I hope he runs

BladeRunner wrote:http://hotair.com/archives/2014/05/15/sure-sounds-like-ben-carsons-running-for-president/

Don't know much about him except for the azz whooping he laid on Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast. I tend to lean towards Paul and Cruz but would certainly give Carson a look. A non-politician running for President certainly has it's appeal.

I like the guy...he sounds really good...but I still have some reservations about him.  He came onto the political stage out of nowhere...says all the right things...my caution meter is pegged.

I have zero trust or regard for Rand Paul...he has turned into an attention whore this past month saying anything to cater to whoever he is speaking to at that minute.  I am afraid he is devoid of principle and backbone.  

Ted Cruz is "the one".  David Horowitz stated he was the most intelligent student he has ever taught.  He knows how to fight, not afraid to fight, and comes with an intellectual level 50 stories above anyone else.  Mike Lee is another that hasn't wavered from Conservative principles.

That said neither can win...this country is about 20 years too far down the crapper to ever recover.  I sadly feel a complete collapse and Armageddon is the only way to move back to true Constitutional principles.  I hope and pray everyday that I am wrong but down in my gut know I am correct.  

If Mr. Carson does throw his hat into the Presidential race rest assured the mud slinging unleashed upon him will dwarf the combined mud that which was thrown by the left to destroy Sarah Palin and Herman Cain.

Skeptical wrote:If Mr. Carson does throw his hat into the Presidential race rest assured the mud slinging unleashed upon him will dwarf the combined mud that which was thrown by the left to destroy Sarah Palin and Herman Cain.

Apparently he is not very keen regarding the Second Amendment.  I would hate to see him get drug through the mud and labeled Uncle Tom.  The man is an extremely talented and morally grounded individual who deserves nothing but respect. I respect him immensely but he is not the one to turn this lisping liberty ship around.

Darth Cheney wrote:

Skeptical wrote:If Mr. Carson does throw his hat into the Presidential race rest assured the mud slinging unleashed upon him will dwarf the combined mud that which was thrown by the left to destroy Sarah Palin and Herman Cain.

Apparently he is not very keen regarding the Second Amendment.  I would hate to see him get drug through the mud and labeled Uncle Tom.  The man is an extremely talented and morally grounded individual who deserves nothing but respect. I respect him immensely but he is not the one to turn this lisping liberty ship around.

I don't think there is anyone who can turn this ship away from destruction. Obama and the liberals have done their worst.

His views on welfare

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05/20/hollywood-actor-couldnt-help-but-start-clapping-after-hearing-dr-ben-carsons-take-on-welfare-during-the-view/

“When you rob someone of their incentive to go out there and improve themselves, you are not doing them any favors,” Carson said. “When you take somebody and pat them on the head and say, ‘There there, you poor little thing… Let me give you housing subsidies, let me give you free health care because you can’t do that.’”

“What would be much more empowering is to use our intellect and our resources to give those people a way up and out,” he concluded.

Great speech.  Unfortunately he would not be able to pass the modern day conservative litmus test to gain the nod for a presidential candidacy.  He is big on education which isn't typically a strong hold for Republican support.  His opinion on taxes though is what would render him DOA among those who provide the financial backing in the Republican Party.  They are not interested in the type of income based flat rate plan he referred to.  They are more interested in something much closer to a straight flat tax where everyone would pay the same regardless of income.  I like where his heart is on this, but we all know that a flat tax rate wouldn't bring that money back from overseas banks.

He also has some interesting thoughts on a privately funded health insurance plan.  I like his thought that when it is your money you would likely spend it a little more wisely and choose more cost effective plans of action, but I have a problem with his example on shying away from the E.R. to hold out for a cheaper clinic visit.  Why is this a choice we have to make?  Who benefits from this?  This issue needs to be resolved, not danced around.  Secondly, if I understood correctly he was making a point that with your own privately funded plan you could choose not to spend it on yourself, but forgo a potentially spendy treatment and leave that money for future generations instead.  That is a pretty shitty position to put yourself in.

