The Liberal Media Collection.

Evidence of the Liberal Media Thread.

The obvious tone of the CNBC debate and now the fake story about Carson, people are starting to come around to the idea that the liberal media actually does exist.

Since news of the hit job on Carson CNBC, CNN, I would Imagine others are still running the original story. Classic.

Fake? How about its all ***... Republican? Democrat? Independent? Makes no difference. They are all lying, cheating, stealing, murdering criminals of an obsolete corrupt establishment of social control.

Anarchy is great in theory just like communism, i'd like to think one of the parties is better and it's not the Republicans.

People fear change. Change takes time. It does not have to be anarchy... or does it? So often things are called the wrong thing.

Anarchy is demented. We barely keep people in check with laws.

Especially when the laws do not apply to the rich and powerful.

Troll thread is troll?
Thread started about evidence, provides no evidence.

Well, the circumvention processes for individual sovereignty have a purpose. Things like eminent domain and asset forfeiture were installed for a reason, even if they are often abused.

There's definitely parts of anarchist ideology that make a lot of sense, but I wouldn't say it holds up any better in practice than communism, since they've both been tried and failed miserably many times.

Not gonna lie, I read this thread's title in Old Timey Radio Announcer's Voice.


For just 12 low payments of $19.95 you can own The Liberal Media Collection, hardbound, in the privacy of your own home

And to be fair to CNBC, the republican field is a collection of clownish characters with extreme views on things. They're not even close to the kind of conservative critique of liberals that Raegan was able to use to mobilize millions of people.

It's always some candidate saying something outrageous then blaming the media.

There's a lot wrong with the nebbish elitism of liberals in the urban centers, but those are not the issues these candidates pick. It's always the culture war stuff, or the immigration stuff. Good luck with that when you disenfranchise nearly half of the population.

Troll post is troll?
Thread talks about current events that are literally a google search away. Sorry you're lazy and prefer to be ill-informed, I'm not about to form your opinion for you but I'll be happy to debate about it if you ever formed one.


As long as we are being fair.


A percentage of that "nearly half the population" is illegal and not "allowed" to vote, another big percentage is people voting for handouts. What remains are low information voters who will remember this facts I don't like story and nothing else. Oh, and like 5-6 posters from this forum.

I don't even understand what this thread is about. Title says one thing, subtitle another, and op another one yet.

Right, it's not possible that an informed, non-felon, citizen would vote left for any reason besides handouts...

What a difference 4 hours makes.

Now you're getting it.

What do you expect from altima? There is no fake story about Carson, he wrote a tall tale in his book and he got called out on it. And then he copped to it. What fake story?

[mode='welovecommies' setvisible=include('liberalmedia') message='Guys, he's on to us, we need to do something and take him out. I'll contact Obama. I told you all we should have eliminated him on day one'[/modee]

If anything isn't going well for Republicans, it's a massive conspiracy against them. Every time. Always.

In this case, it's the media's fault every time Ben Carson makes a fool of himself because they don't do enough to censor it.

Politico had to correct themselves, there's nothing more too it.

And don't forget that all tough questions are really democratic talking points.

For the real liberal media look here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/

http://www.motherjones.com/

http://www.thenation.com/

http://wonkette.com/

So now we have Carson's campaign manager going on Fox News and calling the Politico story a lie, claiming Carson was offered a nomination to West Point (not a scholarship, like Carson has claimed). What we seem to have here is a group of people (Carson, his entire campaign staff) that have no idea how West Point works, but they keep trying to talk about it as if they do.
Carson never talked to anyone capable of offering him a nomination, even if he really did meet Gen. Westmoreland (which is unclear). I'm sure he was encouraged to seek admission to West Point, given his standing. But he wasn't offered a scholarship, and he wasn't offered a nomination. Just cut your losses, you stretched the story to get more hits, stop making it something.

So Carson doesn't have the right to defend himself against an unsubstantiated claim? Even you admit he was encouraged to seek admission, given his standing he would have gotten it. Since West Point is a free ride that is basically a scholarship.

If only he could seal his records like Obama.

It wasn't an unsubstantiated claim. Politico called into question the accuracy of Carson's story, that he has apparently told in 3 different books (who needs 3 biographies?). Carson has responded by lashing out at Politico.
I have not admitted anything, I have said at most he would have been encouraged to seek admission, if the meeting even took place, which going by the Army records, does not match Carson's timeline. That is, at most, what could have happened. Encouragement is not an offer. Encouragement is not a nomination. It is simply, encouragement. Carson has claimed he was offered a full scholarship. West Point has never had any interaction with him, which means he had no offers.
He is, at best, stretching the story, at worst, lying. He just needs to come out and admit it. Going on the attack is stupid, its not a big deal. His poor handling of it is what makes it a story.

No, politico slandered the story carson wrote about in 3 books. (I guess they sell well) Carson has every right to lash out at Politico. Especially if it gains him political points (It has btw)

ftfy


I am in agreement with you here, the burden of proof lies with the accusers however. But really, lying about a scholarship to West Point. HA, that is all they can come up with on Carson, and they haven't even got any proof!


Was it his poor handling of it or was it Politico witch hunting and got busted that makes the story?

As if this is the stupidest thing Carson has said.

Politico has not been busted. They have not slandered anything. They have successfully proven Carson's story to be fictionalized.

Carson's claim that he met General Westmoreland on a specific date has been debunked by the Army. They have records of him being in Washington, playing tennis, on the date Carson claimed to have met him in Detroit. So right there, Carson either lied, got the date wrong, or got the person wrong. Either way, Politico is correct.

Furthermore, Carson claims that Westmoreland offered him a full scholarship to West Point. His campaign manager has claimed it was a nomination offer. This is impossible, the General could not offer anyone a scholarship, nor a nomination. All he can do is be a recruiter, encourage a person to seek admittance. So again, Carson's claim is wrong, and Politico is correct.

It sounds like rather than being content with his biography, Carson has tried to spice it up a bit. Its a common occurrence in both movies and biographies, because the actual story is too plain for the storyteller. Like I keep saying, he just needs to admit his errors and move on. All of his attacks on the media are completely off-base.

No, they have not.

He wasn't offered a scholarship to West Point. He wasn't offered a nomination.

Everyone who has had ANY dealings with West Point (or other military academies) knows this is not how the process works.

The two paragraphs in his book that explain this meeting indicate he either a) has no understanding of how the application process is handled at West Point along with entering the military as an officer or b) his ghost writer did a poor job of explaining the event and the editors didn't catch the mistake.

I'm going with B because any person who is in JROTC for three+ years (especially during war time) would have heard from dozens of recruiters and understand the enlistment path or officer path. I assume he paid attention.

Inaccuracies in Carson's book:
1. There is no scholarship.

2. The general had no powers of nomination. At most he could provide a letter of recommendation to those who could nominate a canidate. (Which any of his JROTC instructors could also do).

3. He wouldn't have to immediately serve in the military after graduating West Point if he was pursuing a medical degree. You can defer your time for post-graduate studies. For example: West Point has produced many Rhodes Scholars who entered Oxford after completing their bachelor degree.