How can you vote for ben carson

Look, if the guy has a plan for defeating volcanos and what not we should at least hear him out. LMAO

yeah, run faster?  Maybe that's also his solution for getting arrested for pot.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UKCjDqwRIM

You really tee'd this one up for me to knock you out of the park by quoting the new yorker, but I'll be nice.  

As for Ben Carson, I personally really like the guy and feel he has a lot of great ideas.  However, I don't think he has any experience leading much of anything so in my humble opinion he's grossly under qualified for that reason alone.  His soft spoken demeanor also concerns me that he wouldn't be willing to put his foot down when necessary.

He's obviously a conservative Christian guy, so it's not a big surprise that he holds conservative Christian values.  According to Gallup last year 38% of the country identified as conservative, 34% identified as moderate and 23% as liberal.  So from a political standpoint holding conservative values is more of an asset than a liability IMHO.

51% of Americans feel Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances with only 29% feeling it should be legal under all circumstances.  Yet again, conservative viewpoint is the winner. (politically speaking)

With Gay marriage that was mentioned it wasn't until 2012 that the nation as a whole crested 50% being in support of gay marriage being legal.  I think the latest numbers i saw was around 61% in support.   Carson's position isn't a "winner" politically speaking, but it's not an off the charts loser either.

Personally, I don't feel Ben will do that well in the primaries and he'll likely fade away over the coming months.  I'm a fan of his, but just don't support him for President.  I follow a lot of conservative blogs and he's just not somebody that gets talked about much because there's not a lot of excitement for him.

Being pro-life isn't a winner right now. There's plenty of people (like me) who support early term abortion but oppose late term, so I wouldn't fall in to that 29%. The last gallup pole had 50% people claiming to be pro-choice and 44% pro-life. Going back a decade, the numbers move around a little, but never stray to far from the 50/50 split. So really, neither side is being hurt by maintaining their pro-life or pro-choice stances. 

Gay marriage on the other hand, Republicans really need to give that one up. That ship has sailed and it's costing them the youth vote. I've seen polls that somewhere around 3/4's of millennials support gay marriage.  

I am for abortion but only if someone is holding a gun on me and I am eating a hamburger.

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by dmiller5

how can anyone take this guy seriously... newest reason:

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/ben-carson-pompeii-victims-should-have-outrun-lava

You really tee'd this one up for me to knock you out of the park by quoting the new yorker, but I'll be nice.  

As for Ben Carson, I personally really like the guy and feel he has a lot of great ideas.  However, I don't think he has any experience leading much of anything so in my humble opinion he's grossly under qualified for that reason alone.  His soft spoken demeanor also concerns me that he wouldn't be willing to put his foot down when necessary.

He's obviously a conservative Christian guy, so it's not a big surprise that he holds conservative Christian values.  According to Gallup last year 38% of the country identified as conservative, 34% identified as moderate and 23% as liberal.  So from a political standpoint holding conservative values is more of an asset than a liability IMHO.

51% of Americans feel Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances with only 29% feeling it should be legal under all circumstances.  Yet again, conservative viewpoint is the winner.

I'm not sure where your numbers come from (and I know how touchy you are about anyone questioning your sources... ) But I've never seen any poll that suggested that more than half of Americans feel abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. This Gallup poll, which was taken in May shows that only 19% of people feel it should be illegal in all circumstances with an overwhelming majority (80%) saying that it should be legal in at least some circumstances. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx

lol, hey I'm not touchy about it I just don't like it when people attack the source versus the information.  You did a masterful job and I applaud you.

I actually made a mistake.  I googled the exact same thing you did and used the gallup chart, but I completely misread the colors and cited the 51% number which was actually "legal under certain circumstances".  So good catch and even after re-reading my post 51% is definitely way high for being opposed in all circumstances. duh

I'm a pretty strong pro-life guy and I would even categorize myself in that 51% group because I do certainly encourage a woman in all circumstances to not get an abortion, but in the event of incest/rape or legitimate health issues I can reluctantly support the right to choose.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34485358

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by dmiller5

how can anyone take this guy seriously... newest reason:

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/ben-carson-pompeii-victims-should-have-outrun-lava

You really tee'd this one up for me to knock you out of the park by quoting the new yorker, but I'll be nice.  

