Posted on 05/29/2014 9:53:54 PM PDT by Nachum
Dr. Ben Carson, potential contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, has been enjoying near "rock star" status in ostensibly conservative circles. If that continues, "conservatives" had might as well give up trying to cast themselves as representing the "pro-gun" position, because Carson's stance on guns is one that would probably not displease the Brady Campaign.
Carson first raised gun owners' hackles in March, 2013, when he blithely told Glenn Beck that the right to own semi-automatic firearms is contingent on where one lives. From Mediate:
But when asked whether people should be allowed to own “semi-automatic weapons,” the doctor replied: “It depends on where you live.”
“I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it,” Carson elaborated.
However, if you live “out in the country somewhere by yourself” and want to own a semi-automatic weapon, he added, “I’ve no problem with that.”
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Right, because people are 100% stationary and never move around from place to place. People are basically meat trees. Totally fixed in one position.
Your politics seem extremely rigid and fixed, to always oppose conservatism.
Cain had some suspicious liaisons with women, Bachmann had little experience and made quite controversial (to liberals and moderates) statements, Newt was spending a lot of money on cruise vacations and was labeled a hypocrite by everyone for his marital troubles in relations to those of Clinton who he had impeached.
The only candidate that I can remember that was significantly criticized by the right was Santorum because of his support for Specter.
There was an attempt late in the campaign for a group of religious leaders and conservatives to rally around a single candidate. If I remember correctly, they chose Santorum.
The best thing that could happen for conservatives is for a single candidate to rise above everyone else even before the election season. Someone needs to be seen as the 'fait acompli'.
The second best thing would be for conservative leaders to gather early and rally around a single candidate either in Iowa or no later than New Hampshire. That way no many how many candidates are still remaining and no matter how big their egos, the hope is that most of the votes will go to a single conservative candidate.
Neither of these things is going to happen. What is going to happen is that flawed human beings with inflated egos are going to stay in for as long as they possibly can and split the conservative vote. Liberals, moderates, and conservatives are going to point up the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate. Some people are going to view this is contrived, others as just part of the game.
If we can't get all of the conservatives to rally around a single conservative candidate early, then our best bet is to fan the egos of a bunch of RINOS and get them to run so that the RINO vote is just as split up as the conservative vote.
Then a conservative might have an outside chance either in the primaries or at the convention.
The LIEberals are counting on it! Somehow, someway, we have to quit doing that to ourselves. Let’s blame the phenomenon on LIEberal agitators and ignore them!
And then, conservatives need to vote against ALL LIEberals, whether they be Democrat or Republican.
In the meantime, we must labor mightily for conservative candidates.
I can summarize my thoughts (much less elegantly):
1. This is WAR!
2. Our sole objective should be to defeat our enemies in each of the upcoming Primary and General Elections for the next several cycles (2014, 2016, and 2018).
3. Our enemies are LIEberals and RINOs.
4. FOCUS, FReepers! FOCUS! We have seen the enemy; We know who they are! We know what we must do!
5. Let us get on with it!
And your comments remain vapid and shallow to always oppose the observation of reality.
I assume Carson is intelligent enough to respect the criticism he deserves.
Nice rant. Too bad you can’t vote.
Your “observation of reality” is your argument against conservatism?
You think that isn’t vapid and shallow, and that you are not too fixed on your opposition to conservatism?
Open your mind a little bit and look at the reality demonstrated by the two GOPs of Texas versus California.
My eyes and mind are open - I know and accept that there are great differences between Texas and California. I also know that California has been working on its socialism since the late '50s/early '60s and isn't going to do a quick turn around any time soon. In fact the comparison is useless.
You keep stating the false meme that I am opposed to Conservatism, yet you are the one willing to allow another Obama/Clinton/Pelosi/Reid assume power because you find fault in the candidate we have on the slate to oppose them - how am I the one opposed to conservatism?
Of course, you probably now think you are smarter than Dr. Carson and any other who tells us that when the options are to either lose a toe and save a leg, we are foolish (nuts) to decide that, if we can't keep the toe too, we need to lose the leg "on principle". That may make sense in your version of reality, but it surely doesn't in mine - things are what they are and we can either deal with them in the least harmful way or we can commit suicide and convince ourselves we are being martyred.
Just another in the long list of black saviors for the GOP
I would rather you not have it,” Carson elaborated.
And I'd rather you go FYslf.
You never stop promoting the anti-conservative line of accepting candidates who are too liberal, in this case years before the next election, and about someone who won't even be a real candidate, even if he tries to enter the primary, yet here you are pushing your line.
You obviously have a comprehension problem. My take is that, once we have done our best to try to get the most conservative candidates on the slate, and we are finally left with a choice between another Obama or even a Hillary, we need to consider whether we are willing to give up the toe to save the leg or are we going to insist that the leg be taken too because it's all or nothing? I say we minimize the damage and you say commit suicide.
BTW, you still haven't outlined any plan about how your "plan" (whatever it is because you speak in platitudes rather than specifics) will result in our gaining any ground over what I opine. I guess it's easier to sling mud and say "WRONG! WRONG!WRONG!, than it is to actually give a cogent reason why your are on the positive side. It's easy to find fault and cowardly to refuse to give what you really think will happen if your plan is employed vs. what I would do, and explain why.
"You're against conservatism, nyahh-nyahh..nyahh-nyah" is not a cogent, reality-based argument. How about telling me how allowing the really far, hard-core, Left to keep winning is a winning strategy.
Actually your “plan” never changes, we aren’t even in the primary yet and you continue with your never ending promotion of accepting liberal candidates.
That is your goal here, to oppose conservatism, settling isn’t a plea that you save for after the nomination.
Excellent post.
Never trust any politician who does not trust you to own guns. Period.
Like I said - comprehension problem. I want conservative candidates. I know that the the odds of a "perfect" candidate are slim, but I remain hopeful. If there is a less-than perfect candidate running against another Obama or a Hillary, I will vote for that imperfect candidate because I'm smart enough to understand what happens when folks choose Satan because they don't have God on their slate.
I'm not promoting non-conservatives, but you seem incapable of understanding it and being able to look ahead.
BTW - you still haven't outlined your plan, yet you continue to misrepresent/misunderstand what i would do. It's really tiresome trying to discuss something with someone who appears to have a brain, but is only willing to use the "blinders-firmly-on-reality-not-allowed" portion of it.
Are you forgetful so that you keep omitting your plan? Do you have a plan that can be communicated? Do you have a plan that feels right to you, but which you know is a pipe-dream so you are embarrassed to put it out there? So far, your arguments resemble the Left-Wing/Alinsky style - they are great at attacking other's thought/opinions, but they always omit what theirs is and why theirs is really good. No rationale except in their own heads.
I agree with you. I’m currently reading his book and I find myself disagreeing with a lot of his ideas.
Additionally, I expect someone to have his facts checked. In the first part of the book, he states that Helen Keller was deaf and blind from birth. A simple fact check would have revealed that this was caused by an illness at the age of 2.
There is a Congressional candidate in my area who wrote an email to Paul Ryan questioning his taking away veterans’ benefts. The email went viral, so he was urged to run.
Ridiculous!
Punish Susan, ignore Condi and forgive Jerry (49ers).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.