There are also his thoughts basic work ethic.  I always have to laugh at those who feel conserves lay claim to a superior work ethic.  Not the case.  I can't get a feel from this one speech on whether he realizes that our not.

I don't see where anything he said was a real slap to the face to Obama, the two are aligned better than some may care to admit. He is almost as toxic to the movement as Chris Christie and they would be afraid that every time he opened his mouth he would say something they didn't like.

Dr. Jones wrote:Great speech.  Unfortunately he would not be able to pass the modern day conservative litmus test to gain the nod for a presidential candidacy.  He is big on education which isn't a strong suit for Republicans.  His opinion on taxes though, is what would render him DOA among those who provide the financial backing in the Republican Party.  They are not interested in the type of flat rate plan he referred to.  They are more interested in something much closer to a flat tax rate.  I like where his heart is on this, but we all know that a flat tax rate wouldn't bring that money back from overseas banks.

He also has some interesting thoughts on a privately funded health insurance plan.  I like his thought that when it is your money you would likely spend it a little more wisely and choose more cost effective plans of action, but I have a problem with his example on shying away from the E.R. to hold out for a cheaper clinic visit.  Why is this a choice we have to make?  Who benefits from this?  This issue needs to be resolved, not danced around.  Secondly, if I understood correctly he was making a point that with your own privately funded plan you could choose not to spend it on yourself, but forgo a potentially spendy treatment and leave that money for future generations instead.  That is a pretty shitty position to put yourself in.

Lastly are his thoughts basic work ethic.  I always have to laugh at those who feel conserves lay claim to a superior work ethic.  Not the case.  I don't see where anything he said was a real slap to the face to Obama, the two are aligned better than some may care to admit.

Keep sticking your head up your ass because the clarity of your vision is awe inspiring.

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Great speech.  Unfortunately he would not be able to pass the modern day conservative litmus test to gain the nod for a presidential candidacy.  He is big on education which isn't a strong suit for Republicans.  His opinion on taxes though, is what would render him DOA among those who provide the financial backing in the Republican Party.  They are not interested in the type of flat rate plan he referred to.  They are more interested in something much closer to a flat tax rate.  I like where his heart is on this, but we all know that a flat tax rate wouldn't bring that money back from overseas banks.

He also has some interesting thoughts on a privately funded health insurance plan.  I like his thought that when it is your money you would likely spend it a little more wisely and choose more cost effective plans of action, but I have a problem with his example on shying away from the E.R. to hold out for a cheaper clinic visit.  Why is this a choice we have to make?  Who benefits from this?  This issue needs to be resolved, not danced around.  Secondly, if I understood correctly he was making a point that with your own privately funded plan you could choose not to spend it on yourself, but forgo a potentially spendy treatment and leave that money for future generations instead.  That is a pretty shitty position to put yourself in.

Lastly are his thoughts basic work ethic.  I always have to laugh at those who feel conserves lay claim to a superior work ethic.  Not the case.  I don't see where anything he said was a real slap to the face to Obama, the two are aligned better than some may care to admit.

Keep sticking your head up your ass because the clarity of your vision is awe inspiring.

You're a precious snowflake....now move along, there are grown ups trying to have a conversation.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Great speech.  Unfortunately he would not be able to pass the modern day conservative litmus test to gain the nod for a presidential candidacy.  He is big on education which isn't a strong suit for Republicans.  His opinion on taxes though, is what would render him DOA among those who provide the financial backing in the Republican Party.  They are not interested in the type of flat rate plan he referred to.  They are more interested in something much closer to a flat tax rate.  I like where his heart is on this, but we all know that a flat tax rate wouldn't bring that money back from overseas banks.