As for Ben Carson, I personally really like the guy and feel he has a lot of great ideas.  However, I don't think he has any experience leading much of anything so in my humble opinion he's grossly under qualified for that reason alone.  His soft spoken demeanor also concerns me that he wouldn't be willing to put his foot down when necessary.

He's obviously a conservative Christian guy, so it's not a big surprise that he holds conservative Christian values.  According to Gallup last year 38% of the country identified as conservative, 34% identified as moderate and 23% as liberal.  So from a political standpoint holding conservative values is more of an asset than a liability IMHO.

51% of Americans feel Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances with only 29% feeling it should be legal under all circumstances.  Yet again, conservative viewpoint is the winner.

I'm not sure where your numbers come from (and I know how touchy you are about anyone questioning your sources... ) But I've never seen any poll that suggested that more than half of Americans feel abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. This Gallup poll, which was taken in May shows that only 19% of people feel it should be illegal in all circumstances with an overwhelming majority (80%) saying that it should be legal in at least some circumstances. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx

lol, hey I'm not touchy about it I just don't like it when people attack the source versus the information.  You did a masterful job and I applaud you.

I actually made a mistake.  I googled the exact same thing you did and used the gallup chart, but I completely misread the colors and cited the 51% number which was actually "legal under certain circumstances".  So good catch and even after re-reading my post 51% is definitely way high for being opposed in all circumstances. duh

I'm a pretty strong pro-life guy and I would even categorize myself in that 51% group because I do certainly encourage a woman in all circumstances to not get an abortion, but in the event of incest/rape or legitimate health issues I can reluctantly support the right to choose.

can you explain this?  If its murder, than how can she murder the child because she was raped?  This seems like an all or nothing thing if your position is that life begins at conception

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by dmiller5

how can anyone take this guy seriously... newest reason:

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/ben-carson-pompeii-victims-should-have-outrun-lava

You really tee'd this one up for me to knock you out of the park by quoting the new yorker, but I'll be nice.  

As for Ben Carson, I personally really like the guy and feel he has a lot of great ideas.  However, I don't think he has any experience leading much of anything so in my humble opinion he's grossly under qualified for that reason alone.  His soft spoken demeanor also concerns me that he wouldn't be willing to put his foot down when necessary.

He's obviously a conservative Christian guy, so it's not a big surprise that he holds conservative Christian values.  According to Gallup last year 38% of the country identified as conservative, 34% identified as moderate and 23% as liberal.  So from a political standpoint holding conservative values is more of an asset than a liability IMHO.

51% of Americans feel Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances with only 29% feeling it should be legal under all circumstances.  Yet again, conservative viewpoint is the winner.

I'm not sure where your numbers come from (and I know how touchy you are about anyone questioning your sources... ) But I've never seen any poll that suggested that more than half of Americans feel abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. This Gallup poll, which was taken in May shows that only 19% of people feel it should be illegal in all circumstances with an overwhelming majority (80%) saying that it should be legal in at least some circumstances. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx

lol, hey I'm not touchy about it I just don't like it when people attack the source versus the information.  You did a masterful job and I applaud you.

I actually made a mistake.  I googled the exact same thing you did and used the gallup chart, but I completely misread the colors and cited the 51% number which was actually "legal under certain circumstances".  So good catch and even after re-reading my post 51% is definitely way high for being opposed in all circumstances. duh

I'm a pretty strong pro-life guy and I would even categorize myself in that 51% group because I do certainly encourage a woman in all circumstances to not get an abortion, but in the event of incest/rape or legitimate health issues I can reluctantly support the right to choose.

can you explain this?  If its murder, than how can she murder the child because she was raped?  This seems like an all or nothing thing if your position is that life begins at conception

It's called trying to find a middle ground.  Life does begin at conception, and I will do everything in my power to convince anyone who asks me to save the life of the child but I do recognize the totality of the circumstance to reluctantly support a woman's ability to choose under such horrendous circumstances.

