Bowsite.com

He does have some things to learn, but has also stated that he thinks there should be no restrictions on second amendment rights.

If you read the article at my first link, one of the things that may keep him from being electable is the fact that he says what he thinks instead of hiding it.

Will it ever again be possible for a person who is honest and learning to be elected, or will we always elect the most carefully packaged candidate?

I am NOT all in for Carson, but throwing him away because he wants to find a way to keep inner city thugs from gun violence would be a mistake.

From the link:

Ben Carson said he changed his mind and was against gun registration because "sinister internal forces" could surface in that scenario. He "used to think they needed to be registered, but if you register them they just come and find you and take your guns." He said, "I would never advocate anything to interfere with Second Amendment rights; however, I do think we have to be intelligent"ÿand address situations where people with AK-47s are mowing people down.ÿ "We need to discuss, 'Is there something we can do?'ÿ We have to keep in mind that law-abiding American citizens absolutely should have gun rights."

He "used to think they needed to be registered, but if you register them they just come and find you and take your guns." He said, "I would never advocate anything to interfere with Second Amendment rights; however, We have to keep in mind that law-abiding American citizens absolutely should have gun rights."

If anything, affirmative action hurt Thomas. If you bothered to read his book, you'll see that when he went to apply for jobs at top law firms, affirmative action muddied the water because they didn't know if he was academically legit or just helped in through quotas.

Pretty sure, unless you're totally intellectually dishonest that you already know this, but I'll repeat it anyway so you can't claim to have never heard it.

Conservatives are almost unanimous in understanding that sometimes people need and deserve a hand. And they are almost always willing and able to lend one (which is supported by the fact that Conservatives give more to Charities than Liberals), BUT, they think that these helping hands should allow and encourage people to get back on their feet, NOT become dependent.

Sometimes it's hard to tell if a Liberal really believes the stuff they spew, or just regurgitates what they've been force fed. I'll err on the side of "maybe you just need a little eye opening".

You know the old adage about giving "a man a fish, and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime"? Not only does giving him a fish every day NOT teach him anything about self sufficiency, but it makes him dependent on you, and (HEY LOOK AT THAT) he keeps voting for the fish givers year after year. You have enslaved him, nice job Liberal.

Tell you what Doc, let's make an informal bet.

I'll bet that out of the folks who post here on the Community Forum, the Conservatives give a higher percentage of their income and volunteer more of their time than the Liberals? Care to take that bet?

Of course he already knows it Ace.

This leftist troll wrote the book on dishonesty. But there's not much intellect involved.

"A little eye opening" won't help.

Shall we start a pool to see when DockEating decides that his copy and paste abilities aren't convincing anyone on Bowsite, and moves on?

Wrong again Sparky. He (and Justice Thomas) speak out about the abuses of those programs, the abuses the liberal progressives not only tolerate but promote.

And now that they've reached their pinnacle, all the others on public assistance are "welfare slaves"

Your penchant for dishonest obfuscation is really getting old Sparky.

Paint it any way you want, the fact remains.

The only person I see doing their best van Gogh is you Sparky. Another of your liberal fables is getting shredded-deal with it.

By the way thanks for making a prophet out of me with the dollop of liberal bilge.

Like this one Spike?

God bless, Steve

No, it's the left that condemns people to it and does so with equal parts glee and hypocrisy. The liberal progressives perform the figurative equivalent of extending one hand to the needy, promising them a hopeful future, while the other hand metes out the stark reality of their policies; a cycle of endless dependency with no hope of a better life for them, their children or future generations. Your reality is little different from that of the plantation owner/slave relationship. At least in that relationship there was no blatant attempt to deceive the slave he was anything else or ever could be.

The right on the other hand does not begrudge a helping hand but will point out the hypocrisy of such benevolent indentured servitude for exactly what it is. That this distinction eludes you only highlights the moral bankruptcy of your ideology and it's practitioners (whom you so obviously and blindly adore) and ultimately the equally bankrupt state of your soul.

I am simply using that same argument except now its been turned on the good doctor.

Self-serving rubbish. You are attempting to justify an immoral position by trying to equate two distinctly different realities; one in which a person chose a path to self-reliance as opposed to choosing the endless dependency you and your ilk would much preferred.

I understand why its upsetting you, because no "good" person would ever be on the public dole.

You understand little of what transpires on this forum and by the writings you posit here even less of what transpires in the real world.

I hope you noted the distinction of "the writings" as opposed to "your writings". As you have demonstrated remarkably consistent slowness on taking in the obvious let me expound on the point.

You haven't posted anything here that truly constituted original thinking on your part. What you have done from day one is post pure left-wing bilge and lather, rinse, repeat as necessary. If you ever did have any imagination it must surely be stunted, perhaps beyond repair by now.

The person on this forum you're fooling is yourself. Another liberal troll, another epic fail.

Actually, it is the left that says people are so worthless that you can kill them before they are born. If they are born, they cannot learn to make a living in a competitive world, so we have to treat them like they are children. The government must supply their every need because they just don't have the capacity to grow up and become self-supporting adults. That is one of the same arguments that was used against freeing the slaves.