Politico: Carson lied about admission to West Point.

[NYcarbineer]

Has the politico story been confirmed?

Disregard. Fox just confirmed it. He's toast. His camp admits it. Fox is spinning like mothers. Fun to watch the fish dangle on the line.

I wonder if certain of the vultures in the GOP race who are salivating at the chance of getting ahold of Ben Carson's Christian conservative followers will gang up on him now.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This right up there with NBC editing the Zimmerman 911 call to make him sound like a racist.

I love it when RWnuts defend their cultmasters by comparing their behaviors to the worst things they can think of that they believe liberals did.

 

[boedicca]

The news that has come out is that when he was 17, he was told he could get a scholarship. His campaign has denied the allegations made by Politico. So, it would be helpful to actually see what he wrote. I haven't read it - have you?

And again, in terms of seriousness, whatever Carson wrote 20+ years ago based on his memories of being 17 pales in comparison to hiLIARy's NDA and email scandal.

Yup all the lefties are jumping on his "lie" while completely ignoring Hildebeasts many lies and her incompetence over Benghazi.

In their biased partisan eyes her lies and incompetence aren't there at all.

Partisan hacks every one.

Indeed. The leftards are hyperventilating over Carson saying he was "offered" a scholarship at a Memorial Day dinner...and yet they are completely incurious as to the identify of the people who paid for Obama's education.

If you want to start another conspiracy thread about Obama's student loans, feel free. But as an attempt to change the topic that was a little.....obvious.

Westpoint doen't offer a 'full scholarship'.

No but it's what he thought they meant. If he knew they didn't why would he say they did? Think!

They don't offer any free education to anyone until they've at least applied.

Carson never did. Think.

Wow. You loons are reeking of flop sweat. Carson has a brief mention of marching in a Memorial Day Parade after which someone in the military "offers" him a scholarship to West Point. This is the memory of something that happened when he was 17. Most 17 years olds who are not interested in applying to West Point (Carson wasn't and didn't) know what the process is to get such a scholarship.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I bet this wasn't what Carson's camp had in mind when they were praying yesterday for something to get the Egypt story off the news.

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yup all the lefties are jumping on his "lie" while completely ignoring Hildebeasts many lies and her incompetence over Benghazi.

In their biased partisan eyes her lies and incompetence aren't there at all.

Partisan hacks every one.

Indeed. The leftards are hyperventilating over Carson saying he was "offered" a scholarship at a Memorial Day dinner...and yet they are completely incurious as to the identify of the people who paid for Obama's education.

If you want to start another conspiracy thread about Obama's student loans, feel free. But as an attempt to change the topic that was a little.....obvious.

Westpoint doen't offer a 'full scholarship'.

No but it's what he thought they meant. If he knew they didn't why would he say they did? Think!

They don't offer any free education to anyone until they've at least applied.

Carson never did. Think.

Wow. You loons are reeking of flop sweat. Carson has a brief mention of marching in a Memorial Day Parade after which someone in the military "offers" him a scholarship to West Point. This is the memory of something that happened when he was 17. Most 17 years olds who are not interested in applying to West Point (Carson wasn't and didn't) know what the process is to get such a scholarship.

He's claims his memory was impeccable when he remembers going after his mom with a hammer.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I think it's odd, and bit frightening, that apparently Carson is being undone by his aggrandizing of his story. Carson's over the top, but really they all do it. But, I thought at some point Americans would notice the guy is not only whack off the charts on social issues like abortion or gays, but he has crazy town views on things like the freaking pyramids. Even Pat Robertson is more lucid when it comes to the age of the earth and dinosaurs.

Ya, having the same positions on homosexuals as Hillary and Obama had 7 years ago is do over the top. Agreeing with half of America on abortion, so over the top.

The story is a total lie, he never even hinted at the what Pravda accuses.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I bet this wasn't what Carson's camp had in mind when they were praying yesterday for something to get the Egypt story off the news.

As you can see, when the liberals get caught in a lie and can't refute the truth in threads like this about decent men like Dr. Carson, they follow with more lies instead.

 

[kaz]

that's ridiculous. Why would Hillary's parade of lies I've only scratched the surface of in this thread not sell?

One reason is that scandals have expiration dates. In 2008 Romney was painted in a bad light, and he could not get nominated. Four years later, the public had a better view of him. When Reagan was sitting as President the Iran-Contra affair cost him alot of good will with the public. Nowadays, it barely scratches the surface of his public image. In the late 90s the Monica Lewinsky affair had a significant negative impact on President Clinton, even having a palatable effect on Al Gore's public image. Nowadays, hardly anyone cares anymore what he did. Hillary's sniper fire story from 2008 is simply old news. Most people just don't care anymore if she made up the story. The public will forgive, given enough time. Just like nobody talks about Romney putting that dog on the car roof.

