Team Carson: ‘Politico Story Is An Outright LIE’

a reply to: stevieray

Nobody called a department a hospital. What a pitiful false claim.

Somebody did say that dept heads run a hospital, though.

Raise your hand if you can't distinguish between the two !

a reply to: Gryphon66

In order to understand the question then you need to understand the build up before the debate.

When the word involvement was used by the mod it was suggesting that carson worked as an employee or owner.

originally posted by: stevieray
a reply to: stevieray

Nobody called a department a hospital. What a pitiful false claim.

Somebody did say that dept heads run a hospital, though.

Raise your hand if you can't distinguish between the two !

Did you say that Dr. Carson ran the hospital or not?

Followup: May I say that this is delicious fun particularly in light of the fact that you talked about "manning up" and admitting your mistakes earlier?

Enough fun: Back to the topic:

Did Dr. Carson interact with General Westmoreland in Detroit at the Memorial Day parade as his book claims and he has oft-repeated?

If you don't answer that question, as much fun as it is to watch you squirm on your own petard, I'm afraid I can't play with you anymore.

So answer it:

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: DelMarvel

Where is the lie?

"Well, that’s easy to answer: I didn’t have an involvement with them," replied Carson, a former pediatric neurosurgeon. "That is total propaganda. And this is what happens in our society -- total propaganda. I did a couple speeches for them. I did speeches for other people. They were paid speeches. It is absolutely absurd to say that I had any kind of relationship with them. Do I take the product? Yes. I think it’s a good product."

political lies

Hey! You're back!

Carson: "I didn't have an involvement with them."

Carson two sentences later: "I did a couple of speeches for them."

Care to spin explain those two?

Pretty simple. When somebody deliberately misuses the term "involvement" to suggest a strong, deep relationship with somebody, and an intelligent honest person says "no, I only did a commercial for them", the distinction is obvious to anybody with a grain of common sense. As you say, the distinction was made virtually in the same breath, within about one second. Not much opportunity to slice, dice, and dissect the reasons for what he said. There is no other intelligent way to understand it.

"not involved in the company, only did a commercial". Raise your hand if you can't understand this !

originally posted by: stevieray

Don't hang your hat on the type of "Mr." lol.....bad form on any web site.

I am certainly not correcting your spelling by any means, but I wonder here if you mean the word "typo"?

Because if so, you made the same "typo" about three times.

To answer the question I think you may be asking ... I don't care about your careless typing at all.

originally posted by: stevieray

Pretty simple. When somebody deliberately misuses the term "involvement" to suggest a strong, deep relationship with somebody, and an intelligent honest person says "no, I only did a commercial for them", the distinction is obvious to anybody with a grain of common sense. As you say, the distinction was made virtually in the same breath, within about one second. Not much opportunity to slice, dice, and dissect the reasons for what he said. There is no other intelligent way to understand it.

"not involved in the company, only did a commercial". Raise your hand if you can't understand this !

Word play, eh?

Perhaps you want to explain the meaning of the word "hypocrite" next?

LOL.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: DelMarvel

Where is the lie?

"Well, that’s easy to answer: I didn’t have an involvement with them," replied Carson,

political lies

Carson's statement directly contradicts promotional material that came from Mannatech, as well as his own business manager Armstrong Williams, who described Carson's relationship to the company in an interview Thursday on "The Lead with Jake Tapper."

Williams defended his boss, suggesting that while Carson did have a relationship to the company, the retired neurosurgeon didn't realize all of the details of his endorsement up front and wanted out of the deal.

www.cnn.com...

By the way, did you read the entire Politifact article you're linking to? Their final conclusion is that Carson's claim is false.

So, again, the guy is either lying or utterly clueless.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Gryphon66

In order to understand the question then you need to understand the build up before the debate.

When the word involvement was used by the mod it was suggesting that carson worked as an employee or owner.

Is that what "the mod" said, or is that just something you know?

Dr. Carson wasn't invovled, but he was involved; he was offered a full scholarship, but he wasn't.

He was with General Westmoreland at a Memorial Day parade, but General Westmoreland wasn't there.

Seems like you guys are having to work awfully hard to explain away Dr. Carson's misstatements.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: stevieray
a reply to: stevieray

Nobody called a department a hospital. What a pitiful false claim.

Somebody did say that dept heads run a hospital, though.

Raise your hand if you can't distinguish between the two !

Did you say that Dr. Carson ran the hospital or not?

Followup: May I say that this is delicious fun particularly in light of the fact that you talked about "manning up" and admitting your mistakes earlier?

Enough fun: Back to the topic:

Did Dr. Carson interact with General Westmoreland in Detroit at the Memorial Day parade as his book claims and he has oft-repeated?

If you don't answer that question, as much fun as it is to watch you squirm on your own petard, I'm afraid I can't play with you anymore.

So answer it:

I said that he ran the hospital. I did not say that "only he ran the hospital", which would be the only thing that could rescue your dignity in this little dance.

He and others ran the hospital. He ran parts of the hospital. The hospital was run with his involvement. All true. All part and parcel to "he ran the hospital".

Anybody trying to say "he didn't run the hospital" would fail in this measure of honesty or intelligence. You don't get to wield your own private version of the English language, lol.

originally posted by: stevieray
You don't get to wield your own private version of the English language, lol.

No, apparently that's your bailiwick.

/yawn

Bored now.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: stevieray

Pretty simple. When somebody deliberately misuses the term "involvement" to suggest a strong, deep relationship with somebody, and an intelligent honest person says "no, I only did a commercial for them", the distinction is obvious to anybody with a grain of common sense. As you say, the distinction was made virtually in the same breath, within about one second. Not much opportunity to slice, dice, and dissect the reasons for what he said. There is no other intelligent way to understand it.