It's not the same, but an analogy would be a woman who murders an abusive husband.  She's still murdering him and I would hope it never comes to that, but given the circumstances I can get behind not punishing her legally due to the horrendous circumstances that led to the murder.

I could counter your argument as well and ask you why someone would feel it's ok to terminate a fetus before it passes through the birth canal but not ok to terminate the exact same entity after it passes through?  Is there magic dust that gets sprinkled on it in the process that transforms it into something it wasn't 5 minutes earlier?  They're either both murder or they're both not.

I'll help you answer your question a little, but it actually is a lot more complex than you might think.  The only thing that allows for abortion in the US is the "legal definition" of when a life begins, and that is at birth.  So legally speaking prior to birth a baby does not have any civil rights under our current law.  Therefore people kill them by the millions.

Biologically speaking a baby is viable outside the womb starting at 23 weeks of gestation, so biological self sustained life (obviously with some help from the doctors) begins at about 23 weeks in the gestational process.  However, biological viability doesn't have anything to do with the legal definition of life until the baby is born.  Ironically a baby who is born even earlier than that which has virtually no chance of surviving still has the legal rights of a full term baby being born and gets a birth certificate and death certificate if it's body shows any signs of life such as a heart beat, pulsing umbilical chord, or breath.  So the very baby that is considered alive on the outside can be murdered at will on the inside.

Going even further back to conception, even the first cell of an embryo is alive and obviously has the potential to become a human if given the chance.  It does get more complex biologically speaking because the embryo doesn't have any ability outside the womb to survive, but if left inside the womb it will become fully viable. 

There are even a bunch of conflicting laws across the nation with babies inside the womb.  In many places if somebody kills an unborn baby in somebodies womb with an intentional attack such as an assault they will be charged with murder, but if the babies mother has the baby killed through an abortion it's totally fine.  huh

I will be honest and tell you that this subject isn't easy for me because I am a Social Libertarian as well as a staunch supporter of individual rights.  I strongly support individual rights to do what they want as long as it doesn't inflict harm upon somebody else.  I'm also not an authoritarian when it comes to my beliefs, meaning I'm a Christian but I would never try and force anyone else to believe what I believe.
However, on the topic of Abortion I'm at odds because I strongly support the individual rights of the weakest among us which are our children, both born and unborn.  However, socially as a Libertarian I'm more inclined to allow a woman to do what she wants with her body.  The key differentiator for me is the "as long as it doesn't inflict harm upon somebody else" which biologically speaking an abortion does (most especially a late term abortion).  So, the baby's individual rights trumps the mothers rights.

Sorry for the long winded answer, but trying to give you a little more perspective on how and why I feel the way I do about the topic.

Tony, you're a little off on the law. In Roe vs Wade, the Supreme Court originally ruled that a woman has a right to have an abortion through the first two trimesters. They later revised that (in Planned Parenthood vs Casey) to be up until the baby has a viable chance of living outside of the mother's womb. That's why so many states have legally banned late term abortion. Your state of Nebreska, for example, doesn't allow abortion past the 20th week unless the mother's life is at risk.

