding principles on more than a basic church-goer morality level. This man needs to go home, and everyone else in the republican party needs to go with him. The democrats on the other hand need to be deported to some socialist-paradise-waiting-to-happen anyway so they can ★■◆● that up with their ignorant anti-responsibility bull****.

doesn't leave us with much, Thorne, once you've eliminated everyone else......we would be left with loons like Ron Paul who would destroy the nation for the sake of some 18th century vision of how to run a 21st century nation of 300 million.

If I read you right, and I'm sure I do, you just admitted that you want America's form of government to be radically altered from its 18th century roots. It's refreshing to have that out in the open, anyway. But that's the dividing line, and you're on the wrong side of it. I can't accept the notion that progress between than and now has been necessarily inconsistent with 18th century notions of individual liberty, and I think it's disingenuous to assume it. Ron Paul had some great ideas, and what he might have "destroyed" would not have been the nation. You can't destroy a nation with ideas like that. You just can't. This leaves us with the question, what is it that you and everyone else who hates the man is so worried about losing? We're well on our way to "destruction" right now, and it's exactly because of the one thing that I'm dead-certain RP had right--currency. I'd like to know in what reality taking everyone's hard-earned money and making it worthless, while making them dependent doesn't count as destroying a nation?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:If I read you right, and I'm sure I do, you just admitted that you want America's form of government to be radically altered from its 18th century roots.

actually, no, what I'm saying is that is long ago did, in response to changing times. Which,if you read their words, is exactly as folks such as Jefferson and Adams and the others intended it to be. Jefferson actually felt that the Constitution should be reexamined every 30 years.

It's refreshing to have that out in the open, anyway. But that's the dividing line, and you're on the wrong side of it. I can't accept the notion that progress between than and now has been necessarily inconsistent with 18th century notions of individual liberty, and I think it's disingenuous to assume it.

sorry, but that government was run for a nation of small shopkeepers and large agrarian landowners. Further, it was run out of abject fear of the new nation having a standing army(well-founded given what the Brits did with theirs), a chunk of laborer in the form of slaves and very little that could be construed as large industry or multinational business. Guess what? That isn't modern America, and while the concept of individual liberty is valid, the idea of running 21st century America, or any large diverse nation without a lot of central regulation and management is just plain nuts.

Ron Paul had some great ideas, and what he might have "destroyed" would not have been the nation. You can't destroy a nation with ideas like that. You just can't.

really? Not that I'd want to be around to find out, but the nation's economy wouldn't last for a month if he did to the fed what he claims he would, for starters.

This leaves us with the question, what is it that you and everyone else who hates the man is so worried about losing? We're well on our way to "destruction" right now, and it's exactly because of the one thing that I'm dead-certain RP had right--currency. I'd like to know in what reality taking everyone's hard-earned money and making it worthless, while making them dependent doesn't count as destroying a nation?

since you feel your money is worthless, I have a project for you. PM me, and I'll give you my mailing address. Just bundle that worthless stuff up and I'll take it off your hands. Because, essentially, that is the position held by virtually the entire planet: US currency, far from being worthless, is likely the most fairly valued and stable currency on the planet.

I will send you all of my U.S. Dollars, if you will send me the amount of silver or gold they would have bought 10 years ago. Furthermore the U.S. dollar is not worthless yet, it's just being inflated more and more, and because of where they choose to place their priorities it will come down hard. I'm perfectly certain it will be replaced, and I'm equally certain the transition will hurt anyone not involved in and savvy to the money markets (and its likely that even they will feel it). My attitude is that I shouldn't have to be doing anything in the money markets in order to preserve the value of my money, or something is seriously wrong at the helm.

callmeslick wrote:Guess what? That isn't modern America, and while the concept of individual liberty is valid, the idea of running 21st century America, or any large diverse nation without a lot of central regulation and management is just plain nuts.

You and I just aren't going to get along while you're willing to accept the compromised notion that there are necessary exceptions to the concept of individual liberty (and apparently God-given rights like self-defense). Government needs to be carefully maintained as the servant of the people--an active, continual seeding of their authority which remains theirs, not a once for all time partial forfeiture which is capable of seeking to obtain yet more.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Government needs to be carefully maintained as the servant of the people...