"not involved in the company, only did a commercial". Raise your hand if you can't understand this !

Word play, eh?

Perhaps you want to explain the meaning of the word "hypocrite" next?

LOL.

He said what he said in mere seconds. It's clear that he was distinguishing between the various implications of "involvement" and "only doing a commercial".

Your slanderous fabrications only make sense if it took him several different attempts to make the distinction. It didn't. It took one breath and a second or two.

It's taken you weeks to create a disconnect between the two statements.

Guess which one is less honest or logical ?

originally posted by: stevieray

"not involved in the company, only did a commercial". Raise your hand if you can't understand this !

Carson's statement directly contradicts promotional material that came from Mannatech, as well as his own business manager Armstrong Williams

Williams defended his boss, suggesting that while Carson did have a relationship to the company,

The Wall Street Journal this month reported on Carson's connection with Mannatech, saying Carson has said he has taken the company's supplements for more than a decade.

The WSJ also cited a 2004 video of Carson speaking at a Mannatech event. In the video, he credited the company's products for his prostate cancer diagnosis symptoms disappearing.

CNBC moderator Quintanilla also pointed out Carson's image was on the Mannatech website's homepage, with the firm's logo prominently displayed over his shoulder.

The [Wall Street Journal] also reported that Carson gave four paid speeches at company events; the most recent was in 2013 for which Carson was paid $42,000.

www.cnn.com...

You really don't have a leg to stand on with this one.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Gryphon66

In order to understand the question then you need to understand the build up before the debate.

When the word involvement was used by the mod it was suggesting that carson worked as an employee or owner.

Is that what "the mod" said, or is that just something you know?

Dr. Carson wasn't invovled, but he was involved; he was offered a full scholarship, but he wasn't.

He was with General Westmoreland at a Memorial Day parade, but General Westmoreland wasn't there.

Seems like you guys are having to work awfully hard to explain away Dr. Carson's misstatements.

You are being ignorant

you are working the ignorance overtime while accusing me of the same.

if you cared at all then you would find the obvious answers exactly where I told you they are but instead you think it makes you look cool to be a douche beyond comprehension.

It has been a while since the hate has been displayed on ats at the level you are at now.

a reply to: DelMarvel

So ... given the apparent desperate attempts on the part of Dr. Carson's followers (as we see here) to explain away any lies he tells or mistakes he makes ... do you think these ever-mounting discrepancies are going to have any effect on his popularity?

I mean, I'm on the record as saying I'd dearly LOVE to see Dr. Carson as the Republican nominee ... so I personally hope not.

What do you think?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: stevieray
You don't get to wield your own private version of the English language, lol.

No, apparently that's your bailiwick.

/yawn

Bored now.

There's somebody who does your thing on every web site.

1. MY web site....you shut up !

2. Get caught with every possible dodge, derail, insult, shuck & jive......just never stop shoveling and they'll leave eventually. Rinse and repeat 300 X or more as required.

3. Eventually....I win iwin iwin iwin iwin !! yay !!

I've seen the schtick on ever board, every site.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Gryphon66

In order to understand the question then you need to understand the build up before the debate.

When the word involvement was used by the mod it was suggesting that carson worked as an employee or owner.

Is that what "the mod" said, or is that just something you know?

Dr. Carson wasn't invovled, but he was involved; he was offered a full scholarship, but he wasn't.

He was with General Westmoreland at a Memorial Day parade, but General Westmoreland wasn't there.

Seems like you guys are having to work awfully hard to explain away Dr. Carson's misstatements.

You are being ignorant

you are working the ignorance overtime while accusing me of the same.

if you cared at all then you would find the obvious answers exactly where I told you they are but instead you think it makes you look cool to be a douche beyond comprehension.

It has been a while since the hate has been displayed on ats at the level you are at now.

Goodness ... ignorance, hatred ... all because I asked you a simple question about your quote?

If you can't answer, just say so ... no reason to make it personal.

a reply to: DelMarvel

Why bother posting such cause it makes no point.

He was making money from them but was not employed nor owned the company.

are you really gonna go off on an ignorant tangent over one word?

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Gryphon66

In order to understand the question then you need to understand the build up before the debate.

When the word involvement was used by the mod it was suggesting that carson worked as an employee or owner.

Is that what "the mod" said, or is that just something you know?

Dr. Carson wasn't invovled, but he was involved; he was offered a full scholarship, but he wasn't.

He was with General Westmoreland at a Memorial Day parade, but General Westmoreland wasn't there.

Seems like you guys are having to work awfully hard to explain away Dr. Carson's misstatements.

You are being ignorant

you are working the ignorance overtime while accusing me of the same.

if you cared at all then you would find the obvious answers exactly where I told you they are but instead you think it makes you look cool to be a douche beyond comprehension.

It has been a while since the hate has been displayed on ats at the level you are at now.

You are in the middle of the proverbial "arguing with your cat". You seem to have as many posts as this guy, so kudos to you for putting up with what you knew was coming, for the sake of being the grownup.

If you're old enough to have kids, you know that you will eventually have to give in and walk away. It's what happens with "this guy", of which any given website may have quite a few.

It is what it is.

Speaking of cats ...

Dr. Carson was offered a scholarship, but he wasn't.

Dr. Carson was at a parade with General Westmoreland, but he wasn't.

Dr. Carson was involved with a company, but he wasn't.

I have finally realized how all this can be true!

Dr. Carson is really Schrodinger's Cat!

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: DelMarvel

Why bother posting such cause it makes no point.

He was making money from them but was not employed nor owned the company.

are you really gonna go off on an ignorant tangent over one word?

Your last sentence describes the entire OP and thread, and several sub-topics.

Don't let him poke, pinch, and prod you all the way to getting mad. It's what they do, their #1 thing.