He also has some interesting thoughts on a privately funded health insurance plan.  I like his thought that when it is your money you would likely spend it a little more wisely and choose more cost effective plans of action, but I have a problem with his example on shying away from the E.R. to hold out for a cheaper clinic visit.  Why is this a choice we have to make?  Who benefits from this?  This issue needs to be resolved, not danced around.  Secondly, if I understood correctly he was making a point that with your own privately funded plan you could choose not to spend it on yourself, but forgo a potentially spendy treatment and leave that money for future generations instead.  That is a pretty shitty position to put yourself in.

Lastly are his thoughts basic work ethic.  I always have to laugh at those who feel conserves lay claim to a superior work ethic.  Not the case.  I don't see where anything he said was a real slap to the face to Obama, the two are aligned better than some may care to admit.

Keep sticking your head up your ass because the clarity of your vision is awe inspiring.

You're a precious snowflake....now move along, there are grown ups trying to have a conversation.

Why do you require two avatars, Dr. Jones? Trying to make your opinion seem more mainstream?

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Great speech.  Unfortunately he would not be able to pass the modern day conservative litmus test to gain the nod for a presidential candidacy.  He is big on education which isn't a strong suit for Republicans.  His opinion on taxes though, is what would render him DOA among those who provide the financial backing in the Republican Party.  They are not interested in the type of flat rate plan he referred to.  They are more interested in something much closer to a flat tax rate.  I like where his heart is on this, but we all know that a flat tax rate wouldn't bring that money back from overseas banks.

He also has some interesting thoughts on a privately funded health insurance plan.  I like his thought that when it is your money you would likely spend it a little more wisely and choose more cost effective plans of action, but I have a problem with his example on shying away from the E.R. to hold out for a cheaper clinic visit.  Why is this a choice we have to make?  Who benefits from this?  This issue needs to be resolved, not danced around.  Secondly, if I understood correctly he was making a point that with your own privately funded plan you could choose not to spend it on yourself, but forgo a potentially spendy treatment and leave that money for future generations instead.  That is a pretty shitty position to put yourself in.

Lastly are his thoughts basic work ethic.  I always have to laugh at those who feel conserves lay claim to a superior work ethic.  Not the case.  I don't see where anything he said was a real slap to the face to Obama, the two are aligned better than some may care to admit.

Keep sticking your head up your ass because the clarity of your vision is awe inspiring.

You're a precious snowflake....now move along, there are grown ups trying to have a conversation.

Why do you require two avatars, Dr. Jones?  Trying to make your opinion seem more mainstream?

?

I just watched the video from The View.  It's interesting how the conservative media spin machine distorted the facts surrounding the White House demanding an apology.  We have no idea what the White House said because what he got was second hand information coming from the organizers of the event.  All we know for sure was that he says Obama himself didn't seem to be offended.

Liberals are the most deceitful lying sacks of garbage there are.  Nobody should ever believe a word they say and quite honestly nobody should even listen to these assholes.  Take the comment from the POS above:

"Great speech.  Unfortunately he would not be able to pass the modern day conservative litmus test to gain the nod for a presidential candidacy.  He is big on education which isn't typically a strong hold for Republican support. "    

Conservatives believe deeply in education and are tremendous supporters of it.  They just don't believe in the progressive liberal agenda that demands centralized control from the federal government and the wasteful spending that causes.

Conservatives believe in local control of education that results in true education of our children.

Here is what the liberals have brought this country in the way of education and when a conservative says it isn't working, the dumb ass liberals say they don't support education.  Do society a favor and spit on a liberal the next time you see one of the dumb asses.

Jammer wrote:Liberals are the most deceitful lying sacks of garbage there are.  Nobody should ever believe a word they say and quite honestly nobody should even listen to these assholes.  Take the comment from the POS above:

"Great speech.  Unfortunately he would not be able to pass the modern day conservative litmus test to gain the nod for a presidential candidacy.  He is big on education which isn't typically a strong hold for Republican support. "    

Conservatives believe deeply in education and are tremendous supporters of it.  They just don't believe in the progressive liberal agenda that demands centralized control from the federal government and the wasteful spending that causes.

