In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On November 08 2015 03:09 Introvert wrote: This whole West Point line of attack fell apart.
So Ben Carsons lied repeatedly about being offered full scholarship to West Point, and someone the "line of attack fell apart"? Are you disputing that he claimed being offered "full scholarship" to an academy which does not even feature "full scholarships" per se, since all costs are covered for accepted students?
From what I've seen, at the time ads from West Point used the word "scholarship." But beyond that, Carson doesn't claim to have formally applied in the first place. He says he met someone who offered him a spot, and full paid. He said he had 10 dollars to apply somewhere, and he applied to Yale- only. Combine that with the fact he's remembering something from how many decades before? It becomes more and more of a non-story.
Again, I'm not a Carson fan so I don't want to spend time defending him, but it's clear that the Politico article was, at the very least, dishonest. And that's why they had to fix it. When I first read the article, I thought it was pretty damning- I had the same reaction as everyone here. But that was clearly incorrect.
Yeah, the General also disappeared from his version of history.
In Carson’s 1990 best-selling autobiography, “Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story,” the neurosurgeon tells of being offered a scholarship to West Point as a high school senior sometime after having dinner with the U.S. Army’s chief of staff, Gen. William Westmoreland, on Memorial Day 1969.
But Westmoreland’s personal schedule shows the general was not in Detroit on Memorial Day or during the days preceding and following the holiday. His schedule says he was in and around Washington, D.C., that weekend, according to Army archives The Detroit News reviewed Friday.
But like I said, not going to hurt him much if at all. The spin room already has people like Intro defending his habitual misleading by pointing at the "liberal" media. Which is all but completely ignoring Sanders, so they can't be the communist loving far left liberals the right likes to paint them as.
On November 08 2015 05:01 TheTenthDoc wrote: There's no point arguing about dishonesty anymore, Democrats and Republicans are in completely different realities at this point. It's pretty much a game of "Whose Line is it Anyway" on the campaign trail, except all that matters is the points and not whether or not they're true.
"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength;"
Nah, if you read the excerpts from what he wrote, ( I had not before this story) it becomes pretty obvious this was a bad article. Point is, from his understanding, he could have gone to West Point, but didn't. It seems impossible to prove otherwise, and it doesn't seem all that unlikely, either. But totally, I just want to defend Carson, cause I'm so known for that.
Talk of reality and spin. I'll just say this, if you think Sanders is being unfairly ignored, does that not prove media bias (in favor of the Clinton's?) of course. So then it's not a far fetch to imagine they aren't pro Republican (and considering the voting patterns of most journalists, this seems likely). Your common complaints about Sanders being ignored is proof enough that the media have their favorites.
I was saying if people on the right who don't even call themselves supporters are defending him (notice you ignored that he claimed someone was there who obviously wasn't) it's not going to hurt him. It wasn't about you personally.
As for Sanders, he doesn't have a Fox News or Talk radio support network like the right, and the "leftist" media isn't much better, save a couple exceptions.
But I don't disagree that the media plays favorites. Carson obviously lied, that he didn't actually "admit to lying" or that Politico focused on the wrong aspect,s may be less than stellar reporting, but it doesn't change that he obviously lied.
Actually, I didn't ignore anything.
And "less than stellar" lol. It was wrong. It said Carson or his campaign said things neither said. That's why they corrected it (kind of). They didn't even get a statement from Carson before publication. It was a crappy article. Like I said, when I first read it it thought it was pretty damning for Carson, but I don't have a natural inclination against him, so I could see when things were explained that the piece was just bad.
I'm not going to say any more, as even people in places like The Washington Post have pointed out how bad the story was. It's just hilarious.
Sure seems like your not addressing it. Do you think Carson told the truth when he claimed the General was there?
Perhaps he met him at a different time (as people and the writers postulated) or not. I don't know. But that wasn't even the primary focus of the Politico article, so the point I was making stands.
Again, if he lied, he lied. But Carson never claimed to apply, and the phrase "full scholarship" is perfectly consistent within his story and what we know about WP advertising at the time.
But this is the point- you've had to change the subject to a different part of the story. Who's ignoring stuff here? At best the article is 1 for 3. Great journalism.
Because I have no interest in hashing out the semantics. That you are still saying "if he lied" is pretty funny. The guy lied. And if he just realized that how he described it could mislead people, it only further makes him look ridiculous (like the pyramids are grain silos or comparing the Ark and the Titanic in the way he did).
On November 08 2015 03:09 Introvert wrote: This whole West Point line of attack fell apart.
So Ben Carsons lied repeatedly about being offered full scholarship to West Point, and someone the "line of attack fell apart"? Are you disputing that he claimed being offered "full scholarship" to an academy which does not even feature "full scholarships" per se, since all costs are covered for accepted students?
From what I've seen, at the time ads from West Point used the word "scholarship." But beyond that, Carson doesn't claim to have formally applied in the first place. He says he met someone who offered him a spot, and full paid. He said he had 10 dollars to apply somewhere, and he applied to Yale- only. Combine that with the fact he's remembering something from how many decades before? It becomes more and more of a non-story.
Again, I'm not a Carson fan so I don't want to spend time defending him, but it's clear that the Politico article was, at the very least, dishonest. And that's why they had to fix it. When I first read the article, I thought it was pretty damning- I had the same reaction as everyone here. But that was clearly incorrect.
Yeah, the General also disappeared from his version of history.
In Carson’s 1990 best-selling autobiography, “Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story,” the neurosurgeon tells of being offered a scholarship to West Point as a high school senior sometime after having dinner with the U.S. Army’s chief of staff, Gen. William Westmoreland, on Memorial Day 1969.
But Westmoreland’s personal schedule shows the general was not in Detroit on Memorial Day or during the days preceding and following the holiday. His schedule says he was in and around Washington, D.C., that weekend, according to Army archives The Detroit News reviewed Friday.
But like I said, not going to hurt him much if at all. The spin room already has people like Intro defending his habitual misleading by pointing at the "liberal" media. Which is all but completely ignoring Sanders, so they can't be the communist loving far left liberals the right likes to paint them as.
