DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... GOP Debate Tonight.

Carson strikes again. Why is it that when the GOP makes idiotic and off the wall comments, they get more support from the base?

even though obama's college records aren't sealed: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/obamas-sealed-records/ , he still goes on with that lie? and obama not being held to the same level of scrutiny?

does he not remember that HIS party is the ones who started this chain of name calling?
Muslim Kenyan, commie, socialist marxist anti-american.

and where's his birth certificate. does he not remember that?

the GOP has no shot at the WH.


On The Defensive, Ben Carson Unleashes Litany Of Anti-Obama Conspiracy Theories

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/11/07/3720254/ben-carson-obama-conspiracy-theories/

In an angry press conference on Friday, Republican presidential frontrunner Ben Carson attempted to defend himself against news reports that he has misrepresented his past, including claims that he had been offered a full scholarship to West Point, by accusing the press of not sufficiently examining a series of conspiracy theories about President Barack Obama.
“I do not remember this level of scrutiny for one President Barack Obama when he was running,” Carson observed. “In fact I remember just the opposite. I remember people saying, ‘Oh we won’t really talk about that. We won’t talk about that relationship. Well, Frank Marshall Davis, well, we don’t want to talk about that. Bernardine Dohrn, Bill Ayers, well we don’t really know him. All the things that Jeremiah Wright was saying, oh, not a big problem.”
Carson then called into question Obama’s educational achievements, repeating a widely debunked theory that Obama’s educational records are being kept secret by some sort of court order.
“[Obama] goes to Occidental College, doesn’t do all that well, and somehow ends up at Columbia University,” Carson asserted. “Well… his records are sealed. Why is his record sealed? What are you not interested in why his records are sealed? Why are you not interested in that? Let me ask you that. Can someone tell me why, please?” He then demanded to know “how there is equivalency [sic] there” between “something that happened with the words ‘a scholarship was offered’ was a big deal, but the president of the United States, his academic records being sealed, is not.”
Obama’s relationships with people like Ayers and Wright were, in fact, widely scrutinized in the 2008 campaign.
After Fox News hosts like Sean Hannity repeatedly raised questions about the former Weather Underground members, George Stephanopoulos asked then-Senator Obama directly about his relationship with Ayers during an April 16, 2008 debate. Obama responded that Ayers is now “a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago,” and that “the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn’t make much sense, George.” Still, GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin attacked him for “palling around with terrorists” in the final weeks of the general election.
The Washington Post’s examination of Obama’s relationship with Davis, an activist and purported member of the Communist Party who died in 1987, noted that their last known interaction was when the future president was a college freshman. Reverend Wright, Obama’s controversial former pastor, continues to be a focus of right-wing media interest to this day. Obama and his top 2008 primary opponent each denounced Wright for his inflamatory comments, garnering widespread national media coverage.
Were Carson familiar with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, he would know that federal law protects the privacy of all students’ educational records and that his own educational records would also be protected, only to be released to the public if he opted to do so.
But Carson has made it clear that he believes knowledge of public policy is not essential to be president. “There are a lot of policies that I lack knowledge on,” he told reporters during a book signing on Thursday. “I’m gaining knowledge. But I don’t by any stretch of the imagination confess to knowing everything. That’s the reason you have advisers. … It’s a false narrative that you have to know everything.”
Watch the video:

So, where do I go to view Obama's school records, and grades, etc?

look at the links sources.

There's about 50 of them. Since you've seen O's college transcripts, how about you tell me which one I should read to see his grades and classes. Thanks.

i haven't seen them. i never claimed i did.

and i never cared about them either. just like i don't care about any other presidents transcripts.

y'all republicans make a big deal out of the dumbest stuff. y'all always trying to find a "but but but". carson is a nutcase. trump is a nutcase.

the facts are out there, it isn't sealed. so focus on a GOP candidate lying through his teeth, again.

Y'all all like "obama this, obama that", you're not running against obama.

Claims #1, 2 and 4, college records. Obama’s college records are not “sealed” by a court order, as this graphic would have you believe. It would be illegal under federal law (the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974) for Occidental, Columbia or Harvard Law School to give any former student’s records to reporters or members of the public without that person’s specific, written permission. Obama hasn’t released them,

Claim #3, thesis paper. Obama did write a paper on nuclear disarmament for an honors course in American foreign policy during his senior year, but it wasn’t the sort of “thesis” that some colleges require for graduation and keep on file in their libraries, like those that Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama released. During the 2008 campaign, reporters were told that Columbia had not retained a copy of Obama’s 1983 paper, and that Obama didn’t have a copy, either. NBC News contacted his former professor, Michael Baron, who said he looked for his copy but couldn’t find it, and thought he probably tossed it out eight years earlier in a move.