There's a difference between "may restrict" and being illegal.  You are correct that many states ban late term abortions, but there are also several that do not.  The Supreme court stated that late term abortions could not be restricted in the following circumstances:
-even after fetal viability, states may not prohibit abortions “necessary to preserve the life or health” of the woman
-“health” in this context includes physical and mental health;

The "health" argument is a huge argument that pro-life advocates complain about because a woman could simply not be mentally ready to have a baby and get a late term abortion.  So essentially there is no restriction due to the gaping loophole.  Here in Nebraska there was a huge uprising against a local abortion clinic a few years back because they were conducting late term partial birth abortions under the "health" exception for anybody that wanted them.  It even went to the State supreme court that ultimate struck the law down due to there not being a health exception in the law (which I believe it now has)

The other part is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the civil rights of the baby because as I mentioned earlier the baby does not have constitutional protection until it is born under our current laws.  If it did late term abortions wouldn't be allowed under any circumstances.

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by dmiller5

how can anyone take this guy seriously... newest reason:

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/ben-carson-pompeii-victims-should-have-outrun-lava

You really tee'd this one up for me to knock you out of the park by quoting the new yorker, but I'll be nice.  

As for Ben Carson, I personally really like the guy and feel he has a lot of great ideas.  However, I don't think he has any experience leading much of anything so in my humble opinion he's grossly under qualified for that reason alone.  His soft spoken demeanor also concerns me that he wouldn't be willing to put his foot down when necessary.

He's obviously a conservative Christian guy, so it's not a big surprise that he holds conservative Christian values.  According to Gallup last year 38% of the country identified as conservative, 34% identified as moderate and 23% as liberal.  So from a political standpoint holding conservative values is more of an asset than a liability IMHO.

51% of Americans feel Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances with only 29% feeling it should be legal under all circumstances.  Yet again, conservative viewpoint is the winner.

I'm not sure where your numbers come from (and I know how touchy you are about anyone questioning your sources... ) But I've never seen any poll that suggested that more than half of Americans feel abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. This Gallup poll, which was taken in May shows that only 19% of people feel it should be illegal in all circumstances with an overwhelming majority (80%) saying that it should be legal in at least some circumstances. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx

lol, hey I'm not touchy about it I just don't like it when people attack the source versus the information.  You did a masterful job and I applaud you.

I actually made a mistake.  I googled the exact same thing you did and used the gallup chart, but I completely misread the colors and cited the 51% number which was actually "legal under certain circumstances".  So good catch and even after re-reading my post 51% is definitely way high for being opposed in all circumstances. duh

I'm a pretty strong pro-life guy and I would even categorize myself in that 51% group because I do certainly encourage a woman in all circumstances to not get an abortion, but in the event of incest/rape or legitimate health issues I can reluctantly support the right to choose.

can you explain this?  If its murder, than how can she murder the child because she was raped?  This seems like an all or nothing thing if your position is that life begins at conception

It's called trying to find a middle ground.  Life does begin at conception, and I will do everything in my power to convince anyone who asks me to save the life of the child but I do recognize the totality of the circumstance to reluctantly support a woman's ability to choose under such horrendous circumstances.

It's not the same, but an analogy would be a woman who murders an abusive husband.  She's still murdering him and I would hope it never comes to that, but given the circumstances I can get behind not punishing her legally due to the horrendous circumstances that led to the murder.

I could counter your argument as well and ask you why someone would feel it's ok to terminate a fetus before it passes through the birth canal but not ok to terminate the exact same entity after it passes through?  Is there magic dust that gets sprinkled on it in the process that transforms it into something it wasn't 5 minutes earlier?  They're either both murder or they're both not.

I'll help you answer your question a little, but it actually is a lot more complex than you might think.  The only thing that allows for abortion in the US is the "legal definition" of when a life begins, and that is at birth.  So legally speaking prior to birth a baby does not have any civil rights under our current law.  Therefore people kill them by the millions.

Biologically speaking a baby is viable outside the womb starting at 23 weeks of gestation, so biological self sustained life (obviously with some help from the doctors) begins at about 23 weeks in the gestational process.  However, biological viability doesn't have anything to do with the legal definition of life until the baby is born.  Ironically a baby who is born even earlier than that which has virtually no chance of surviving still has the legal rights of a full term baby being born and gets a birth certificate and death certificate if it's body shows any signs of life such as a heart beat, pulsing umbilical chord, or breath.  So the very baby that is considered alive on the outside can be murdered at will on the inside.

