Not even close. What Liberal hosts or even Co- Hosts a show at Fox? Beckel is the only one I can think of, and of course he's nothing but the object of derision of the other 4 Conservative co Hosts who gang up on him. MSNBC has Joe Scarborough who is the lead of his show for 3 Hours daily, and Abby Huntsman in a panel of 4 on every day, 4 Hours a day. Abby is moderate R, Joe is a very Conservative R, but a relatively sane one.
Not even close. What Liberal hosts or even Co- Hosts a show at Fox? Beckel is the only one I can think of, and of course he's nothing but the object of derision of the other 4 Conservative co Hosts who gang up on him. MSNBC has Joe Scarborough who is the lead of his show for 3 Hours daily, and Abby Huntsman in a panel of 4 on every day, 4 Hours a day. Abby is moderate R, Joe is a very Conservative R, but a relatively sane one.
Target practice.
He just goes on these shows, laughs and has a good time telling it like it is.
Remember, this is a guy who made a name for himself mocking the village idiot's entire ideology a few feet from where he was sitting. All the helpless Stuttering Clusterfuck could do was use that famous phony smile trying to mask his inner-rage.
Dr. Carson is a top surgeon so he knows a malignant tumour when he sees one.
So what are Alan Colmes and the other political clowns on MSLSD going to do to him?
He is just after the exposure and trying to fill in the voids. He has nothing but an upside because he speaks logically and his answers are not politically motivated. He wants to address problems and solve them, something that this administration can't or won't do. Do you think he would be sitting back on the VA Hospital situation like Obama. He would be a leader, something this country has lacked for sometime, including Bush. This guy can span the gap by winning over some disappointed dems and independents. He is the first guy in a long time who's appeal spans the normal confines.
Dr Carson is BRILLIANT for going on these shows and handling himself like he does. Calm, not confrontational, willing to listen. I heard the interview with Colmes. It was fantastic. I guess when you've done Brain Surgery and held countless people's lives in your hands, dealing with a Talk Show host who has different views than you is no big deal, and it's another feather in Ben's cap. No surprise that some Bubble idiots here who have no room in their lives for other views, think he shouldn't go on these shows and address people with different views than his.
He goes on all of these shows, and they constantly try to trap him..He just gives honest common sense answers and isn't trapped into anything..lol..those idiots must be going nuts thinking about what to say or what to do to trap him but it isn't happening...The only way will be to twist what he says or make stuff up...RUN BEN RUN!!!!
You think they aren't going full steam ahead on that already. They went clear back to highschool on Romney. He will be judged on his demeaner as much as anything. He remains calm and is focused. It is not politics first for him, something new to the career oriented jerks that dominate DC.
They went and still go clear back to the Womb on Obama. I guess that's OK????
Dr Carson has already talked about his rough childhood and the trouble he got into. Not much to get him there.
I agree there will be Opp research when/if he gets into the race, but if he keeps handling himself like he has, keeps talking to folks he disagrees with, with his steady calmness, he'll weather those attempts just fine. UNLESS they find stuff that actually has happened, like they did with Clinton, Cain, Edwards, Weiner, Hart, etc, where they stupidly denied it.
The Wisdom of Divided Government
By Ben S. Carson
House Speaker John Boehner recently shocked many of us when he announced that he is planning a lawsuit against the president for abuse of power. Many Americans feel that a harmonious working relationship between the branches of government has been seriously compromised in recent years. But when Alexis de Tocqueville visited America in 1831 to perform an in-depth analysis of the American phenomenon, he was impressed with our well-structured divided government and its separation of powers.
The writings of the founders of this nation certainly referenced the Bible frequently, but they also paid homage to the writings of Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, who wrote prolifically about political theories. One of his most well-known works is "The Spirit of the Laws." In this book, he eloquently argues for the concept of separation of powers.
That argument seems to emanate from the Bible's book of Isaiah, 33:22, which states, "The Lord is our judge (judicial branch), the Lord is our lawgiver (legislative branch), the Lord is our King (executive branch)." Certainly this system of government has worked well for us in the past, helping to establish the United States of America as the most powerful nation the world has ever known within a relatively short period of time.