On November 08 2015 05:01 TheTenthDoc wrote: There's no point arguing about dishonesty anymore, Democrats and Republicans are in completely different realities at this point. It's pretty much a game of "Whose Line is it Anyway" on the campaign trail, except all that matters is the points and not whether or not they're true.
"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength;"
Nah, if you read the excerpts from what he wrote, ( I had not before this story) it becomes pretty obvious this was a bad article. Point is, from his understanding, he could have gone to West Point, but didn't. It seems impossible to prove otherwise, and it doesn't seem all that unlikely, either. But totally, I just want to defend Carson, cause I'm so known for that.
Talk of reality and spin. I'll just say this, if you think Sanders is being unfairly ignored, does that not prove media bias (in favor of the Clinton's?) of course. So then it's not a far fetch to imagine they aren't pro Republican (and considering the voting patterns of most journalists, this seems likely). Your common complaints about Sanders being ignored is proof enough that the media have their favorites.
I was saying if people on the right who don't even call themselves supporters are defending him (notice you ignored that he claimed someone was there who obviously wasn't) it's not going to hurt him. It wasn't about you personally.
As for Sanders, he doesn't have a Fox News or Talk radio support network like the right, and the "leftist" media isn't much better, save a couple exceptions.
But I don't disagree that the media plays favorites. Carson obviously lied, that he didn't actually "admit to lying" or that Politico focused on the wrong aspect,s may be less than stellar reporting, but it doesn't change that he obviously lied.
Actually, I didn't ignore anything.
And "less than stellar" lol. It was wrong. It said Carson or his campaign said things neither said. That's why they corrected it (kind of). They didn't even get a statement from Carson before publication. It was a crappy article. Like I said, when I first read it it thought it was pretty damning for Carson, but I don't have a natural inclination against him, so I could see when things were explained that the piece was just bad.
I'm not going to say any more, as even people in places like The Washington Post have pointed out how bad the story was. It's just hilarious.
Sure seems like your not addressing it. Do you think Carson told the truth when he claimed the General was there?
Perhaps he met him at a different time (as people and the writers postulated) or not. I don't know. But that wasn't even the primary focus of the Politico article, so the point I was making stands.
Again, if he lied, he lied. But Carson never claimed to apply, and the phrase "full scholarship" is perfectly consistent within his story and what we know about WP advertising at the time.
But this is the point- you've had to change the subject to a different part of the story. Who's ignoring stuff here? At best the article is 1 for 3. Great journalism.
Because I have no interest in hashing out the semantics. That you are still saying "if he lied" is pretty funny. The guy lied. And if he just realized that how he described it could mislead people, it only further makes him look ridiculous (like the pyramids are grain silos or comparing the Ark and the Titanic in the way he did).
Arguing that the rest of the story doesn't check out is also semantics. We are talking about a book he wrote 20+ years later. It's all semantics. It's not just "right-wingers" who recognize now that the article was inaccurate.
I mean, using the word "apply" when Carson never used it is "bad semantics" at best. I'm showing my bias, but the article invents something that was never claimed and that's just "less than stellar."
I feel like it always comes down to parents being shitty at their jobs. Explaining the complexities of the world a child lives in should be something every parent feels obligated to do. Parents should be expected to rigorously explain why (thing x) is ok but (thing y) is not.
On November 08 2015 04:00 kwizach wrote: [quote] So Ben Carsons lied repeatedly about being offered full scholarship to West Point, and someone the "line of attack fell apart"? Are you disputing that he claimed being offered "full scholarship" to an academy which does not even feature "full scholarships" per se, since all costs are covered for accepted students?
From what I've seen, at the time ads from West Point used the word "scholarship." But beyond that, Carson doesn't claim to have formally applied in the first place. He says he met someone who offered him a spot, and full paid. He said he had 10 dollars to apply somewhere, and he applied to Yale- only. Combine that with the fact he's remembering something from how many decades before? It becomes more and more of a non-story.
Again, I'm not a Carson fan so I don't want to spend time defending him, but it's clear that the Politico article was, at the very least, dishonest. And that's why they had to fix it. When I first read the article, I thought it was pretty damning- I had the same reaction as everyone here. But that was clearly incorrect.
Yeah, the General also disappeared from his version of history.
In Carson’s 1990 best-selling autobiography, “Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story,” the neurosurgeon tells of being offered a scholarship to West Point as a high school senior sometime after having dinner with the U.S. Army’s chief of staff, Gen. William Westmoreland, on Memorial Day 1969.
But Westmoreland’s personal schedule shows the general was not in Detroit on Memorial Day or during the days preceding and following the holiday. His schedule says he was in and around Washington, D.C., that weekend, according to Army archives The Detroit News reviewed Friday.
But like I said, not going to hurt him much if at all. The spin room already has people like Intro defending his habitual misleading by pointing at the "liberal" media. Which is all but completely ignoring Sanders, so they can't be the communist loving far left liberals the right likes to paint them as.
On November 08 2015 05:01 TheTenthDoc wrote: There's no point arguing about dishonesty anymore, Democrats and Republicans are in completely different realities at this point. It's pretty much a game of "Whose Line is it Anyway" on the campaign trail, except all that matters is the points and not whether or not they're true.
"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength;"
Nah, if you read the excerpts from what he wrote, ( I had not before this story) it becomes pretty obvious this was a bad article. Point is, from his understanding, he could have gone to West Point, but didn't. It seems impossible to prove otherwise, and it doesn't seem all that unlikely, either. But totally, I just want to defend Carson, cause I'm so known for that.
Talk of reality and spin. I'll just say this, if you think Sanders is being unfairly ignored, does that not prove media bias (in favor of the Clinton's?) of course. So then it's not a far fetch to imagine they aren't pro Republican (and considering the voting patterns of most journalists, this seems likely). Your common complaints about Sanders being ignored is proof enough that the media have their favorites.
I was saying if people on the right who don't even call themselves supporters are defending him (notice you ignored that he claimed someone was there who obviously wasn't) it's not going to hurt him. It wasn't about you personally.
