Ben Carson

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Weren't you saying just a couple days ago that he was dishonest for calling it propaganda that he was involved with the supplement company? To me, these seem like the same thing. A reasonable mind could think neither one is a big deal or think both make him dishonest. I find it hard to believe that you could think one is bad and one is no big deal.

Yes, I think these cases are very different. One had the potential for a scandal (even though I don't believe their ultimately was one) while the other isn't a scandal even if the worst is assumed.

Mannatech made false claims about their product. Carson undeniably promoted the product. The connection between Carson and Mannatech deserved to be vetted. Calling anyone who wanted to vet the issue and find out the truth “propagandists” was ridiculous. The vetting process helped clear up any confusion or ignorance. It led us to see that while Carson did advertising, he wasn’t a part of the specific advertising that was taken to court. Any fair person would easily conclude that only those Mannatech employees/consultants/contractors/etc. who specifically worked on the false advertising deserved any of the guilt. Carson didn’t work on that, so he should be guilt free. It would have been that simple, but Carson bizarrely chose to instead go down the route of claiming he had zero involvement with Mannatech and started throwing out wild claims of propaganda. I disagree that reasonable minds can disagree here. Carson was involved in advertising for a company who was sued about their advertising. He did nothing wrong, but he was close enough to the situation to deserve vetting. I disagree that it is reasonable to say otherwise.

Regarding West Point, I think I’ve already posted my opinion pretty thoroughly. I think reasonable people can disagree about whether a high ranking general’s specific promises to a highly qualified ROTC kid should count as an “offer”. Also, unlike the Mannatech issue, where there could have been a true scandal if Carson truly was a part of false advertising, the West Point thing has no scandal potential. The absolute worst thing Carson could be reasonably accused of there is having poorly summarized a nearly guaranteed option as a fully guaranteed option. Either way, it was an option that a teenage Carson chose not to pursue.

[jdshock]

Yes, I think these cases are very different. One had the potential for a scandal (even though I don't believe their ultimately was one) while the other isn't a scandal even if the worst is assumed.

Mannatech made false claims about their product. Carson undeniably promoted the product. The connection between Carson and Mannatech deserved to be vetted. Calling anyone who wanted to vet the issue and find out the truth “propagandists” was ridiculous. The vetting process helped clear up any confusion or ignorance. It led us to see that while Carson did advertising, he wasn’t a part of the specific advertising that was taken to court. Any fair person would easily conclude that only those Mannatech employees/consultants/contractors/etc. who specifically worked on the false advertising deserved any of the guilt. Carson didn’t work on that, so he should be guilt free. It would have been that simple, but Carson bizarrely chose to instead go down the route of claiming he had zero involvement with Mannatech and started throwing out wild claims of propaganda. I disagree that reasonable minds can disagree here. Carson was involved in advertising for a company who was sued about their advertising. He did nothing wrong, but he was close enough to the situation to deserve vetting. I disagree that it is reasonable to say otherwise.

Regarding West Point, I think I’ve already posted my opinion pretty thoroughly. I think reasonable people can disagree about whether a high ranking general’s specific promises to a highly qualified ROTC kid should count as an “offer”. Also, unlike the Mannatech issue, where there could have been a true scandal if Carson truly was a part of false advertising, the West Point thing has no scandal potential. The absolute worst thing Carson could be reasonably accused of there is having poorly summarized a nearly guaranteed option as a fully guaranteed option. Either way, it was an option that a teenage Carson chose not to pursue.

You said

But to call those who say it is some form of involvement as spreading "total propaganda" is beyond stupid. That is exactly the type of misleading, exaggerating, demonizing crap that I am so tired of in politics today. Everyone who disagrees about anything must now be unfairly criticized and presented as an incarnation of the devil himself. Forget trying to clarify disagreements with truth, that is apparently not worth it anymore.

and in regards to all of these concerns with the factual accuracy of the biography, Carson's campaign said "You have no reason to believe that they are not true. There’s no evidence to point to the fact that they are even questionable." Source.

How is this not the same type of exaggeration? You parsed the exact meaning of the word "involvement." Similarly, here, he factually was not offered a scholarship. Why did they not just say that? His campaign, instead, has stood by every fact in the biography. That seems, to me, to be exactly the same type of "misleading, exaggerating, demonizing crap that [you] are so tired of in politics today." BUT INSTEAD, you just say "eh, good enough. That recommendation letter was basically like he got in to West Point which is the same thing as getting offered a scholarship."

[Rlh04d]

And hypocritical. Democrats never get this type of Proctology from the mainstream media.

The only reason we know anything damaging to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, is because the new media of conservative internet and radio forced the mainstream media kicking and screaming to acknowledge all of these scandals.

Can someone please check out the Fox News ratings and stop pretending they aren't mainstream?

They can't both be the most watched AND not mainstream. That's crazy.

The "mainstream media" certainly trends liberal, but there are a LOT of mainstream conservative outlets, all of which are vastly more credible than conservative internet and radio.

[RoyalShock]

The more and more I think about it, the more I come to realize that we seem to be losing focus of the most important part of the story. What difference does it make? (to quote Hillary)

Does an “I can get you in” from a 4 star general equal signed paperwork of admission? Close, but no, technically not equal.
Does being the top ROTC high schooler in the city of Detroit automatically get you in? Should be a near slam dunk, but no, not quite automatic.
Is it possible that Carson is legally, technically, nit-pickingly wrong to say he “was offered a full ride”? I guess a reasonable person could stand by that technical assessment.

