Some? Most!Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkytoe
Printable View
Some? Most!Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkytoe
thanks, I think I would like thatQuote:
Originally Posted by pinkytoe
Perhaps someone could write a book about the banksters that brought down the economy in 2008 called "The Millionaire Sociopath Next Door."
Yeah, but don't they all live in walled enclaves?Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
"The Millionaire Sociopath Next Door...over the razor-wire fence, past the armed guards, and through the security system that you go through to do his laundry for your pittance."
Carson's assumption that he could have simply waltzed in to West Point uncontested is absurd, but considering his apparent vanity its pretty logical that he would get to that conclusion. Given that the scholarship remark is plausible enough since, as others have said, everyone who gets in gets a scholarship. His recollections of the past are far less troubling to me than his obvious lack of understanding regarding the economy, foreign policy, science, slavery, pyramids... The guy looks to be a foot wide and a mile deep. Engage him on surgical techniques and it would probably be a real learning opportunity for most of us, but anything else? Well, not so much. To answer the OP, yes, he is.
That too...Plus Roe vs Wade and the separation of church and state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
My husband and I are in the middle of reading "The Sociopath Next Door" and we thought the same thing. Sorry, I can't remember who suggested reading it, but thank you!!! Hubby and I have had a lot of discussions from it so far, including the political links.Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkytoe
Once again, IL I think you are missing the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
Carson wasn't offered ANYTHING. period. Not a scholarship, a free ride, an appointment, nothing. Semantics has nothing to do with it. He was not offered a place at West Point. At all. If he were, it would be in the record cause no one is offered anything until after some pretty intense vetting.
So you see, there was no offer to turn down. No general Westmorland to make an offer (which he wouldn't anyway), and no appointment, free or otherwise.
But, feel free to carry on your defense of this pathological liar.>8)
peggy, I actually agree with you--I think--?--that there was no concrete offer given to Ben Carson at an ROTC dinner where a bunch of jawing took place. He "heard" a lot of recruitment talk that sounded like a firm offer, or else later after decades ratcheted up a recruitment conversation to something firm.Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
I also agree that careful vetting takes place, normally, for anyone going to West Point. I's are dotted, T's Are crossed.
We have no idea what went on behind the scenes 45 years ago and for all you know, recommendations from his school administrators and other people in authority went to army brass who then decided to meet this young man for a hard recruit.
I completely disagree with you that all students go through the same vetting process. There are always exceptions. Surely you, with your Armed Services background, would agree that if Westmoreland or someone of his position decides a student is exceptional enough to be a "must accept" for West Point, the power of his word would carry out that deed. But that's all theoretical since this doesn't fit Carson's situation.
I don't think Ben Carson would have necessarily rated that treatment back then although now he would likely be a strong candidate for a automatic West Point appointment. Those were the days before affirmative action and quotas, and today the Ben Carsons of the world are wined and dined by prestigious academic institutions, and there is fierce competition to get them.
If you want to interpret Carson's representation of this incident as a braggagio or swollen head, ok, I think that's a rational interpretation though I dIsagree. Escalating this this 45 year old incident to "lie" is silly and isn't rational.
That's just the parallel I was thinking of, Brian Williams. What a waste. Such a successful and accomplished man. Why this need to puff himself up? By any definition of the word he was already a successful man. I just don't get it nut I'm glad to lead my humble and much less successful life. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by CathyA
I have yet to find any of those wanting to be the President, worth my interest or vote for that matter>:( I am still hoping it gets better.
Yup, Carson has some interesting ideas...
Attachment 1544
Tonight, when I go home to my walled enclave and relax on my throne of skulls to enjoy the Republican debate, I suspect the guy taking the most shots will not be Doctor Carson. I predict it will be Marco Rubio, who seems to have been gaining ground in the Serious Candidate Division. The best his enemies seem to have come up with to damn him so far have been traffic tickets and a few late payment fees on his credit cards, so his rivals will need to get creative. They may even be reduced to talking about policy differences.
Feel free to mock me if I'm wrong.
This is true, to a point. There is also stiff 'p*ssing contests' among the higher ups as well. No general is going to blindly accept someone recommended by another general without some vetting. I think we agree Ben Carson doesn't rise to the level of this kind of 'attention'.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
He really doesn't deserve this kind of attention from anyone except he IS the republican front runner.
it's still early in the game. Hopefully the field will get more interesting, or serious.