As for Sanders, he doesn't have a Fox News or Talk radio support network like the right, and the "leftist" media isn't much better, save a couple exceptions.
But I don't disagree that the media plays favorites. Carson obviously lied, that he didn't actually "admit to lying" or that Politico focused on the wrong aspect,s may be less than stellar reporting, but it doesn't change that he obviously lied.
Actually, I didn't ignore anything.
And "less than stellar" lol. It was wrong. It said Carson or his campaign said things neither said. That's why they corrected it (kind of). They didn't even get a statement from Carson before publication. It was a crappy article. Like I said, when I first read it it thought it was pretty damning for Carson, but I don't have a natural inclination against him, so I could see when things were explained that the piece was just bad.
I'm not going to say any more, as even people in places like The Washington Post have pointed out how bad the story was. It's just hilarious.
Sure seems like your not addressing it. Do you think Carson told the truth when he claimed the General was there?
Perhaps he met him at a different time (as people and the writers postulated) or not. I don't know. But that wasn't even the primary focus of the Politico article, so the point I was making stands.
Again, if he lied, he lied. But Carson never claimed to apply, and the phrase "full scholarship" is perfectly consistent within his story and what we know about WP advertising at the time.
But this is the point- you've had to change the subject to a different part of the story. Who's ignoring stuff here? At best the article is 1 for 3. Great journalism.
Because I have no interest in hashing out the semantics. That you are still saying "if he lied" is pretty funny. The guy lied. And if he just realized that how he described it could mislead people, it only further makes him look ridiculous (like the pyramids are grain silos or comparing the Ark and the Titanic in the way he did).
Arguing that the rest of the story doesn't check out is also semantics. We are talking about a book he wrote 20+ years later. It's all semantics. It's not just "right-wingers" who recognize now that the article was inaccurate.
I mean, using the word "apply" when Carson never used it is "bad semantics" at best. I'm showing my bias, but the article invents something that was never claimed and that's just "less than stellar."
lol, I was conceding that the media largely sucks at reporting, by comparison to it's peers it comes in as less than stellar.
As was said, Media sucks, Carson lied, what's new?
On November 08 2015 04:22 Introvert wrote: [quote]
From what I've seen, at the time ads from West Point used the word "scholarship." But beyond that, Carson doesn't claim to have formally applied in the first place. He says he met someone who offered him a spot, and full paid. He said he had 10 dollars to apply somewhere, and he applied to Yale- only. Combine that with the fact he's remembering something from how many decades before? It becomes more and more of a non-story.
Again, I'm not a Carson fan so I don't want to spend time defending him, but it's clear that the Politico article was, at the very least, dishonest. And that's why they had to fix it. When I first read the article, I thought it was pretty damning- I had the same reaction as everyone here. But that was clearly incorrect.
Yeah, the General also disappeared from his version of history.
In Carson’s 1990 best-selling autobiography, “Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story,” the neurosurgeon tells of being offered a scholarship to West Point as a high school senior sometime after having dinner with the U.S. Army’s chief of staff, Gen. William Westmoreland, on Memorial Day 1969.
But Westmoreland’s personal schedule shows the general was not in Detroit on Memorial Day or during the days preceding and following the holiday. His schedule says he was in and around Washington, D.C., that weekend, according to Army archives The Detroit News reviewed Friday.
But like I said, not going to hurt him much if at all. The spin room already has people like Intro defending his habitual misleading by pointing at the "liberal" media. Which is all but completely ignoring Sanders, so they can't be the communist loving far left liberals the right likes to paint them as.
On November 08 2015 05:01 TheTenthDoc wrote: There's no point arguing about dishonesty anymore, Democrats and Republicans are in completely different realities at this point. It's pretty much a game of "Whose Line is it Anyway" on the campaign trail, except all that matters is the points and not whether or not they're true.
"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength;"
Nah, if you read the excerpts from what he wrote, ( I had not before this story) it becomes pretty obvious this was a bad article. Point is, from his understanding, he could have gone to West Point, but didn't. It seems impossible to prove otherwise, and it doesn't seem all that unlikely, either. But totally, I just want to defend Carson, cause I'm so known for that.
Talk of reality and spin. I'll just say this, if you think Sanders is being unfairly ignored, does that not prove media bias (in favor of the Clinton's?) of course. So then it's not a far fetch to imagine they aren't pro Republican (and considering the voting patterns of most journalists, this seems likely). Your common complaints about Sanders being ignored is proof enough that the media have their favorites.
I was saying if people on the right who don't even call themselves supporters are defending him (notice you ignored that he claimed someone was there who obviously wasn't) it's not going to hurt him. It wasn't about you personally.
As for Sanders, he doesn't have a Fox News or Talk radio support network like the right, and the "leftist" media isn't much better, save a couple exceptions.
But I don't disagree that the media plays favorites. Carson obviously lied, that he didn't actually "admit to lying" or that Politico focused on the wrong aspect,s may be less than stellar reporting, but it doesn't change that he obviously lied.
Actually, I didn't ignore anything.
And "less than stellar" lol. It was wrong. It said Carson or his campaign said things neither said. That's why they corrected it (kind of). They didn't even get a statement from Carson before publication. It was a crappy article. Like I said, when I first read it it thought it was pretty damning for Carson, but I don't have a natural inclination against him, so I could see when things were explained that the piece was just bad.
I'm not going to say any more, as even people in places like The Washington Post have pointed out how bad the story was. It's just hilarious.
Sure seems like your not addressing it. Do you think Carson told the truth when he claimed the General was there?
Perhaps he met him at a different time (as people and the writers postulated) or not. I don't know. But that wasn't even the primary focus of the Politico article, so the point I was making stands.
Again, if he lied, he lied. But Carson never claimed to apply, and the phrase "full scholarship" is perfectly consistent within his story and what we know about WP advertising at the time.
But this is the point- you've had to change the subject to a different part of the story. Who's ignoring stuff here? At best the article is 1 for 3. Great journalism.
