Wonderful and upstanding speech by Americas Only hopeful, Dr. Ben Carson

Msut77 said:
What about the college class?
Click to expand...
http://www.yale.edu/perception/Brian/courses/Perception-Syllabus.html

"Show me somebody, even from your business, the media, who is 100 percent accurate in everything that they say that happened 40 or 50 years ago," Carson told ABC's George Stephanopoulos by phone. "Please show me that person. I will sit at their knee and I will learn from them."

Carson wrote in his 1990 autobiography that he'd been named the most honest student in a Yale psychology class, "Perceptions 301," because he was the only one not to walk out after the professor hoaxed the class by telling them they'd have to retake their final exams. However, a Wall Street Journal article published Friday found no record of the class nor of a Yale Daily News article that Carson said was written about the incident.

Speaking Sunday on ABC's "This Week," Carson admitted that the course name that appeared in his book was inaccurate, but said his campaign had found the student newspaper article and would release it.

"I wonder why, with all their investigating abilities, they can’t find it. We found it and we’re going to be putting it out," he said. "The course, I guess was called Psychology 1-0. You know, when you write a book with a co-writer and you say that there was a class, a lot of time they’ll put a number or something just to give it more meat. You know, obviously, decades later, I’m not going to remember the course number."

Later on Sunday, Carson shared a syllabus for a 2002 psychology class called "Perception" on his Facebook page, writing "Allow me also to do the research for the Wall Street Journal reporter. Here is a syllabus for the class you claim never existed. Still waiting on the apology."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ben-carson-memoir-exaggerations_563f5dd3e4b0307f2cadc60c

You should be defending this man - I would defend anyone if they were wronged, even if they weren't on my team. One's humanity slips away the moment we turn to look in a different direction.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ben Carson has believes what he says about his past, science, business relationships, and high school education?  Why are you morlocks attacking him for his beliefs? #HobbyLobby

 
Last edited by a moderator:
iwarboY said:
http://www.yale.edu/perception/Brian/courses/Perception-Syllabus.html

"Show me somebody, even from your business, the media, who is 100 percent accurate in everything that they say that happened 40 or 50 years ago," Carson told ABC's George Stephanopoulos by phone. "Please show me that person. I will sit at their knee and I will learn from them."

Carson wrote in his 1990 autobiography that he'd been named the most honest student in a Yale psychology class, "Perceptions 301," because he was the only one not to walk out after the professor hoaxed the class by telling them they'd have to retake their final exams. However, a Wall Street Journal article published Friday found no record of the class nor of a Yale Daily News article that Carson said was written about the incident.

Speaking Sunday on ABC's "This Week," Carson admitted that the course name that appeared in his book was inaccurate, but said his campaign had found the student newspaper article and would release it.

"I wonder why, with all their investigating abilities, they can’t find it. We found it and we’re going to be putting it out," he said. "The course, I guess was called Psychology 1-0. You know, when you write a book with a co-writer and you say that there was a class, a lot of time they’ll put a number or something just to give it more meat. You know, obviously, decades later, I’m not going to remember the course number."

Later on Sunday, Carson shared a syllabus for a 2002 psychology class called "Perception" on his Facebook page, writing "Allow me also to do the research for the Wall Street Journal reporter. Here is a syllabus for the class you claim never existed. Still waiting on the apology."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ben-carson-memoir-exaggerations_563f5dd3e4b0307f2cadc60c

You should be defending this man - I would defend anyone if they were wronged, even if they weren't on my team. One's humanity slips away the moment we turn to look in a different direction.
Click to expand...
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/11/ben-carsons-psychology-test-story-gets-even-weirder

He points to a syllabus that isn't his? Talk about a non-denial. I will wait for the article he claims to have found.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Msut77 said:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/11/ben-carsons-psychology-test-story-gets-even-weirder

He points to a syllabus that isn't his? Talk about a non-denial. I will wait for the article he claims to have found.
Click to expand...
You aren't able to see with those eyes, maybe in time child, maybe in time, God willing.