But what difference does that all make?

A: I had a 99% chance of getting into West Point, but I chose medicine at Yale instead.
B: I had a 100% chance of getting into West Point, but I chose medicine at Yale instead.

We are literally having a national debate into the complex, precise meaning of words and phrases to determine if A or B is most correct. Yet at the end of the day, in both cases, Ben Carson was a highly qualified high schooler who had a choice between two respected institutions that he was fully qualified for, and he chose Yale over West Point and now looks back at that choice as a major milestone in his life.

Talk about a scandal!!!

What we're really talking about is hair-splitting over the precise phrasing and word choice in a book that was written almost 25 years after the "scandalous" incident occurred. Who here (or anywhere) remembers the exact wording from a singular conversation you had with someone 25 years ago when you were a teenager? Just because it had quotes around it doesn't mean it wasn't paraphrased based on best recollection.

This whole thing was ridiculous on it's surface. But that's how low the standards have gotten for political "reporting".

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I thought Carson had a good, concise explanation last night.

“I was offered a scholarship to West Point... that's the words that they used”. – Ben Carson, last night at the debate.

Does anyone really doubt that a recruiter might have used that specific language? It is very reasonable that the person whose job it was to try to convince Carson to come to West Point could have easily simplified the situation into “Ben, come to West Point. We have a scholarship waiting for you”. If there is anyone guilty of lacking precision in their statement, it might be the recruiter, but Ben’s story of what he was told is completely believable. It is highly ignorant to think that recruiters only read verbatim off their official institutional literature.

“I have a gut feeling you are exaggerating” has become “You are lying”. In print! By major news outlets! This whole issue is crazy.

[moshock]

https://youtu.be/uHVEDq6RVXc

[Kung Wu]

https://youtu.be/uHVEDq6RVXc

Hahahaha

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Similarly, here, he factually was not offered a scholarship.

I do not concede that to be fact.

http://shockernet.net/forum/showthread.php?20531-Ben-Carson&p=598315&viewfull=1#post598315

“I was offered a scholarship to West Point... that's the words that they used”. – Ben Carson, last night at the debate.

[jdshock]

I do not concede that to be fact.

http://shockernet.net/forum/showthread.php?20531-Ben-Carson&p=598315&viewfull=1#post598315

“I was offered a scholarship to West Point... that's the words that they used”. – Ben Carson, last night at the debate.

I think this is a really great article -- long, but well researched -- on this topic. The author criticizes the original accuser of doing too little research and misstating some basic facts. [Article]

I don't understand why people can't just see this as an exaggeration that helped him sell books at a time when he never intended to be president. Whether that means he should or should not be president is up to the voter, but I think it's obviously an example of at least slight exaggeration.

[wu_shizzle]

Can someone please check out the Fox News ratings and stop pretending they aren't mainstream?

They can't both be the most watched AND not mainstream. That's crazy.

The "mainstream media" certainly trends liberal, but there are a LOT of mainstream conservative outlets, all of which are vastly more credible than conservative internet and radio.

You could make the case that FOX is "mainstream" in that they are the cable leader and they do host GOP debates. I'm not ready to completely buy your premise that just because one cable news channel does well that they are "mainstream". The President of the United States does not recognize them as a "Mainstream" news outlet, The DNC refuses to debate on FOX and I'm sure if you aggregated all the other cable news networks, the influence of Fox would look much smaller.

ABC, CBS, NBC all Progressive and give favorable treatment to Liberal Democrats.

All Cable news outlets but Fox are Progressive and give favorable treatment to Liberal Democrats.

Every Major Newspaper in this country, even in very Conservative areas (Garden City, Hutchinson, Winfield, etc...?) are staffed by Progressives who may try and veil their political ideology, but are friendly to Liberal Democrats and Progressive ideas.

[Rlh04d]

Every Major Newspaper in this country, even in very Conservative areas (Garden City, Hutchinson, Winfield, etc...?) are staffed by Progressives who may try and veil their political ideology, but are friendly to Liberal Democrats and Progressive ideas.

The Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Chicago Tribune, the Dallas Morning News ...

I'm sure if you aggregated all the other cable news networks, the influence of Fox would look much smaller.

Their day to day ratings are more than CNN and MSNBC, combined, and do nearly twice their combined prime time ratings.

Whether or not MORE mainstream sources are liberal than conservative is irrelevant to that fact. Fox News is unquestionably mainstream. You can't host Presidential debates and not be mainstream.

[MoValley John]

The Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Chicago Tribune, the Dallas Morning News ...

Nice list of liberal rags.

[MoValley John]

You can't host Presidential debates and not be mainstream.

Why not? Is there a rule?

[Rlh04d]

Why not? Is there a rule?

Apparently one made by the people organizing the debates, in their effort to reach the most people possible.

You're welcome to pretend that the channel dominating news channel ratings comparisons is alternative media, and be wrong, if you so desire :)

[MoValley John]

Apparently one made by the people organizing the debates, in their effort to reach the most people possible.

You're welcome to pretend that the channel dominating news channel ratings comparisons is alternative media, and be wrong, if you so desire :)

I don't. I've always said Fox is the MSM. Fox does get treated unfairly, but they are the MSM.

I just want to have my own debate. Why can't I?