Because I have no interest in hashing out the semantics. That you are still saying "if he lied" is pretty funny. The guy lied. And if he just realized that how he described it could mislead people, it only further makes him look ridiculous (like the pyramids are grain silos or comparing the Ark and the Titanic in the way he did).
Arguing that the rest of the story doesn't check out is also semantics. We are talking about a book he wrote 20+ years later. It's all semantics. It's not just "right-wingers" who recognize now that the article was inaccurate.
I mean, using the word "apply" when Carson never used it is "bad semantics" at best. I'm showing my bias, but the article invents something that was never claimed and that's just "less than stellar."
lol, I was conceding that the media largely sucks at reporting, by comparison to it's peers it comes in as less than stellar.
As was said, Media sucks, Carson lied, what's new?
This thread would be so much shorter if we only discussed new things!
In general I don't really think it's too big of a deal if people misrepresent events that happened 20+ years ago. now, that's not the same as 20 years ago misrepresenting events that just happened, and I think carson is somewhere inbetween those?
But anyway, memory is an iffy thing. Misrepresenting an event which happened 20 years ago, even to the degree where you remember meeting with someone at a date where you had nothing to do with them, does not mean you lied. Stupidity however, that's not temporary, and thinking pyramids were grain silos built by joseph. .. I mean really.
I am having a hard time coming up with a less effective way to store grain than the egyptian pyramids.
The thing with a storage facility is that you actually want room to store stuff, while the pyramids are mostly solid stone with a few rooms inside. I guess they would keep the grain reasonably dry and free from vermin.
On November 08 2015 06:43 Simberto wrote: I am having a hard time coming up with a less effective way to store grain than the egyptian pyramids.
The thing with a storage facility is that you actually want room to store stuff, while the pyramids are mostly solid stone with a few rooms inside. I guess they would keep the grain reasonably dry and free from vermin.
Which is what Granaries do even better as they are cheaper to build etc.
The pyramids being ancient grain storage containers is an interesting theory. It's completely possible thats what they were used for. Unfortunately ancient Egyptians didn't have written language to tell us what they were built for. Oh? Hmm. I'm being informed they did indeed have the gift of the written word making the grain theory actually retarded.
People like Ben Carson always remind me of this that got referenced ages ago in some TL blog.
On November 08 2015 07:11 OuchyDathurts wrote: The pyramids being ancient grain storage containers is an interesting theory. It's completely possible thats what they were used for. Unfortunately ancient Egyptians didn't have written language to tell us what they were built for. Oh? Hmm. I'm being informed they did indeed have the gift of the written word making the grain theory actually retarded.
People like Ben Carson always remind me of this that got referenced ages ago in some TL blog.
Hillary Clinton proposed loosening restrictions on marijuana in South Carolina on Saturday, telling a largely African-American audience that she would like to reschedule the drug in order to spur research.
"What I do want is for us to support research into medical marijuana because a lot more states have passed medical marijuana than have legalized marijuana, so we have got two different experiences or even experiments going on right now," Clinton said. "The problem with medical marijuana is there is a lot of anecdotal evidence about how well it works for certain conditions. But we haven't done any research. Why? Because it is considered that is called a schedule one drug and you can't even do research in it."
She added, "I would like to move it from what is called Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 so that researchers at universities, national institutes of health can start researching what is the best way to use it, how much of a dose does somebody need, how does it interact with other medications."
This is a new position for Clinton, who in the past has said she wanted to spur research but has never endorsed reclassifying the drug.
Marijuana is currently categorized by the Drug Enforcement Administration as a Schedule 1 drug, the highest categorization for drugs "with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse."
Rescheduling the drug would open up the possibility of more research into marijuana and the way it interacts with other substance.
Clinton did not endorse legalizing marijuana on Saturday, instead saying she wanted to "see how it works" in states like Colorado and Washington that have legalized the drug "before we do a national plan from the federal government. Because I think there is a lot for us to learn."
Clinton has long been more conservative than many Democrats on marijuana. Asked during the CNN debate in October whether she would legalize the drug, Clinton simply said "no" and repeated the line that she wanted to learn from the states.
On November 08 2015 07:11 OuchyDathurts wrote: The pyramids being ancient grain storage containers is an interesting theory. It's completely possible thats what they were used for. Unfortunately ancient Egyptians didn't have written language to tell us what they were built for. Oh? Hmm. I'm being informed they did indeed have the gift of the written word making the grain theory actually retarded.
People like Ben Carson always remind me of this that got referenced ages ago in some TL blog.
Are you saying the Bible is wrong and reality is correct?
Marco Rubio must have something to hide. There was a reason the presidential candidate wasn’t letting people see his long-secret Republican Party of Florida American Express bills. He spent too lavishly and frivolously, and used his party card for personal business. It was, Donald Trump said, a political “disaster” waiting to happen.
That was the conventional wisdom and hype in Florida political circles for years.
On Saturday, Rubio released his 2005 and 2006 statements that showed he only spent $65,000 on party business. That’s far less than other Republican leaders who succeeded him in the Florida House. And it’s just about half of the $117,000 Rubio himself charged on his party credit card after he became Florida House speaker in 2007-08.
The release shows he did make eight personal purchases on the card – a practice for which he has been criticized by rivals -- but his campaign insisted that he reimbursed American Express $7,200 for them.
“Some of these charges are from more than 10 years ago, and the only people who ask about them today are the media and our political opponents,” Rubio spokesman Todd Harris said. “We are releasing them now because Marco has nothing to hide.”
That wasn’t the case in 2010 when he ran for U.S. Senate and was blindsided by Gov. Charlie Crist, whose campaign leaked the last two years of Rubio’s AmEx bills that totaled about $117,000. Rubio spent weeks on defense, described by Crist as a sloppy unethical spendthrift who charged expenses like a $133 upscale barber-shop bill and $1,000 for minivan repairs on the GOP charge card.
Then as now, Rubio and his campaign say RPOF never paid his personal expenses. In the cases where he made personal purchases, Rubio paid AmEx directly for any personal expenses, Harris said. But unlike in 2010, Rubio’s staffers have spent months preparing for this day. They’ve analyzed his old bills and offer documentation, where still available, to indicate that he personally paid expenses like the $600 on auto repairs at Braman Honda or the $43.07 at Tio Liquor in Miami, which was accepted as a legitimate campaign expense by party leaders, according to state campaign-finance reports.