In order for a divided government to work, each branch must respect the other two branches. There always have been and always will be squabbles between the branches, but the big problem now is that the executive branch has decided to ignore anyone with whom it disagrees, including Congress.
Nowhere was this blatant disregard of Congress more clearly manifested than in President Obama's inappropriate "recess" appointments of three people to the National Labor Relations Board. He redefined the word "recess" in order to appoint individuals who might have a difficult time obtaining congressional approval.
This administration seems to have a penchant for redefining words to make them conform to its ideology. Obviously, if an individual can redefine anything anytime he wants to, he can manipulate virtually any situation into a favorable position for himself. If he is clever and no one notices, he can fundamentally change the foundational fabric of a society.
Passing a law in the usual legitimate fashion and then unilaterally changing that law is another thing this administration seems to cherish. Obamacare is a prime example of this tactic. For example, it would be like a ruler and his council passing a law against the growing of Brussels sprouts, much to the pleasure of his constituents. He then discovers that his favorite brother, who lives in Province A, is the largest farmer of Brussels sprouts in the region and is also his biggest financial supporter. He then unilaterally amends the law to exclude Province A, much to the displeasure of the populace, about whom he cares nothing. The point is that it is inconsistent with fairness to establish rules and then change them in the middle of the game without the consent of the other participants.
This article and many others could be spent detailing all of the instances that support the argument for executive branch overreach, but the truly important thing is to begin asking ourselves how we can reestablish a truly cooperative and harmonious balance of power aimed not at the enhancement of one political party or the other, but rather at providing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the people. This is clearly what the people want, as indicated by their voting to put a liberal president in the White House and a conservative majority in the House of Representatives. The people of this country are not comfortable with runaway government in either direction.
Some will say that previous presidents issued even more executive orders than Obama. In some cases, this is true, but it is not the number of executive orders that is important. Rather, it is the effect of those orders, how they impact society and what precedents they set. When something is clearly wrong, citing a previous misdeed by someone else does not serve as adequate justification. This is like the kid who gets in trouble for hitting someone and says, "He hit me first." Because there is so much childish behavior in Washington, perhaps government officials need the same explanation as the children who fight: No one should be hitting anyone, and we should divert that energy to understanding the nature of the conflict and resolving it.
Civil conversations obviously would go a long way toward helping us as a nation to solve our problems. However, as Saul Alinsky said, "Never have a conversation with your adversary, because that humanizes him, and your job is to demonize him." This is why we see so much name-calling and finger-pointing these days, which is antithetical to our success as a nation.
When the pendulum swings once again to the right, it is vitally important that people with common sense govern according to the Constitution and in a way that respects the separation of powers. There can be no picking and choosing of laws to enforce, and no favoritism. The only special-interest group that should be considered is the American people.
Ben S. Carson is professor emeritus of neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University.
By Ben S. Carson
House Speaker John Boehner recently shocked many of us when he announced that he is planning a lawsuit against the president for abuse of power. Many Americans feel that a harmonious working relationship between the branches of government has been seriously compromised in recent years. But when Alexis de Tocqueville visited America in 1831 to perform an in-depth analysis of the American phenomenon, he was impressed with our well-structured divided government and its separation of powers.
The writings of the founders of this nation certainly referenced the Bible frequently, but they also paid homage to the writings of Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, who wrote prolifically about political theories. One of his most well-known works is "The Spirit of the Laws." In this book, he eloquently argues for the concept of separation of powers.
That argument seems to emanate from the Bible's book of Isaiah, 33:22, which states, "The Lord is our judge (judicial branch), the Lord is our lawgiver (legislative branch), the Lord is our King (executive branch)." Certainly this system of government has worked well for us in the past, helping to establish the United States of America as the most powerful nation the world has ever known within a relatively short period of time.
In order for a divided government to work, each branch must respect the other two branches. There always have been and always will be squabbles between the branches, but the big problem now is that the executive branch has decided to ignore anyone with whom it disagrees, including Congress.
Nowhere was this blatant disregard of Congress more clearly manifested than in President Obama's inappropriate "recess" appointments of three people to the National Labor Relations Board. He redefined the word "recess" in order to appoint individuals who might have a difficult time obtaining congressional approval.