The wonderful thing about what is happening today, though the vultures and snakes are out attempting to deceive the masses, - those who are voting for Mr Carson will all still be voting for him, while the loud bang of the media is like to a thief who stubs their toe in their failed stealthiness. Not only will those who hear Ben Carson still vote for him, but the exposing of the media as they attack in false claims, will actually ignite the voters who were sleeping :bouncy:

There's a large supply of "if you like you healthcare, you can keep your healthcare etc" moments for anyone who feels like understanding what a liar looks like... oh, there's a large supply on the internets. I assure you, Ben Carson is no liar. Not that I need to persuade anyone who has The Spirit.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's a WSJ newspaper article from 1970 that refers to the accidental fire and hoax of a test that Ben spoke about while in his Perceptions psychology class. Just more evidence to cram into the face of the vultures and snakes :wave:

https://www.facebook.com/realbencarson/photos/a.143829065783568.1073741825.138691142964027/551604265006044/?type=3&fref=nf







Dr. Ben Carson
Yesterday at 7:34am · 

On Saturday a reporter with the Wall Street Journal published a story that my account of being the victim of a hoax at Yale where students were led to believe the exams they had just taken were destroyed and we needed to retake the exam was false. The reporter claimed that no evidence existed to back up my story. Even went so far as to say the class didn't exist.


Well here is the student newspaper account of the incident that occurred on January 14, 1970.

Will an apology be coming. I doubt it.





And yet . .

[sharedmedia=gallery:images:25859]
Where's the outrage/investigation/witch hunt then, and today?

Interesting enough to 'see' what is happening? No, because unbelievers can't believe.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, I'll answer the attorney one for you because searching the Illinois attorney registration system appears to be too difficult for whoever created that cute little picture.

https://www.iardc.org/lawyersearch.asp

Michelle's license is voluntarily inactive likely because she's not practicing or living there full time anymore so keeping the license active would cost time and money that she wouldn't need to spend anyway. See, attorneys have to attend continuing learning classes each year to keep their license active (most states are 15 credits per year) and that can be a pain in the butt particularly when you don't live in that state.

As a bonus, the President himself appears to have put his license into retired status because he has no plans to go back to practicing law after his presidency whereas Michelle likely hasn't decided her post-White House plans and may want to resume her law practice and renew her license.

Also, an attorney's client list can also be privileged information if the client wants it to be so most attorneys would just decline to tell you out of courtesy to their former clients. You may not know this but attorneys continue to owe their past clients certain duties, a duty of confidentiality among them. Now, if they represented them in a court proceeding then it would be public record but if it was just advice or any other matter then it wouldn't be.

If I wanted to spend any more time on this I could go to the Illinois court records and tell you at least some of the people he represented in court but I've already spent more time on this than it even deserved.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The parody differs from almost every detail in the Carson (Dr McStabby's) account

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I couldn't find the part in that 1970 clipping where Carson was lauded "Most Honest Student".  Or that the hoax was by the class professor (it credits someone else entirely).  Or why refusing to show up to a make-up exam your professor tells you about would make you "honest".

It does say that Yale has a psych department, I guess.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not a fan of Carson, but can someone tell me why we're not supposed to talk about Benghazi, Clinton's misuse of unofficial channels for conducting official business and what not, but somehow, Mr. Carson's classes that took place before half the people on this forum were even born are such a subject of debate and discussion?

Where's Bernie when you need him?
 
RedvsBlue said:
Well, I'll answer the attorney one for you because searching the Illinois attorney registration system appears to be too difficult for whoever created that cute little picture.

https://www.iardc.org/lawyersearch.asp

Michelle's license is voluntarily inactive likely because she's not practicing or living there full time anymore so keeping the license active would cost time and money that she wouldn't need to spend anyway. See, attorneys have to attend continuing learning classes each year to keep their license active (most states are 15 credits per year) and that can be a pain in the butt particularly when you don't live in that state.

