Ben Carson's pyramid scheme

[fskimospy]

The campaign continues.

I don't want Ben Carson for president, but it couldn't be more obvious what's going on here now that he's the front runner.

Yes, you get additional scrutiny when you're the front runner, as all front runners do. Strange that I didn't see you complain about this sort of thing with all the negative stories about Hillary? Let me guess though, those ones were right and these ones are wrong.

I have to say the whole liberal media myth has really jumped the shark when people are accusing the Wall Street Journal of being biased against conservatives.

 

[CZroe]

Yes, you get additional scrutiny when you're the front runner, as all front runners do. Strange that I didn't see you complain about this sort of thing with all the negative stories about Hillary? Let me guess though, those ones were right and these ones are wrong.



I have to say the whole liberal media myth has really jumped the shark when people are accusing the Wall Street Journal of being biased against conservatives.

What Politico did is not merely "additional scrutiny."

 

[BxgJ]

Yet just a couple of hours after the news conference, another report, in The Wall Street Journal [That Socialist, extreme left wing rag!], challenged events Mr. Carson has recounted.

One of them, recalled in “Gifted Hands,” involved a psychology class he said he had attended at Yale University, called Perceptions 301. Mr. Carson described the professor’s conducting an honesty experiment on the class and wrote that he was the only one who passed, prompting The Yale Daily News to take his picture.

But no photo identifying Mr. Carson as a student appeared in the newspaper’s archives, The Journal reported, and a Yale librarian told the newspaper that there was no psychology course by that name or class number during Mr. Carson’s years at Yale.

Oops.

Has there been a response to this?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Has there been a response to this?

I heard him mention something about this on Friday(?) I could be wrong so be aware.
He said he may have forgot the courses title, its been nearly 40 years or something similar.

 

[BxgJ]

I heard him mention something about this on Friday(?) I could be wrong so be aware.
He said he may have forgot the courses title, its been nearly 40 years or something similar.

Well it was in one of his books, published in '96 I think. I know people forget stuff, but don't you check on things before you publish it in a book?

 

[sportage]

Forgot? FORGOT......????

President Carson, "Yeah, some terrorist group said something about hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings. That was two weeks ago, or... well I can't remember. Do you remember everything that happened two weeks ago?"

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Didn't say it was right, just stating a summary of what I heard on the radio. It was the tail end of the story so again I could be wrong or off a bit.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Well it was in one of his books, published in '96 I think. I know people forget stuff, but don't you check on things before you publish it in a book?

Nope many people don't its even worse with biographers that work with the subject, I heard an interview with Steven Tyler and when he was asked about a story he said it never happened. The event was in their book. They cooperated with the Ghost Writer and apparently didn't take the time to read their own book.

 

[brycejones]

What Politico did is not merely "additional scrutiny."

Please be specific in your complaints about how Ben is being picked on by the evil media.

 

[fskimospy]

What Politico did is not merely "additional scrutiny."

Yes, clearly Politico is working to tear down the guy who will never ever be the republican nominee as part of the liberal media's campaign against conservatives. Hint: Ben Carson being the nominee would be a huge boon to liberals.

Again, if this is the result of the evil librul media, how do you explain all those unflattering stories about Hillary? I think you might be awfully selective in your outrage here.

 

[CZroe]

Please be specific in your complaints about how Ben is being picked on by the evil media.

New front-runner Ben Carson faces closer scrutiny of his life story - The Washington Post - www.washingtonpost.com
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...77e032-84b8-11e5-8ba6-cec48b74b2a7_story.html

This is all about terminology. He used the wrong words to describe being offered a free ride at an exclusive school ("full scholarship") and Politico used the wrong words when they said his people "admitted" that he "fabricated" and when they falsely claimed that Carson claims to have "applied."

It looks to me like Politico's terminology is especially, egregiously, wrong where Carson only expressed a misunderstanding that many in the same situation would have. He didn't pursue West Point and he didn't learn that they don't do scholarships. He didn't accept their offer to get him in because he wanted to be a doctor. He didn't familiarize himself any more than he needed to when using the story to make his (still valid) point about additional opportunities when you excel at what you do. Big deal.

Don't be a media pawn. Be more discriminating. When they say something bombastic about his camp "admitting" to "fabricating," you should think that it's a pretty serious thing to admit without resigning the race and question the article and it's motives deeper. Look at what Carson actually said. Look at how that contrasts with what Politico said. Then look at what his campaign people actually said. Don't just take the narrative and run with it.

How was I not specific?!

 

[CZroe]

Yes, clearly Politico is working to tear down the guy who will never ever be the republican nominee as part of the liberal media's campaign against conservatives. Hint: Ben Carson being the nominee would be a huge boon to liberals.