The $715.28 for Syms “apparel accessories” in New York City on July 31, 2006? Harris said Rubio personally paid for that, too. But there’s no clear evidence, nine years later, that he immediately paid for that item.
Including that previously leaked batch of charges and the $65,000 worth of expenses Rubio disclosed today, he spent a total of $182,000 over the four years he had the card from January 2005 until November 2008. From swank Las Vegas hotel rooms to Disney World conferences to pricey dinners, the charges show the perks of professional politicking as well as the pitfalls encountered by the at-times financially careless young legislator during a boom-time economy. So much special-interest money filled party coffers that Republican leaders thought little of the consequences of spending so much. Some leaders’ credit card bills went unpaid for months – often due to the carelessness of the party.
RPOF’s culture of easy money and big spending crashed along with the economy. The party’s chairman and executive director were busted in a fraud scheme related to their use of party money. Rubio’s House successor -- who charged almost as much on his credit card in two years than Rubio did in four -- was criminally charged in an unrelated donor scandal, but he was acquitted by a judge. Federal investigators subpoenaed party documents, IRS investigators briefly examined Rubio’s finances and party leadership shut down RPOF-sponsored AmEx cards and temporarily ended the culture of big spending.
The newly released stack of charge-card statements provide more details about one expense that has nagged Rubio since it was first reported in 2010. At the time, Florida Republican consultant Chris Ingram reported that Rubio confided to him that he mistakenly paid for “flooring” with his Republican Party of Florida card. Rubio and his campaign refused to confirm or deny the story, only saying he paid AmEx directly for personal expenses. Rubio in his 2012 autobiography then acknowledged that “I pulled the wrong card from my wallet to pay for pavers.”
Rubio bought the $3,765.24 in pavers from Iberia Tiles on Oct. 15, 2006 in Miami, the credit card statements show. A statement the following month shows AmEx received a payment for that exact amount, thereby proving Rubio paid it after his error, said Harris.
Activists plan to protest Donald Trump’s appearance on “Saturday Night Live” this weekend and are calling cast members of the NBC show to condemn his hardline stance against illegal immigration and past statements made against Mexicans.
In a call with reporters Friday, activists accused the Republican presidential candidate of using racist language and said that NBC had no business giving him the free airtime. In his speech announcing his candidacy back in June, Mr. Trump said that Mexico sends immigrants to the U.S. who are “bringing drugs” and are “rapists.”
“He doesn’t deserve an additional 90-minute campaign ad,” said Justin Krebs of the liberal group Move On, which collected 150,000 signatures on a petition against Mr. Trump’s appearance.
Mr. Trump brushed off the criticisms earlier this week and said that his appearance will help drive record ratings to the show.
“Look, I think they should demonstrate,” Mr. Trump said during a press conference to announce his new book Tuesday. “Ratings will go even higher than they are going to be. It’s going to be one of their highest-rated shows ever and they’re very excited about it.”
Activists plan to protest Donald Trump’s appearance on “Saturday Night Live” this weekend and are calling cast members of the NBC show to condemn his hardline stance against illegal immigration and past statements made against Mexicans.
In a call with reporters Friday, activists accused the Republican presidential candidate of using racist language and said that NBC had no business giving him the free airtime. In his speech announcing his candidacy back in June, Mr. Trump said that Mexico sends immigrants to the U.S. who are “bringing drugs” and are “rapists.”
“He doesn’t deserve an additional 90-minute campaign ad,” said Justin Krebs of the liberal group Move On, which collected 150,000 signatures on a petition against Mr. Trump’s appearance.
Mr. Trump brushed off the criticisms earlier this week and said that his appearance will help drive record ratings to the show.
“Look, I think they should demonstrate,” Mr. Trump said during a press conference to announce his new book Tuesday. “Ratings will go even higher than they are going to be. It’s going to be one of their highest-rated shows ever and they’re very excited about it.”
Protesting a SNL performance and specifically calling on the comedy team to condemn him ... these people need to learn to not feed the trolls.
No no no wait, maybe THIS will be the time the shaming works.
I didn't know people watched SNL anymore to begin with but this all seems really stupid. Rudy Giuliani has said some pretty fucked up stuff and he's hosted SNL a million times, I don't recall people caring. John Leguizamo is going to boycott SNL forever as if anyone cares what he thinks about anything, he hasn't been relevant in 15 years. Trump is a massive narcissistic sociopathic jackass for sure, he's said some massively ignorant stuff, but this seems so hollow and stupid to me. This is some arm chair activist shit.
On November 08 2015 03:09 Introvert wrote: This whole West Point line of attack fell apart.
So Ben Carsons lied repeatedly about being offered full scholarship to West Point, and someone the "line of attack fell apart"? Are you disputing that he claimed being offered "full scholarship" to an academy which does not even feature "full scholarships" per se, since all costs are covered for accepted students?
From what I've seen, at the time ads from West Point used the word "scholarship." But beyond that, Carson doesn't claim to have formally applied in the first place. He says he met someone who offered him a spot, and full paid. He said he had 10 dollars to apply somewhere, and he applied to Yale- only. Combine that with the fact he's remembering something from how many decades before? It becomes more and more of a non-story.
Again, I'm not a Carson fan so I don't want to spend time defending him, but it's clear that the Politico article was, at the very least, dishonest. And that's why they had to fix it. When I first read the article, I thought it was pretty damning- I had the same reaction as everyone here. But that was clearly incorrect.
Yeah, the General also disappeared from his version of history.
In Carson’s 1990 best-selling autobiography, “Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story,” the neurosurgeon tells of being offered a scholarship to West Point as a high school senior sometime after having dinner with the U.S. Army’s chief of staff, Gen. William Westmoreland, on Memorial Day 1969.