People, not corporations. That means regulation, sorry.

I swear he's trying to communicate, but with only 7 words it's hard to say.

vision wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Government needs to be carefully maintained as the servant of the people...

People, not corporations. That means regulation, sorry.

Some regulations yes, but not to the point where you drive them out of business or out of country.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I swear he's trying to communicate, but with only 7 words it's hard to say.

I know 6 words is your comprehension limit, sorry. I'll try to keep the letters down to 4 per word in the future too.

Nice comeback. Have you been hanging around grade-school playgrounds?

I thought this was a topic about Ben Carson and not about our individual egos?

any discussion of Ben Carson IS about individual ego. What I'd love to read is a list of all the losing horses you've backed as 'conservative' leaders in the past few years. I seem to recall several, and the last primary season was hilarious to read along with.....

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Nice comeback. Have you been hanging around grade-school playgrounds?

Just giving you back what you started. Wanna keep going tough guy?

...Do I have to say it, boys?

callmeslick wrote:any discussion of Ben Carson IS about individual ego. ...

Why is that? Does he only talk about himself?

callmeslick wrote:any discussion of Ben Carson IS about individual ego. What I'd love to read is a list of all the losing horses you've backed as 'conservative' leaders in the past few years. I seem to recall several, and the last primary season was hilarious to read along with.....

I guess you forgot about the 2010 mid term where the Dems suffered their worst loss in 50 years. And I think you got it wrong, if we were discussing Obama then you'd have a point. Look at any number of speeches Obama gave and then start counting how many times he says "I".

There is a great movie out about Dr. Carson. "Gifted Hands"

I think it's funny that people on the left start shouting "Uncle Tom!" as soon as a black man takes a conservative stance. The REAL racist attitude is the belief that all people of a particular race must have the same political views. <sigh>

I'm still waiting for that time when our children can be judged by the content of their characters, not by the color of their skin.

Seems old Ben is dancing around the topic of gay marriage....welcome to the big leagues, Dr. Carson!!

Guess Carson is right up there with Obama, who was against gay marriages before he was for them. Really slick, do you think gay marriages will be a factor in the next presidential election?

actually, woodchip, no comment on Ben's words, just noting that he has asked for the spotlight, and now apparently gotten it. We'll see how he does from here, as that is where the wheels have been falling off a lot of 'anti-Obama' darlings. Of course, Ben will be positioning to run against Hilary Clinton, so lots of luck with that.....shes already a prohibitive Vegas favorite 3 years out.

Hillaries chances are based on a adoring press that will ask no questions on Benghazi and if she goes on a weight loss program along with a face lift. Right now she just looks a old bag lady who has taken one too many nips off the bottle in the brown bag.

I’ll have to look up that quote where Hillary said “If a company can’t pay its employees health care insurance, they don’t deserve to be in business”. (paraphrase)

God…I hate that woman.

woodchip wrote:Hillaries chances are based on a adoring press that will ask no questions on Benghazi and if she goes on a weight loss program along with a face lift. Right now she just looks a old bag lady who has taken one too many nips off the bottle in the brown bag.

a bag lady with a 69-21 pos/neg number in the large volume polls. That is a juggernaut waiting to unload on an election. Benghazi, as I've tried to point out, was tragic, but hardly some Watergate-esque scandal, so I'm sure mention will be made, but overall her time at State was pretty productive. Now, you all would have no way of knowing this, but I am NOT a real big Hillary fan.....one of the reasons I jumped to the Obama candidacy early on(my wife and I would go to separate primary group meetings). Still, I've seen enough elections and run-ups to election to know that all Ms.Clinton has to do is keep her head down, tailor her campaign to the polling, and emerge in late 2015, and she blasts through the primary process. This would also entail learning from her 2008 mistakes in the primaries, which were numerous. Still, given the ever shifting demographics tilting the electorate to more minorities, more women voters, more young voters and a much more tolerant attitude on various 'culture war' issues, and coupled with a recovering economy, she will be VERY tough to beat. Trying to set the whole matter up as the making of a generous press corps, or appearance in street clothing(note the likelihood of, say, Sarah Palin ever getting elected to ANYTHING to disprove that), is mind-blowingly simplistic and wrongheaded.

