This will only hurt a little bit. As we all know, Ben Carson is the smartest, bestest brain surgeon in the whole United States of Earth, and this is why he will be the best president ever. At least, that seems to be his argument. Wonkette is suspicious of the entire premise, of course, because we very much believe something happened to him, somewhere between God
They were booing Hewitt for the phrasing of the question, "So you're OKAY with the deaths of thousands of innocent children?" Of course he's not "okay" with it. To even suggest that to a pediatric neurosurgeon was ridiculous.
Carson had just finished using the example of brain surgery to show that difficult decisions (opening a child's head) may not be something you WANT to do, but it may be something you HAVE to do.
If terrorists are planning another Paris-style attack, and you can take them out with a single strike.... but there might be some collateral damage, do you call off the strike?
The Constitution lists the president's #1 priority as the protection of the American people. If a president isn't able to make very difficult decisions that involve these kinds of horrible choices, they really shouldn't be president.
I see what you're saying. The problem is that this writer completely misrepresented what actually happened.
Carson was not saying "you got it" in response to Hewitt's "you're okay with the deaths of thousands of innocent children" question. Carson was responding to the audience. They booed Hewitt for the phrasing of the question. Of course Carson wouldn't be OKAY with it. That's just a really awful thing to suggest to anyone.
If someone breaks into my house and tries to kill me, but I'm able to push him down the stairs (I don't have a gun) so that he breaks his neck and dies, I'm not going to be OKAY with it.
Hewitt's original question was fair. We need to know what Carson would do if confronted with a choice that means taking out terrorists who are planning to kill thousands of Americans, or calling off the strike because there could be unintentional collateral damage.
It's not an easy decision to make.
Just one more reason I would never run for president.
Hugh Hewitt asked a GREAT question. It's something we need to know. A president is faced with all kinds of decisions. We need to know how he or she will react in different situations. Unfortunately for Carson, this writer misrepresented his responses. Here's the original video:
He made it very clear he was "okay" with it. Very fucking clear. And as a pediatric neurosurgeon? He lobbied to perform surgeries that left patients maimed or dead. And continued to operate, citing God's will. If you ask me, THAT's ridiculous.
It's an important question, especially for the GOP moral-relativity deniers. The good Christianist Carson made a relative choice: Bomb innocent children for immediate death, rather than "death by a thousand pricks".
Unfortunately, even "Smart" weapons really aren't that smart. You're absolutely right. War is horrible, but if you were president, what would you do if we were attacked? I mean this sincerely. I really want to know. If a country (or an Islamic State) attacked us, what would you do?
There are aggressors. There will always be a Hitler or Mussolini (Trump. Ugh.) or a Putin waiting to take advantage of weaknesses. What would you do as president to protect us?
In fairness, if you listen to Carson's speeches, that's exactly what he's been saying for months (maybe he could be your VP). He doesn't want to go to war (he opposed going into Iraq), but says that if we do go to war, we need to do so decisively and lawfully (your words):
Some things I've heard Carson say:
1) Stop the armchair quarterbacking. Give the mission to the military experts and give them what they need to bring a quick and decisive end to the conflict. His "death by a thousand pricks" was a reference to his belief that the most "compassionate" thing we can do in war is to win, and win quickly;
2) The best deterrent to war is a strong military;
3) If we do have to go to war, we can't run a "politically correct" war. There will (unfortunately) be collateral damage. You're right about your "Smart" weapons. No such thing. We need to be as surgical as possible, but innocent people will die. Sad, but true.
I've heard Carson say that in the case of the ISIS oil trucks making their oil runs, he would authorize the military to take them out. He said that we could certainly warn them ahead of time to save the driver's life. Just make sure they know that if a truck comes out of there, we're blowing it up. Carson (paraphrased): "If you send a truck out after that, you'd better have a robot driving the truck if you're concerned about loss of life."
Sounds sensible to me. But we have writers (like this writer) who report dishonestly, twist the facts, rephrase statements, and completely misrepresent what actually happened.
You sound like a reasonable person. You might be surprised to find that your views match Carson's in more ways than you think.
I'll be waiting for your campaign. You have my vote.
I understand. I thank you for an interesting (and insult free) conversation. You give me hope that we can, indeed, have civil conversations without throwing hand grenades at those with whom we disagree. All the best.
Always funny.
They were booing Hewitt for the phrasing of the question, "So you're OKAY with the deaths of thousands of innocent children?" Of course he's not "okay" with it. To even suggest that to a pediatric neurosurgeon was ridiculous.