Going even further back to conception, even the first cell of an embryo is alive and obviously has the potential to become a human if given the chance.  It does get more complex biologically speaking because the embryo doesn't have any ability outside the womb to survive, but if left inside the womb it will become fully viable. 

There are even a bunch of conflicting laws across the nation with babies inside the womb.  In many places if somebody kills an unborn baby in somebodies womb with an intentional attack such as an assault they will be charged with murder, but if the babies mother has the baby killed through an abortion it's totally fine.  huh

I will be honest and tell you that this subject isn't easy for me because I am a Social Libertarian as well as a staunch supporter of individual rights.  I strongly support individual rights to do what they want as long as it doesn't inflict harm upon somebody else.  I'm also not an authoritarian when it comes to my beliefs, meaning I'm a Christian but I would never try and force anyone else to believe what I believe.
However, on the topic of Abortion I'm at odds because I strongly support the individual rights of the weakest among us which are our children, both born and unborn.  However, socially as a Libertarian I'm more inclined to allow a woman to do what she wants with her body.  The key differentiator for me is the "as long as it doesn't inflict harm upon somebody else" which biologically speaking an abortion does (most especially a late term abortion).  So, the baby's individual rights trumps the mothers rights.

Sorry for the long winded answer, but trying to give you a little more perspective on how and why I feel the way I do about the topic.

So i am for abortion at any time when the baby couldn't live outside the womb.

I take issue with your analogy that a rape abortion is like a woman killing her attacker.....The fetus is not attacking the woman.  

The pro-life argument can't have its cake and eat it to about this. Either its murder or its not.  I can't murder your infant child that is outside the womb because its father is beating me.

Are we still talking about Ben Carson?  Or is this the "abortion" thread, now. 

How can you NOT like Ben Carson.  According to Rubert Murdoch (of Faux sorta-news), Ben Carson would be a REAL, black president.  Or maybe he meant a real BLACK president.  REAL BLACK president??

Besides, Dr. Carson could have a Popey's Flashback and go postal during a State Dinner. 

This is going to come down to Rubio v Bush.  And Rubio's horrid senate voting record is gonna haunt him.

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by dmiller5

how can anyone take this guy seriously... newest reason:

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/ben-carson-pompeii-victims-should-have-outrun-lava

You really tee'd this one up for me to knock you out of the park by quoting the new yorker, but I'll be nice.  

As for Ben Carson, I personally really like the guy and feel he has a lot of great ideas.  However, I don't think he has any experience leading much of anything so in my humble opinion he's grossly under qualified for that reason alone.  His soft spoken demeanor also concerns me that he wouldn't be willing to put his foot down when necessary.

He's obviously a conservative Christian guy, so it's not a big surprise that he holds conservative Christian values.  According to Gallup last year 38% of the country identified as conservative, 34% identified as moderate and 23% as liberal.  So from a political standpoint holding conservative values is more of an asset than a liability IMHO.

51% of Americans feel Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances with only 29% feeling it should be legal under all circumstances.  Yet again, conservative viewpoint is the winner.

I'm not sure where your numbers come from (and I know how touchy you are about anyone questioning your sources... ) But I've never seen any poll that suggested that more than half of Americans feel abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. This Gallup poll, which was taken in May shows that only 19% of people feel it should be illegal in all circumstances with an overwhelming majority (80%) saying that it should be legal in at least some circumstances. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx

lol, hey I'm not touchy about it I just don't like it when people attack the source versus the information.  You did a masterful job and I applaud you.

