Let me clarify what I meant when talking about the website. I agree that the website is not something Carson can control, I do not fault him for the ads, but he website owner. I understand that it is the owner's method of making money, but not all money-making methods are moral. These ads, to me, are the modern equivalent of the snake-oil salesmen of yesteryear. And those sites who allow the ads are giving passive sanction to the shady salesmen.

If you owned a commercial building, would you allow a Fraudster to set up shop as your lessee? Aside from the legal ramifications, it's about giving sanction to something you ought to oppose.

I agree that I have not yet seen any pandering from Carson, perhaps he is genuine in his values and beliefs. But that in and of itself is not actually beneficial if it does not follow having the proper values and beliefs.

You know, I've always found vague, one-sentence bromides to be the most effective way to respond to a four-paragraph post.
Using coarse language is not an adequate justification for ignoring an accusation that one is abandoning ones intellectual integrity. I mainly wanted to point out that Ben Carson is using the same tactics as liberals to try to shut down discussion when an accusation is made to which he has no response.
How often do progressives accuse us of being "full of hate and intolerance" as a way to ignore our arguments? It is just as invalid for us to do it as them.
I am so tired of people claiming that WASPish, passive aggressive language is what we should consider civil discourse. It is evasive and illogical. We should laud candidates who approach issues head-on without attempting to discredit the argument by attacking the speaker, not reinforcing the bad habits of straw-man and ad hominem fallacies.

If we are proponents of reason, then all forms of logical fallacies should be shunned, not propped up as evidence of strong character or class.

Straining the soup a little too thin there, JohnConnor352.

You should really try not to get offended so easily.

I've always loved that line.

Awesome response, freedomforall!

He has class; the person who wrote the article doesnt have class. I would say to Ben Carson, however, that praying for this person is a USELESS exercise, as it would appear that the same god which allowed this guy to write that article wouldnt want to reverse himself on his decision.

Unless of course there are multiple gods who battle among themselves for influence on people. We should then carefully pick 'which of the many' gods we would give our allegiance to

Most of the media entities are infested with socialist rage, devoid of intelligence. They've become so unhinged that they don't even recognize parody, even when they unconsciously create laughable material. The New York Times tried to go after Marco Rubio, who the Democrats considered a kind of Hispanic Obama, due to his appeal. The result was pathetic, but the Times dutifully plastered the Rubio "scandal" on the front page: Rubio and his wife had 17 traffic tickets in 15 years!

Well, I am glad that he can dismiss contemptible
remarks with the contempt they deserve. He would
be much better than Trump, who just insulted the
Mondelez company for supposedly doing just what
businessmen did in Atlas Shrugged---gettting out and getting away because of being overreg-
ulated and persecuted. And people think Trump
is a free enterprise man?!!

it is sad when people stoop to crude derision when logic
can hit so much harder. . Dr. Ben Carson is a Seventh-Day
Adventist;;; do you want him in the oval office? . doesn't that
hit harder than this stupid headline?

In fact, I adore Dr. Carson and would trust him to take
this country in a good direction. . this is just an example
to show how stupid this headline is. -- j
.

schools already require certain inoculations before a student can attend.
I'll drop Carson a line to see how he responds.

It's an important issue to me because it is a significant indicator - a "canary in a coal mine" - about where Ben Carson stands on individual rights in general. If he is willing to use government power to force vaccines into children's bodies, who knows what other rights he would be willing to override. Regardless of his positions on other issues, Carson is nowhere near to being an Objectivist and would never get my vote.

That's not even on my top 1000 important issues for a presidential candidate. Not least because it's a matter of state or local law.

+1!

Guess that removes the "Gentleman's" from GQ magazine, in my mind.

thanks for the link. I'll look more into it, if to only learn his reasoning behind it (I do not agree with mandatory anything).

He makes my point about his nature, his mentality, his humanity, excellent response. It'll be curious if they (GQ) drop the issue or try again to push a button. Dr. Carson is an expert responding to these childish hatred rants.

