Posted on 10/29/2015 7:35:55 PM PDT by Patton@Bastogne
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to read a post when you format it so poorly?
So Hillary’s campaign is done, because of her numerous “associations”, right?
Why should we have subsidies for anything?
S.S.D.D.
Just another day that ends in “y” in the liberal Utopia that is the Media.
If Mannatech is Carson’s biggest “scandal” he will be one of the cleanest candidates ever to run for POTUS.
If Trump tries to use it against him, it will backfire horribly as his Trump “University” and ACN deals are 1,000 times worse.
If Hillary tries to use it, there is Benghazi, emails, and Whitewater and I don’t Dr Carson has had anyone killed to cover up Mannatech.
He didn’t even lie in tne debate. Your friend the left wing moderator framed the question abourt “relationships” by talking about him being the boards of several companies.
He asked a question about how he could sit on the board of “gay friendly” Costco.
After Carson answered that very well, he brought up a “ten year relationship” with Mannatech falsely implying that Carson was also a board member there. Carson then explained that he had been paid to give a couple of speeches and that he used the products. He didn’t consider that to be a “relationship” and in the context of the question of sitting on boards of directors it wasn’t. At any rate, he disclosed the nature of his association with Mannatech in his answer.
looks like you did ... /sarcasm-off ...
But he didn’t “lie” at the debate. He said that he had been paid to give some speeches. Whether or not that is an association or relationship is semantics as he revealed what he did with the company.
Also, in context, the question was about having control over the operations of the company as it was lumped in under a series of questions about companies he was on the board of directors of. Clearly he did not have that sort of relationship with Mannatech.
If a man was told he was going to be asked a series of questions about sexual relationships he had and the second question was whether he had a relationship with his female boss and he answered “No, I only worked for her.” would that be a lie? Of course not.
Let’s stick with the facts.
Dr Carson said, after being accused of having a “10 year relationship” with the company: “That is total propaganda ... I did a couple speeches for them, I do speeches for other people, they were paid speeches. It is absolutely absurd to say that I had any kind of relationship with them.”
That’s what he said in the debate. So the fact that these speeches were found online doesn’t prove he’s a liar. But let’s examine his statement more carefully, again: “That is total propaganda ... I did a couple speeches for them, I do speeches for other people, they were paid speeches. It is absolutely absurd to say that I had any kind of relationship with them.”
It’s “absurd” to say he “had any kind of relationship with them”, when earlier in the same sentence he admits doing some speeches for them?
What kind of Clintonian double-speek is that? If you’re paid to do speeches for someone, then by definition you have a “relationship” with that other.
What he should have said was, “While I did some speeches for them, I in no way directed the day to day operations of the company and also disavow any claims they make using my image” or some such. I guess he felt he couldn’t disavow himself of their statements so maybe that’s why he denied even having a “relationship” with them but indeed the point is that he made speeches for them so he had a “relationship” with them. It’s not “propaganda” to say that it’s the truth.
If he had been paid to make speeches for some Holocaust denier group, would we let him off the hook if he claimed “speeches don’t make a relationship”?
What if he made a speech for some group who he didn’t know was some crazy cult or business before the speech but then discovered later it was. Should be then be allowed to say he didn’t have a “relationship” with them, if he *continued* to make speeches for them?
His business manager said that Dr Carson said at one point he didn’t want to be associated with Mannatech anymore, saying “I don’t believe in this. I’m not going to do it.” http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/29/politics/ben-carson-mannatech/index.html That’s what his business manager said Carson said.
But then his image continued to be used by Mannatech and promotional videos featured him prominently on their website until just about a month ago when they were removed (after a similar story by the WSJ). So did he really “not want to do this”? If so, why did he allow his image and endorsements to remain on Mannatech’s website until just a month ago?
Yeah there’s a lot more dirt on the Clintons alone much less President Zero. But we are conservatives we are supposed to hold candidates to higher standards. It sucks I know that we do this kind of vetting and Democrats don’t but that’s just the way things are when you have standards.
This is the last time I’m going to post on this topic. I don’t care for Dr Carson, all his associations with Farrakahn fans and his past statements on gun control and vaccinations...I don’t think he’s conservative. But if you (the reader of this post) can live with this story and the rest I’ve mentioned fine. Go ahead. Vote for another man with zero experience for the office of President. He’s black so that makes it a good idea.
so, you dredge up some trivial molehill and attempt to create a mountain to kill a good man to make room for your candidate that ie not being accepted by conservatives
shame...
Totally agree. A complete cat-chasing-tail event, for the critics snooping for trouble.
WE shouldn’t. It was just that until that announcement during the debate, Carson had supported corn subsidies, one of the reasons Iowa farmers were supporting him.
Explain the corn subsidies that Carson no longer supports.
Thank you.
Corn subsidies are payments to farmers for growing corn to use in the making of ethanol, an additive to gasoline. I think ethanol should be outlawed anyway, because it damages engines, but I also don’t like the idea of burning food for fuel when there are hungry people in the world.
Ditto!
What’s the name of the program that makes ‘payments to farmers for growing corn to use in the making of ethanol’?
“no” ...
Farm subsidies are a part of the Farm Bill.
In other words, you don’t know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.