Carson had just finished using the example of brain surgery to show that difficult decisions (opening a child's head) may not be something you WANT to do, but it may be something you HAVE to do.
If terrorists are planning another Paris-style attack, and you can take them out with a single strike.... but there might be some collateral damage, do you call off the strike?
The Constitution lists the president's #1 priority as the protection of the American people. If a president isn't able to make very difficult decisions that involve these kinds of horrible choices, they really shouldn't be president.
Let us further abjure any pretense that there is no difference between the candidates of the two major parties.
Get a room, you two.
I see what you're saying. The problem is that this writer completely misrepresented what actually happened.
Carson was not saying "you got it" in response to Hewitt's "you're okay with the deaths of thousands of innocent children" question. Carson was responding to the audience. They booed Hewitt for the phrasing of the question. Of course Carson wouldn't be OKAY with it. That's just a really awful thing to suggest to anyone.
If someone breaks into my house and tries to kill me, but I'm able to push him down the stairs (I don't have a gun) so that he breaks his neck and dies, I'm not going to be OKAY with it.
Hewitt's original question was fair. We need to know what Carson would do if confronted with a choice that means taking out terrorists who are planning to kill thousands of Americans, or calling off the strike because there could be unintentional collateral damage.
It's not an easy decision to make.
Just one more reason I would never run for president.
P.S.: Earballs. Lol. Made me laugh.
Hugh Hewitt asked a GREAT question. It's something we need to know. A president is faced with all kinds of decisions. We need to know how he or she will react in different situations. Unfortunately for Carson, this writer misrepresented his responses. Here's the original video:
https://www.youtube.com/wat...Time Mark: 1:18
He made it very clear he was "okay" with it. Very fucking clear. And as a pediatric neurosurgeon? He lobbied to perform surgeries that left patients maimed or dead. And continued to operate, citing God's will. If you ask me, THAT's ridiculous.
It's an important question, especially for the GOP moral-relativity deniers. The good Christianist Carson made a relative choice: Bomb innocent children for immediate death, rather than "death by a thousand pricks".
Funny you should ask: http://www.nydailynews.com/...
Right? Maybe we should have let them keep the Confederate flag waving on their poles...Easier to identify.
Idk, the boobs look a bit too perky...
with fava beans and a nice Chianti, of course.
Same color as Santorum?
The title of his next sanctimonious ,and boring ghost written book will be ...GIFTED BOMBS.
Unfortunately, even "Smart" weapons really aren't that smart. You're absolutely right. War is horrible, but if you were president, what would you do if we were attacked? I mean this sincerely. I really want to know. If a country (or an Islamic State) attacked us, what would you do?
There are aggressors. There will always be a Hitler or Mussolini (Trump. Ugh.) or a Putin waiting to take advantage of weaknesses. What would you do as president to protect us?
Then you would have my vote! :-)
In fairness, if you listen to Carson's speeches, that's exactly what he's been saying for months (maybe he could be your VP). He doesn't want to go to war (he opposed going into Iraq), but says that if we do go to war, we need to do so decisively and lawfully (your words):
Some things I've heard Carson say:
1) Stop the armchair quarterbacking. Give the mission to the military experts and give them what they need to bring a quick and decisive end to the conflict. His "death by a thousand pricks" was a reference to his belief that the most "compassionate" thing we can do in war is to win, and win quickly;
2) The best deterrent to war is a strong military;
3) If we do have to go to war, we can't run a "politically correct" war. There will (unfortunately) be collateral damage. You're right about your "Smart" weapons. No such thing. We need to be as surgical as possible, but innocent people will die. Sad, but true.
I've heard Carson say that in the case of the ISIS oil trucks making their oil runs, he would authorize the military to take them out. He said that we could certainly warn them ahead of time to save the driver's life. Just make sure they know that if a truck comes out of there, we're blowing it up. Carson (paraphrased): "If you send a truck out after that, you'd better have a robot driving the truck if you're concerned about loss of life."
Sounds sensible to me. But we have writers (like this writer) who report dishonestly, twist the facts, rephrase statements, and completely misrepresent what actually happened.
You sound like a reasonable person. You might be surprised to find that your views match Carson's in more ways than you think.
I'll be waiting for your campaign. You have my vote.
I understand. I thank you for an interesting (and insult free) conversation. You give me hope that we can, indeed, have civil conversations without throwing hand grenades at those with whom we disagree. All the best.