I want to remind you in the 2008 primaries Hillary was considered a shoo-in also. Until, of course, a unknown half black man entered the primary and Hillary lost the support of the adoring press. Do you really think Hillary would have a chance against Carson if 90% of the press coverage was conservative and favorable to Carson? I think not. In reality, unless Carson has some affair with a blond white woman or the press can fabricate one, who do you think the African American population is going to vote for? A white woman or a fellow black man?

woodchip wrote:I want to remind you in the 2008 primaries Hillary was considered a shoo-in also.

she should have won the primaries, but made some serious tactical blunders, such as discounting a few winner-take all small states early on, and putting too few resources into one of the big Tuesdays in which she got narrowly beat in races she should have won. Otherwise, you'd be into year 5 of the 2nd Clinton presidency today.

Until, of course, a unknown half black man entered the primary and Hillary lost the support of the adoring press.

you seem to have forgotten that during the primaries, the press was VERY rough on Obama, with the Rev Wright stuff, land deals in Chicago, etc.

Do you really think Hillary would have a chance against Carson if 90% of the press coverage was conservative and favorable to Carson?

press coverage, in this day and age, runs the gamut from right to left, with each group tuning in to it's own voices. The problem you are encountering is that the ELECTORATE is fundamentally less conservative, and very much less tolerant of the far right. There are no lack of conservative voices....

I think not. In reality, unless Carson has some affair with a blond white woman or the press can fabricate one, who do you think the African American population is going to vote for? A white woman or a fellow black man?

Hillary, by roughly 70-30,because I see no real sign that Carson inspires black people all that much(note, not the 92-8% Obama gets).....however, blacks make up only 7% of the voters most elections, whereas women make up 56%, Hispanics make up 15%, other immigrants another 8%, gays over 8%, pro-gay right voters total 45%, etc, etc, etc. If Carson runs against her, which I seriously doubt, because the old-white-boy party won't put him into the position, Hillary would clean his clock, and likely even take broad swaths of the South, which would finish off the GOP once and for all. The GOP knows that, of course......

on a tangental note, why IS it that people refer to 'the media' or 'the mainstream media' like it's some sort of monolithic bloc? In this day and age, it should be obvious to ANYONE that the old newspaper/big 3 network news powers have very little influence. With the internet, and especially 24 hour satellite news outlets, no overwhelming source dominates. As I said above, most partisans seem to stick to their likeminded sources, a few folks actually do the work of filtering through a wide variety of voices, and the vast majority is largely oblivious to news even in election cycles, unless some major story hits the public psyche. I just don't get the whole, 'blame the media' excuse for any candidate or especially political ideology falling short with the voters.

callmeslick wrote:on a tangental note, why IS it that people refer to 'the media' or 'the mainstream media' like it's some sort of monolithic bloc? ...

I think the 'mainstream' qualifier was initially put there to differentiate from the "media" because they are a monolithic mouthpiece for the administration quite often. I know, speaking for myself, sometimes when I am pissed off at a horrible lack of objectivity in reporting I just rant at "the media" when usually it is the 'mainstream media' that pissed me off. So the 'mainstream' qualifier probably get left off enough to destroy the point of making a distinction.

It is amazing how the mainstream media will come out spinning a story all of them with the same key phrases. To hear any one of them it just sounds like a report but to hear a montage of 7 or 8 coming out with the same damn point of view using the same damn key phrases is not a coincidence. They don't speak in lock step reporting things that are apolitical in nature like a breaking story of a hurricane or hostage situation or Lindsey Lohan stole some jewelry but if a politician steps in poo the mainstream starts working from the same page of rhetorical devices so quickly that it seems there must be a direct neural transfer of thought to a private twitter feed for them coming directly from who ever is on duty in the war room of the DNC.

In my opinion, it’s the rest of the media…movies, daytime talk shows (TV), sitcoms, pop music, comedy…etc. that seems to have most influence in this country, because of the skepticism people have with the “news media”, so it has a much more subtle lasting affect.

A joke can have more affect on your sub-conscience than a news story.

People mistrust the "news media" but they let their guard down watching their favorite actor, and when that actor say's "Bush is evil"...that has way more affect then 10 news stories about Bush granting money to fight AIDS.