I always felt that FOX is doing so great and growing mostly because of the "FOX Lies" Campaign. Without it they probably would not be as successful, many people would not have even known they existed. I thing Ben Carson understands this and is using it to his advantage. The more they try to disgrace him with nonsensical nonsense and BS, the better he will do.

"Aside from his faith, I can't see how objectivists take anything from this accomplished man. " What about his advocacy of mandatory vaccinations? http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/03/politic...

A lot of comments about Dr. C here, so $5Au will not add to this. He notes that what is "shocking" is that a style mag would comment on politics and in such a crude manner. GQ will not get any of $5Au's gold.

The website is not something Carson can control. No doubt the sensational headline and all the ads are tools to get people to look AND to get the site owner paid. No crime.

I post links such as this because of their embedded video's. Why? To present the candidates character and integrity, things sorely lacking in American government and in American society today.

I think, having had my eye on Carson for several years, unlike Trump, Carson is remarkably sincere. While I may not agree with some of the things he says, I respect that there is a very little double-talk and he backs what he says.

Even if he is not the chosen candidate, he is not the par for the course pandering politician we've come to tolerate.

"But I don't think of you, Mr. Toohey."
(Howard Roark to Elsworth Toohey in "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand.)
A briefer, more cogent response to the GQ hatemonger but Carson's response is pretty good, nevertheless.

Magary was attacking Carson for his gun comments. There was nothing more for Ben to say. There is no way to address people like Magary and I think Ben Carson was right on. He should be dismissive to hate mongering people as they are not interested in anything other than their own agenda.

Yeah, the headlines are over the top.

He is a class act.

My respect for Ben Carson has never waivered, but he won't be my candidate for president. There are a number of issues where I simply disagree with him in some very fundamental ways, and I question whether he has the personality required in an effective leader. Lastly, the office he is seeking is simply not a place for on the job training, no matter how brilliant/accomplished he may be in his own field.

My guy is Ted Cruz. He has been from the start, and he will be when I go to vote. He is every bit as brilliant/accomplished as Dr. Carson is in his own field (law). He has no need for on the job training, as Dr. Carson does. I find myself in lock step agreement with Mr. Cruz in virtually every issue when it comes to personal liberty, states' rights, federal spending, and all arguments related to the Constitution. As for his demeanor, he is pure class in how he responds to his political enemies/rivals, but you know he'll rip their guts out when it comes time to fight for an issue. That's the guy I want to be my president.

I have no respect for websites that are plastered with the misleading and click-bait ads referencing the most "shocking" new diet pill, anti-aging "weird trick," or prophesies from Stephen Hawking. The "insights" and opinions in them are as useless as the ads that keep them in business.

On the topic of Carson, it is not "classy" to at that you "feel sorry for" someone, and then suggest that they be prayed for. It is condescending and passive aggressive. Rather than addressing the, admired rude and colorfully posed accusations, Carson skirts them by making his own accusations to make the arguments invalid. He claims the speaker is full of hatred and intolerance, and so therefore his statements do not warrant a response. This is the same tactic used by democrats to silence GOP opposition. It is a straw man fallacy, and all too commonly accepted as a reasonable response to criticism.

On the claim that hate and intolerance should negate a person's arguments, I also take umbrage with such a claim. Hate, like any emotion, is a personal response to reality in comparison to your values, and is not good or bad by itself. Emotions are only a tool, and can be used, like a hammer or a pistol, to achieve your goals. Hatred, when used appropriately, can keep you focused on a goal of stopping something radically opposed to your values. Hatred of the Nazi philosophy is what gave us the mettle to see the Second World War to its completion. If we were just conscientious objectors or mildly opposed to them, we would never have defeated them. We refused to tolerate them. Same as with the tyranny of England over us as colonies.

We need to remember to look not at the trivial surface issues, but the deeper philosophical and real comparisons between the candidates and parties. Carson and Trump both seem to be capitalization on appearances, not substance. I have yet to be impressed by a single thing by either man, and have been thoroughly disappointed by them in many instances.