So, he wrote it, but no copy exists, anywhere?

Claim #13: Michelle Obama’s law license. It’s simply not true that the first lady “can no longer practice law as an attorney.” She could resume the practice of law any time she chooses. Both the president and his wife have voluntarily inactivated their Illinois law licenses, thereby avoiding a requirement to take continuing education classes and pay hundreds of dollars in annual fees, which is common for lawyers no longer actively practicing.

Yeah, cause when you're making hundreds of thousands of dollars, a couple hundred dollars is detrimental to your budget, right?

All this is old hat stuff.

We need to move on to Carson lying. We'll skip right over all the lies hillary has told, and is telling.

lol, see what i mean?

this a GOP thread. if you wanna discuss hilary, make your own thread about it Stop deflecting from Carson to hilary, and talk about what carson said, not what anybody else said.

i written papers that don't exist anymore. please take your tin foil hat off.

As soon as you do, friend. As soon as you do. Until then? Until you hold hillary and obama to the same standards you hold others, you can expect me to point out the flaws in your arguments.

No harm, no ill will intended. Just the truth.

once again, you're deflecting. when we talk about hilary and obama on this site, i talk about them

when we disucss GOP politicians, damn near every time you go "but hilary".

dodging questions like the matrix.

Nope, pointing out the truth. You can take the truth, can't you?

I myself have never seen you do anything but defend O and hillary.

i can take the truth.

and yes, i'm a ovama and hilary supporter. why would i not defend them?

but once again- and you're probably gonna ignore it because you have selective reading- when we talk about obama and hilary, i stick to the topic and defend them, but talk about just them.

when we talk about republicans, all you do is try to deflect the topic back on to them two.

i can handle the truth. it seems you're the one who can't.

so once again, Carson. lying again. sup with that?

He lied. He exaggerated. And this is huge because??? Why?

Phew, got that out of the way. Now, on to Hillary and her lies, and O and his lies. Deal?

it's huge because this isn't the first time. he didn't exaggerated, he straight up lied.

once again, if you wanna talk about hilary and obama, feel free to make a thread about it. This is about the GOP and the debates.

Carson has been saying some off the wall nonsense. he should stick to being a doctor.

Carson leads Clinton in polls.

Too bad. So sad.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

trump did at one point too, and now he's falling.

people are getting bored and annoyed with the nonsense. if the elections was held 2 week ago, y'all might of had a shot.

now you guys just remind me of the kardashians. do/say something shocking to stay relevant.

The other week, Clinton came to Atlanta to give a speech at a black college. The black lives matter people disrupted her speech with their chanting and nobody could hear what she was saying.

Stupid libs can't even get out of their own way.

bernie had the same thing happen, but manage to get them on his side.

but y'all keep complaining about issues with the BLM movement and not the overall message.

i bet people did the same crap when MLK was marching. complain about minor issues instead of listening to the overall message. until he finally got his point across.

but anyways, spin spin spin.

talk about everything but Carson and the other republican candidates.

Actually, if you want to play that game, this thread was about the debate that happened almost a week ago? It evolved. It became about Carson and his lies. It's evolved again, into Hillary and her lies. Threads do that some times. I mean, just look at......well, any thread.


And hillary should stick to what she knows best: lying, and looking out for herself..........oh,wait, she HAS been sticking to her strong points.

I think it has to do with the fact that Carson has campaigned on his honesty.

It also has to do with the conservative's focus on Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Muslim, birth certificate, grades when Obama was elected. All of which was covered by the lame stream, drive-by, liberal elite media.

Plus consider the millions and millions of dollars that have been spent by "fiscal" conservatives to find anything on the Clintons or Obama.

The repetitive, media covered hearings on Benghazi, which even republicans admitted were only political attacks, and the extensive media investigation and coverage of emails kind of trump the idea that conservatives are being treated unfairly.

The same republicans who jumped for the jugular when Brian Williams lied about his history. I think that was covered by the media and I may be wrong, but I think he lost his job in the same way Dan Rather did.

Who's been fired from Fox?

If you want to run as an honest, fundamentalist surgeon with balls to stand up to Putin and then melt down when the media asks questions then voters need to know that maybe you're not as honest or strong as you want people to believe.

Seems like something the media should be doing.

As long as radical, fundamentalist, extremist, conservatives keep whining about "liberal" media while having control over an entire "news"(?) network as well as a network of am stations voters will question their honesty.

Politico Admits Fabricating Hit Piece on Carson

Politico‘s Kyle Cheney admitted that he fabricated a negative story about Ben Carson. At least, according to his own standards, he admitted the grievous journalistic sin.