Or for example…you can get into someone’s mind much better with a song like “American Idiot” or “A song for Richard and his friends”.

Even TV commercials have political messages hidden in them…like the Gates belt one from during the first Reagan years…”After four years it’s time for a change”.

Who watches the news anyway?

The mainstream media is just a convenient bogeyman to pin the blame on when things don't go the way people want. The only thing the mainstream media adores is money, and viewers equals money. So much like the DNC in the last election, the mainstream media carefully monitor the demographics and shape their product to be what the most viewers want to hear. It has absolutely nothing to do with spin, objectivity or even reality for that matter. If there was a big scandal or the opportunity to manufacture one at the DNC today, the press would be all over it like flies on ★■◆● with absolutely zero of the adoration that the conservatives are constantly protesting about.

Could the reason it seems to some of you that the press only regurgitates whatever the DNC says be because the DNC simply speaks first and says what the mainstream viewership wants to hear? Perhaps the DNC took some of the gigantic amount of money they receive from every last special interest group out there and trained/built a really bloody good PR team then integrated it with the mainstream media, while the republicans took their equal share of the money and hired a PR team on the "free market" which promptly outsourced all labor to China. Maybe the DNC's approach to modern 24 hour news society is simply better and more effective than the GOPs?

I totally agree that the Democrats are better at PR than Republicans…hell that’s so damn obvious it's laughable.

But, the part about China is a little silly. Businesses both Republican, Democrat and publicly owned have outsourced their labor, but as far as I can tell, political parties are a little behind the curve on that one.

Krom wrote:The mainstream media is just a convenient bogeyman to pin the blame on when things don't go the way people want. The only thing the mainstream media adores is money, and viewers equals money. So much like the DNC in the last election, the mainstream media carefully monitor the demographics and shape their product to be what the most viewers want to hear. It has absolutely nothing to do with spin, objectivity or even reality for that matter. If there was a big scandal or the opportunity to manufacture one at the DNC today, the press would be all over it like flies on **** with absolutely zero of the adoration that the conservatives are constantly protesting about.

Could the reason it seems to some of you that the press only regurgitates whatever the DNC says be because the DNC simply speaks first and says what the mainstream viewership wants to hear? Perhaps the DNC took some of the gigantic amount of money they receive from every last special interest group out there and trained/built a really bloody good PR team then integrated it with the mainstream media, while the republicans took their equal share of the money and hired a PR team on the "free market" which promptly outsourced all labor to China. Maybe the DNC's approach to modern 24 hour news society is simply better and more effective than the GOPs?

I think there have been numerous topics that if the candidate hadn't been Obama there would have been a rabid feeding frenzy over the details instead of silence followed by deflection. It isn't always about ratings/money when your ideology is being challenged. Partisanship has tilted the balance at key times during the campaign. And during the debate (Crowley)

Unlike the conversation between Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw there is no conversation between top mainstream media talking heads two weeks before a presidential election where they candidly admit they 'know very little about the republican presidential nominee'....'where he stands on foreign policy' etc. Two weeks before the election they will have covered every little detail of the republican.
There is no example of a network anchor delivering an october surprise on a democrat candidate using forged documents and saying later he didn't care that the authenticity of those documents was in doubt prior to the report because he believed the story had merit. And then he was awarded/honored by his mainstream peers for being so good at his job...

It isn't an open game on anyone environment, there are exceptions made for the lefty's when it really counts.

Woodchip wrote:In reality, unless Carson has some affair with a blond white woman or the press can fabricate one, who do you think the African American population is going to vote for? A white woman or a fellow black man?

You may be right, but I hope we are getting over that. I would like to think that if African American's voted for Dr. Carson, it would be because they agreed with his politics. Not because they liked the color of his skin.

Kilarin wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:In reality, unless Carson has some affair with a blond white woman or the press can fabricate one, who do you think the African American population is going to vote for? A white woman or a fellow black man?

You may be right, but I hope we are getting over that. I would like to think that if African American's voted for Dr. Carson, it would be because they agreed with his politics. Not because they liked the color of his skin.

I didn't say that. I think your quote is of someone else.

Will Robinson wrote: didn't say that. I think your quote is of someone else.

ARGH! Sorry about that. corrected it.