I think there's plenty to not like about Carson, so you don't need to manufacture bullshit to whine about. "I find the Big Bang really quite fascinating. I mean, here you have all these highfalutin scientists and they’re saying it was this gigantic explosion and everything came into perfect order. Now these are the same scientists that go around touting the second law of thermodynamics, which is entropy, which says that things move toward a state of disorganization. So now you’re gonna have this big explosion and everything becomes perfectly organized and when you ask them about it they say, ‘Well we can explain this, based on probability theory because if there’s enough big explosions, over a long period of time, billions and billions of years, one of them will be the perfect explosion.’ … So I say what you’re telling me is if I blow a hurricane through a junkyard enough times over billions and billions of years, eventually after one of those hurricanes there will be a 747 fully loaded and ready to fly. (Carson adds that the Big Bang is “even more ridiculous” because there is order to the universe.) Well, I mean, it’s even more ridiculous than that ’cause our solar system, not to mention the universe outside of that, is extraordinarily well organized, to the point where we can predict 70 years away when a comet is coming. Now that type of organization to just come out of an explosion? I mean, you want to talk about fairy tales, that is amazing."
Hey barfo. Do Bill and Hillary have a relationship with these banks? http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article24785188.html Ten of the world’s biggest financial institutions – including UBS, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs – have hired Bill Clinton numerous times since 2004 to speak for fees totaling more than $6.4 million. Hillary Clinton also has accepted speaking fees from at least one bank.
He has a very poor understanding of science, for sure. But you've got me pegged wrong. I support Carson for the Republican nomination But you are still defending his lies. Why? Do you really believe, despite all evidence, he had "no involvement" with Mannatech, or are you just trolling? barfo
Yes they do, although based only on what you posted (didn't read the link), I'd say it's still less of an 'involvement' than Carson had with Mannatech. barfo
I believe his involvement with the company was both minimal and trivial. A mountain from a mole hill for no good purpose. "Involvement" as I said, no more than yours with bayer because you buy their aspirin. If there were even a remote chance Carson would somehow grant this company favors as prez, then it might be an issue. Not seeing it.
You're joking as usual. There is so much involvement between the banks, favors from Hillary, and money going to the Clinton foundation that you have to wonder about the legality or ethics of it all.
So you do agree that there was involvement, and therefore, he lied. Progress. He was the one who chose to lie about it on national TV. He didn't have to. He could have just told the truth, there was really no reason to lie. But he did, and that says something. I've already pointed out how misleading that analogy is. The issue is that he lied about it. Why did he do that? A secondary issue is, what the hell is a medical doctor doing endorsing quackery? It makes you wonder if he has any ethics. Come to think of it, so does lying about it. barfo
The analogy is perfectly fine. As I said, the company has no influence over his policies and he has no influence over their business decisions. No relationship of interest, any more than you buying aspirin. Bayer has no influence on your drinking habits and you have no influence over their business practices. The analogy is perfectly fine, as I said. Again, he didn't lie about it. It depends on what the meaning of "relationship" is. In my mind, and his, it means something like a contract, board seat, regular paying job, consulting gig, etc. All he did was get paid through a speakers' bureau to talk up their product. Lots of people do that sort of thing and aren't affiliated with the company. The secondary issue is similar to the issue I raised. I happen to think he's a very smart man with some strange ideas. I have no reason to vote for him for those ideas or his being a religious whacko.
Don't think you have. I challenge you to find me complaining about any question anyone has ever asked Hillary. barfo
The analogy is incredibly stupid, Denny, and you know that. And that isn't the issue. But nice attempt at deflection. I'm pretty sure Bayer has never funded a chair for me at Johns Hopkins. I'm pretty sure I've never recorded an endorsement video for Bayer. The comparison is silly. YOU may not be interested in his relationship with Mannatech, but it did exist and it is of interest (to those of us who have any curiosity, that is). You are playing semantic games. Me neither. But hopefully lots of Republicans do. barfo
The analogy is perfectly fine. He was hired as a spokesman through a speakers' agency. Something like this one: http://www.harrywalker.com/speakers...ureau_Broad}&gclid=CM6CnoWq9cgCFUiEfgodbcsOTg Someone at the company looked at a list like that one and picked him out to have him speak. They paid the speakers' bureau. His first speech was 2004. His second speech was 2011. His third speech was 2013. His fourth was 2014. Doesn't sound all that involved to me. If it were dozens of speeches a year, then maybe you wouldn't be coming across as incredibly stupid on this point. Your words, not mine.
Sorry, but you are ignoring the promotional videos, the fact that he said that they sponsored his chair at Johns Hopkins, etc. It's "interesting" that you want to ignore those things. barfo