In a story published early on Friday, Politico’s Kyle Cheney authored a piece headlined “Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship” with a subhed “Carson’s campaign on Friday conceded that a central point in his inspirational personal story did not occur as he previously described.”

There were at least five major problems with the story:

The headline was completely false
The subhed was also completely false
The opening paragraph was false false false
The substance of the piece was missing key exonerating information
The article demonstrated confusion about service academy admissions and benefits
But other than that, A+++ work, Kyle Cheney and Politico.

It could take all day to parse the problems with Kyle Cheney’s now-somewhat-cleaned-up hit piece on Carson, but let’s just look at his original introductory claims:

Ben Carson’s campaign on Friday admitted, in a response to an inquiry from POLITICO, that a central point in his inspirational personal story was fabricated: his application and acceptance into the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. The academy has occupied a central place in Carson’s tale for years. According to a story told in Carson’s book, “Gifted Hands,” the then-17 year old was introduced in 1969 to Gen. William Westmoreland, who had just ended his command of U.S. forces in Vietnam, and the two dined together. That meeting, according to Carson’s telling, was followed by a “full scholarship” to the military academy. West Point, however, has no record of Carson applying, much less being extended admission…When presented with this evidence, Carson’s campaign conceded the story was false.
Roughly none of this is true. Ben Carson’s campaign did not “admit” that a central point in his story “was fabricated.” Quite the opposite. The central point of the story is falsely described by Cheney/Politico as being that he applied and was accepted at West Point. Carson, in fact, has repeatedly claimed not to have applied. So any claim regarding the absence of West Point records of such an application would not debunk Carson’s point. And, again, Carson’s campaign never “conceded” the story was false at least in part because the story, as characterized by Politico, is not one he told. Further, Cheney is unable to substantiate his claim that Carson told this story. Nowhere in the article does he even explain, with facts, where he came up with the idea that Carson has ever made this claim.

Politico stealthily edited the inflammatory headline and lede, after the damage was done. They made changes without adding a note about what was corrected. They didn’t update the piece or add an editor’s note. The new headline is very much toned down to “Exclusive: Carson claimed West Point ‘scholarship’ but never applied.” This is a claim not exclusive to Politico and not newsworthy in the least. Carson himself broke this news 23 years ago when he said he was offered a scholarship to West Point but never applied. The cleaned-up story still says that Carson “conceded that he never applied nor was granted admission to West Point.” To concede is to admit that something is true. But, again, Carson himself made this claim more than two decades ago, so he’s not conceding the point to Kyle Cheney or Politico simply because Kyle Cheney and Politico misread him.

The Washington Post‘s Dave Weigel, who immediately expressed skepticism about the significance of the Politico hit that was taking everybody by storm, has a balanced take on the kerfuffle here. He also noted:


One other quick point to make about Politico and Kyle Cheney’s piece. The original story claimed that Carson also lied by claiming he was offered a full scholarship to West Point since the service academy is entirely taxpayer funded. Or, as Politico put it: “indeed there are no ‘full scholarships,’ per se.” The only problem with this is that the academy itself describes this benefit as a “full scholarship.”

Ben Carson was a brilliant student who had already shown an interest in the military and had demonstrated leadership skills. It would be weirder if West Point hadn’t tried to recruit him than tried to recruit him. This doesn’t happen to us journalists, for obvious reasons, but exceptional students are recruited by top colleges and universities all the time.

Now, as for Kyle Cheney’s concession that he fabricated his piece on Carson. He didn’t. That’s how I’m interpreting his decision to stealthily edit his piece to remove much of the error. But Ben Carson didn’t “admit” or “concede” to fabrication and he’s been tarred by Cheney as if he had. So I’ll keep the headline.

Other critiques of Cheney and Politico are available from across the political and media spectrum here, here, here, here, here, and here.

At a time when the media need to demonstrate good faith efforts to cover Republicans and conservatives with even a modicum of fairness, Kyle Cheney and Politico have done a tremendous disservice to their brands.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/11/...olarship-story/

Now, go ahead and bash the link if you must, but Carson does spell it out pretty well. If one has an open mind.

Carson said something that made a lot of since today, About the human side of addiction. I think a lot of people on my side of the political party got mixed up in the word play.

of course as a doctor he understands the biological side of addiction. But the question was asked about the human side; meaning society influence and upbringing and such, and i agree with him 100%, that people typically who get addicted, it's a correlation of the person missing something in their life, whether it's God, parents, a social life, whatever.

You must meet certain requirements specified by public law in order to be considered for admission to West Point. You will be evaluated in three areas: academic performance, demonstrated leadership potential, and physical aptitude. You must also meet strict medical qualification requirements. First of all, you must be a United States citizen, at least 17 and not yet 23 years of age on July 1 of your year of admission. You must not be married, pregnant, or have a legal obligation to support a child or children. If you are a naturalized citizen, you must provide documentation.