As a bonus, the President himself appears to have put his license into retired status because he has no plans to go back to practicing law after his presidency whereas Michelle likely hasn't decided her post-White House plans and may want to resume her law practice and renew her license.

Also, an attorney's client list can also be privileged information if the client wants it to be so most attorneys would just decline to tell you out of courtesy to their former clients. You may not know this but attorneys continue to owe their past clients certain duties, a duty of confidentiality among them. Now, if they represented them in a court proceeding then it would be public record but if it was just advice or any other matter then it wouldn't be.

If I wanted to spend any more time on this I could go to the Illinois court records and tell you at least some of the people he represented in court but I've already spent more time on this than it even deserved.
Click to expand...
I'm sure nobody really cares about those questions you answered, that's why they are at the bottom of the list. Actually, had I had more time I would have photoshopped those last few pieces of info out.

Yeah, the above 18 or so questions are the meat of the photo and topic concerning everything sealed.. and why??

I mean, who really cares about his wife... not important. Answer /those/ questions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
UncleBob said:
Not a fan of Carson, but can someone tell me why we're not supposed to talk about Benghazi, Clinton's misuse of unofficial channels for conducting official business and what not, but somehow, Mr. Carson's classes that took place before half the people on this forum were even born are such a subject of debate and discussion?

Where's Bernie when you need him?
Click to expand...
I'm just going to bump this to the front. I'd (and most of the country) also like to know . . .

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Msut77 said:
Just a guess but people are not going to let you change the subject in a Ben Carson thread.
Click to expand...
Oh, i'll allow it for UncleBob, this is my thread after all, so please - Do feel free to answer him . . So he was saying, you know, about Hillary Clinton and such . . :wave:

 
iwarboY said:
Oh, i'll allow it for UncleBob, this is my thread after all, so please - Do feel free to answer him . . So he was saying, you know, about Hillary Clinton and such . . :wave:
Click to expand...
You won't get an answer.

There simply isn't an answer that doesn't break down the hypocrisy and stupidity of the people who try to bring this stuff up in the first place. Somehow, one candidate's story about some stupid thing that happened decades ago in college is worthy of discussion, but the way another candidate conducted Federal business in the last decade isn't worth talking about.

Come on, guys! Let's talk about the *real* issues. Was Carson *really* the most honest student 200 years ago? Because if he wasn't, then he sure isn't fit for President!

(Dude isn't fit for president for soooooo many other good reasons...)
 
Kind of hard to take "We're not allowed to talk about Clinton" seriously when we've had multiple congressional hearings, subpoenas and an FBI investigation. After the third House committee investigating Carson, there might be some sort of comparison there.

The Obama nonsense needs to show that there is something unusual going on. I mean, my college, medical and parish records aren't open either without my consent and the birth certificate thing was settled ages ago to anyone who doesn't wrap their head in tin foil.
 
Syntax Error said:
Kind of hard to take "We're not allowed to talk about Clinton" seriously when we've had multiple congressional hearings, subpoenas and an FBI investigation. After the third House committee investigating Carson, there might be some sort of comparison there.

The Obama nonsense needs to show that there is something unusual going on. I mean, my college, medical and parish records aren't open either without my consent and the birth certificate thing was settled ages ago to anyone who doesn't wrap their head in tin foil.
Click to expand...
"The Obama nonsense" - To say anything would be a waste of time. It's apparent you(and many)will bat for and defend the left had the o administration claim to be the embodiment of evil itself.

 
I suppose that, if you can't actually provide evidence that there is anything unusual, you can always fall back on trying to make it my fault.

Does Columbia College generally allow third parties to peruse their student's records and papers?  Were Obama's records "SEALED!" or is it business as usual?

 
Syntax Error said:
I suppose that, if you can't actually provide evidence that there is anything unusual, you can always fall back on trying to make it my fault.

