he was a brilliant student and a ROTCy. Chances are very good that something like this happened, even though they may not have occurred exactly as related. It's a specious criticism when there are so many other unfettered crazy things to tout. When you don't pick your battles, people will always remember the one where you lost or almost lost.

This year it seems like no matter how outrageous something a candidate says that it has no effect

Bucky wrote:he was a brilliant student and a ROTCy. Chances are very good that something like this happened, even though they may not have occurred exactly as related. It's a specious criticism when there are so many other unfettered crazy things to tout. When you don't pick your battles, people will always remember the one where you lost or almost lost.

Agreed.

Bucky wrote:he was a brilliant student and a ROTCy. Chances are very good that something like this happened, even though they may not have occurred exactly as related. It's a specious criticism when there are so many other unfettered crazy things to tout. When you don't pick your battles, people will always remember the one where you lost or almost lost.

In isolation it's not a bad lie. But given his other embellishments...

SK790 wrote:

Bucky wrote:he was a brilliant student and a ROTCy. Chances are very good that something like this happened, even though they may not have occurred exactly as related. It's a specious criticism when there are so many other unfettered crazy things to tout. When you don't pick your battles, people will always remember the one where you lost or almost lost.

In isolation it's not a bad lie. But given his other embellishments...

I don't think there is anything wrong with the whole West Point story.

He was a high school student who some Army guys told him he could get a scholarship to West Point. They probably used the scholarship term because it is easier to understand than the whole West Point thing. Going to the Acadamy is pretty much like being on scholarship except it's a better deal. Since Carson didn't pursue it, it makes sense he thinks it was a scholarship offer.

He met Gen. Westmoreland at some point and he remembers Army guys telling him he could get a West Point scholarship. If he mistakenly remembers the General was one of the guys telling him that, it's reasonable in my view.

I had an LTC tell me I could get a two year ROTC scholarship. He told me my 2.7 GPA was damn good. He might have said I needed to get it to 3.0 -- I don't remember. He was bullshitting but that's what you did back then.

It's still disingenuous to present that type of situation as getting a full ride scholarship to West Point. It's not bad in isolation, but given his other embellishments...Says a lot about him imo.

I don't understand how it can be disingenuous if what he said was what he believed. And it makes sense to me that he believed it to be true.

I guess he could have done some research but why? He just relayed an experience as he understood it. Most people don't understand the military unless they have served. It's not like TV or movies with few exceptions.

His interpretation of what happened doesn't surprise me at all.

I give him a pass on this one. He has enough real problems in my view.

well, even if you don't agree with us that it's reasonable to tell the story that way, do yourselves a favor and don't use that as an argument when you're talking the crazy R contingent at the watering hole. It really makes your whole spiel lose credibility.

I grant you permission to substitute this in its place:

"Every signer of the Declaration of Independence had no elected office experience."

At some point it is less Carson's boastful fib/memory lapse about West Point, and more about how poorly he's handled the issue - not for his base, who are as lame/nuts as he is, but for his chances at winning some fraction of undecideds, who might well liken his stubborn insistence on banging heads when he's clearly embellished his not-really-needing-any-embellishment-anyway resume.

In other words, he's acting as if he'd rather be right than President. & I say you be you, Ben

Well, you're right. I think I defended him better than he did himself.

smitty wrote:Well, you're right. I think I defended him better than he did himself.

no questions asked, Smitty - no questions asked

Bucky wrote:well, even if you don't agree with us that it's reasonable to tell the story that way, do yourselves a favor and don't use that as an argument when you're talking the crazy R contingent at the watering hole. It really makes your whole spiel lose credibility.

Bucky, it doesn't even crack the top 50 reasons why I wouldn't vote for this nut job. Trust me, I'm not harping on this irl, but I don't understand why people are so eager to defend him on this point. I'm glad his reputation for flat out lying about his life is now causing people to assume he's just a lying sack of shit (he is).