Conservatives believe in local control of education that results in true education of our children.

Here is what the liberals have brought this country in the way of education and when a conservative says it isn't working, the dumb ass liberals say they don't support education.  Do society a favor and spit on a liberal the next time you see one of the dumb asses.

You had me at: "Liberals are the most deceitful lying sacks of garbage there are. Nobody should ever believe a word they say and quite honestly nobody should even listen to these assholes."

All they do is double speak as displayed on this site...they are concerned about this and that and let's have a conversation. They are a parasite on society and nothing different then a virus that must be eliminated. They ignore reality, causation, and rely on their "feelings". Most are too stupid to even realize the harm they are causing. Oh, and let's not forget...I am not a liberal...blah, blah, blah.

His opinion on taxes though is what would render him DOA among those who provide the financial backing in the Republican Party.  They are not interested in the type of income based flat rate plan he referred to.  They are more interested in something much closer to a straight flat tax where everyone would pay the same regardless of income.

WTF? Carson's flat tax plan is a straight flat tax plan that you state the Republicans are against. It's the liberals and Dems who fight tooth and nail against any flat tax or even a flattening out of the current progressive system we do have. It was the Democrats who were responsible for 4 of the 5 new tax brackets added since Reagan dropped it to two in the 1986 Tax Reform Act.

Carson's plan seems to be light on the details. Will it end the death tax? Will it end the double taxation of the corporate rate? Capital gains? Will it end FICA taxes? The most resonable, fair and workable flat tax proposal that I've seen is the one Steve Forbes proposed during his short run for President.

They need to start taxing (property) farmers at the same rate every other business has to pay. For far too long they have avoided paying their fair share. Someone needs to explain to me why they are entitled to a different set of rules than any other business.

Darth Cheney wrote:They need to start taxing (property) farmers at the same rate every other business has to pay. For far too long they have avoided paying their fair share.  Someone needs to explain to me why they are entitled to a different set of rules than any other business.

I hear what you are saying, but in my opinion all taxation should be on consumption and not production or property.

Darth Cheney wrote:They need to start taxing (property) farmers at the same rate every other business has to pay. For far too long they have avoided paying their fair share.  Someone needs to explain to me why they are entitled to a different set of rules than any other business.

A little off topic but an "Amen brother" to you.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:They need to start taxing (property) farmers at the same rate every other business has to pay. For far too long they have avoided paying their fair share.  Someone needs to explain to me why they are entitled to a different set of rules than any other business.

A little off topic but an "Amen brother" to you.

I'm fishing...

Jammer wrote:Liberals are the most deceitful lying sacks of garbage there are.  Nobody should ever believe a word they say and quite honestly nobody should even listen to these assholes.  Take the comment from the POS above:

"Great speech.  Unfortunately he would not be able to pass the modern day conservative litmus test to gain the nod for a presidential candidacy.  He is big on education which isn't typically a strong hold for Republican support. "    

Conservatives believe deeply in education and are tremendous supporters of it.  They just don't believe in the progressive liberal agenda that demands centralized control from the federal government and the wasteful spending that causes.

Conservatives believe in local control of education that results in true education of our children.

Here is what the liberals have brought this country in the way of education and when a conservative says it isn't working, the dumb ass liberals say they don't support education.  Do society a favor and spit on a liberal the next time you see one of the dumb asses.

How many votes have congressional Republicans taken on repealing ObamaCare?  How many votes have they taken on education?  Not even in the ballpark.  

We live in a very conservative state that has orchestrated its own teacher shortage due to poor pay.  We also fail to adequately fund education when money is available should we choose to use it.  These things are certainly arguably not the end of the world, but education is certainly not anywhere near the top if your list at any level, as it is Mr. Carson's.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

His opinion on taxes though is what would render him DOA among those who provide the financial backing in the Republican Party.  They are not interested in the type of income based flat rate plan he referred to.  They are more interested in something much closer to a straight flat tax where everyone would pay the same regardless of income.