Again, if this is the result of the evil librul media, how do you explain all those unflattering stories about Hillary? I think you might be awfully selective in your outrage here.

Excuse me...

What Politico did is not merely "additional scrutiny."

The only one talking about unfair attacks Hillary and keeps going back to it here is you. Stop trying to deflect from what we are talking about here.

I am scolding a particular person for sharing and defending a particularly indefensible article and playing right into this game. When the ball gets rolling even the WSJ hops on board. They edit the story in development so that it doesn't make the same mistakes as the Politico story that started it and then they publish it to ride the wave but that's just how news media works.

What Politico did was particularly blatant and particularly easy to show it. It's been ripped apart almost instantly but it's getting traction anyway. THAT is what I am talking about. THAT is what needs to be addressed because THAT is happening right here. Unchecked. No one had to wait for some Conservative to slip up and admit something is politically-motivated or whatever irrelevant comparison you could make.

 

[Bitek]

Regardless of politico and the insane ramblings, the point where the candidate is arguing with the media "yes, I'm sure, I really did try to beat my mother's skull in with a hammer" means it's over.

Carson's own self assessment is that a raging psychopath lies inside, but luckily magic sky daddy is keeping it bottled up, so nothing to worry about anymore.. He's solid.

:/
I want this guy nowhere near nukes.

 

[CZroe]

Regardless of politico and the insane ramblings, the point where the candidate is arguing with the media "yes, I'm sure, I really did try to beat my mother's skull in with a hammer" means it's over.

Carson's own self assessment is that a raging psychopath lies inside, but lucky magic sky daddy is keeping it bottled up, so nothing to worry about anymore.. He's solid.
:/
I want this guy no where near nukes.

Yep. Like I said: I'm a truth supporter. I am not a Carson supporter. I don't want him as President either.

 

[brycejones]

Excuse me...

The only one talking about unfair attacks Hillary and keeps going back to it here is you. Stop trying to deflect from what we are talking about here.

I am scolding a particular person for sharing and defending a particularly indefensible article and playing right into this game. When the ball gets rolling even the WSJ hops on board. They edit the story in development so that it doesn't make the same mistakes as the Politico story that started it and then they publish it to ride the wave but that's just how news media works.

What Politico did was particularly blatant and particularly easy to show it. It's been ripped apart almost instantly but it's getting traction anyway. THAT is what I am talking about. THAT is what needs to be addressed because THAT is happening right here. Unchecked. No one had to wait for some Conservative to slip up and admit something is politically-motivated or whatever irrelevant comparison you could make.

Ripped apart by who? For someone who claims to be a "truth supporter" you sure take a lot of liberty in your definition of the truth.

 

[CZroe]

Ripped apart by who?

By EVERYONE. REALITY. I even linked you to one.

Did you see the advertisement referring to a West Point acceptance as "a full scholarship?!" Did you hear the others calling into radio stations and news media saying that they, too, received unsolicited offers from high-ranking military persons offering them a slot in West Point? Did you notice that Politico claims that he never applied and, thus, "fabricated" his application story when he never claimed to have applied? Did you completely ignore that Politico themselves has had to reword and retract nearly every single bombastic claim in that article (click it and check for yourself) while still claiming to "support" it and idiots go on here like it never even happened?! If you STILL don't see what's happening here then you are a shameless media tool.

 

[fskimospy]

Excuse me...

The only one talking about unfair attacks Hillary and keeps going back to it here is you. Stop trying to deflect from what we are talking about here.

I am scolding a particular person for sharing and defending a particularly indefensible article and playing right into this game. When the ball gets rolling even the WSJ hops on board. They edit the story in development so that it doesn't make the same mistakes as the Politico story that started it and then they publish it to ride the wave but that's just how news media works.

What Politico did was particularly blatant and particularly easy to show it. It's been ripped apart almost instantly but it's getting traction anyway. THAT is what I am talking about. THAT is what needs to be addressed because THAT is happening right here. Unchecked. No one had to wait for some Conservative to slip up and admit something is politically-motivated or whatever irrelevant comparison you could make.

What exactly did they do that was 'blatant'?

 

[CZroe]

What exactly did they do that was 'blatant'?

Blatantly distorted what they said to claim "admits fabricating." "Admits that maybe 'scholarship' wasn't the right word even though West Point has called it that themselves before and that his story check out in every conceivable way" doesn't carry the same connotations. Also, blatantly saying that no evidence of ever applying meant that he was lying despite him never having claimed to have applied (just the opposite, in fact). Clearly, you aren't following. That was THE story. That's the only reason the WSJ is talking about this and that's the only reason we're talking about this. Their bombastic "fabricated" headline was more "fabricated" than the story they claimed that he "admitted fabricating," as evidenced by them being forced to change it. Did none of that sink in? Good. That's exactly how it works. First, they lie to create a story, the narrative is set, the rest of the median reaction continues taking on a life of it's own, and the retraction gets buried as puppets continue to react as if the initial story they wrote were true.