Does Columbia College generally allow third parties to peruse their student's records and papers? Were Obama's records "SEALED!" or is it business as usual?
Click to expand...
Bingo, I'm willing to bet most of these were someone calling or showing up and asking for his records and they were told those weren't for release to the public. "Oh so they're sealed"

We should probably be asking for his medical records too, you know to make sure he isn't one of those new world order lizard people trying to take over the planet. Unless of course those are sealed too, what's he got to hide anyway?!?
 
Guys, guys - there isn't nothing you could possibly muster to defend your failed tyrannic treasonous president. Just close your traps, you make yourselves look ridiculous and ignorant. Shhh.

And now, more importantly the debate that was recorded on Nov 10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFg6DkkJSus

 
18 trillion dollars his plan costs, even Bill Maher thinks it's insane. The man is so batshit crazy I wouldn't even be terribly upset if he won - just to see what the fuck happens and i'm conservative through and through. He already admitted taxing the 1% isn't enough - not even 100%. He admitted he'd have to go lower - top 10% making $150,000 a year. You would have to cut military spending to 0. And it still wouldn't be enough.

 
That dialogue is hilarious.

Carson's senior adviser: Carson is a poor study.

NYT: Carson's senior advisor says Carson is a poor study.

Carson's campaign: That's not Carson's senior advisor.

NYT: You gave us his name and number when we asked for his senior advisor.

 
Jruth said:
18 trillion dollars his plan costs, even Bill Maher thinks it's insane. The man is so batshit crazy I wouldn't even be terribly upset if he won - just to see what the fuck happens and i'm conservative through and through. He already admitted taxing the 1% isn't enough - not even 100%. He admitted he'd have to go lower - top 10% making $150,000 a year. You would have to cut military spending to 0. And it still wouldn't be enough.
Click to expand...
First most of the outlets like WSJ that have tried to take apart Bernies plans leave a lot of factors out. I am not saying just taxing the super rich will be enough, nor am I claiming one way or another to know economics well enough to have a truly informed opinion(I would be shocked if anyone at this board knew economics that well). I am just pointing out that when it comes to Presidential plans and the media I take it all with a grain of salt. Most of these plans are not fleshed out enough yet and the media does such a half assed job pushing candidates on that fact and a worse job still making the average American understand these plans.

Putting that aside though I want to ask how making $150,000 is not considered rich in this country? Its not super rich or wealthy beyond your wildest dreams, but if you constitenly are pulling $150,000 you can have a whole brood of children and still live well. Meanwhile when you cut that number in half you can start to find some families struggling, cut it in half again and almost every family is struggling. I am sorry but I do not see why taxing people that make $150,000 a year a little more would be a bad thing. It would provide needed stability and spending power to the American populace. We are a consumer based economy and putting money back into the hands of the struggling poor and middle class is a good thing.

Finally I want to point out that I find it disgusting that NO ONE and I mean freaking NO ONE ever debates this from a moral stand point. It is always about the dollars and cents and if our economy would do worse or not. We never just ask the questions, how many people are starving? How many people are sick? How many people are in pain? How much will it take to fix that? Ok now lets discuss what that will do to our economy and for once then have an honest discussion if human life is WORTH that hit to the economy. We skip right to the economics and people flip the fuck out over potential costs(which they dont even understand)and forget these are people. Funny thing is that the rise in self driving cars and other advanced machines will likely keep driving people out of the work force. I can easily see a future where there are no fast food workers or drivers, thats a lot of extra mouths needing feeding and a lot less work to feed those mouths. We are likely over the next 30 years going to be forced to either let a lot of people fall through the cracks into extreme poverty and suffering, or we will HAVE to reform our entitlement system, the way its funded and the way we look at it.

All that said....man again how is $150,000 not rich? Id be living in the woods by the lake with a whole mess of chitlins with that kind of money, maybe even take on a second wife....I kid I kid!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's kinda like an argument that Joe Rogan had with Gavin Mcinnes (co-founder of Vice). Joe posits the facile argument the school should dole out a free lunch -  $1.80 for a ham sandwich for a kid that can't afford it that's in possession of the school while the kid is there. The counter argument is that a parent who can't afford a ham sandwich is incompetent. And we have bigger problems - whats the kid eating for dinner? Also, people aren't really starving in America these days.