Also, a reminder for any right leaning folks who think the liberal media is harsh on GOPers:

Kevin M. Kruse @KevinMKruse

From May 2007-Nov. 2008, the New York Times alone had 138 stories w/ refs to Obama & Wright, 78 to Obama & Ayers, 38 to Obama & Rezko.

PROBABLY GLOWING

The Times announced their strong support for Obama by bragging about his ties to a weird, radical preacher who hates white people, writing "we support Barack Obama's plan to declare a war on white people in this country". Read more at brietbart.com: http://i.imgur.com/lvKc55b.gif

SK790 wrote:

Bucky wrote:well, even if you don't agree with us that it's reasonable to tell the story that way, do yourselves a favor and don't use that as an argument when you're talking the crazy R contingent at the watering hole. It really makes your whole spiel lose credibility.

Bucky, it doesn't even crack the top 50 reasons why I wouldn't vote for this nut job. Trust me, I'm not harping on this irl, but I don't understand why people are so eager to defend him on this point. I'm glad his reputation for flat out lying about his life is now causing people to assume he's just a lying sack of #$!&@ (he is).

My point is not at all to defend him. It's frustration at this being brought up and end the end it being defensible. So then- because of this ONE thing- the narrative can be changed to "IT'S ALL THE MEDIA JUST PICKING ON POOR BEN!" and not insubstantial group of people buying into that (because stupidity). It makes critics vulnerable.

Bucky wrote:

SK790 wrote:

Bucky wrote:well, even if you don't agree with us that it's reasonable to tell the story that way, do yourselves a favor and don't use that as an argument when you're talking the crazy R contingent at the watering hole. It really makes your whole spiel lose credibility.

Bucky, it doesn't even crack the top 50 reasons why I wouldn't vote for this nut job. Trust me, I'm not harping on this irl, but I don't understand why people are so eager to defend him on this point. I'm glad his reputation for flat out lying about his life is now causing people to assume he's just a lying sack of #$!&@ (he is).

My point is not at all to defend him. It's frustration at this being brought up and end the end it being defensible. So then- because of this ONE thing- the narrative can be changed to "IT'S ALL THE MEDIA JUST PICKING ON POOR BEN!" and not insubstantial group of people buying into that (because stupidity). It makes critics vulnerable.

It only makes critics vulnerable in the mind of people who already are brainwashed enough to vote for him and there's no convincing those people. Instead of just accepting "just stupidity" why not call it out? You can easily point to the myriad of other things he's lied about to make your case.

As a side note, and this is in no way related to anyone in this thread, I am so sick of this "mean media" narrative. If you tell a lie, the media is allowed to call you a liar. It's not mean, it's just the truth.

SK790 wrote:Also, a reminder for any right leaning folks who think the liberal media is harsh on GOPers:

Kevin M. Kruse @KevinMKruse

From May 2007-Nov. 2008, the New York Times alone had 138 stories w/ refs to Obama & Wright, 78 to Obama & Ayers, 38 to Obama & Rezko.

The stupid media isn't harsh on anyone. They make a big deal about nothing and ignore facts and are too lazy to check on outrageous BS Trump says (for example). Why don't they report on Trump's BS regarding illegals? Here's some good info:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi ... ted_States

Why don't our so called journalists take Trump to task on this issue?

Probably because Trump is good for ratings.

drsmooth wrote:At some point it is less Carson's boastful fib/memory lapse about West Point, and more about how poorly he's handled the issue - not for his base, who are as lame/nuts as he is, but for his chances at winning some fraction of undecideds, who might well liken his stubborn insistence on banging heads when he's clearly embellished his not-really-needing-any-embellishment-anyway resume.

In other words, he's acting as if he'd rather be right than President. & I say you be you, Ben

Yup. He's repeatedly said since Firday "I never said that I was offered a scholarship to West Point."

Except that he has said that. Multiple times. Including in his book, which was quoted extensively by Politico.

Between things like that and the "no one has ever been vetted this hard" nonsense, he's freaking delusional.