 

[BxgJ]

Blatantly distorted what they said to claim "admits fabricating." "Admits that maybe 'scholarship' wasn't the right word even though West Point has called it that themselves before and that his story check out in every conceivable way" doesn't carry the same connotations. Also, blatantly saying that no evidence of ever applying meant that he was lying despite him never having claimed to have applied (just the opposite, in fact). Clearly, you aren't following. That was THE story. That's the only reason the WSJ is talking about this and that's the only reason we're talking about this. Their bombastic "fabricated" headline was more "fabricated" than the story they claimed that he "admitted fabricating," as evidenced by them being forced to change it. Did none of that sink in? Good. That's exactly how it works. First, they lie to create a story, the narrative is set, the rest of the median reaction continues taking on a life of it's own, and the retraction gets buried as puppets continue to react as if the initial story they wrote were true.

If by 'this' you mean Carson possibly lying, then no. Other issues have been mentioned.

 

[CZroe]

If by 'this' you mean Carson possibly lying, then no. Other issues have been mentioned.

Getting the name of a class wrong is not a deliberate fabrication either. This path was started by the Politico article that fabricated more that Carson did. We can go back to talking about his crazy pyramid idea if you want. I have no problems with that. Dude's crazy, but he's definitely NOT the "pathological liar" that easily manipulated people in this thread suggest.

 

[CZroe]

...For someone who claims to be a "truth supporter" you sure take a lot of liberty in your definition of the truth.

I do? On what basis are you attacking my credibility? Looks like Politico lied and you simply can't accept it. Attacking his credibility exposed their own lacking credibility. Care to repeat their mistake?

 

[BxgJ]

Getting the name of a class wrong is not a deliberate fabrication either. This path was started by the Politico article that fabricated more that Carson did. We can go back to talking about his crazy pyramid idea if you want. I have no problems with that. Dude's crazy, but he's definitely NOT the "pathological liar" that easily manipulated people in this thread suggest.

If all he did was get the name wrong, then ok. On that note I did read something over lunch that he would release an article (I think) that verified the story soon. The first 'question' on this Yale story was whether it happened at all. I'll just wait until he releases whatever he is going to.

The question of whether he was offered a scholarship or not never seemed that important to me, it was the other questions that came up. An informal offer can certainly be seen as a 'scholarship offer', and wouldn't show up in any application records. There was some question about the details. Did he meet the general at the time he said? The class at Yale? If he had such as temper in his youth, why could no one be found to comment on it? The first two could be due to erroneous details in his book. If so it will be figured out. As for his youth, well maybe he only had outbursts in somewhat private situations, and those involved would rather not come under media scrutiny. The point is that while there may be easy answers to the questions, it doesn't mean the questions shouldn't be asked.

The pyramid stuff, and also the other crazy stuff he has said (big bang, evolution, etc.) do interest me more. I am somewhat surprised that he seems to get such a pass on that stuff.

 

[soundforbjt]

I do? On what basis are you attacking my credibility? Looks like Politico lied and you simply can't accept it. Attacking his credibility exposed their own lacking credibility. Care to repeat their mistake?

I heard on Fox news that the day Carson claims in his book that he met Westmoreland, The General was in DC playing golf...another oops.

Here's link to the story from a Detroit paper:http://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...ns-westmoreland-story-match-records/75328960/

 

[fskimospy]

Blatantly distorted what they said to claim "admits fabricating." "Admits that maybe 'scholarship' wasn't the right word even though West Point has called it that themselves before and that his story check out in every conceivable way" doesn't carry the same connotations. Also, blatantly saying that no evidence of ever applying meant that he was lying despite him never having claimed to have applied (just the opposite, in fact). Clearly, you aren't following. That was THE story. That's the only reason the WSJ is talking about this and that's the only reason we're talking about this. Their bombastic "fabricated" headline was more "fabricated" than the story they claimed that he "admitted fabricating," as evidenced by them being forced to change it. Did none of that sink in? Good. That's exactly how it works. First, they lie to create a story, the narrative is set, the rest of the median reaction continues taking on a life of it's own, and the retraction gets buried as puppets continue to react as if the initial story they wrote were true.

What is their motivation for that?

 

[soundforbjt]

It's just fits the whole "MSM media bias" ploy repubs will try to use this cycle. Obama's book got ripped by the media, Reverend Wright ring a bell? Birth certificate, etc. Carson's getting off light so far.