But Westmoreland’s personal schedule shows the general was not in Detroit on Memorial Day or during the days preceding and following the holiday. His schedule says he was in and around Washington, D.C., that weekend, according to Army archives The Detroit News reviewed Friday.
But like I said, not going to hurt him much if at all. The spin room already has people like Intro defending his habitual misleading by pointing at the "liberal" media. Which is all but completely ignoring Sanders, so they can't be the communist loving far left liberals the right likes to paint them as.
On November 08 2015 05:01 TheTenthDoc wrote: There's no point arguing about dishonesty anymore, Democrats and Republicans are in completely different realities at this point. It's pretty much a game of "Whose Line is it Anyway" on the campaign trail, except all that matters is the points and not whether or not they're true.
"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength;"
Nah, if you read the excerpts from what he wrote, ( I had not before this story) it becomes pretty obvious this was a bad article. Point is, from his understanding, he could have gone to West Point, but didn't. It seems impossible to prove otherwise, and it doesn't seem all that unlikely, either. But totally, I just want to defend Carson, cause I'm so known for that.
Talk of reality and spin. I'll just say this, if you think Sanders is being unfairly ignored, does that not prove media bias (in favor of the Clinton's?) of course. So then it's not a far fetch to imagine they aren't pro Republican (and considering the voting patterns of most journalists, this seems likely). Your common complaints about Sanders being ignored is proof enough that the media have their favorites.
I was saying if people on the right who don't even call themselves supporters are defending him (notice you ignored that he claimed someone was there who obviously wasn't) it's not going to hurt him. It wasn't about you personally.
As for Sanders, he doesn't have a Fox News or Talk radio support network like the right, and the "leftist" media isn't much better, save a couple exceptions.
But I don't disagree that the media plays favorites. Carson obviously lied, that he didn't actually "admit to lying" or that Politico focused on the wrong aspect,s may be less than stellar reporting, but it doesn't change that he obviously lied.
Actually, I didn't ignore anything.
And "less than stellar" lol. It was wrong. It said Carson or his campaign said things neither said. That's why they corrected it (kind of). They didn't even get a statement from Carson before publication. It was a crappy article. Like I said, when I first read it it thought it was pretty damning for Carson, but I don't have a natural inclination against him, so I could see when things were explained that the piece was just bad.
I'm not going to say any more, as even people in places like The Washington Post have pointed out how bad the story was. It's just hilarious.
Sure seems like your not addressing it. Do you think Carson told the truth when he claimed the General was there?
Again, if he lied, he lied.
It's pretty amazing to me that you're still saying "if he lied". There is no "if". He said he was offered a full scholarship. He wasn't. The guy lied, period.
Activists plan to protest Donald Trump’s appearance on “Saturday Night Live” this weekend and are calling cast members of the NBC show to condemn his hardline stance against illegal immigration and past statements made against Mexicans.
In a call with reporters Friday, activists accused the Republican presidential candidate of using racist language and said that NBC had no business giving him the free airtime. In his speech announcing his candidacy back in June, Mr. Trump said that Mexico sends immigrants to the U.S. who are “bringing drugs” and are “rapists.”
“He doesn’t deserve an additional 90-minute campaign ad,” said Justin Krebs of the liberal group Move On, which collected 150,000 signatures on a petition against Mr. Trump’s appearance.
Mr. Trump brushed off the criticisms earlier this week and said that his appearance will help drive record ratings to the show.
“Look, I think they should demonstrate,” Mr. Trump said during a press conference to announce his new book Tuesday. “Ratings will go even higher than they are going to be. It’s going to be one of their highest-rated shows ever and they’re very excited about it.”
Protesting a SNL performance and specifically calling on the comedy team to condemn him ... these people need to learn to not feed the trolls.
No no no wait, maybe THIS will be the time the shaming works.
I didn't know people watched SNL anymore to begin with but this all seems really stupid. Rudy Giuliani has said some pretty fucked up stuff and he's hosted SNL a million times, I don't recall people caring. John Leguizamo is going to boycott SNL forever as if anyone cares what he thinks about anything, he hasn't been relevant in 15 years. Trump is a massive narcissistic sociopathic jackass for sure, he's said some massively ignorant stuff, but this seems so hollow and stupid to me. This is some arm chair activist shit.
I don't see how it's supposed to be "hollow and stupid" to be critical of allowing a despicable person to play a role that can only make him more sympathetic to the audience. I don't want terrible people, who encourage xenophobia and racism, to be given PR opportunities. Would I want a representative of the KKK to host SNL, even if he has a great humor outside of his racist views? No.
Activists plan to protest Donald Trump’s appearance on “Saturday Night Live” this weekend and are calling cast members of the NBC show to condemn his hardline stance against illegal immigration and past statements made against Mexicans.
In a call with reporters Friday, activists accused the Republican presidential candidate of using racist language and said that NBC had no business giving him the free airtime. In his speech announcing his candidacy back in June, Mr. Trump said that Mexico sends immigrants to the U.S. who are “bringing drugs” and are “rapists.”
“He doesn’t deserve an additional 90-minute campaign ad,” said Justin Krebs of the liberal group Move On, which collected 150,000 signatures on a petition against Mr. Trump’s appearance.
Mr. Trump brushed off the criticisms earlier this week and said that his appearance will help drive record ratings to the show.
“Look, I think they should demonstrate,” Mr. Trump said during a press conference to announce his new book Tuesday. “Ratings will go even higher than they are going to be. It’s going to be one of their highest-rated shows ever and they’re very excited about it.”
I didn't know people watched SNL anymore to begin with but this all seems really stupid. Rudy Giuliani has said some pretty fucked up stuff and he's hosted SNL a million times, I don't recall people caring. John Leguizamo is going to boycott SNL forever as if anyone cares what he thinks about anything, he hasn't been relevant in 15 years. Trump is a massive narcissistic sociopathic jackass for sure, he's said some massively ignorant stuff, but this seems so hollow and stupid to me. This is some arm chair activist shit.
Your right and its becoming a real problem.
