Give me a break! Do you honestly think one person believes this drivel? You, basso, littletexx and your ilk see color just like everyone else, usually moreso. Nobody would give Ben Carson the time of day if he wasn't black. He would be a complete zero of a nobody on the political stage if he was white. basso wouldn't have started this thread if Carson was white. Nobody at CPAC 2013 would know who this guy is if he was white. Being black is what got him on stage. "Conservatives" are against affirmative-action but they practice it themselves when convenient. You just insulted everyone's intelligence for about the umpteenth time.
perhaps you should read Carson's bio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson I mean he's no community organizer, but still not too shabby.
His good hands will come in handy when he has to physically break the Federal Reserve. as for the community organizer, you forgot to add editor of the Harvard Law Review. kinda a glaring oversight if you're resume swapping.
My comments were directed to the poster here, not Carson's resume as a surgeon and hospital administrator. His skin color is the reason why he's a hot topic of conversation in 2013 by some "conservatives". They want an eloquent black associated with their cause, not a surgeon. It wouldn't matter if he was an attorney, executive, former professional athlete or actor. Somebody sees skin color.....When others look at/listen to Carson they see a neurosurgeon. What a royal joke!
Liberals have been do this forever.. Hell it's their m.o. Now it's all of a sudden an issue if the conservatives do the same? Why does it have to be about race? Why not listen to what he has to say? He does make a lot of sense in a world where it seems liberals went full r****d simultaneously.
Just curious, do you have a source for this or is it just your impression? Both sides seem to take a lot of money and say little about the problems created by Wall Street. http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/05/investing/wall-street-elections/index.html The biggest difference between this election and the race in 2008 is that Wall Street is now betting bigger on Republicans. During the last cycle, 57% of individuals from Wall Street gave to Democrats and President Obama. But this year, 60% of Wall Street's contributions went to Republicans.
It's called the Southern Strategy and it is the strategy that Republicans have been using for the last couple decades to divide people based on race by appealing to baser fears all to get them to ignore their own interests and the interests of society. Demonize the basic moral principles the under-gird socio-economic human rights like the right to education, the right to housing, the right to adequate standard of living, and the right to health. Thanks Bush and all the other presidents that kept trying to lower taxes over and over and over again for the last 3 decades while putting us into costly conflicts abroad. Is this 4 point plan a part of the CPAC autopsy of the Republican Party, where they went wrong and all that? Or is it a different panel?
The desperation to disparage any Republican who is not old and white is pretty funny... it's one of those damned if you do/damned if you don't crocks. It's not like the Dems don't fall all over themselves trying to attach themselves to their "black" president who, by the way, is equally half-white and culturally more white having been raised by a white mother and white grandparents and running around after school with guys named Tommy....
um, Harvard Law Review is the number one cited law journal...in the world. and law kinda has relevancy when it comes to leading a nation. kinda. You might note that a majority of the current members of the Supreme Court were either editors or affiliated somehow with the Law Review. I still don't get where you are trying to go with your resume flashing shtick that has nothing at all to do with what would be required to lead a nation. Is Carson going to split Texas from the rest of America via surgical operation? Or is he going to be like another doctor you have a mancrush on---Ron Paul. Simplistic solutions for overly complex issues. This speech doesn't bode well, if that's the way he thinks.
no, but Pub.L. 111–203 is. Take a look. There's plenty of specifics there, a lot more than "whah, the nation is crumbling because I have a 4-point plan!".
Add the man on LinkedIn if you're so curious as to what other qualifications he has to the position of president other than a majority of Americans selecting him twice---which is kinda how these things usually work, but anyways.
Nah just "right on." Feast your eyes: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...1.588.14.14.0...0.0...1ac.1.7.img.GCLEKOGw6tQ