The Republican Establishment are huddling together making contingency plans in case their base has truly disintegrated and cannot mount a campaign to support an accepted nominee, ie Bush preferred or maybe Rubio if need be. Carson has been propped up by the remaining Evangelicals who's New Testament hero was a terrorist and murderer rivaling jihadi John. He was blinded by God on his way to massacre more Christians and in that instant he was changed and became the Apostle Paul. They are going to stick with Ben no matter how disgusting his life might proves out. It will suck enough support away from the base to allow Trump the blowhard Chump to maintain an irritating lead.
The Republican Party is in disarray. A shame really because Democrats have the weakest candidate possible in Hillary Clinton. Her election will ensure four more years of death spiral for our country. Still time to pull out but the consequences are mounting.
That was my take-away from participating in the process as a delegate in the last election cycle. The Old Guard was willing to burn the entire party to the ground in order to remain in control of the reins of $$$/influence, and were blind to the demographics on the convention floor. I suspect they turned away an entire generation of intelligent, energetic, and engaged potential party participants last time, people who will stay home or vote Libertarian/Green/.../Democrat instead this time. I know I will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Williamsmith
I was a registered Republican for all of my voting life until last election when the pathetic Mitt Romney was ushered forward to fend off Obamas second term. I heard the Republican Establishment predicting a landslide victory and laughed profoundly at their stupidity. I went straight out and registered Independent. When I discover someone worth voting for, I will cast one proudly, but I will not condone a process of mockery against the intelligence of the American public. Just a huge circus going on out front and behind the scenes all the decisions are being made by people who never get voted for. Representative government my ass.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Williamsmith
Sing it loud. Sing it proud.
The way I view the whole "lying" incident is like this:
1) It can't be proven that he intentionally lied. The book refers to something that happened to him many years ago when he was a teenager. He met and spoke with a person high up in the military. Ben's impression at the time, was that this officer offered him a "scholarship". Has West Point also been intentionally "lying" when they also have used that term in their recruitment materials in the past? (They have). I don't think they can be accurately portrayed as lying for using that term in the past, any more than Ben can. It is really very unjust to judge and slander someone for lying when you don't have all the facts in.
2) People can and do change; personally I believe that ANYONE can have a change of heart, do an about face, and change their direction. That is what repentance is all about; not only regretting an action, but determining to change for the better. To dig up someone's past and mock them for it is ethically wrong, in my opinion. Ben's mother forgave him, and never gave up on him. He never tried to hide what he did. There are, indeed, a number of men (and women, of course) who were troubled youths, and yet were able to turn their lives around. We should all be thankful for that, because how someone lives their life affects others; their family, their neighborhood, their city, their nation.
3) What kind of a pass have we come to, when we call a morally upright, hardworking, very intelligent and successful brain surgeon "weird"?
As you can probably tell, I'm voting for him.
Memoirs are notorious for being mythological. That's why I rarely read them.
Since he was obviously a psycho killer who only changed because of jesus I'm personally terrified of the idea of him becoming president since he's just once phone call from the devil away from creating horrifying chaos on this planet. I'd be MUCH more comfortable voting for someone who was never a psycho to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Packratona!
And to answer your question about weird, he wouldn't be so weird if he didn't have such 'weird' ideas. Like that the pyramids were for grain storage. Or that gay people became gay in prison. Or that he thinks that a man who is clueless about policy issues should stand a chance in ****ing hell of becoming president.
Frankly it's very brave of you to admit that you're voting for him... Bless your heart.
People can change but I'm not sure it happens that much with the adult personality. It happens, but it's less common than one would hope.
However we are not adult personalities as teenagers, we may have some of the same conscious beliefs we did then or not. But it's more there's not as much capacity to handle life then. And being crazy or wild in some way as a teenager has to be a situation lots and lots of people can relate to - frontal lobes are not fully formed, hormones running wild, half crazed sometimes.
But his present ideas being nutty is a good enough reason not to vote for him in my view.