=People can be wrong and you can disagree with them, but if your going to start doing the same sort of thing the right wing media often does then you are just as bad. Its when people become oversensitive to the point where the fact that someone they dislike or disagree with even exists is just as bad. its something that you simply cannot maintain any kind of moral high ground with.
On November 08 2015 03:09 Introvert wrote: This whole West Point line of attack fell apart.
So Ben Carsons lied repeatedly about being offered full scholarship to West Point, and someone the "line of attack fell apart"? Are you disputing that he claimed being offered "full scholarship" to an academy which does not even feature "full scholarships" per se, since all costs are covered for accepted students?
From what I've seen, at the time ads from West Point used the word "scholarship." But beyond that, Carson doesn't claim to have formally applied in the first place. He says he met someone who offered him a spot, and full paid. He said he had 10 dollars to apply somewhere, and he applied to Yale- only. Combine that with the fact he's remembering something from how many decades before? It becomes more and more of a non-story.
Again, I'm not a Carson fan so I don't want to spend time defending him, but it's clear that the Politico article was, at the very least, dishonest. And that's why they had to fix it. When I first read the article, I thought it was pretty damning- I had the same reaction as everyone here. But that was clearly incorrect.
Yeah, the General also disappeared from his version of history.
In Carson’s 1990 best-selling autobiography, “Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story,” the neurosurgeon tells of being offered a scholarship to West Point as a high school senior sometime after having dinner with the U.S. Army’s chief of staff, Gen. William Westmoreland, on Memorial Day 1969.
But Westmoreland’s personal schedule shows the general was not in Detroit on Memorial Day or during the days preceding and following the holiday. His schedule says he was in and around Washington, D.C., that weekend, according to Army archives The Detroit News reviewed Friday.
But like I said, not going to hurt him much if at all. The spin room already has people like Intro defending his habitual misleading by pointing at the "liberal" media. Which is all but completely ignoring Sanders, so they can't be the communist loving far left liberals the right likes to paint them as.
On November 08 2015 05:01 TheTenthDoc wrote: There's no point arguing about dishonesty anymore, Democrats and Republicans are in completely different realities at this point. It's pretty much a game of "Whose Line is it Anyway" on the campaign trail, except all that matters is the points and not whether or not they're true.
"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength;"
Nah, if you read the excerpts from what he wrote, ( I had not before this story) it becomes pretty obvious this was a bad article. Point is, from his understanding, he could have gone to West Point, but didn't. It seems impossible to prove otherwise, and it doesn't seem all that unlikely, either. But totally, I just want to defend Carson, cause I'm so known for that.
Talk of reality and spin. I'll just say this, if you think Sanders is being unfairly ignored, does that not prove media bias (in favor of the Clinton's?) of course. So then it's not a far fetch to imagine they aren't pro Republican (and considering the voting patterns of most journalists, this seems likely). Your common complaints about Sanders being ignored is proof enough that the media have their favorites.
I was saying if people on the right who don't even call themselves supporters are defending him (notice you ignored that he claimed someone was there who obviously wasn't) it's not going to hurt him. It wasn't about you personally.
As for Sanders, he doesn't have a Fox News or Talk radio support network like the right, and the "leftist" media isn't much better, save a couple exceptions.
But I don't disagree that the media plays favorites. Carson obviously lied, that he didn't actually "admit to lying" or that Politico focused on the wrong aspect,s may be less than stellar reporting, but it doesn't change that he obviously lied.
Actually, I didn't ignore anything.
And "less than stellar" lol. It was wrong. It said Carson or his campaign said things neither said. That's why they corrected it (kind of). They didn't even get a statement from Carson before publication. It was a crappy article. Like I said, when I first read it it thought it was pretty damning for Carson, but I don't have a natural inclination against him, so I could see when things were explained that the piece was just bad.
I'm not going to say any more, as even people in places like The Washington Post have pointed out how bad the story was. It's just hilarious.
Sure seems like your not addressing it. Do you think Carson told the truth when he claimed the General was there?
Again, if he lied, he lied.
It's pretty amazing to me that you're still saying "if he lied". There is no "if". He said he was offered a full scholarship. He wasn't. The guy lied, period.
Activists plan to protest Donald Trump’s appearance on “Saturday Night Live” this weekend and are calling cast members of the NBC show to condemn his hardline stance against illegal immigration and past statements made against Mexicans.
In a call with reporters Friday, activists accused the Republican presidential candidate of using racist language and said that NBC had no business giving him the free airtime. In his speech announcing his candidacy back in June, Mr. Trump said that Mexico sends immigrants to the U.S. who are “bringing drugs” and are “rapists.”
“He doesn’t deserve an additional 90-minute campaign ad,” said Justin Krebs of the liberal group Move On, which collected 150,000 signatures on a petition against Mr. Trump’s appearance.
Mr. Trump brushed off the criticisms earlier this week and said that his appearance will help drive record ratings to the show.
“Look, I think they should demonstrate,” Mr. Trump said during a press conference to announce his new book Tuesday. “Ratings will go even higher than they are going to be. It’s going to be one of their highest-rated shows ever and they’re very excited about it.”
Protesting a SNL performance and specifically calling on the comedy team to condemn him ... these people need to learn to not feed the trolls.
No no no wait, maybe THIS will be the time the shaming works.
I didn't know people watched SNL anymore to begin with but this all seems really stupid. Rudy Giuliani has said some pretty fucked up stuff and he's hosted SNL a million times, I don't recall people caring. John Leguizamo is going to boycott SNL forever as if anyone cares what he thinks about anything, he hasn't been relevant in 15 years. Trump is a massive narcissistic sociopathic jackass for sure, he's said some massively ignorant stuff, but this seems so hollow and stupid to me. This is some arm chair activist shit.
I don't see how it's supposed to be "hollow and stupid" to be critical of allowing a despicable person to play a role that can only make him more sympathetic to the audience. I don't want terrible people, who encourage xenophobia and racism, to be given PR opportunities. Would I want a representative of the KKK to host SNL, even if he has a great humor outside of his racist views? No.
