Ben Carson

[shock]

Amy Schumer is funny... If you are absolutely trashed. And even then only half of the time.

[ROOT ANGRY!]

her "last f#$kable day" skit is wicked funny

[MoValley John]

You most certainly did not. I was working in my office and my wife is still convinced something funny will occur.

I keep telling her Farley, Belushi, Radner and Hartman are dead but she refuses to let hope die as well.

Paired with Edfie Murphy, Joe Piscopo was funny as hell. Alone, he sucked. No wonder he went into body building.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

The fact that the meaning of extensive is up for debate is precisely why it's propaganda. "It could be that way if you think about it just right" is exactly the think trap that is at the heart of propaganda.

The debate question did not use the word extensive. The word was “involvement”, and that is the word Carson specifically denied and called propaganda.

Since you are frustrated that definitions are somehow being unfairly put up for debate, please define “involvement” precisely in terms of this situation.

Do you have to be a full time employee to be involved with the company?
Do you have to work there a minimum of X years?
Do you have to make a minimum of X dollars?
Do you have to make a minimum of X speeches?
Do you have to have a position of X significance?

Carson gave speeches and promoted the company (and was paid for it) for a decade. Calling that "involvement" is fair game. Calling that claim "propaganda" is nuts.

[MoValley John]

Do you have to be a full time employee to be involved with the company?
Do you have to work there a minimum of X years?
Do you have to make a minimum of X dollars?
Do you have to make a minimum of X speeches?
Do you have to have a position of X significance?

You don't have be employed, but to be involved, you would need to have influence, and or, be in an advisory role. Think consultant.

Time has no relevance, actual involvement in decision making is relevant. If you worked on the loading dock at Enron, and only did so because you received a check, you really aren't involved.

Time is no measure of involvement.

Neither is compensation. Different professions demand different compensation. Tough concept for a liberal.

No.

YES!!!!!

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

The word games being played here are incredible.

Question: Have you ever had any relationship with Taco Bell?
Answer: No, I just work there.

Carson's exact quote:
"It is absolutely absurd to say that I had any kind of a relationship with them."

This is bonkers. The company was sued over false advertising, and Carson most definitely had some involvement with advertising for them. Of course it is a fair question to ask. I don't even think Carson did anything wrong with his marketing. All he had to say was "I personally take the product and believe it is a good product that provides some health benefits. I'm disappointed that their marketing department made some misleading statements, but I was not a part of any of the statements involved in the lawsuit. I still think the product itself is good and will continue to honestly promote its health benefits."

The issue would have died immediately.

[MoValley John]

The word games being played here are incredible.

Question: Have you ever had any relationship with Taco Bell?
Answer: No, I just work there.

Carson's exact quote:
"It is absolutely absurd to say that I had any kind of a relationship with them."

This is bonkers. The company was sued over false advertising, and Carson most definitely had some involvement with advertising for them. Of course it is a fair question to ask. I don't even think Carson did anything wrong with his marketing. All he had to say was "I personally take the product and believe it is a good product that provides some health benefits. I'm disappointed that their marketing department made some misleading statements, but I was not a part of any of the statements involved in the lawsuit. I still think the product itself is good and will continue to honestly promote its health benefits."

The issue would have died immediately.

No, the issue lives because the guy, in political terms, is squeeky clean. We can't have that! All Hillary has to say is , "What difference does it make?" and any problem goes away. Same with the rest of the lot.

You get a guy that isn't as politically astute, but is clean, and we have to dig, dig, dig! And when we find something as meaningless as this, we have to magnify it. The guy might as well have shot up drugs, molested a collie and shot the poor lion in Africa!

What people are clinging to in an attempt to bring down Carson is ridiculous and overly petty. I hope those that are making a big deal of this wash their hands before they eat, because what they are conjuring up isn't healthy.

[MoValley John]

And no, the guy working the counter at Taco Bell doesn't really have a meaningful relationship or involvement with the company. It's a transient job. I did the job in high school. They get paid to take orders and deliver food. When the Burger King across the street offers a dime more, they leave. They have zero say in the price of the food, the marketing of the company, the menu or business practices. No involvement.

[shock]

Carson had about as much involvement with the company in question as the guy Taco Bell pays to put the stickers on the windows.

[Play Angry]

I'm glad we've established that actual involvement with regard to any corporation is limited exclusively to the C-Suite :)

[MoValley John]

I'm glad we've established that actual involvement with regard to any corporation is limited exclusively to the C-Suite :)

Nobody said that. However, there are people that make decisions and shape policy. There are those who don't. There are those that have influence, and those that do not. Salespeople are involved. Supervisors and managers at Taco Bell implement policy, both from corporate and their own, they are involved.

Just about every infomercial and television or radio ad has a disclaimer separating the people on the ad, and the channel which is broadcasting the ad, from the company being promoted. Giving a speech doesn't allow for such a disclaimer. The next time an infomercial airs on a Sunday morning, listen to the beginning or end and that will explain Carson's lack of involvement.

[Ta Town Shocker]

The thing that bothers me more than his involvement is the fact he is a doctor and claims the products work and he uses them.

[Play Angry]

I just find it humorous that the plain meaning of the term is being disregarded to the point of making fun of anyone who disagrees with the much narrower made-up-on-the-fly version. Involvement is not really a legal or business term of art.

I would happily vote for Carson in a general election if he gets the nod (although at this point he is not my preferred candidate), but I don't really get why so many folks can't just say he has a habit of saying "listen to what I meant, not what I actually said" moments in situations where he has to improv. It's not really incriminating beyond the point of admitting he's not an incredibly polished political debater.

He certainly could and should have articulated his response better but the underlying issue is such a "who cares" worthy blip that it won't have much of an impact now or in the future.

[Kung Wu]

For example, if Sports Time Fan Shop at the top of your screen gets sued and loses a lawsuit for whatever reason, @_kai_: -- who probably gets a little kickback for endorsing them -- wouldn't be implicated in the lawsuit, has no say in how they operate their business, isn't their employee, and probably is only acquaintances with the owner.

In other words, though he's willing to endorse them for a little sumptin' because on the surface he likes their products, there's no real involvement with them.

[Play Angry]

Do you really think the question was aimed at asserting Carson wrongfully avoided vicarious liability of the suit through alleged control of the company?

Or do you think it was intended to ask why he continued to endorse the products and receive speaking fees following an expensive legal battle where the company was culpable of various degrees of wrongdoing?



I am pretty sure it was the latter. I am also pretty sure the nexus between his speeches/endorsements/placement on the Company website and the occurrences precipitating the litigation is nonexistent, which is why nobody cares. But it doesn't seem nuts to ask why the business relationship continued after the fact.

If anything, it was a softball question since it is so easy to swat.