Ben Carson: ‘We Don’t Need a Department of Veterans Affairs’

CNS ^ | August 28, 2015 | Melanie Hunter

[DoughtyOne]

I salute your long and generous contributions to FR as a poster and fundraiser.

(1) I think that was very nice of you to say during a disagreement. I salute you for doing so. It shows a lot of class.

(2) I don't believe I jumped to anything. Your defense of Carson sent a false impression. I reacted like any normal person would.

It would have been nice for you to return the respect I showed you...

How I return respect is up to me.  It's not up to you to dictate.  I paid you a compliment, and that's all I needed to do. ref (1)

...by taking responsibility for having misinterpreted my words instead of insisting that your point of view is the only possible way to be a "normal person", and blaming me for your misinterpretation that I was calling for his nomination.

Along the same lines, how I perceive your comments and assess them is the job of the reader.  You can come along and say that my perception is wrong.  I can state that I believe that your comments would normally have been taken as I took them.  That is not unreasonable.  It's a matter of personal perception, and I don't think I was unfair to you.  When you stated you didn't support Carson as the nominee, I didn't challenge you.  I even mentioned and gave you credit for supporting Trump in my post.

Has anyone else ever suggested that your approach to discussion may be inflexible, preconceived or resistant to any other possibility but your own point of view?

I accepted your claim that your first choice was Trump.  I didn't stick to my perception that you supported Carson.  How is that inflexible, or resistant to any other possibility than my own point of view?

Other than that, we do seem to agree in general, and there is no need to continue your hammering on about his degree or type of executive experience, even though it is you who are insisting I have attempted to clarified it for the purpose of supporting him as the nominee, when in fact (as I have stated several times) I put it forward to recognize his extraordinary accomplishments in his field more accurately, including the ways in which his skills may lend him an understanding of how to approach the job should he end up with it by unforeseen events, and why it is important to stop shooting into the circle, either as a conservative or as a freeper.

Okay, and having responded on these points before, there's no need for me to say more about them now.

So I'm done with this now. I'm trying to get you to hear what I say accurately.

Not really sure what it is you think I missed, since I accepted your support of Trump.  I also agree that Carson is a good man.  I am however entitled to my own opinion of whether he is the best candidate to be president, and explain why.

Since you seem to agree with my selection, I'm not exactly sure why were are sill discussing this.

You're trying to get me to agree with your distortions of my intentions. Ain't working.

I'm not convinced you are reading my responses to you as thoroughly as you should.  I'm not trying to get you to agree with a distortion of your views.  I merely explained what your comments led me to believe.  You stated otherwise, and I didn't challenge you on your stated support for someone other than Carson.  How is that considered an attempt to get you to agree with my distortions?