"Psycho killer"? There are several reasons we have, throughout history, standards of justice that include defense attorneys, trial by jury, judges, expert witnesses, and slander laws. Someone is assumed to be a killer because they physically threatened someone decades ago when they were a teenager. Someone is assumed to have a mental illness, even though they have never been determined to have had a mental illness by any expert in such matters, and whose life history over many years has been exemplary and stable. As far as what kind of affect prison terms have on a person's personality, I really can't comment on that...I am not an expert, and I have never seen studies on it. I try to be careful in forming opinions about things I have not studied. The pyramids thing is interesting; I don't know for how many years it has been common knowledge what the structure of pyramids is, but even if Ben should have known it at the time and didn't, well one thing I will say in his defense, is that doctors don't know everything. They spend huge amounts of time throughout their lives studying in a particular area (medicine, and in Ben's case, brain surgery), and many, many more hours preforming in the area of their expertise. Frankly, it is not surprising that a doctor would be ignorant in something many others who are not doctors, think they should know and are horrified they do not. They are not g-ds. I am sure Ben knows things, and has skills that very few other people have. He is a very intelligent man, and now has time to bone up on many other things he did not have time to, before he was retired.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
As far as your comment about "only changed because of Jesus" is concerned. From my perspective, people do and have changed, because of the influence of someone else. Even persons who have died, any good they have done, can have a positive impact on others long after they are gone; that is what I believe. I do think it is important when choosing a president to know and be aware of, as much as it is possible, the persons that they claim to have had an influence on them. It can be very telling. I would not venture to say that someone is mentally ill because they say that this or that person greatly influenced him; however I would try to learn as much as possible about what that person taught, if they were a huge influence on a future president. And that is tricky too; you have to be able to determine what is truth, and what is slander. And often the average person will not have this information until the person is already voted in. I also think that someone who claims to have made a huge change because of a remorse whether religious in nature or in relation to the influence of another person living or dead, has to be observed and tested over as long a period as possible, to see if genuine changes were made, in other words, to see if the change was real. The higher the power and responsibility given to that person, the more care needs to be taken. We all know that just because someone says that he has "found G-d", that doesn't mean that he actually has.
It's a good thing you "try to be careful in forming opinions about things I have not studied", however, it doesn't really require study to be aware that being gay is not a personality trait.Quote:
Originally Posted by Packratona!
So now he's retired and has time to bone up on economics, foreign policy, social issues, etc. I think it's a little too late to "study" all that and much, much more to learn to run a country. He is a joke and his studies should be nothing more than a hobby for a retired surgeon with an interest in politics. And as someone else said, bless your heart for giving him your vote, that's a secret I would take to my grave.
Agree with everything jp1 said.
:laff: :+1:Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
I knew the purpose of the pyramids when I was in grade school. This isn't exactly highly specialized knowledge.
To bury the dead mostly I suppose, quite a belief in the afterlife there. And the pyramids have actually been poured over by archaeologists to death I suppose. But if someone suggested they were also used to store grain ... hmm I'd asked what new evidence they had etc. - new article out somewhere or something that makes this case? Because I definitely did not learn it all in grade school, and archaeologists and historians do revise, but not maybe so much on something so well studied (nor do I have much good to say about the school system). But if one has NO evidence then :laff:
Link to comments about the pyramid speech if anyone's interested. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...im-some-votes/
It does not show the entire speech he made, apparently it is not available. I'm a great believer in trying to get the whole context, especially when possible smear and slander is involved. Anyway, have at it...
There was an article on the bbc's website that explained that at one time it was believed that the pyramids were for grain storage. To the point that ST Mark's in venice has this painted on the ceiling. But it went on to say that this belief pretty much died in the renaisance when scholars from europe actually started going to egypt and actually looking at the pyramids. For someone to still believe this because the bible says so (and it doesnt, it obly says that joseph stored grain, not where or how) shows me not intelligence, but blind dogmatism.
So just out of curiousity: who is it, you think believes that grain was stored in the pyramids because "the Bible said so"? If you are saying that Carson said that, all I have seen is that he stated 17 years ago that it was a theory he had at the time. NOT that he said the BIBLE said that. Are you raising a straw dog here or have you heard him (or someone particular that you know) say this?Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34741010
Here's the article I read. I'm not a bible expert but apparently the old testament does say that Joseph helped the Egyptians survive a famine by storing 7 years of grain.