Taxes are already progressive, you say you want the 150,000ers to pay a little more. They already pay 83% of total income tax. I'm saying Liberalism is not feasible nor pragmatic. We've had 7 years of President Obama and you take the moral high-ground now and tell me people are starving. I've rather have a society where the rich are richer and the middle class is richer - than having everyone equal.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MSI Magus said:
First most of the outlets like WSJ that have tried to take apart Bernies plans leave a lot of factors out. I am not saying just taxing the super rich will be enough, nor am I claiming one way or another to know economics well enough to have a truly informed opinion(I would be shocked if anyone at this board knew economics that well). I am just pointing out that when it comes to Presidential plans and the media I take it all with a grain of salt. Most of these plans are not fleshed out enough yet and the media does such a half assed job pushing candidates on that fact and a worse job still making the average American understand these plans.

Putting that aside though I want to ask how making $150,000 is not considered rich in this country? Its not super rich or wealthy beyond your wildest dreams, but if you constitenly are pulling $150,000 you can have a whole brood of children and still live well. Meanwhile when you cut that number in half you can start to find some families struggling, cut it in half again and almost every family is struggling. I am sorry but I do not see why taxing people that make $150,000 a year a little more would be a bad thing. It would provide needed stability and spending power to the American populace. We are a consumer based economy and putting money back into the hands of the struggling poor and middle class is a good thing.

Finally I want to point out that I find it disgusting that NO ONE and I mean freaking NO ONE ever debates this from a moral stand point. It is always about the dollars and cents and if our economy would do worse or not. We never just ask the questions, how many people are starving? How many people are sick? How many people are in pain? How much will it take to fix that? Ok now lets discuss what that will do to our economy and for once then have an honest discussion if human life is WORTH that hit to the economy. We skip right to the economics and people flip the fuck out over potential costs(which they dont even understand)and forget these are people. Funny thing is that the rise in self driving cars and other advanced machines will likely keep driving people out of the work force. I can easily see a future where there are no fast food workers or drivers, thats a lot of extra mouths needing feeding and a lot less work to feed those mouths. We are likely over the next 30 years going to be forced to either let a lot of people fall through the cracks into extreme poverty and suffering, or we will HAVE to reform our entitlement system, the way its funded and the way we look at it.

All that said....man again how is $150,000 not rich? Id be living in the woods by the lake with a whole mess of chitlins with that kind of money, maybe even take on a second wife....I kid I kid!
Click to expand...
I remember the last time this came up someone came in saying his family pulled in about $150,000 and they were basically just making ends meet because they lived in an expensive area. Then someone pointed out that he had just posted a week or two before a thread about buying a new TV and he had a $5,000 budget. Of course his reply was that he works hard so he deserves nice things, which is true, definitely. Rather, the question is how you can be "just making ends meet" but have an extra $5,000 for a TV.

Just making ends meet is having to decide whether to buy groceries or pay your electric bill.

 
Jruth said:
It's kinda like an argument that Joe Rogan had with Gavin Mcinnes (co-founder of Vice). Joe posits the facile argument the school should dole out a free lunch - $1.80 for a ham sandwich for a kid that can't afford it that's in possession of the school while the kid is there. The counter argument is that a parent who can't afford a ham sandwich is incompetent. And we have bigger problems - whats the kid eating for dinner? Also, people aren't really starving in America these days.

Taxes are already progressive, you say you want the 150,000ers to pay a little more. They already pay 83% of total income tax. I'm saying Liberalism is not feasible nor pragmatic. We've had 7 years of President Obama and you take the moral high-ground now and tell me people are starving. I've rather have a society where the rich are richer and the middle class is richer - than having everyone equal.
Click to expand...
There is absolutely nothing here other than rambling incoherent jealousy that a poor kid got a ham sandwich.