Another reason why people don't care is because of poor scandal management by the Republican party. There's been too many instances of making mountains out of molehills. This creates an image of desperation. The Republicans on Capital Hill went so far as to convene a massive investigation for the political purpose of making Hillary Clinton look bad. The public expects politicians to make much ado about nothing, and that results in the public being inherently dismissive when it happens. And that leads to the next point...

The public only wants to see attacks on Republicans.

Which means that the political bias is in the public, and the media is simply selling what the public wants to buy. That is the nature of their business, after all. The media has been providing call kinds of coverage of the Benghazi scandal. The public wants to hear about it. But the reason is because the public never believed the Republicans were telling the truth about it. The more the Republicans pressed the issue and turned out little more than wild extrapolations, the more the scandal worked against the Republicans. You are interpreting public opinion as media bias.

The Republicans need to be smarter with the way they handle potential scandals. When the politicians start jumping up and down, the public will understand that the politicians have their own political motives, and will tend to be dismissive of the politicians' claims. When politicians are reserved about it and allow the scandal to develop without trying to direct it, the public will reach damning conclusions on its own. When the John Edwards affair came out there wasn't much talk by the politicians, and the public ate it up and developed its own condemnation of Edwards. Right now, the Democrats are maintaining their composure towards Carson and once again letting the public come to its own condemnation.

Several weeks ago I watched a few youtube videos, and then did some other reading, into the strategies that lawyers implement in cross examining witnesses in trials for the sake of impeachment. One of the vital themes that was continually present through it all is that you shouldn't tell a jury what to believe, because the jury will most likely disagree with your conclusions because they know you have a biased motive. Instead, you have to allow the jury to put two-and-two together on their own. Everyone wants to feel smart by figuring something out on their own, and everyone will believe their own assessment over the conclusions of a biased party. Republicans need to start doing more of that, and the public will be more inclined embrace the negative images of Democratic candidates that the GOP wants them to see.

Wow, scandals do have a short shelf life. Hillary over Benghazi, her e-mail server, First lady, it's all gone, whiped off the plate.

So by your timeline, Carson is fine, he needs what, two weeks? Four? Whatever, it's way before the election

 

[NYcarbineer]

 

[kaz]

If so he's done. Bad news for Clinton.

So what do you think of her lie she came under sniper fire in Bosnia, does that matter to you?

It was shitty. Slimy. Just like a politician.

She's still qualified where Ben isn't. That's why this will end Ben's run but her fib about Bosnia snipers won't end hers.

OK, so you admit his lie didn't matter to you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

that's ridiculous. Why would Hillary's parade of lies I've only scratched the surface of in this thread not sell?

One reason is that scandals have expiration dates. In 2008 Romney was painted in a bad light, and he could not get nominated. Four years later, the public had a better view of him. When Reagan was sitting as President the Iran-Contra affair cost him alot of good will with the public. Nowadays, it barely scratches the surface of his public image. In the late 90s the Monica Lewinsky affair had a significant negative impact on President Clinton, even having a palatable effect on Al Gore's public image. Nowadays, hardly anyone cares anymore what he did. Hillary's sniper fire story from 2008 is simply old news. Most people just don't care anymore if she made up the story. The public will forgive, given enough time. Just like nobody talks about Romney putting that dog on the car roof.

Another reason why people don't care is because of poor scandal management by the Republican party. There's been too many instances of making mountains out of molehills. This creates an image of desperation. The Republicans on Capital Hill went so far as to convene a massive investigation for the political purpose of making Hillary Clinton look bad. The public expects politicians to make much ado about nothing, and that results in the public being inherently dismissive when it happens. And that leads to the next point...

The public only wants to see attacks on Republicans.

Which means that the political bias is in the public, and the media is simply selling what the public wants to buy. That is the nature of their business, after all. The media has been providing call kinds of coverage of the Benghazi scandal. The public wants to hear about it. But the reason is because the public never believed the Republicans were telling the truth about it. The more the Republicans pressed the issue and turned out little more than wild extrapolations, the more the scandal worked against the Republicans. You are interpreting public opinion as media bias.