From the article:
In the Old Testament, Joseph is sold into slavery in Egypt by his brothers, where he later interprets a pharaoh's dreams and helps the Egyptians survive a seven-year famine - by storing grain. There is no mention of pyramids in the Bible's version of the story but in the Middle Ages people started to write them into the story.
"If you go to St Mark's cathedral in Venice, there's a medieval depiction showing people using the three great pyramids of Giza as granaries in Joseph's story," says John Darnell, a professor of Egyptology at Yale University.
"If you didn't have access to the structures, the idea had some currency."
Yes, I read the article, and nowhere does it say that Carson believes that Joseph stored grain in THE PYRAMIDS "because the Bible said so". So you have raised a straw dog, and have also questioned his intelligence and accused him of blind dogmatism, based on something he never said. He stated that was his PERSONAL THEORY that the grain that Joseph stored, was stored in the pyramids. Now if you want to say he is not intelligent and blindly dogmatic because he believes the Biblical account of Joseph storing the grain (wherever he might have stored it, it doesn't say) then that is another thing altogether. But it is not necessary to put words in his mouth to do this. Just use the words he actually did say.
But yes, that is an interesting article about the prior medieval depiction of the grain being stored in the pyramids.
Based on his religious beliefs it is a logical conclusion that I came to, especially since members of his audience said "Amen." When he gave his theory. If you'd rather believe that it's just that he's ignorant of the widely known fact that there's not enough room in the pyramids to store much grain, or that mummified people were found in them, that's your choice.
In other words, it is your personal belief, based on what you think you know about his religious beliefs, that Ben believes that Joseph stored the grain in the PYRAMIDS "because the Bible said so". It is not based on him actually stating this, rather, what he has consistently stated, was that this was his PERSONAL theory. So you assume that he thinks something that he has never said, because of assumptions you have about his religious belief. Am I reading this correctly?
No, he was not ignorant of what was believed at the time about the pyramids holding mummified remains, in fact he refers to that in the article you posted. So no, based on the actual words he stated, I can see that he was not ignorant of that. He simply has another theory, a personal theory.
A theory is just a theory; it certainly can be proven wrong, which is why it is just a theory. I was just speculating in my previous post, that he might have been ignorant of the available information, but now I see from the article you posted, that he was well aware of it. He just has another theory. I will say, however, that I can easily see it as entirely possible for a doctor, even a BRAIN SURGEON to be incorrect, mistaken, and yes, ignorant of certain things, and come to the wrong conclusions because of that. Even medical things. No one is perfect. But in the big scheme of things, each one of us has to determine for ourselves, what are the really important qualities for a good leader, and who has them. For me, honesty, compassion, humility, and wisdom top the list. That automatically rules out certain people, no matter how religious or not religious they they may claim to be.
I found this article about the different ways the term "theory" is interpreted quite interesting. Words and how they are defined matter. http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
Based on his numerous apologies for getting this or that wrong, or offending this or that group or having contentious religious convictions or providing inaccurate or inflated accounts of past incidents........I think it is reasonable to exclude him from ones list of candidates for the top political position in the most influential nation on Earth.
I would not try to comment on what anybody else is thinking or what they believe, and I honestly know nothing about the pyramids, but couldn't it be possible that the pyramids were used both as tombs and for grain storage? Why could not both theories be correct, especially in a culture that piled up things for the use of the dead in the next life?
well, I should stop criticizing him and hope his fan base expands like the loaves and fishes because then the Dems could run a ham sandwich and win. Wait, mixing metaphors..... Kind of like, Mr CarsonQuote:
Originally Posted by Williamsmith
Personally I don't really care if he came up with his 'theory' about the pyramids from reading the bible or from a conversation with the man in the moon, or anything else. The thing that concerns me is that he came up with his theory while ignoring easily available info about the pyramids that contradicted his 'theory'. Him devising a theory of why some really old structures were built, while ignoring commonly accepted knowledge, is fine. But him doing the same thing while making decisions about public policy or foreign affairs, as president of the US, is absolutely NOT ok. Decisions about public policy or foreign affairs are literally life and death decisions. If he's not capable of making logical decisions, which he clearly isn't, then I don't want him to have any control over the life and death decisions that our president makes on a daily basis.
+1 to JP1's assessment.