 



Jruth said:
It's kinda like an argument that Joe Rogan had with Gavin Mcinnes (co-founder of Vice). Joe posits the facile argument the school should dole out a free lunch - $1.80 for a ham sandwich for a kid that can't afford it that's in possession of the school while the kid is there. The counter argument is that a parent who can't afford a ham sandwich is incompetent. And we have bigger problems - whats the kid eating for dinner? Also, people aren't really starving in America these days.

Taxes are already progressive, you say you want the 150,000ers to pay a little more. They already pay 83% of total income tax. I'm saying Liberalism is not feasible nor pragmatic. We've had 7 years of President Obama and you take the moral high-ground now and tell me people are starving. I've rather have a society where the rich are richer and the middle class is richer - than having everyone eq
Click to expand...
I feel you didnt even read my post....

You did the exact same thing I said every last freaking person does. You reduced human life and human pain down to some people are already paying far too much without for a second asking, does that mean they have more to give and how would that effect everyone else. You also took a shot at Obama and acted as though that proves anything. I dont agree with much of what the guy has done and the idea of holding him up as a liberal president or a great president disgusts me. ....but why are we discussing this again? You finally then wrap the whole thing up with the assumption that I want everything to be equal(a stereotype of liberals). I dont want things equal, I just do not want them so damn unfair.

As RedvsBlue pointed out its easy to feel like even making $150,000 you are being squeezed unfairly by the government, but it doesnt mean its tough for you to get by. Most people I know though that have that income are doing more then well. They go on vacation, they often have more then 2 kids, they have TVs in EVERY freaking room in the house, 2-3 cars in the garage, at christmas they buy shit they toss out 3 months later. They live a good life. I now look at many other families and see people who have to wait for 8 hours to get emergency physical or dental care because they dont have insurance/good insurance and then they still have to get up the next day and take a bus to work. Maybe the medication makes dad sleepy and he misses the bus and loses his job when if he just had a freaking car he could have made it in time. I see that dad being broken down and feeling like why even bother because his kids are stuck in a shitty school district and yes he keeps them fed but not nourished. Now I see that that man was black, his parents were denied good jobs and he a good education as a kid, his grandparents were kept out of the economic boom that was the creation of the suburbs after WW2. I see that that man was never given a chance and all he or anyone in his family has ever had a chance at was pain short of the luckiest of breaks.

To me the way that you and most people even try to debate this subject is immoral. You talk in dollars and cents when I am talking about pain and suffering. I am not asking for things to be equal, I am just asking for us to look at the facts and look at the people. I look at the problem through the lens of what is possible and moral not dollars and cents.

And btw I wouldn't use the argument that if you cant afford to buy your kid food you arnt competent as a parent. First off you never know someones situation and there are tons of reasons you can find yourself in that situation despite best efforts. Equally important though its making the point that if we start taking kids away from incompetent parents there wont be any parents left. If we do that I think only 3 or 4 people I have ever met deserved to have their kids. I would honestly trust the big bad scary government to raise peoples children over 90% of the uneducated and selfish populace. Brainwashing hatred, letting your kids be obesse as fuck, spending money on beer and fantasy football vs education, reading celebrity gossip vs the news so you can vote on laws that effect your kids, keeping unlocked guns in the home, smoking around your kids. People are by and large incompetent asshats who should not breed and if you confront them with any flaw they just teach their kid you are supposed to react to honest criticism with verbal or physical violence.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RedvsBlue said:
I remember the last time this came up someone came in saying his family pulled in about $150,000 and they were basically just making ends meet because they lived in an expensive area. Then someone pointed out that he had just posted a week or two before a thread about buying a new TV and he had a $5,000 budget. Of course his reply was that he works hard so he deserves nice things, which is true, definitely. Rather, the question is how you can be "just making ends meet" but have an extra $5,000 for a TV.