The Republicans need to be smarter with the way they handle potential scandals. When the politicians start jumping up and down, the public will understand that the politicians have their own political motives, and will tend to be dismissive of the politicians' claims. When politicians are reserved about it and allow the scandal to develop without trying to direct it, the public will reach damning conclusions on its own. When the John Edwards affair came out there wasn't much talk by the politicians, and the public ate it up and developed its own condemnation of Edwards. Right now, the Democrats are maintaining their composure towards Carson and once again letting the public come to its own condemnation.

Several weeks ago I watched a few youtube videos, and then did some other reading, into the strategies that lawyers implement in cross examining witnesses in trials for the sake of impeachment. One of the vital themes that was continually present through it all is that you shouldn't tell a jury what to believe, because the jury will most likely disagree with your conclusions because they know you have a biased motive. Instead, you have to allow the jury to put two-and-two together on their own. Everyone wants to feel smart by figuring something out on their own, and everyone will believe their own assessment over the conclusions of a biased party. Republicans need to start doing more of that, and the public will be more inclined embrace the negative images of Democratic candidates that the GOP wants them to see.

Wow, scandals do have a short shelf life. Hillary over Benghazi, her e-mail server, First lady, it's all gone, whiped off the plate.

So by your timeline, Carson is fine, he needs what, two weeks? Four? Whatever, it's way before the election

Short life for the Benghazi no-scandal? lol, crazy post of the week.

 

[Weatherman2020]

This right up there with NBC editing the Zimmerman 911 call to make him sound like a racist.

I love it when RWnuts defend their cultmasters by comparing their behaviors to the worst things they can think of that they believe liberals did.

Give us the exact Carson quotes where he lied.

Do it.

 

[Lakhota]

Shame on the lamestream "gotcha" media for exposing Rain Man's lies.

 

[kaz]

If so he's done. Bad news for Clinton.

So what do you think of her lie she came under sniper fire in Bosnia, does that matter to you?

Was Carson with her?

You can research that since I don't see the relevance since Hillary said the lie, not Carson. Is it OK if Hillary lies? What about when she said Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center the morning of the attack. That OK with you? You against lies or Republicans?

BTW, I oppose Carson and Hillary. I'm not a flaming hypocrite though, which is why I'm asking you

========

Who cares about Hillary?

The Ice Queen WILL NOT be the Democratic nominee.

That will be BERNIE SANDERS.

I hope so

 

[bendog]

I bet this wasn't what Carson's camp had in mind when they were praying yesterday for something to get the Egypt story off the news.

lol

It may be a bit unfair. But, he set himself up with the "I'd charge the guy with a gun" when in fact he didn't, and more probably was never in a fast food place that got held up. And the innumerable other mis-statements, such as Obama may cancel the 2012 elections, Obamacare as "slavery," Hitler/Jews/the Holocaust and guns .....

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol, Carson getting a small dose of the Clinton treatment and the RWnuts are apoplectic beyond their best past performances.

 

[Kosh]

If so he's done. Bad news for Clinton.

After the lies Obama has told, this pales in comparison.

And after all Obama's lies you still managed to vote for him twice and after all of Clinton lies you will vote for her in 2016..

 

[NYcarbineer]

I bet this wasn't what Carson's camp had in mind when they were praying yesterday for something to get the Egypt story off the news.

lol

It may be a bit unfair. But, he set himself up with the "I'd charge the guy with a gun" when in fact he didn't, and more probably was never in a fast food place that got held up. And the innumerable other mis-statements, such as Obama may cancel the 2012 elections, Obamacare as "slavery," Hitler/Jews/the Holocaust and guns .....

He's nothing more than a walking talking random RWnut talking point generator. Hell, Sean Hannity might as well be running.

 

[bendog]

I think it's odd, and bit frightening, that apparently Carson is being undone by his aggrandizing of his story. Carson's over the top, but really they all do it. But, I thought at some point Americans would notice the guy is not only whack off the charts on social issues like abortion or gays, but he has crazy town views on things like the freaking pyramids. Even Pat Robertson is more lucid when it comes to the age of the earth and dinosaurs.

Ya, having the same positions on homosexuals as Hillary and Obama had 7 years ago is do over the top. Agreeing with half of America on abortion, so over the top.

The story is a total lie, he never even hinted at the what Pravda accuses.

No where near 50% agree with forced birthing of teen rape victims. the Guy's a nut, move on.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If so he's done. Bad news for Clinton.

After the lies Obama has told, this pales in comparison.

And after all Obama's lies you still managed to vote for him twice and after all of Clinton lies you will vote for her in 2016..

I guarantee you'll vote for a liar in 2016, if they let you out to vote.