This administration seems to have a penchant for redefining words to make them conform to its ideology. Obviously, if an individual can redefine anything anytime he wants to, he can manipulate virtually any situation into a favorable position for himself. If he is clever and no one notices, he can fundamentally change the foundational fabric of a society.
Passing a law in the usual legitimate fashion and then unilaterally changing that law is another thing this administration seems to cherish. Obamacare is a prime example of this tactic. For example, it would be like a ruler and his council passing a law against the growing of Brussels sprouts, much to the pleasure of his constituents. He then discovers that his favorite brother, who lives in Province A, is the largest farmer of Brussels sprouts in the region and is also his biggest financial supporter. He then unilaterally amends the law to exclude Province A, much to the displeasure of the populace, about whom he cares nothing. The point is that it is inconsistent with fairness to establish rules and then change them in the middle of the game without the consent of the other participants.
This article and many others could be spent detailing all of the instances that support the argument for executive branch overreach, but the truly important thing is to begin asking ourselves how we can reestablish a truly cooperative and harmonious balance of power aimed not at the enhancement of one political party or the other, but rather at providing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the people. This is clearly what the people want, as indicated by their voting to put a liberal president in the White House and a conservative majority in the House of Representatives. The people of this country are not comfortable with runaway government in either direction.
Some will say that previous presidents issued even more executive orders than Obama. In some cases, this is true, but it is not the number of executive orders that is important. Rather, it is the effect of those orders, how they impact society and what precedents they set. When something is clearly wrong, citing a previous misdeed by someone else does not serve as adequate justification. This is like the kid who gets in trouble for hitting someone and says, "He hit me first." Because there is so much childish behavior in Washington, perhaps government officials need the same explanation as the children who fight: No one should be hitting anyone, and we should divert that energy to understanding the nature of the conflict and resolving it.
Civil conversations obviously would go a long way toward helping us as a nation to solve our problems. However, as Saul Alinsky said, "Never have a conversation with your adversary, because that humanizes him, and your job is to demonize him." This is why we see so much name-calling and finger-pointing these days, which is antithetical to our success as a nation.
When the pendulum swings once again to the right, it is vitally important that people with common sense govern according to the Constitution and in a way that respects the separation of powers. There can be no picking and choosing of laws to enforce, and no favoritism. The only special-interest group that should be considered is the American people.
Ben S. Carson is professor emeritus of neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University.
More common sense from Ben, No Party Designations:
[h=1]Ben Carson floats an idea to overhaul elections in a way that will surprise you[/h] July 13, 2014 by Tom Tillison 15 Comments
Dr. Ben Carson, the man who took President Barack Obama to task last year at the National Prayer Breakfast — while the president sat a few feet away – said removing party affiliations at the ballot box would force voters to learn more about where candidates really stand on issues.
“I actually would favor a voting system, in which there were no political designations on the ballot, where you actually had to know what the person believed,” he said in a new promotional video. “You had to know how they voted in the past.”
In the video, titled “Are you a Republican,” the retired neurosurgeon admitted that he was once a “pretty left-wing Democrat” before acknowledging he is now an Independent.”
“I tend to be more conservative,” he said. “Because I tend to belong to what I call the Logical Party or the Common-Sense Party. And, conservatism tends to lean more towards common sense than progressivism does.”
Carson’s name continues to be tossed around as a potential 2016 Republican presidential contender, and while he remains coy about a possible run, before that becomes a reality, another party affiliation change will be in his future.
[h=1]Ben Carson floats an idea to overhaul elections in a way that will surprise you[/h] July 13, 2014 by Tom Tillison 15 Comments
“I actually would favor a voting system, in which there were no political designations on the ballot, where you actually had to know what the person believed,” he said in a new promotional video. “You had to know how they voted in the past.”
In the video, titled “Are you a Republican,” the retired neurosurgeon admitted that he was once a “pretty left-wing Democrat” before acknowledging he is now an Independent.”
“I tend to be more conservative,” he said. “Because I tend to belong to what I call the Logical Party or the Common-Sense Party. And, conservatism tends to lean more towards common sense than progressivism does.”
Carson’s name continues to be tossed around as a potential 2016 Republican presidential contender, and while he remains coy about a possible run, before that becomes a reality, another party affiliation change will be in his future.