WTF? Carson's flat tax plan is a straight flat tax plan that you state the Republicans are against. It's the liberals and Dems who fight tooth and nail against any flat tax or even a flattening out of the current progressive system we do have. It was the Democrats who were responsible for 4 of the 5 new tax brackets added since Reagan dropped it to two in the 1986 Tax Reform Act.

Carson's plan seems to be light on the details. Will it end the death tax? Will it end the double taxation of the corporate rate? Capital gains? Will it end FICA taxes? The most resonable, fair and workable flat tax proposal that I've seen is the one Steve Forbes proposed during his short run for President.

If you consider a 10% tax rate across the board, as I believe his example did, the conservative movement would cry fowl because it wouldn't be fair that a person has to pay more in taxes than his next door neighbor just because he makes more.

Darth Cheney wrote:They need to start taxing (property) farmers at the same rate every other business has to pay. For far too long they have avoided paying their fair share.  Someone needs to explain to me why they are entitled to a different set of rules than any other business.

That's a good question for the people I rented land from.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

His opinion on taxes though is what would render him DOA among those who provide the financial backing in the Republican Party.  They are not interested in the type of income based flat rate plan he referred to.  They are more interested in something much closer to a straight flat tax where everyone would pay the same regardless of income.

WTF? Carson's flat tax plan is a straight flat tax plan that you state the Republicans are against. It's the liberals and Dems who fight tooth and nail against any flat tax or even a flattening out of the current progressive system we do have. It was the Democrats who were responsible for 4 of the 5 new tax brackets added since Reagan dropped it to two in the 1986 Tax Reform Act.

Carson's plan seems to be light on the details. Will it end the death tax? Will it end the double taxation of the corporate rate? Capital gains? Will it end FICA taxes? The most resonable, fair and workable flat tax proposal that I've seen is the one Steve Forbes proposed during his short run for President.

If you consider a 10% tax rate across the board, as I believe his example did, the conservative movement would cry fowl because it wouldn't be fair that a person has to pay more in taxes than his next door neighbor just because he makes more.

The situation you are describing the Republicans crying "foul" over would be considered a capitation or direct tax (also known as a head tax or a poll tax), a tax that is unconstitutional.

"No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

More likely it would be the Democrats, who seem to have no qualms about their fearless leader shredding the Constitution.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

His opinion on taxes though is what would render him DOA among those who provide the financial backing in the Republican Party.  They are not interested in the type of income based flat rate plan he referred to.  They are more interested in something much closer to a straight flat tax where everyone would pay the same regardless of income.

WTF? Carson's flat tax plan is a straight flat tax plan that you state the Republicans are against. It's the liberals and Dems who fight tooth and nail against any flat tax or even a flattening out of the current progressive system we do have. It was the Democrats who were responsible for 4 of the 5 new tax brackets added since Reagan dropped it to two in the 1986 Tax Reform Act.

Carson's plan seems to be light on the details. Will it end the death tax? Will it end the double taxation of the corporate rate? Capital gains? Will it end FICA taxes? The most resonable, fair and workable flat tax proposal that I've seen is the one Steve Forbes proposed during his short run for President.

If you consider a 10% tax rate across the board, as I believe his example did, the conservative movement would cry fowl because it wouldn't be fair that a person has to pay more in taxes than his next door neighbor just because he makes more.

The situation you are describing the Republicans crying "foul" over would be considered a capitation or direct tax (also known as a head tax or a poll tax), a tax that is unconstitutional.

"No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

More likely it would be the Democrats, who seem to have no qualms about their fearless leader shredding the Constitution.

 

Obviously a dollar for dollar flat tax is not an option, but that kind of goes without saying. The mentality that I shouldn't pay more than my neighbor in taxes just because I make more is very real though.