You see here is the problem, you and I may consider him a despicable person. But you dont get to pass judgement nor does anyone else, as if its something the whole world should agree with, And frankly I would love to see Trump on SNL, The guy is endless entertainment. Hes not going on SNL to promote xenophobia now is he ?
As for PR, if this country is going to start electing people based on their appearance or PR presence in the form that Trump has had then you have bigger problems than Trump
On November 08 2015 03:09 Introvert wrote: This whole West Point line of attack fell apart.
So Ben Carsons lied repeatedly about being offered full scholarship to West Point, and someone the "line of attack fell apart"? Are you disputing that he claimed being offered "full scholarship" to an academy which does not even feature "full scholarships" per se, since all costs are covered for accepted students?
From what I've seen, at the time ads from West Point used the word "scholarship." But beyond that, Carson doesn't claim to have formally applied in the first place. He says he met someone who offered him a spot, and full paid. He said he had 10 dollars to apply somewhere, and he applied to Yale- only. Combine that with the fact he's remembering something from how many decades before? It becomes more and more of a non-story.
Again, I'm not a Carson fan so I don't want to spend time defending him, but it's clear that the Politico article was, at the very least, dishonest. And that's why they had to fix it. When I first read the article, I thought it was pretty damning- I had the same reaction as everyone here. But that was clearly incorrect.
Yeah, the General also disappeared from his version of history.
In Carson’s 1990 best-selling autobiography, “Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story,” the neurosurgeon tells of being offered a scholarship to West Point as a high school senior sometime after having dinner with the U.S. Army’s chief of staff, Gen. William Westmoreland, on Memorial Day 1969.
But Westmoreland’s personal schedule shows the general was not in Detroit on Memorial Day or during the days preceding and following the holiday. His schedule says he was in and around Washington, D.C., that weekend, according to Army archives The Detroit News reviewed Friday.
But like I said, not going to hurt him much if at all. The spin room already has people like Intro defending his habitual misleading by pointing at the "liberal" media. Which is all but completely ignoring Sanders, so they can't be the communist loving far left liberals the right likes to paint them as.
On November 08 2015 05:01 TheTenthDoc wrote: There's no point arguing about dishonesty anymore, Democrats and Republicans are in completely different realities at this point. It's pretty much a game of "Whose Line is it Anyway" on the campaign trail, except all that matters is the points and not whether or not they're true.
"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength;"
Nah, if you read the excerpts from what he wrote, ( I had not before this story) it becomes pretty obvious this was a bad article. Point is, from his understanding, he could have gone to West Point, but didn't. It seems impossible to prove otherwise, and it doesn't seem all that unlikely, either. But totally, I just want to defend Carson, cause I'm so known for that.
Talk of reality and spin. I'll just say this, if you think Sanders is being unfairly ignored, does that not prove media bias (in favor of the Clinton's?) of course. So then it's not a far fetch to imagine they aren't pro Republican (and considering the voting patterns of most journalists, this seems likely). Your common complaints about Sanders being ignored is proof enough that the media have their favorites.
I was saying if people on the right who don't even call themselves supporters are defending him (notice you ignored that he claimed someone was there who obviously wasn't) it's not going to hurt him. It wasn't about you personally.
As for Sanders, he doesn't have a Fox News or Talk radio support network like the right, and the "leftist" media isn't much better, save a couple exceptions.
But I don't disagree that the media plays favorites. Carson obviously lied, that he didn't actually "admit to lying" or that Politico focused on the wrong aspect,s may be less than stellar reporting, but it doesn't change that he obviously lied.
Actually, I didn't ignore anything.
And "less than stellar" lol. It was wrong. It said Carson or his campaign said things neither said. That's why they corrected it (kind of). They didn't even get a statement from Carson before publication. It was a crappy article. Like I said, when I first read it it thought it was pretty damning for Carson, but I don't have a natural inclination against him, so I could see when things were explained that the piece was just bad.
I'm not going to say any more, as even people in places like The Washington Post have pointed out how bad the story was. It's just hilarious.
Sure seems like your not addressing it. Do you think Carson told the truth when he claimed the General was there?
Again, if he lied, he lied.
It's pretty amazing to me that you're still saying "if he lied". There is no "if". He said he was offered a full scholarship. He wasn't. The guy lied, period.
Activists plan to protest Donald Trump’s appearance on “Saturday Night Live” this weekend and are calling cast members of the NBC show to condemn his hardline stance against illegal immigration and past statements made against Mexicans.
In a call with reporters Friday, activists accused the Republican presidential candidate of using racist language and said that NBC had no business giving him the free airtime. In his speech announcing his candidacy back in June, Mr. Trump said that Mexico sends immigrants to the U.S. who are “bringing drugs” and are “rapists.”
“He doesn’t deserve an additional 90-minute campaign ad,” said Justin Krebs of the liberal group Move On, which collected 150,000 signatures on a petition against Mr. Trump’s appearance.
Mr. Trump brushed off the criticisms earlier this week and said that his appearance will help drive record ratings to the show.
“Look, I think they should demonstrate,” Mr. Trump said during a press conference to announce his new book Tuesday. “Ratings will go even higher than they are going to be. It’s going to be one of their highest-rated shows ever and they’re very excited about it.”
Protesting a SNL performance and specifically calling on the comedy team to condemn him ... these people need to learn to not feed the trolls.
No no no wait, maybe THIS will be the time the shaming works.
I didn't know people watched SNL anymore to begin with but this all seems really stupid. Rudy Giuliani has said some pretty fucked up stuff and he's hosted SNL a million times, I don't recall people caring. John Leguizamo is going to boycott SNL forever as if anyone cares what he thinks about anything, he hasn't been relevant in 15 years. Trump is a massive narcissistic sociopathic jackass for sure, he's said some massively ignorant stuff, but this seems so hollow and stupid to me. This is some arm chair activist shit.
I don't see how it's supposed to be "hollow and stupid" to be critical of allowing a despicable person to play a role that can only make him more sympathetic to the audience. I don't want terrible people, who encourage xenophobia and racism, to be given PR opportunities. Would I want a representative of the KKK to host SNL, even if he has a great humor outside of his racist views? No.
EPT