Anyone who does well in the ROTC program or in the requirements above qualifies for West Point which doesn't charge tuition.

So if you actually have an open mind you realize he's presenting this in a way that makes him appear special among others.

If that's ok, then why all the, "I never said..." stuff? It's embellishment plain and simple.

He would have done well just to point out that he was accepted by Yale.

Oh tribalism...

Guess what? Both parties serve the same masters. Follow the money, but y'all keep arguing partisan ideas.

Politics is a nasty business.

What I find so funny is that the GOP made false claims and used almost every type of derogatory thing they could against Obama, yet now call foul.

It's humorous at best and hypocrisy at its finest at worse.

Must you always be absolutely humorless? I posted that because it's rather funny.

I guess you don't argue partisan ideas? Hypocrite.

i always found it funny how Fox News always try to be like "the mainstream media".

even though they are main stream.

You've also said things like, that's what makes US (Democrats) different than THEM (Republicans), all THEY care about is money and WE care about people...

You put yourself in that group that divides along the us vs them lines.. not me.


Yet you continue to throw your support behind a President who has nominated how many cabinet level people who either don't pay their taxes or at least can't get them right?


I know you every bit as well as you know me and it has never stopped you from making irrational statements and harsh sweeping generalizations... practice what you preach bro.

i do practice what i preach.

you said it's because theres an R in front of their names.

i called you out on your BS and stated that wasn't the case. you're wrong, again. which isn't surprising anymore.

i don't even care about the answer, who the heck decided this was even a viable question to ask?


Jeb Bush: ‘Hell yeah I would’ kill baby Hitler
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/jeb-bush-kill-baby-hitler-231925681.html

Establishing himself as the leading pro-time-travel-in-order-to-kill-an-evil-dictator candidate in the 2016 presidential race, Jeb Bush says he would gladly travel back in time in order to kill baby Adolf Hitler, given the opportunity.

“Hell yeah I would!” the former Florida governor told the Huffington Post. “You gotta step up, man.”

On this issue, Bush isn’t alone. Last month, New York Times Magazine posed the kill-baby-Hitler question to readers, and 42 percent said they would, compared with 30 percent who said they would not.




Bush said he first fielded the question via his campaign email address, jeb@jeb.org.

“It said, ‘If you could go back in time and kill baby Hitler, would you? I need to know,’” Bush explained.

The Republican hopeful acknowledged that, like those Michael J. Fox movies, time travel has its consequences. But the opportunity to snuff out the future leader of the Third Reich was too good to pass up.

“It could have a dangerous effect on everything else, but I’d do it,” Bush said. “I mean, Hitler.”

If you had doubts about his position, Bush doubled down on the kill-baby-Hitler issue.

I wonder how many other baby nazi's Jeb would have to go back to kill? First, Jeb needs to slingshot himself around the sun...

Ok.. first it's a stupid question.. that aside, it is kind of thought provoking...

As a Christian, should it not be his mission to rehabilitate and find the love in Hitler and teach him to find the love in others rather than simply kill him?

See, it really is a set up question... if Hitler, how about Dahmer? How about the kid that killed the people in Charleston? Where does it end? How bad does somebody have to be to warrant you killing them as a kid? (If of course the whole time travel thing was possible)

i was hesitated to post this because i knew this could lead down this rabbit hole of a question.

the question itself was dumb.

i agree with you. i understand you. my only counter to that would be.....

...what if people are born to be who they are? destiny?

Considering he got it via e-mail, I'd say him choosing to answer it was the really dumb part. It's not like he was put on the spot in an interview. He CHOSE to make this badass public statement about killing baby Hitler.. (I see a Saturday Night Live sketch coming out of this)


Then we should stop complaining about violence in the United States...

fair enough.

but with regards to free will, can free will and destiny be a blurred line?

Dude, you have no idea how much I struggle with the free will vs predestination discussion in my faith.. God knows everything, but people can change everything... my head spins just thinking about it.

Kill baby hitler......If I could be guaranteed I'd still be married to my wife with the same kids, and hopefully be wealthier, I'd do it. Otherwise, I kind of like the timeline I'm in.

Free will is a huge bugger. Why would god give us free will, then require we voluntarily surrender it? I've never understood that one.

"God knows everything, but people can change everything... my head spins just thinking about it"
If god is truly infinite and all powerful, then shouldn't he see all possibilities and consequences also? Kind of like reading a book when you already know everything about it. Granted, I don't assume to understand what god is or the mind of god, but I think it would be a bit boring to know everything, at least from a linear point of view.

is the new debate already tonight?