I actually made a mistake.  I googled the exact same thing you did and used the gallup chart, but I completely misread the colors and cited the 51% number which was actually "legal under certain circumstances".  So good catch and even after re-reading my post 51% is definitely way high for being opposed in all circumstances. duh

I'm a pretty strong pro-life guy and I would even categorize myself in that 51% group because I do certainly encourage a woman in all circumstances to not get an abortion, but in the event of incest/rape or legitimate health issues I can reluctantly support the right to choose.

can you explain this?  If its murder, than how can she murder the child because she was raped?  This seems like an all or nothing thing if your position is that life begins at conception

It's called trying to find a middle ground.  Life does begin at conception, and I will do everything in my power to convince anyone who asks me to save the life of the child but I do recognize the totality of the circumstance to reluctantly support a woman's ability to choose under such horrendous circumstances.

It's not the same, but an analogy would be a woman who murders an abusive husband.  She's still murdering him and I would hope it never comes to that, but given the circumstances I can get behind not punishing her legally due to the horrendous circumstances that led to the murder.

I could counter your argument as well and ask you why someone would feel it's ok to terminate a fetus before it passes through the birth canal but not ok to terminate the exact same entity after it passes through?  Is there magic dust that gets sprinkled on it in the process that transforms it into something it wasn't 5 minutes earlier?  They're either both murder or they're both not.

I'll help you answer your question a little, but it actually is a lot more complex than you might think.  The only thing that allows for abortion in the US is the "legal definition" of when a life begins, and that is at birth.  So legally speaking prior to birth a baby does not have any civil rights under our current law.  Therefore people kill them by the millions.

Biologically speaking a baby is viable outside the womb starting at 23 weeks of gestation, so biological self sustained life (obviously with some help from the doctors) begins at about 23 weeks in the gestational process.  However, biological viability doesn't have anything to do with the legal definition of life until the baby is born.  Ironically a baby who is born even earlier than that which has virtually no chance of surviving still has the legal rights of a full term baby being born and gets a birth certificate and death certificate if it's body shows any signs of life such as a heart beat, pulsing umbilical chord, or breath.  So the very baby that is considered alive on the outside can be murdered at will on the inside.

Going even further back to conception, even the first cell of an embryo is alive and obviously has the potential to become a human if given the chance.  It does get more complex biologically speaking because the embryo doesn't have any ability outside the womb to survive, but if left inside the womb it will become fully viable. 

There are even a bunch of conflicting laws across the nation with babies inside the womb.  In many places if somebody kills an unborn baby in somebodies womb with an intentional attack such as an assault they will be charged with murder, but if the babies mother has the baby killed through an abortion it's totally fine.  huh

I will be honest and tell you that this subject isn't easy for me because I am a Social Libertarian as well as a staunch supporter of individual rights.  I strongly support individual rights to do what they want as long as it doesn't inflict harm upon somebody else.  I'm also not an authoritarian when it comes to my beliefs, meaning I'm a Christian but I would never try and force anyone else to believe what I believe.
However, on the topic of Abortion I'm at odds because I strongly support the individual rights of the weakest among us which are our children, both born and unborn.  However, socially as a Libertarian I'm more inclined to allow a woman to do what she wants with her body.  The key differentiator for me is the "as long as it doesn't inflict harm upon somebody else" which biologically speaking an abortion does (most especially a late term abortion).  So, the baby's individual rights trumps the mothers rights.

Sorry for the long winded answer, but trying to give you a little more perspective on how and why I feel the way I do about the topic.

So i am for abortion at any time when the baby couldn't live outside the womb.

I take issue with your analogy that a rape abortion is like a woman killing her attacker.....The fetus is not attacking the woman.  

The pro-life argument can't have its cake and eat it to about this. Either its murder or its not.  I can't murder your infant child that is outside the womb because its father is beating me.

 

Your position is rational and inline with many/most people in the country.

My analogy wasn't trying to compare the two because obviously they're completely different.  My point was that murder is always murder, but in our society we have situations where we allow it legally.  Hence, an abused spouse killing their abuser is an example where we "excuse" murder because of the underlying traumatic circumstances.

Your last statement doesn't even make sense.