Just making ends meet is having to decide whether to buy groceries or pay your electric bill.
Click to expand...
HAHA...I remember that thread. It was Javery and I think he was pulling in about $250k solo as a lawyer that also ended up adding an additional floor to his house too...along with having a third kid. Funny thing about him is that I never got the sense that he was really into politics(or conservative for the matter) and only based his opinions on who would tax him more.

 
dohdough said:
HAHA...I remember that thread. It was Javery and I think he was pulling in about $250k solo as a lawyer that also ended up adding an additional floor to his house too...along with having a third kid. Funny thing about him is that I never got the sense that he was really into politics(or conservative for the matter) and only based his opinions on who would tax him more.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's who it was. I had actually forgotten.

For some reason I thought it was $150,000 but in either situation it still applies about him complaining about just making ends meet.
 
RedvsBlue said:
Yes, that's who it was. I had actually forgotten.

For some reason I thought it was $150,000 but in either situation it still applies about him complaining about just making ends meet.
Click to expand...
LOLZ..found the thread and see a bunch of people reading it with me! :rofl:

hmmm...I think I was wrong about how much Javery makes. He probably makes more. Good for him and his I guess.

So many classic CAG's in that thread. I wonder what happened to most of them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
mykevermin said:
There is absolutely nothing here other than rambling incoherent jealousy that a poor kid got a ham sandwich.
Click to expand...
I kinda want to know what sort of school lunch ham sandwich costs $1.80. Are they buying individual premium lunch meat packages at the grocery store?

I guess insisting that the kid shouldn't get a 40¢ ham sandwich sounds even more petty.

 
Ha!

I'm sure it's the same kind of super, super shitty processed meat product they serve in prisons. High fat, high salt, ultra processed mystery animal.

I mean, not that I know from experience. ;)

 
Nah, we can screw that kid over a ham sandwich, and then feed prisoners a vastly more expensive Nutraloaf.

========

Ben Carson never said AP History turns kids into terrorists.

Never worked with Mannatech.

Duane Clarridge is not his adviser. He's just a guy who sits in some of his strategy sessions giving counsel. We gotta stop listening to old White Men for a change.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I liked the Carson campaign response that the NYT was "taking advantage of an elderly gentleman".  Because he's good enough to advise the Carson campaign but too senile to give an interview.

The Carson campaign has not said that Clarridge is not an adviser, it said that he is not "one of Dr. Carson's top advisers".  Whether that's true or not, the fact remains that Clarridge has had meetings with Carson about foreign policy and has found Carson woefully inept in learning and retaining the information.  Hell, even if all he does is sit around the meetings and has no official advisory role at all, he's still watching Carson act confused and uncertain about what's going on in the foreign policy scene during the meetings.  Trying to handwave away Clarridge as "not an adviser" misses the point entirely.

 
Syntax Error said:
I liked the Carson campaign response that the NYT was "taking advantage of an elderly gentleman". Because he's good enough to advise the Carson campaign but too senile to give an interview.

The Carson campaign has not said that Clarridge is not an adviser, it said that he is not "one of Dr. Carson's top advisers". Whether that's true or not, the fact remains that Clarridge has had meetings with Carson about foreign policy and has found Carson woefully inept in learning and retaining the information. Hell, even if all he does is sit around the meetings and has no official advisory role at all, he's still watching Carson act confused and uncertain about what's going on in the foreign policy scene during the meetings. Trying to handwave away Clarridge as "not an adviser" misses the point entirely.
Click to expand...
It still absolutely blows my mind that Carson's career was as a neurosurgeon. Every day that passes he is going down a road of making W look like a genius in comparison.

I mean, I don't think it's just an act to lower expectations or maybe he doesn't want to come across as an elite intellectual. He has no political office experience, no business experience. I mean yeah, he was a doctor for many years and that is a hard job but it has almost zero in common with the job of President. I just don't get how someone can come this far in a presidential race on little more than "I'm a Christian." It defies all expectations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top